Why can't people understand that there is no such thing as race?

youtu.be...

reply to post by IEtherianSoul9


Two populations of mice that were once one were cut off from each other by a highway, diverged showing variations in colouration, etc. They were reclassified as sub-species. Never could figure this one out, and how this is different than what happened to humans. Maybe you can explain it.

The way that most people think of ''race'', ie. black, white, Asian, Amerindian, etc. is a social construct, because they are defining ''race'' by lumping people together who happen to share superficial, easily observable physical characteristics, such as skin colour or facial features, despite the fact that the people who possess these characteristics may come from a myriad of disparate ethnic backgrounds.

However, evolution dictates that different groups of people - who have been genetically isolated for tens of thousands of years - will have acquired a differing set of random mutations within members of their tribe. Therefore, providing that the mutation is passed down, then it seems obvious that different peoples, who have inherited their genetics from a geographically isolated breeding pool, will have a greater propensity to possess a certain level of a particular trait than others, whose genetic ancestry contained another, unrelated set of mutations.

Statistically speaking, though, another big factor would be how large the tribe was. It wouldn't take long - comparatively speaking - before a positive mutation permeated throughout the descendants of a tribe of only a couple of hundred people, whereas it would take much longer for the mutation to gain a strong foothold for those which numbered in the thousands.

All in all, due to the time-frame of human migration, any differences between ethnic groups aren't going to amount to much ( we're not talking about some races having two noses or five testicles here ), nor would these negligible differences apply to everybody within a particular group.

I know im going to get flack on this, but, I see this like this:

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A HUMAN.

Ok, hold off the flaming for just a second.

Human, is our species. Just like all dogs are dogs
However, there are diffrent KINDS of dogs, like poodles, german shepards, Huskies, ect.
All breeds do not look the same
Poodles are smaller and have curly hair.
German Shepards are bigger than poodles and have straight hair.
Huskies are big and have straight, short hair with a higher chance to have eye color problems, along with distinctive fur patterns.

Just like:
Mexicans are usually shorter.
Blacks have more pigment in their skin.
Gingers have distinctive markings.
Native americans tend to have little facial hair.
Indians tend to have a lot.

You see where im going with this? Also, in our genetic code, some races have predispositions.
For example: Southeast asia is more likely to get lactose intolerance than, lets say, scandinavia.

As in dogs, over time, traits have been passed on, and through mutations and selective breeding (I want a black baby!) or just interacial breeding, we have created diffrent types of humans. AKA: races.

reply to post by IEtherianSoul9


Yes, I fully understand they are all the one species and not an actual sub species as in many different species, I was clearly meaning the explanation I gave concerning the whole pedigree mongrel bit and trying to show why people see the diversity in the species in the same way people treat dog species, I was also trying to show that people use different race to describe the different breeds of humans if you will.

Furthermore I used generalised groups from around the world such as sub sahara Africans and mediterianian Europeans, even though i am aware that these general groups could be broken into small sub catagoreys tale a terrier, this being a breed of dog, this then has different breeds within the category, west highland/yorkshire/stafordshire bull.


That was all I was getting at, it was also clearly stated as my opinion based on observations (from traveling) and in no way did I claim it to be the correct definition or in anyway based on scientific testing, clearly touched a sore spot with you and better brush up on my anthropology before voicing what think based on my own feelings next time eh


Again just my thoughts.

reply to post by Pixie777

The specific items in my post were all invented by white people. Not that it matters, actually; but our friend alfa1 seems to think it does.

*

reply to post by User8911

Well elves have more dexterity then human and dwarfs have more strength.
What's racist about acknowledging perks to a race or people?

Can elves, dwarves and humans interbreed? If not, they are different species, not different races. But last time I looked, elves didn’t exist and dwarves were unusually short human beings who are actually weaker than average.

What's so racist about saying most black people have more muscle % in their bodies?
What's so racist about saying most asian people are smaller?

First of all, it is false. I bet you anything all blacks don’t have a higher percentage of muscle to other tissue than all whites. As for height, I am Asian, and well over six feet tall.

Second, it is racist because your standard of comparison, so obvious to you that you do not even bother to mention it, is the average white person. When did white people become the Standard Model Human? They aren’t even the most numerous.

Third, and most important, it is racist because any statement regarding comparisons between races is racist by definition. And history has shown us that, barring religion, there is no sort of comparison more incendiary than a racial comparison. Decent people have – or should have – been seared by the horrors of the twentieth century, and are no longer willing to risk the consequences of discussing racial differences in public.

Anti-racists are some of the worst offensive people I've met

Yes, a lot of people think that. Most of them are racists, obviously.

Most of the racism was started and fulled by the elite to pit the masses against each other.

Why do you need the elite? You seem quite keen enough on dividing people without any help from them.

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by Pixie777

 

The specific items in my post were all invented by white people. Not that it matters, actually; but our friend alfa1 seems to think it does.

Now that your anti-White disinformation has been challenged, care to provide some evidence that apartheid, war and weapons were all invented by White people?

reply to post by ahmonrarh


Are you joking with this list? If not, when exactly were these invented because after a quick check these are mostly 18th and 19th century european inventions (mostly not all and some are from the 20th century)


Ignore this, i see at later points this has been fully addressed (thanks alfa1).

I actually agree with the point of the thread, we are all the same species. Using made up lists however to try and prove points doesn't do anyone any favours.....

reply to post by Dark Ghost

I did not say, neither did I for a moment suggest, that war and weapons were invented by white people. They are not on the list I presented.

As for apartheid, you can read all about it here. Perhaps you did not know the word had a specific meaning.

Edit
It has just occurred to me that many of you probably don’t know the phrase total war also has a specific meaning... ah, the trials of instructing the ignorant!

Earth is bombarded with emissions from stars around the universe and depending on where you are on Earth, those emissions effect your DNA differently. The Van Allen Radiation belts curvature also influences emissions from our own Star and effects your DNA depending on where you are on this spinning globe.


Race is merely where you are on Earth. Look at the Australians and how they've developed their own new version of English over the years that keeps moving away from what we know as English. Over time they will cease to speak a language British English speakers will even understand. And I bet after a 1,000 years you'll see their appearance change from other white people around the world. Diets from available food sources also influence Race/intelligence.

Race is merely how your DNA was influenced over time by outside influences. Earthly..and Cosmic.

reply to post by Astyanax


Oh my word I was messing with you!

I was saying that it was ape-man who invented those 3 things.

I was thinking that this thread is way too serious, thought I'd make you all grin. White / black bla bla bla who cares? It was invented for everybody, we can't build the world without each other, we are all one people. Each brings his own to the table and it doesn't matter what color they are, so long as it's to the benefit of everybody. So I said, ape-man did it ... so that everybody could stop fighting about it, see? We all did it, because ape-man was before all.

It's not wrong, do you think ape-man sat around campfires telling fairy tales just before dragging Ape-woman into the cave by the hair for some fun? Just because ape-man's inventions are not online doesn't mean he didn't invent/do it. There's lots of evidence from excavations that prove that they were constantly fighting amongst each other (tribes/species (Neanderthal)) it was after all a time where survival of the fittest applied in full.

I was trying to take the fight out of everyone so that it can be discussed rationally. Apparently everyone missed that completely Sometimes I have a wry sense of humor. Maybe if I added more smileys and thingabobs everyone would have caught on, I'm messing with you all, trying to break the tense atmosphere.

Originally posted by Pixie777
Each brings his own to the table...

Thats what Domo1 said back on page1.
And when I mentioned some of the things that were actually brought to the table, I was attacked for it, Pixie777 going so far as to suggest that I should never have made such a list.

So we, as far as I'm concerned, have now reached the point where in this thread...
- You're allowed to repeat the mantra "each brings his own to the table"
- You're not allowed to actually say what those things are.

reply to post by Pixie777

Originally posted by Pixie777
Oh my word I was messing with you!

You’d better be as pretty as that girl in your avatar then, or else you’re done for.

Each brings his own to the table and it doesn't matter what color they are, so long as it's to the benefit of everybody.

I completely agree. Said so already, in fact.

Just because ape-man's inventions are not online doesn't mean he didn't invent/do it.

I have seen Neolithic chalcedony bangles from the National Museum in Jakarta, Indonesia, that are so perfectly circular and so beautifully polished they must have turned out on some kind of primitive lathe. The ‘iceman’ mummy found in the Austrian Alps – also from the Neolithic period – had plenty of well-made, sophisticated articles on his person.

Ötzi's clothes were sophisticated. He wore a cloak made of woven grass and a coat, a belt, a pair of leggings, a loincloth and shoes, all made of leather of different skins. He also wore a bearskin cap with a leather chin strap. The shoes were waterproof and wide, seemingly designed for walking across the snow; they were constructed using bearskin for the soles, deer hide for the top panels, and a netting made of tree bark. Soft grass went around the foot and in the shoe and functioned like modern socks. The coat, belt, leggings and loincloth were constructed of vertical strips of leather sewn together with sinew. His belt had a pouch sewn to it that contained a cache of useful items: a scraper, drill, flint flake, bone awl and a dried fungus.

Other items found with the Iceman were a copper axe with a yew handle, a flint-bladed knife with an ash handle and a quiver of 14 arrows with viburnum and dogwood shafts. Two of the arrows, which were broken, were tipped with flint and had fletching (stabilizing fins), while the other 12 were unfinished and untipped. The arrows were found in a quiver with what is presumed to be a bow string, an unidentified tool, and an antler tool which might have been used for sharpening arrow points. There was also an unfinished yew longbow that was 1.82 metres (72 in) long. Source

Maybe if I added more smileys and thingabobs everyone would have caught on

For some people, ‘race’ is a matter of personal identity. It is very important to them. Such people are called racists, and they have no sense of humour. The only smiley they go for is this one:

reply to post by alfa1


Yes, because the lists were partial and imbalanced, in the lists ppl would only point out what white man brought to the table, and left out the others, hence I tried to take the whole argument out of it and said that Ape-man did it to put us all under one scope. To make a list of what white man brought to the table is the same as punting a specific race. To say that each brings what he is best at to the table, Is to look at it in an overall matter, not he brought this and she brought that, it doesn't matter and is besides the point who it was, the point is, the best was brought to the table. The lists focus on what color brought it, when it should on be what was brought.

Hence the mantra is being repeated, by those who are trying to point out, that it doesn't matter what color it was that brought it to the table, it is what was brought to the table that matters regardless of color. We are earthlings first and foremost, the colors just makes a rainbow to be appreciated for its beauty.

reply to post by ahmonrarh


Many of these are in dispute.


11) Peanut Butter - George W. Carver

13) Paints & Satins - George W. Carver

I know these are bogus for a fact being both a peanut butter lover and a painter. George may have improved on aspects of these but he did not invent them at all. Both of these can be traced back centuries before George.

I started looking into other black inventions because of this and you will find many of these are fabricated or greatly exaggerated. These lists I found out are put out by extremist black power advocates, and racists to try to get over on whitey. That's not to say Black people don't invent stuff, only that many of these popular lists are suspect.

Race is classification of humans into large and distinct populations or groups by factors such as heritable phenotypic characteristics or geographic ancestry, but also often influenced by and correlated with traits such as appearance, culture, ethnicity, and socio-economic status. In the early twentieth century the term was often used, in its biological sense, to denote genetically divergent human populations which can be marked by common phenotypic traits.

My two cents:

1) culture is a product of biology. Cultural differences exist due to biological differences. For example, black people prefer beat-oriented music, white people prefer vocal-oriented music. This difference is due to biological factors. It is not coincidence that, for example, most African tribes' main musical organ is the drum.

2) race is a subdivision of species. All humans belong to the homo sapiens species, and we also belong to a race.

3) a race is defined based on biological differences, not cultural: skin color, body shape, etc. People within the same culture (for example: British dance music) are blacks and whites and asians, but they still belong to a different race.

4) white people are racist against the blacks because they fear the blacks' "animalism": blacks have bigger noses, bigger lips, bigger eyes, bigger arms, bigger hands, louder voices. Whites fear blacks on an individual level. This is an opinion of mine, based on anecdotal evidence.

5) black people are racist against whites because blacks see whites as people physically weaker than them that cover their weakness by engaging their collective power, usually in shadowy ways. It is not a coincidence that blacks say that whites are "dishonest" and "snakes". Again, my opinion based on anecdotal evidence.

6) we could all get along if we wanted to.

Thank you for reading this post.

reply to post by masterp

Okay, let’s see if I can add a few more cents to those two.

1) culture is a product of biology. Cultural differences exist due to biological differences. For example, black people prefer beat-oriented music, white people prefer vocal-oriented music. This difference is due to biological factors.

Culture is a product of biology only in that certain species of animal are genetically programmed to produce it, but cultures are far more the product of conditions and circumstances than of genes. They are locally adapted and change with time. My niece, born and brought up in the UK, is in all cultural respects English, though genetically she has very little English blood in her. Her father has rather more, but is in all important cultural respects a product of my homeland, though his habits and attitudes have been somewhat influenced by fourteen years of living in Switzerland, eleven of them married to a Swiss German.

Your musical example is false, I’m afraid. Try listening to the praise singers and griots of West Africa, or black American gospel music, or any record by Fela Kuti, or – crikey – just about any black music except bebop, before deciding that white folk like voices more than black folk do. I prefer white music myself – up to a point – but it has not escaped me, speaking as a musician, that the best-sounding natural voices nearly always seem to come from black throats.

2) race is a subdivision of species. All humans belong to the homo sapiens species, and we also belong to a race.

In the sense that race is a set of categories into which humanity is sometimes divided, you are right. But that does not mean the division is based purely on genetics. That would be assuming what one sets out to prove, and besides it is not how racism works. Racism always includes cultural elements.

3) a race is defined based on biological differences, not cultural: skin color, body shape, etc. People within the same culture (for example: British dance music) are blacks and whites and asians, but they still belong to a different race.

You disprove your own point. If culture is biologically derived, how can different races share the same culture? Massive Attack couldn’t possibly exist; they must be the invention of some conspiracy of media moguls.

4) white people are racist against the blacks because they fear the blacks' "animalism": blacks have bigger noses, bigger lips, bigger eyes, bigger arms, bigger hands, louder voices...

There are no reasons for racism. It arises from an instinctive fear of the other. The reasons are all rationalizations after the fact. Besides, do white men fear black women? Evidently not.

5) black people are racist against whites because blacks see whites as people physically weaker than them...

Do black men fear white men? You bet they do – and with ample reason, as history shows. But that’s not racism. A black person doesn't need reasons to be racist any more than a white person does, or a person of any other colour for that matter. Racists just are.

6) we could all get along if we wanted to.

I’m afraid what we want has precious little to do with anything.

Denying that races exist is absurd, IMHO. Different human groups were separated for thousands of years by cultural and geographical barriers, and this surely had some consequences on their genetic diversity. Its like dog breeds or speciation, but on a much smaller scale.

We can argue about the magnitude and significance of the differences, tough.

reply to post by IEtherianSoul9

Why can't people understand that there is no such thing as race?

Because that's a Lie.

In biology, races are distinct genetically divergent populations within the same species with relatively small morphological and genetic differences.

-en.wikipedia.org...