How Many Races Are There?

page: 2
52
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


But its almost as if you are using the word superior synonymous with difference. Or maybe I`m just reading it wrong.

[edit on 5-6-2009 by Skyfloating]




posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


When I say "Superior" I'm talking about they have genetic traits better adapted to the environments that they are from. For Example in the video I posted it explained very well how for example why the people living in the arctic circle were.....

Wait.

Have you seen the entire video series I've posted?



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


I have now


And I agree. I´d go as far as to say that there is no problem with superiority in this sense either. Tribe A is superior in mountain climbing. Tribe B is superior in swimming.



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


Well OK

I'm not saying "Superior" As in looking down on one group or another.



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


Well OK

I'm not saying "Superior" As in looking down on one group or another.


Neither am I. But you notice how touchy the subject is? How its like...brainwashed into us that using terms like "difference" and "superior" are somehow "bad"?

I would never imply that one race is inferior to another. But even using words such as "race", "superior" and "different" has become somewhat of a Taboo. And thats what Ive been protesting since awhile now.



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by masqua
Thanks for all the positive replies.

I seriously doubted that anyone would actually disagree with the OP and those that do would be very slow to publicly say so. That's a good sign, imho.



Kiwifoot... thanks for linking into your thread to make a point.

People would be surprised if they ever had a genetic blood test done. They would likely find that their distant relatives had all skin colours covered.

Pidgeon holes are for pidgeons, not people.



No probs mate, in my thread I'm a bit appalled, the guys who are showing ignorance are getting starred, and those pleading tollerance aren't.

It's funny, in a place like ATS, you'd think we'd find more open minded and aware people, but I guess even bigots believe in UFOs and stuff!

Peace mate.



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 07:31 PM
link   
They say that in a few thousand years almost all humans will be 7 feet tall and have light brown- brown skin.

That's what I heard. Of course it depends on certain factors.

[edit on 5-6-2009 by star in a jar]



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 07:40 PM
link   
If it makes you feel better to know that the entire planet is one race, than so be it. But the fact is that we coexist with multiple "races" whatever the definition of that word may be. Scientifically we are not one race exactly. We are different sub parts of the human race, different and the same.

You could then argue that we are all the same, everything in the universe exactly the same, because we came from the same thing. Sure, this is true, but just because something orginated from same thing, doesn't mean it will always be the same exact thing.

We are genetically different, and the same. If you, or the world, is not mature enough to live and coexist in harmony with multiple 'races' because this implies in the immature mind that one must be superior to the other, than so be it.

In the end though, we are all one, on whatever scale.



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
Wouldn't it start to get annoying to refer people as 'African-Asian- Americans'

Or how 'Eurasians' are called 'Asians' or 'African Americans' even if that 'African- American' has only like 25% African origins?

What is 'American'? Red Americans or White Americans?

I could give hundreds of different possible combinations.

It's ridiculous in these times and nobody should differentiate people like that when so many factors exist that make people the sterotype they are today:

Border/Landmass breeding isolationism (Just look at dogs)

Environmental factors

Common ancestor factor



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
I have discovered that there are huge differences, and that there are different races

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Please elaborate on the different races you have discovered. I don't know of any other races alive today... no Homo erectus or neanderthal. As far as I know, those races died out long ago.



Originally posted by Skyfloating

Seeing differences in race and culture does not have its roots in superiority.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



From the link supplied in the OP:


this ideology also explained political and economic conflicts in various parts of the world and legitimized the dominant role of British capitalism in the world economic system.



Originally posted by Skyfloating
I say so because the OP...and many others...claim that seeing racial differences = seeing superior vs. inferior.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



Wasn't that stated within the encyclopedia excerp itself? Are you disputing the text of the link?


Originally posted by Skyfloating
I would never imply that one race is inferior to another. But even using words such as "race", "superior" and "different" has become somewhat of a Taboo. And thats what Ive been protesting since awhile now.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



It isn't a 'race' that is superior to another, but rather a society that has more 'power' than another. You know, the old 'man with gun meets man with spear' thing.

Having that power can be used two ways... to lift one group to the level of another or to oppress.


Originally posted by Skyfloating
using words such as "race", "superior" and "different" has become somewhat of a Taboo. And thats what Ive been protesting since awhile now.


Being 'different' is not a term which has bad connotations. Rather it is a strength for humanity. Even though some problems may arise out of fear of the unknown , the fact that our societies vary present us with new ideas with which to educate ourselves, should we decide to investigate rather than castigate those who are 'different'.

Superiority, however, is not such a wonderful term. Elitism is like a cancer eating away at the social fabric, pushing down those with less power and elevating those who have it even more.

I stand by this:



This process of race categorization is referred to as racialization and is necessary for the emergence of racism as an ideology.

www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com...


Ideology is not a scientific fact of life. It is a bit of mental gymnastics.

Once again... there is only one race and to say that there are more is a fabrication.



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 09:10 PM
link   
I'm sitting here lurking/posting occasionally and it starts to become clear to me just what race is all about.Race for all intent and purposes is the the way we feel about our history and ancestors.I think that people get mad at racist comments because it's like talking about someones mother.By the same token if I were to write that black and white are the two major races The Hispanics would be up in arms for being left out, so there is a pride in ones race that is undeniable.Why do all the butt kissers feel its necessary to tell other people how great they are?, is it guilt?I am a white proud man and if that somehow diminishes you as a black brown yellow or red man/woman well that's to bad.I certainly did not invent racism but I don't see whats wrong with it ,we have favorite baseball teams favorite animals favorite cars favorite religions favorite foods to think for one second we wouldn't have a favorite race(our own) is naive. By the way I always believed there were three major races Negroid Caucasoid and mongoloid,now that is what I was taught in school so take that for what its worth.Proud Caucasoid does not mean negroid or mongoloid hater I just love my myself



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 09:27 PM
link   
reply to post by genius/idoit
 


Nothing wrong with being proud of your heritage or society, but are you proud of your skin colour alone?

Try googling 'white race' or any other 'race' and see what comes up. Not too many credible scientific journals (if any at all), but certainly some prominent racist websites I wouldn't be caught dead in as a member.

I'm still not convinced that there are 'sub-sections' to the human race other than the obvious physiological differences we all have, but if someone can prove there are more than one type of human being, I'm willing to listen.



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 09:46 PM
link   
reply to post by masqua
 


here are two different types of human beingsnobelprize.org... www.prairieghosts.com... ,now I know that's not what you meant but here me out ,(and I used two white people on purpose)if you are saying we are all part of the human race I agree however if you are saying we are all biologically the same I believe you are wrong. www.dukehealth.org... now I used two Caucasoid in my example because if we can have that type of dichotomy in one race you must realize the differences in other races www.mkgandhi.org... even when very similar www.brothermalcolm.net... now when one group displays a certain characteristic www.medicalnewstoday.com... that in and of itself denotes them as a sub species

[edit on 5-6-2009 by genius/idoit]

[edit on 5-6-2009 by genius/idoit]

[edit on 5-6-2009 by genius/idoit]

[edit on 5-6-2009 by genius/idoit]



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 09:51 PM
link   
reply to post by genius/idoit
 



I'm afraid not one of your links is working for me, so that leaves me to only address your own statement.

What you are describing are physical differences between Homo sapiens sapiens. Those physical differences are created through the effects of diet and geographical location. They do not equate different 'races'.

 


Edit to add that the url you provided leads me to a website outlining the life and time of John Wayne Gacy.

www.prairieghosts.com...

[edit on 5/6/09 by masqua]



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by masqua
 

so what you are saying is that there is only one type of cat or dog or whale and that the variety of different looking ones is due to diet and geography?and please believe me I don't mean to sound argumentative I just love a good debate....................RE edit I was using him in contrast to mother Theresa


[edit on 5-6-2009 by genius/idoit]



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 09:59 PM
link   
I do have a question about this. It may sound racist but it is not meant to be. It's just one of those cases where 'you won't know if you don't ask.' It stems from some information in the works of Darwin, who did indeed have some rather blatantly racist material in his writings.

Basically, according to evolution and biology, all creatures have different subspecies, breeds, etc. So why is it we can accept that for every other life form on earth but our own?

That always made me curious how we're very quick to categorize every single other species on earth but when it comes to humans, we hear the 'we are but one race, the human race' from the very same people?

And by that, Masqua, I don't specifically mean you. It's more of a scientific question, I suppose, to biologists and evolutionists. I definitely do not believe any particular race is superior to another personally but I suppose I've always felt it to be a bit hypocritical of humans to classify everything else but suddenly become politically correct when it comes to human classifications of race according to an evolutionary standpoint.

The above may sound like a silly question, even juvenile and simple minded, but it always made me curious and I thought I'd at least ask. I've never been able to adequately answer that question.

Classifying and defining by superiority is definitely wrong. But is there some factual/scientific basis to racial classifications of physical attributes? Very interesting thread.

[edit on 6/5/2009 by AshleyD]



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 10:19 PM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 


In reponse, I would ask you if you considered an albino human to be a different race?

Obviously not, since it is a characteristic of inherited genetic deviation... a physical difference.

A manx is a hairless cat, but still a cat.

A bull mastiff is still a dog just as much as a chihuahua is.

A human is still a human whether their hair is straight and blond or black and curly or their skin blue/black or pearly white.

There's thousands of variations of genetic manipulation, whether it is natural over time (through diet and environment) or done by purposeful cross-breeding.

Darwin, remember, came from a place and time that invented racialization (see OP links).



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by genius/idoit
 



Mother Teresa and Gacy have only one thing in common... they're both humans. The difference is in their habits and a reflection of both their sanity and social mores. These have nothing to do with race, imho, but, if I had the chance, I would have praised Mother Teresa and shot Gacy if he began salivating at the sight of my sons.



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 10:25 PM
link   
A general comment, to no one in particular:

(Though it was a thought triggered by AshleyD's post)

Actually, Masqua touched on it in response to SkyFloating. Has anyone mentioned 'speciation'? Because, in all the various discussions there are usually things pointed out that are slight physical variations, and of course great ethnic/cultural differences....but, really the defining aspect of our species is that we, no matter what we look like, we can interbreed. This alone defines all Humans as belonging to one 'race'...better word is 'species'.

Example in the wild: Chimpanzees, our nearest "cousins" from an evolutionary standpoint belong to the ape family...(we do too, BTW) but, just because I used the words "cousins" and 'family', it should not cause people to react negatively. "Cousins" in this sense does not denote familial connections between us and chimps. It is more a way to understand the classifications of groups, that I used, to define species that are very close, but have diverged. Biologists have far more technical terms and definitions.

My point is, although the apes are close, and have certain undeniable simularities, they are speciated. This occurs at the cellular, and DNA levels, between species.

Another poster brought in a UT link to a great, great series titled "The Journey of Man"....I highly recommend it for understanding the nature of OUR species.

And animals that humans have domesticated are usually pointed out as examples to counter evolution...but, outward appearances and physical characteristic differences aside, those species are all one. Again, because they can produce viable offspring. It was OUR interference in normal natural selection pressures that produce domesticated varietal differences in these animals.

In a way, we are doing a similar thing to ourselves...selectively 'choosing' what the offspring will look like. Except, in the real world....it's called falling in love.

Oh, there are nightmarish scenarios of "designer babies" and all that, through gene manipulation....eye/hair color, gender....still, those offspring will still be Human, regardless.



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 10:33 PM
link   
reply to post by masqua
 
Well I concede the point your argument is correct ONE RACE however I'm still not sure there are not sub species( for lack of a better term). On a side note I agree on Gacy!





new topics
top topics
 
52
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join