This Ought To Get Some Replies

shandrax,

you are stil making the mistake... race is not a scientific definable concept afaik. Correct me if I am wrong.

By the way gene pools doesn't do the trick as its boundaries are not aligned with anything like what people are trying to say when they use the word "race".

[ QUOTE ]
race is not a scientific definable concept afaik

[/ QUOTE ]
MidGe - How about ethnicity? Everyone knows what we're talking about when we say 'race' - population groups that have developed distinct traits after long periods of reproductive isolation. No different to the term 'breed' amongst dogs - no one would claim a rottweiler and a labrador can't be meaningfully categorized into separate groups. Or that intelligence and behavioral differences don't exist as well as physical ones. Both apparently derive from the same wolf like ancestor not that long ago. Why can't it be the case for humans?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
race is not a scientific definable concept afaik

[/ QUOTE ]
MidGe - How about ethnicity? Everyone knows what we're talking about when we say 'race' - population groups that have developed distinct traits after long periods of reproductive isolation. No different to the term 'breed' amongst dogs - no one would claim a rottweiler and a labrador can't be meaningfully categorized into separate groups. Or that intelligence and behavioral differences don't exist as well as physical ones. Both apparently derive from the same wolf like ancestor not that long ago. Why can't it be the case for humans?

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously you know the answer to this. Because people can be/are insulted.

[Shandrax]

[ QUOTE ]
shandrax,

you are stil making the mistake... race is not a scientific definable concept afaik. Correct me if I am wrong.

By the way gene pools doesn't do the trick as its boundaries are not aligned with anything like what people are trying to say when they use the word "race".

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not a native english speaker, so I can't go into detail about the subleties of the true meaning of the word "race", but I assume you are recurring to something like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human#Race_and_ethnicity

As mentioned in the article, it is a matter of perspective. Some scientists say A, others say B and I bet you can even find one for C.

Hiya Phil,

I may be wrong, but to me ethnicity always had a cultural if not linguistic connotation. That makes it incompatible with the way "race" is trying to be used. BTW, I see great differences in cultures and I find some cultures not vey salubrious in parts. But I am not racist in the sense, that whatever the culture a child adopted by a different culture from birth, he will pretty much tend to fit the norms of the adaoptive culture. I have seen this often enough and believe there are citations available for this should someone really be that interetested.

Breed amongst dogs, is a slightly different issue. Usually interbreeding is degenrative, where it seems to me anyway, that chilkderen of "mixed" parentage, seem mostly the display strength and beauty.

The better correspondence for breed when refering to human, may be such caharacteristics as average weight, colour of hair and eye, skin type. But again none of those sufficient to be classify as a race. Some of of one so called "race" can, and will, display characteristics associated with another. Again pointing out that "race" as is it is used is an abstract concept with no correspondence in reality.

[Shandrax]

This kinda reminds me of the discussion about gay people. Historically being gay has always been seen as a psycho-disorder. Gay people were simply regarded as abnormal or sick. Then the gay-movement hit on a brilliant idea. Why not stop discrimination by changing the definition of normality? Normal people don't get discriminated, so once the status of normality has been archieved, gays will be fully accepted by society. Finally on some US national congress of psychiatrists, being gay was VOTED as being normal. Voting as scientific method of verification! Why didn't the pope hit on that before? There is a god, we have voted on it and god won 28:4!!

What worked for gays is now supposed to work for other minorities also. Historically the definition of races was absolutely clear. Nowadays the ethnic-lobby amongst scientists is trying to soften it up. Once they archieved their goal, the word "race" in it's historical meaning either doesn't exist anymore or it contains a mixture of everything so that you cannot define it anymore. If that happens, nobody cannot be discriminated based upon his race anymore, at least that's the logic behind it.

Isn't this a bit cheap? I mean, when will they vote that black=white and show Michael Jackson as proof? Aren't we betraying ourselves by adjusting our language for the sake political correctness? Does this really have anything to do with science or is it just a nice gesture?

[ QUOTE ]
This kinda reminds me of the discussion about gay people. Historically being gay has always been seen as a psycho-disorder.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wonder how long ago (No, I do know [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] ) the notion of psycho-disorders was actually coined. I just find your notion of history soemwhat lightweight.

[ QUOTE ]
Gay people were simply regarded as abnormal or sick. Then the gay-movement hit on a brilliant idea. Why not stop discrimination by changing the definition of normality? Normal people don't get discriminated, so once the status of normality has been archieved, gays will be fully accepted by society. Finally on some US national congress of psychiatrists, being gay was VOTED as being normal.


[/ QUOTE ]

Is that the way you think it happened. Have you have researched the bercail of your civiisation and its attitude to gay people? Dude, you have either very little education, or at least a very selective one, it seems.

[ QUOTE ]
Voting as scientific method of verification! Why didn't the pope hit on that before? There is a god, we have voted on it and god won 28:4!!

What worked for gays is now supposed to work for other minorities also. Historically the definition of races was absolutely clear.

[/ QUOTE ]

So now, you are equating gayness with race. Interesting (in the bizarre sense), but very odd view point, and probably correct [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] (not that you would get it [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] ). LOL. Historically the definition of races was never very clear. It was a word that had no scientific or real meaning but could be used as a porte-manteaux for any prejudice.

[ QUOTE ]
Nowadays the ethnic-lobby amongst scientists is trying to soften it up. Once they archieved their goal, the word "race" in it's historical meaning either doesn't exist anymore or it contains a mixture of everything so that you cannot define it anymore. If that happens, nobody cannot be discriminated based upon his race anymore, at least that's the logic behind it.


[/ QUOTE ]

It never did have any scientific meaning and science has caught up with the fact in its endeavours. But you need to watch language itself, it often lags understanding and wisdom.

[ QUOTE ]

Isn't this a bit cheap? I mean, when will they vote that black=white and show Michael Jackson as proof? Aren't we betraying ourselves by adjusting our language for the sake political correctness? Does this really have anything to do with science or is it just a nice gesture?

[/ QUOTE ]

No reason for gestures, just look at the facts without blinkers, however culturally painful it may be to you.

You seem to have a development arrested somehow at the cro-magnon age. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] But there is hope, there is freedom of expression and science can publish its facts. It is for you to educate yourself, unfortunately.

[Shandrax]

[ QUOTE ]
Is that the way you think it happened. Have you have researched the bercail of your civiisation and its attitude to gay people? Dude, you have either very little education, or at least a very selective one, it seems.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know what sort of research you did before you posted your answer, but please accept it for a fact that on 15th of Dec. 1973, the APA (American Psychiatric Association) voted on the question if or if not to declassify homosexuality in DSM-II (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders).

If you don't believe me, just look it up with Google or Wikipedia or whatever source you like and trust most!

Besides that, I am not mixing up homosexual and ethnic issues, I used the example to show what I think is a recurring scheme amongst many minority groups in the attempt to rehabilitate their social status -> the re-definition of normality in a way so that it includes them also.

[ QUOTE ]
I think is a recurring scheme amongst many minority groups in the attempt to rehabilitate their social status -> the re-definition of normality in a way so that it includes them also.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are an ignorant bigot. But, I'm too kind. Re-definition of normality? Like blacks aren't normal? Or homosexuals? Unfortunately, ignorant bigots are far too common.

[Shandrax]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think is a recurring scheme amongst many minority groups in the attempt to rehabilitate their social status -> the re-definition of normality in a way so that it includes them also.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are an ignorant bigot. But, I'm too kind. Re-definition of normality? Like blacks aren't normal? Or homosexuals? Unfortunately, ignorant bigots are far too common.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't worry, this is the normal reaction and a recurring pattern on message boards. You have not read all of my postings, just the last one and you feel somewhat offended by it. That's the impression one can get if he reads and comments stuff out of context.

You call me ignorant, but that's wrong, because I have read lots of publications about the subject and formed my opinion based on that. Ignorant people don't care and usually refuse to inform themselves about the issue. That's the reason why ignorant people don't know about the latest discoveries of modern science. I know about these theories, but I think they are wrong. That's a difference.

Besides that you got two things wrong. First of all, I am not claiming that blacks aren't normal. It is normal that human beings belong to one of the many races and it is normal that there are many races. Other than that blacks are neither normal nor abnormal. This cathegory simply doesn't apply to races. Blacks are neither better nor worse whites, so there is no deviation from normality.

Second, you called my theory about homosexuals and their attempt to re-define normality ignorant, bigot, whatever. If you don't like to hear it from me, because you don't give me any credit for my education or studies, maybe you like to hear the same from a more or less respected scientist (at least he was member of the committee).

[ QUOTE ]
Dr. Bieber was one of the key participants in the historical debate which culminated in the 1973 decision to remove homosexuality from the psychiatric manual.

His paper describes psychiatry's attempt to adopt a new "adaptational" perspective of normality.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.narth.com/docs/normalization.html