It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 5
5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 23 2011 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
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.


No, culture is a product of biology. If you were black and English, you would be listening to, most probably, beat-oriented music.

There are no black heavy metal groups, why?


Originally posted by Astyanax
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.


But black music is always based on drums. Even black American gospel.


Originally posted by Astyanax
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.


Since culture is a product of biology, then the division based on culture is a division based on biology.


Originally posted by Astyanax
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.


Biology is not entirely different between blacks, whites and asians.It's 99% the same, and there are some whites and asians that are attracted to black music. For example, I was always attracted to rap music, because something in me was fired when I listened to it, and I was never attracted that hugely to rock music. I am white, but I could identify myself more with the black people I saw on TV than my white peers some times. (note: I live in Greece, at the time I grew up there were no black people around me, and 99% of music preferred to by my peers was Rock. On the other hand, I always had better timing in sports than my white friends (all my white friends!), and I had better "rythm" than them. Do I have some black genes? probably).


Originally posted by Astyanax
There are no reasons for racism. It arises from an instinctive fear of the other. The reasons are all rationalizations after the fact.


I am explaining to you what you call "instinctive fear". Whites do not have this fear against Asians, for example.


Originally posted by Astyanax
Besides, do white men fear black women? Evidently not.


Because they are women, and black women don't have a stronger physique than white men.


Originally posted by AstyanaxDo 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.


It's not only about historical reasons. I was once watching a BBC show about racism. There was a room full of black and white people, and they all talked about their inner feelings towards each other. Most blacks said that they view whites as hypocrites, as snakes. I understand that, because whites usually are less emotional, less extrovert. These black people didn't mention anything about history, and history didn't matter to them, since they were all born in England, for generations.



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 12:06 AM
link   
reply to post by masterp
 

What a farrago of fantastic nonsense! Evidently you consult only your own preconceptions when writing your posts. Not one of your assertions is supported by the facts.


If you were black and English, you would be listening to, most probably, beat-oriented music.

Yes, just like all these black English opera singers. Or this dusky old knight...


Everybody nowadays listens to ‘beat-oriented’ music, even country-and-western fans. Why? Because people of all races love the sound of drums. Did you know that in the recording of popular music, it is the sound of the drums that gets most of the the producer’s attention and takes up most studio time? Producers will tell you the difference between a chart hit and a failure is often decided by the quality of drum sounds on the record. This is true whether the projected audience is black, white or khaki.


There are no black heavy metal groups, why?

Heavy metal isn’t ‘beat-oriented’?


If you think rhythmic sophistication is a black monopoly or something, try listening to Seventies prog-rock bands like King Crimson, Genesis, Emerson, Lake & Palmer or Yes.


If you’re talking contemporary dance music, it is multicultural and multicoloured; white, black, various shades of brown and even yellow all practise it. One of the best DJs I ever heard was a Chinese.

And if it’s a solid backbeat you mean, consider that the solidest ever (repeatedly sampled by hip-hop artists down the years) is John Bonham’s backbeat on Led Zeppelin’s ‘When the Levee Breaks’.


Incidentally, the original recording of that song, by a black folksinger called Odetta, barely had a beat at all.


Black music is always based on drums. Even black American gospel.

This statement is so incredibly ignorant it is laughable. Have you actually listened to any black gospel music? Some of it has no instruments at all, just voices. Sometimes the singers clap along to the beat – you can call that ‘drumming’ if you like. Very often, the only rhythm instrument in a gospel choir or group is the tambourine, which is struck twice every bar.


In fact, some gospel churches actually ban drums.

Are drums fit to worship God? (The author says definitely not.)

Bible guide to Christian Music


One simple guideline for Christian music is NO DRUMS!

CHRISTIAN MUSIC SHOULD FEED THE SPIRIT — NOT THE FLESH!

CHRISTIAN MUSIC SHOULD EMPHAZIE THE MELODY — NOT THE BEAT!

You obviously didn’t trouble to look up any of the examples I mentioned in my earlier post. Griots are often accompanied only by a highly sophisticated melodic instrument called the kora, a kind of lute.


In the desert blues of Malian musicians like Ali Farka Touré, the guitar (electric or acoustic) is the main instrument.


Ladysmith Black Mambazo is a gospel choir from South Africa that often performs unaccompanied. You can hear them on two tracks from Paul Simon’s Graceland, 'Homeless’ and ‘Diamonds on the Soles of Her Shoes’. Here’s a different performance by them.


Hear any drums?


*



Since culture is a product of biology, then the division based on culture is a division based on biology.

Stop repeating yourself. I have already pointed out that the division is based on circumstances and conditions. The biology, as you yourself admit above, is common to us all.


Biology is not entirely different between blacks, whites and asians. It's 99% the same.

Thank you. Now, do you think human cultures are 99 percent the same? Think hard before you decide.


I am explaining to you what you call "instinctive fear". Whites do not have this fear against Asians, for example.

You have yet to prove that members of any race instinctively fear members of any other. Where is your evidence for this bizarre assertion? There is none. It is just a racist (yes, that’s what it is) fantasy.



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by ErtaiNaGia
 


Way to get all of your information from Wikipedia. You realize you just got the definition of race when applied to other species. Humans can't be categorized into various subspecies or races.




"I'm not saying there aren't genetic differences among human populations," he cautioned. "There are differences, but they don't define historical lineages that have persisted for a long time, which is one criterion for race in a scientific sense."


news.wustl.edu...



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by IEtherianSoul9
 



Way to get all of your information from Wikipedia. You realize you just got the definition of race when applied to other species. Humans can't be categorized into various subspecies or races.




Human beings are Biological Species that fit within the taxonomic classifications that human beings use to classify the morphological differences of various species.

Human beings are subject to Evolutionary Pressures, Mutation, Genetic Drift, and Geographic isolation.

Human beings, like ALL OTHER SPECIES ON THE PLANET undergo these changes over many generations, and thus are capable of changing with regard to other populations of human beings.

Humans *CAN* be classified into races, because the different types of human beings Fit the Definition of a Race.

Your post highlights only one thing:

Your Ignorance.



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by ErtaiNaGia
 


Did you even read this quote?

"I'm not saying there aren't genetic differences among human populations," he cautioned. "There are differences, but they don't define historical lineages that have persisted for a long time, which is one criterion for race in a scientific sense."

Humans or Homo sapiens sapiens (subspecies) are synonymous! There are no subspecies left except for US. Homo sapiens idaltu which lived some 160,000 years ago is now extinct.




Humans are among the most similar of all species. That's because modern humans, all of us, evolved in Africa, and began leaving only about 70,000 years ago. As we migrated across the globe, populations bumped into one another, mixing their mates - and genes. Populations have just not been isolated long enough to evolve into separate races, or sub-species. In a "walk" from the equator to the North, we can see how visual characteristics vary gradually and continuously between populations. There are no boundaries.


newsreel.org...

You're talking about my own ignorance, maybe you should reconsider.
edit on 10/26/2011 by IEtherianSoul9 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 06:35 PM
link   
Another positive thread! ATS is getting better all the time. I have spent time with all colours of humans and the only difference between them and me was the pigment of our skin. A human is a human and we should all have the same goal in life= learn how to better ourselves and help one another to enjoy life and at the same time educate ourselves so that we can continue being an important part of history that will shadow the darker parts of the timeline, not erase, so that future generations may look back and see how we turned the table and made decisions that had a positive outcome. Sounds cheesy but it makes sense to me. But who am I? Just another clever name on the most popular conspiracy website in the world, abovetopsecret.com. *I am not a paid spokesperson for this website-I am a member, another Human, that's just being.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by IEtherianSoul9
 



"I'm not saying there aren't genetic differences among human populations," he cautioned. "There are differences, but they don't define historical lineages that have persisted for a long time, which is one criterion for race in a scientific sense."

Humans or Homo sapiens sapiens (subspecies) are synonymous! There are no subspecies left except for US. Homo sapiens idaltu which lived some 160,000 years ago is now extinct.


Homo-sapien is not a subspecies, it is a species.



Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primates
Family: Hominidae
Tribe: Hominini
Genus: Homo
Species: H. sapiens


You are confusing Species with Race... they are not synonymous.

So, Since you are having trouble grasping this relatively simple concept, let us try this again:


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


The Different Races of human beings HAVE had plenty of time to be geographically separated ever since the firs humans migrated away from Africa and the middle east hundreds of thousands of years ago. (Several Thousand Generations)

Since that time, the human populations have drifted in terms of population genetics to the point where they have differences that are Universal among one population, and completely lacking in another population.

This is the essence of a Race.

Race divisions are the beginnings of speciation... and, if the populations were separated for enough time, they would eventually become different species (some million or so years).

What we have now, on Earth, are Separate Races of Homo-Sapiens, as indicated by their genetic, morphological, and physiological differences.

To Deny that these Breeding populations are different, is to deny reality.

Even the very Skin Colour that you claim is of only superficial difference, is an indication of a GENETIC difference that is Universal in one population, and totally lacking (or different) in another population.

But the genetic differences that determine skin colour are just ONE of many genetic differences that separate the different races of humans from one another.

Furthermore, I heard that Africans are the only race not to share genetic material with the Neanderthals, who were closer to a subspecies than a race in difference from Homo-Sapien.

This, of course, means that there are at the VERY LEAST... *2* Races of humans on the planet earth.




posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 12:18 AM
link   
reply to post by ErtaiNaGia
 


I clearly said "HOMO SAPIENS SAPIENS", NOT "HOMO SAPIEN"; I know the difference between race & species. RACE is a social construct with no biological backing. I've already showed you two sources,by biological anthropologists/geneticists who say that there is no such thing as race and humans are all one species.




Familia: Hominidae
Subfamilia: Homininae
Tribus: Hominini
Subtribus: Hominina
Genus: Homo
Species: Homo sapiens
Subspecies: Homo sapiens sapiens


The last taxonomization is no longer used because there are no longer any other subspecies present.

Regarding skin color:




We also learn that most traits - be they skin color or hair texture or blood group - are influenced by separate genes and thus inherited independently one from the other. Having one trait does not necessarily imply the existence of others. Skin color really is only skin deep.


Plus humans are genetically 99.9% alike.
edit on 10/27/2011 by IEtherianSoul9 because: (no reason given)




"Race divisions are the beginnings of speciation... and, if the populations were separated for enough time, they would eventually become different species (some million or so years)." - your quote which made me laugh.

Anatomically modern humans first appear in the fossil record in Africa about 195,000. Plus the out of Africa migration is estimated to have occurred about 70,000 years BP. They inhabited Eurasia and Oceania by 40,000 years BP, and the Americas at least 14,500 years BP.

Some million or so years? Hardly.
edit on 10/27/2011 by IEtherianSoul9 because: (no reason given)


And one more thing, while you were looking up the definition of 'Race' on wikipedia, you seemed to have overlooked this...




While biological scientists sometimes use the concept of race to make practical distinctions among fuzzy sets of traits, others in the scientific community suggest that the idea of race is often used by the general public[5] in a naive[6] or simplistic way. Among humans, race has no taxonomic significance; all people belong to the same hominid subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens.[7][8][neutrality is disputed] Regardless of the extent to which race exists, the word "race" is problematic and may carry negative connotations.[9] Social conceptions and groupings of races vary over time, involving folk taxonomies [10] that define essential types of individuals based on perceived sets of traits.

edit on 10/27/2011 by IEtherianSoul9 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by IEtherianSoul9
 



I clearly said "HOMO SAPIENS SAPIENS", NOT "HOMO SAPIEN"; I know the difference between race & species.


There is clearly a lot that you do NOT know... Including the Difference between species and Race.

Allow me to explain.


RACE is a social construct with no biological backing.


And here you go, the belief that Race is a Social Construct, *IS* a social construct itself with No Scientific Backing.

Race is VERY REAL.

And to PROVE my point... Would you please Define Race (Without citing a specific species)

WHAT is Race?


I've already showed you two sources,by biological anthropologists/geneticists who say that there is no such thing as race and humans are all one species.


And neither of those sources was even remotely scientific in any way.

They were baseless assertions with no sources, citations, research, or scientific backing of any kind.

Which is why I didn't even bother to refute them, because there was nothing in either of those articles other than a Politically Correct Zombie Saying exactly what YOU want to say....

Secondly, We already KNOW that there is only one species of humans, which leads me right back to my original point that you do not know the difference between Species and Race.

So, if you care to prove me wrong, Then Provide a definition of Race *AND* Species, and we will argue from there.


The last taxonomization is no longer used because there are no longer any other subspecies present.


And this is highly debatable, actually.

The amount of differences in races of other species and even sub-species is utterly DWARFED by the vast amount of genetic differences between the different races of humans.



Regarding skin color:


We also learn that most traits - be they skin color or hair texture or blood group - are influenced by separate genes and thus inherited independently one from the other. Having one trait does not necessarily imply the existence of others. Skin color really is only skin deep.


The assertion at the end of the paragraph there completely contradicts the admission of the paragraph as a whole.

Race Exists, and your quote Admits it.


Plus humans are genetically 99.9% alike.


And this is the most stupid and useless argument in the entire known universe.

Tell me, What percentage difference is qualified to be a different "Race"?

No, seriously, Tell me what context you use that statement in.....

Because Human beings only have a 1.2% difference between them and the Chimpanzee.. which is an entirely different *SPECIES*

In addition to that, a 0.1% genetic Difference encompasses about 20,000 genes.... and that is quite enough to be considered a different SUB-SPECIES, let alone a different Race.

Not only that... but that 99.9% figure is WRONG, it's closer to 99%



"Race divisions are the beginnings of speciation... and, if the populations were separated for enough time, they would eventually become different species (some million or so years)."

- your quote which made me laugh.

Anatomically modern humans first appear in the fossil record in Africa about 195,000. Plus the out of Africa migration is estimated to have occurred about 70,000 years BP. They inhabited Eurasia and Oceania by 40,000 years BP, and the Americas at least 14,500 years BP.

Some million or so years? Hardly.


And I can see that you have trouble with reading comprehension as well.

Go ahead and go back, re-read that section of what I wrote, and keep re-reading it until you realize how wrong you are.

Go ahead, I'll wait.



And one more thing, while you were looking up the definition of 'Race' on wikipedia, you seemed to have overlooked this...


While biological scientists sometimes use the concept of race to make practical distinctions among fuzzy sets of traits, others in the scientific community suggest that the idea of race is often used by the general public[5] in a naive[6] or simplistic way. Among humans, race has no taxonomic significance; all people belong to the same hominid subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens.[7][8][neutrality is disputed] Regardless of the extent to which race exists, the word "race" is problematic and may carry negative connotations.[9] Social conceptions and groupings of races vary over time, involving folk taxonomies [10] that define essential types of individuals based on perceived sets of traits.


And you are still having trouble with reading comprehension.... This argument is going to be difficult if you are unable to clearly comprehend basic words and sentences.....

So let me go ahead and Spell this one out for you as clearly as I can:


You already agree that Races are real...
You do NOT agree that Races are real for humans...

So, in that Idiom, DEFINE RACE:

Just Do it.
edit on 27-10-2011 by ErtaiNaGia because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2011 @ 01:35 AM
link   
In the Eyes of God all are equal,
But He did make each one unique with unique likes and dislikes.



posted on Nov, 5 2011 @ 08:25 PM
link   
No matter how much it annoys academics and the left wing, people are going to continue to notice that there are groups of people who have common traits that are clearly genetic in nature.

Trying to constantly remove a word so that you cannot have a word to use to capture that idea is a form of mind control.

People's emotional problem with having a word for this distinction is that it often then is attached to a measurement of value. An understandable concern, that is NOT addressed by pretending that people will suddenly stop noticing that groups of human beings show trait distinctions.



posted on Nov, 5 2011 @ 09:05 PM
link   
There are genetic differences among races, to pretend there isn't can be dangerous. Should people be discriminated against for race? no. But to pretend everyone is the same when they are not is just silly.

Tay-Sachs Disease
Cystic Fibrosis
Sickle Cell Anemia

are all found predominantly by race. In order: Jewish, White, and Black.

some are cultural or environmental.But if there are environmental factors that lead to issues, they need to be aknowledged.

Black people suffer higher rates of hypertention. you don't want a doctor ignoring race if people's health are on the line.
That is like pretending there aren't health differences between sexes.

There are other gentic differences as well.

Now humans are young and evolution has not had a chance to create subspecies. And the genetic markers that make up the differences we see are minute in number.

But it smore likely and speculated that culture came out of race and what genetic differences there are.That groups behave the way they do because of color.

Colors can change pretty quickly evolutionary speaking if environment drove it too.

There hasn't been substantial proof one way or the other if there is a huge genetic difference between races.



posted on Nov, 5 2011 @ 09:08 PM
link   
reply to post by IEtherianSoul9
 


Race must have a scientific basis. That is why you tell part of the world someone came from by there DNA. If there is no scientific basis to race. How can scientists have done studies on different races..



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join