|
Racism
Jun 5, 2013 20:36:11 GMT 1
Post by fascinating on Jun 5, 2013 20:36:11 GMT 1
Firstly, it doesn't matter a damn whether I approve or disapprove of discussion of "race". Secondly - and I am only saying this to make it clear that you are under a misapprehension - I do in fact approve of discussion of just about any subject (I can't readily think of any subject that I would disapprove of discussing), including race. I am likely to join in such discussion. but, if somebody is going to use the term "race", I simply would like to know exactly what that person means.
Given what I have just said there is no "also" about it. And of course you are totally wrong (again) to suggest that I might not want discussion of those things. Perhaps these are good examples to illustrate further what race does NOT mean. There is almost no controversy in science as to what a species is, it is a set of related organisms that can interbreed. So all individuals which are at least theoretically capable of interbreeding form the whole population of a single species. As all humans are theoretically capable of breeding with one another they are clearly of the same species. Different species can of course be readily identified using genes. There is also the idea of a subspecies, and at one time this was used by biologists as a synonym for race, but this is no longer the case, a subspecies has a specific biological meaning: it is a group of individuals within a species (usually geographically isolated) that have become differentiated in form but that can still, sometimes, breed with other members of the species, though they usually produce sterile offspring. Nobody at all believes that the human race has any subspecies within it.
Dog breeds are of course all of the same species, and it is known how to distinguish them, because clearly what matters is physical appearance (a few aspects of behaviour too I suppose). As the different breeds arise from artificially selecting for characteristics and ensuring breeding within individuals of the same ones, I suppose these may be identifiable genetically. But nobody is suggesting that the races within humanity are "breeds" are they?
I believe animals can have ideas.
|
|
|
Racism
Jun 5, 2013 21:21:24 GMT 1
Post by buckleymanor1 on Jun 5, 2013 21:21:24 GMT 1
So if people are related do they belong to one race. We are all related, so what is the point in dividing people into one tribe or another.It has no more value to have a common ancestral grouping than a relative.As we are allready related. Dividing people into groups sucks, it can rienforce stereotypical prejudice giving benifits to one group and taking them away from another. It's not always the case medicaly it might be benificial if you are looking for a blood type. People who have a strong inclination of preference to one group over another usualy have a profit motive or are in need of a transfusion
|
|
|
Racism
Jun 5, 2013 21:57:20 GMT 1
Post by fascinating on Jun 5, 2013 21:57:20 GMT 1
I don't know because nobody here can tell me what "race" means.
The only valid reason I can see for determining ancestral grouping is to try to determine what happened in history. For example studies are being done of genes to find out what proportion of people migrated from Germany to England after the fall of the Roman Empire.
|
|
|
Racism
Jun 5, 2013 22:55:12 GMT 1
Post by buckleymanor1 on Jun 5, 2013 22:55:12 GMT 1
I have been told of such studies in the past.One of which I found of particular interest was the spread of Jewish genes throughout Europe and England.It was mentioned that as much as 75% of Europeans have Jewish genes.So it's a pretty good bet that Hitler and his chums were Jews killing Jews.
|
|
|
Racism
Jun 6, 2013 0:15:47 GMT 1
Post by alancalverd on Jun 6, 2013 0:15:47 GMT 1
People can classify anything they choose, in any way they fancy. Nothing to do with me how you or anyone else chooses to view the world. Whether that classification is universally agreed, or useful, is an entirely different matter.
Anyway, here's what the law has to say on the subject (Crime and Disorder Act 1998)
So the definition is either circular or includes pretty much any characteristic of birth except sex. Interestingly, it doesn't deal with DNA.
|
|
|
Racism
Jun 6, 2013 7:21:33 GMT 1
Post by Progenitor A on Jun 6, 2013 7:21:33 GMT 1
People can classify anything they choose, in any way they fancy. Nothing to do with me how you or anyone else chooses to view the world. Whether that classification is universally agreed, or useful, is an entirely different matter. But the classification of 'black' people is almost universally accepted, isn't it? Yet you waffled on about black people not existing So the definition is either circular or includes pretty much any characteristic of birth except sex. Interestingly, it doesn't deal with DNA. The 'definition' as written, is not clear, but the interpretation of that 'definition' is certainly clear enough to send people to prison! I suppose that actually defining 'race' is as 'difficult' as defining 'beauty'. We all know what each term means and can instantly recognise the actuality. Indeed possibly the only way of defining both (without resorting to genetics) is to list the characteristics - to classify Interestingly, beauty must equally be in the genes as is race, as beautiful people are more likely to produce beautiful offspring, just as black people are more likely to produce black offspring To deny that either beauty or race does not exist is nonsense unless there is an ulterior motive for denying either. Indeed as PC progresses I can see that 'beauty' will be banished to the unspeakable, as it 'disadvantages' those that are not beautiful - although that banishment would be an acknowledgment of its existence- just as arguments against 'race' draw in Nazis and other narsties (as has happened on this board) is a tacit admission that race does in fact exist
|
|
|
Racism
Jun 6, 2013 8:07:44 GMT 1
Post by alancalverd on Jun 6, 2013 8:07:44 GMT 1
No problem with beauty, or many other abstract nouns: beauty is the property of giving visual pleasure. But race isn't supposed to be an abstract noun - it's supposed and believed by those who use the term, to denote something concrete, unequivocal, fixed (but see below*), and measurable. OK, so what is it and how do you measure it?
You have noticed my use of inverted commas but ignored their significance. Black means absorbing the entire visible spectrum and can be painted over anything, "black" apparently means whatever anyone wants it to mean, and only applies to people. I had a black dog, with a long black pedigree, but there was no suggestion that she was the automatic inheritor of a different culture from her yellow kennelmate, or their white successor. They were all useless retrievers, however we addressed or treated them.
The other problem with "black" is its meaning apparently depends on who is saying it, even if they are referring to the same person. If a "black" footballer calls his team mate a black bastard, it's normal male joshing, but if a "white" footballer uses the same phrase, it's grounds for a major scandal and suspension. "Bastard" may get you a telling-off from the referee, but "black bastard" is professional suicide - and truth is no defence!
Pretty much my point. The problem is that whilst there is general agreement on Linnean classification of species, and even breeds and subspecies within that classification, there is no such agreement with regard to humans.
Why does this matter? Well, some species are considered vermin, some may be hunted at certain times only, and others are wholly protected by law, so it's important to know what is living in your garden. But all humans are wholly protected by law, but instead of saying so, the law continues to add more, unconnected and arbitrary classifications to its protected list and thus generates increasingly difficult (and thus increasingly profitable) cases. My favourite is the bus driver who was given a different route, to avoid immigrant areas, because he was elected as a BNP candidate to the local council: he sued his employers on the grounds that he was being discriminated against "on racial grounds". Much money for the lawyers, much embarrassment for his union, which could not drop the case as that would have contravened their own rules on political discrimination!
* The recent addition of Jews and Sikhs to the official list of races is almost as bizarre: apparently you can change your DNA by worshipping in a different building, or just wearing a different hat.
|
|