On Race and Racism. Much ado about nothing.

On race and Racism. Much ado about nothing.

Plato told us man was a biped without feathers, but the Cynic plucked a chicken, threw it at our feet and said, “behold! Here is Plato’s man!” It is always the more superficial definitions that lead to superficial considerations.

It is the same with our phenotypes, our bodies, our entire being, most of which lay hidden beneath a single organ called the epidermis. From a distance she appears to be one thing—perhaps a biped without feathers—but on closer inspection she is a great deal more. Getting closer still, we find that not only is her skin a certain shade, her hair a certain hue, but when she finally enters the range of all our sensual faculties it is revealed that she is also soft, she breathes, she is strong, and there is warmth in those veins. Features such as these are hardly noticeable unless under closer, and often, more intimate appraisal. So it is with everyone.

This is a reason why I do not understand the clumsy, weak and needy reliance on the concept of race as an identity for oneself or others: the skin reveals a little, sure, but conceals a great deal more. To derive assumptions or conclusions about a person (even oneself) because of surface-level variation without consideration of the rest, is like determining the toxicity of a plant from how it looks. It takes a bit more time and effort to understand the particulars we are dealing with.

Besides, one look proves to me that the species is divided into biological individuals instead of biological groups. Sure, ancestry and geographic isolation can determine a small number of gene variants and allele frequencies, and can also provide much needed medical information regarding genetic diseases, genealogy, what the parents looked like, and so on, but 85% of genetic variation exists within populations as opposed to between them. That means it would be more reasonable to classify human beings according to height instead of race. And given that each human is 99.5% similar to any other, we should perhaps gravitate away from genetic classifications altogether.

Racism is, quite simply, the belief that human beings can be divided into races. No other nonsense need be appended to that definition. Any considerations derived from this belief is to flirt with pseudoscience, caste systems and the like, the same superstitions that led to Nuremberg and Jim Crow laws. But to the extent it describes the abstract ideas in the heads of racists more so than states of affairs, proves it to be no more than superstitious piffle.


LesMis

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Maybe Myers–Briggs Type Indicator would be useful?
Jason starts with "J"

i have to say reptilians can absolute have a very similar kind of arrogance like humans. like with crackpeople on the street forinstance. in the atsral
as if they absolutly know how your emotions work or they absolutly like us in that sense

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

Racism is, quite simply, the belief that human beings can be divided into races. No other nonsense need be appended to that definition. Any considerations derived from this belief is to flirt with pseudoscience, caste systems and the like, the same superstitions that led to Nuremberg and Jim Crow laws. But to the extent it describes the abstract ideas in the heads of racists more so than states of affairs, proves it to be no more than superstitious piffle.

I don't think you can make that assertion until we encounter a more advanced species that preys on us or a cataclysmic natural disaster tests all of our survival skills and instincts.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

A simple racism litmus test might be. . . .

A loved one is having an operation.

Would you rather have the best surgeon perform the operation?

Or

Would you rather have the best (Choose a skin color) surgeon perform the operation?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope


I've always been fascinated by when there are large gatherings of people at

meetings, conferences etc. how they gravitate towards each other and form

groups! What is the reason for their choices of companionship? is it looking

for like?

Is it a form of tribalism? Is the push for immigration to iron out differences?

My personal opinion is blandness.....I like the difference!!!


www.youtube.com...

a reply to: LesMisanthrope
An enlightened posit to be sure, but it ignores the fact that "biology is destiny". Fast twitch muscle fiber vs neural structure, that is the difference. You are right it's not skin color that makes the difference. Certain genetic groups have biological advantages and disadvantages that is just the nature of evolution. Nonetheless, a superficial argument focusing on external color misses the underlying truth. The bell curve is viscous and absolute.

a reply to: bladerunner44

No it's vicious and absolute nonsense, not unlike the counter views of melanin madness, Ice /cave ppl theories and Welsing's The Isis papers, the genetic variability alone among black populations rule that out.
There are black ppl ,there is no Black race, or white ones for that matter.

a reply to: Spider879
Wishful nonsense. The proof of the homogeneity of genetic traits within distinct and discrete populations is scientifically irrefutable. It is what it is. The question is how do we deal with it the benefit of all involved.

a reply to: bladerunner44

No it's not, there are no distinct or discrete populations, for that would imply "Race " which scientists have long ago shelved.
Yes a Kenyan can out distance a Jamaican in a marathon, and a Jamaican can Sprint past a Kenyan in short distance, both on average are blacks, Jamaicans are typically muscular like their West African cousins, Kenyans are typically elongated like their average East African neighbours, then there are genetic combination which is not just a modern phenomenon.

Landraces, the only thing that differentiates phenotypes is environment.

And the crossbreeding, migration and biotic culturing of landraces has put large enough portions of genetic info into all other races enough that strains don't exist, only phenotypes; a massive pool of genetic information lying dormant waiting to expressed by environment.

Thats how it works with plants species. No one even knows what the originals looked like, crossbreeding for desirable traits goes back thousands and thousands of years. Corn, for example. And I'm sure this ancient engineered crop will have a different flavor depending on what crap it is raised in, its still corn.

Having read what the op has stated, here is my take on such:

Racism, and other acts such as that, is really based on ignorance, and denying the truth.

When one looks at what all it does, it seeks to divide and place the other lower than oneself. If they were to admit the plain truth, it would be far harder to justify, but give it a label, and it is easy to ignore that face. It is one of the oldest problems that has been around for years, and ultimately it is the hardest of all problems to solve, as it requires a mental aspect and change within all.

originally posted by: bladerunner44
a reply to: LesMisanthrope
An enlightened posit to be sure, but it ignores the fact that "biology is destiny". Fast twitch muscle fiber vs neural structure, that is the difference. You are right it's not skin color that makes the difference. Certain genetic groups have biological advantages and disadvantages that is just the nature of evolution. Nonetheless, a superficial argument focusing on external color misses the underlying truth. The bell curve is viscous and absolute.

I spoke of more than external color.

These “certain genetic groups” are in no way distinct, discrete, nor homogenous. Evolution is continuous. The demarcation lines of race are entirely fuzzy, and so is the thinking required to believe in them.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

A simple racism litmus test might be. . . .

A loved one is having an operation.

Would you rather have the best surgeon perform the operation?

Or

Would you rather have the best (Choose a skin color) surgeon perform the operation?

This separates the term.

You're asking for someone who holds skin colour to be the worth of a person. We both know this is patently false.

But there are definitely differences in culture and nurturing. Very different, globally if not locally. Culture is born into, not out of. Yet this is often hit with the R word just as often because people don't think beyond the headline.

originally posted by: eletheia
Is it a form of tribalism?

Effectively, yes. We're hard wired to find likeness. It once had an evolutionary benefit, if you looked like your kin, you were safe. If you looked like Bob the other tribe, you we're mortal enemies and that buffalo-saurus is yours!

Put our inherent human instincts to test by todays standards, we're a racist bunch of violent thugs conquering the known world and taking your things.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: bladerunner44
a reply to: LesMisanthrope
An enlightened posit to be sure, but it ignores the fact that "biology is destiny". Fast twitch muscle fiber vs neural structure, that is the difference. You are right it's not skin color that makes the difference. Certain genetic groups have biological advantages and disadvantages that is just the nature of evolution. Nonetheless, a superficial argument focusing on external color misses the underlying truth. The bell curve is viscous and absolute.

I spoke of more than external color.

These “certain genetic groups” are in no way distinct, discrete, nor homogenous. Evolution is continuous. The demarcation lines of race are entirely fuzzy, and so is the thinking required to believe in them.

Are you dwelling in the past, or anticipating the future? Because there is only now to exist within. And now contains the fundamental pieces of it that make it now. Like a distinct, discrete and homogenous set of human beings. It's true that we're constantly evolving ever so subtly, and have been since our first form, but you cannot say that what we are now, is not what we are. We're not a work in progress, we're a progression of work.

Unless you have encountered such strange beings that are evolving right before your eyes and are growing fingers out of their noses to save picking time, I think we're pretty consistent over all, recently.

a reply to: badw0lf

I have a slight difference of opinion on this, it depends on environmental conditions, if the hunting grounds were plenty, then Bob's tribe and Joe's tribe might not be mutually hostile to each other, the may trade, swap gossip at the watering hole etc, a boy from Bob's tribe might even fancy that hot chick from Joe's tribe or vise versa.

But if the rains fail the herd moved on, then that's where mutual raiding and conflict develops, hence you better watch your back around Bob.

And the more complex Bob and Joe's tribe become, the more organized they are for predatory warfare.

a reply to: Spider879
First, there is ample evidence of differentiation of certain genetic traits among populations debating that is pointless. Be more open minded and research the findings. Just like we self select the groups we want to associate with, we also tend to select our life viewpoint along lines associated with personal/group biases, and no matter how cogent the argument, it will not be accepted if it falls outside of that viewpoint.

Take a look around you and if you have situational awareness you'll see how that self selection works in reality. Now ask yourself, why is it so? One could argue it's nature and one could say it's nurture. That argument has raged for ages. While it's likely a bit of both, underlying capabilities biologically bestowed, bend the tree in a certain direction. That is the way of nature, whether you consider that bend good or bad is a matter of evaluative judgement, not scientific fact.

Political Correctness has shaped the viewpoint of certain groups to believe everyone is the same then argue that diversity is a strength." If people are of a different race, it increases the chances that they’re not going to share other things. The key, for a rational person, is to judge people as individuals. Race, sex, religion, and cultural background are quick indicators of who a person might be. As are dress, accent, attitude, and what they say among many other indicators. You need as much data as you can get to help you judge what the other person will do, and who he is. It’s actually quite stupid to not discriminate among people you encounter. But then the whole PC movement is quite stupid by its very nature". (Doug Casey)

We won't solve this here and I wonder why I even bother to post here, we're just stirring garbage. I will say this though, these differences (nature/nurture) are fracturing us not because of the innate differences but because we are not accepting them for what they are, and coming up with ways to address them for the benefit of all.

What we're doing now isn't working.

abovely to: bladerunner44

OK you said data, if so then why do Nigerians tie with northeast Asians in the U.S and dominate the land scape in Great Britain according to quals and in higher learning above everyone else including all Asians, last time I checked...I'm sure Nigerians did not suddenly produced super smart ppl genetically, above Togolese, and Ghanaians much less others, soo this must be nurture as opposed to nature, ex: Asian moms and Nigerian dads.

But what's not PC but still very disturbing in a eugenics kinda way, or at the very least box humans in a group based off perceived abilities of what exactly??? Geo location and casual eyeballing?? ..been there done that.
it was Bs then it's even more so now, that we know better, unless you are a multi Genesis person, then I might as well be communicating with a flat earther.

a reply to: Spider879

I am fair-skinned, blonde and blue eyed, yet according to me genetics test, I have genes from 4 different continents. My supposed race doesn’t match up to the facts of my genes.