Finally, an honest discussion about race!

I understand what you're trying to say, but there is no way to discuss race from a genetic standpoint because there are no genes for race.

What you're attempting is a discussion about culture, not race.

Originally posted by poomouth
Anyways, I myself wanted to share bits and pieces on this thread that pertain to my original supposition.


I've noticed that whites more than any other race like to make direct eye contact. (though native N/S americans do this comfortably as well) This I believe is related to their tendency to want to see through people, and their subconscious need to expose their intentions as a social norm. (Again, a result of living in close quarters with others over an extended period of time) My mother always taught me to make direct eye contact or "people will not take you seriously."


I've noticed that black men when they communicate, often do so side by side, facing the same direction, much less often front to front. I've also noticed that when black men sit to face each other at a dinner table, they often adopt a far leaning back posture or a hunched over posture to keep their sense of personal space intact.

East asians of course, are taught NOT to make eye contact! It might make the other person uncomfortable, etc..

I myself being half japanese and half white will often make eye contact, but I seem to lose some energy when I do so! With my mothers family, I am often uncomfortable with the loud, boisterous manner which they communicate, with my fathers, I often feel too outgoing, like I am stepping out of line. LOL



Another thing i've noticed with white people, is that they often use the terms "fake" or "inauthentic" to describe people they don't trust. I've never understood this idea much. How can a person not be authentic? Mean, dangerous, funny, inspiring, I understand, but isn't everyone authentic in their own way? It comes from that close-quarters psychology of needing to be honest, and expose yourself or else everyone else suffers...

I think your observations are very astute, but I must point out that everything you've written is a direct result of culture and not race.

For example, if a white northern european baby was adopted by an asian family, s/he would be taught not to make direct eye contact (along with many other cultural customs). There is nothing genetic about it. This is purely cultural.

reply to post by yadda333


yadda333...yes, true!! I was only adding to the humor, and not, by any means, stating this as fact or something I believe in! I was eluding to the idea that race classifications are as silly as what I recanted from another source, (which I cannot remember, it's been so long). Perhaps I should have clarified that a little more.



[edit on 3/17/2009 by emeraldzeus]

Here is my first theory. Firstly please note that on this one I am only comparing black and white people here and am only comparing physical and mental strength.

I believe that on average a white person will be smarter than a black person but on average a black person will be stronger than a white person.
This is because when the white people evolved in Europe it was extremely cold. It was a time when just being physically fit was not enough to survive. Therefore those that thought of more clever techniques would survive longer and have more mates. Because of this more intelligent ones had children than non-intelligent ones. At the same time because the Africa was flatter and warmer those that developed there relied more on strength than intelligence to survive. Because of this those that were stronger would live longer and mate more than those that relied on intelligence.
Also in respect to African-Americans I believe they will be stronger because when their ancestors where used as slaves the strongest would make the best workers and would last longer. Because of this their owners would wish for them to reproduce more so that they would produce more strong workers. Also the more intellectual amongst them would be more likely to cause trouble, try to escape and would provide reasoning for why they shouldn't be slaves. All of these would be reasons why the more intelligent would be killed by their owners therefore meaning less intelligent black slaves would have children.

Of course now that blacks and whites are both allowed in the business world then those with more intelligence will be more successful therefore meaning that overtime the effect that slavery had over their race will be neutralised.

Now for my second theory. This one focuses on why Asians (from the Oriental region I mean) look the way they do and it is less well developed than my previous one.

Now my reasoning for their skin tone is this. Like with the white people their race developed in an area that had less sunlight than Africa so they needed less melanin in their skin which is why they are paler than black people. However the area was warmer than where white people developed and wasn't quite as dark so they needed more melanin than the white people in Europe. Because of this they developed a skin tone that was more or less mid-way between white people and black people.
Now I know I am walking on risky ground for this next bit so please read through what I have to say and consider it before deciding I am racist and reporting me to the mods. The reason why the Asians eyes are slanted/slitted/different/whatever you want to call it, is not because of any evolutionary development or biological advantage. It is because a society or culture developed that believed that that sort of eyes/facial difference was more attractive than a normal face. Because of this people with the gene for eyes like that would have found it easier to get a mate(s). They therefore would have more children. As the gene is a dominant one even children born with the one gene for a normal face and one gene for the preferred face would have the preferred look. Therefore because of this the gene spread through the entire race creating the Asian/Oriental race we know today.
The reason why an Asian child will work harder in class and achieve more academically than a white or black one is because where they come from there is no support for those who do not work therefore they have more motivation to work hard. It has nothing to do with race and is due to culture.

Well this is my reasoning. If there is anyone out there who would like to help me refine my theory I am open to suggestions.

Also please don't start jumping up and down screaming racist. I get enough of that in the real world when I am trying to approach a subject from a non-biased scientific point of view. If you have an objection to my logic can it please be reasoned and science based and delivered calmly not in a frothing rage of PC righteousness.

-Cauch1

[edit on 18/3/2009 by Cauch1]

reply to post by Cauch1


Wow,


I dont know what to say


except that you couldnt be more wrong on a lot of points.

the epicanthic eye fold is an evolutionary adaptation to several environmental conditions.
It helps protect the eye from sun glare and wind.
It can be found in people of all races whos ancestors some from arctic or desert regions.
Europeans/whites are smarter than blacks?

You do realize that modern human caucasians are new comers to europe and in fact evolved in central asia, and most of them have only been there for a few thousand years.







[edit on 18-3-2009 by punkinworks]

The Science of Race?

Genetically, racial difference can be measured, tested, analysed and assessed by DNA scientists and we can all be thankful for that in that it helps our understanding of the physical and biological attributes of ourselves and our neighbours. We can all enjoy greater health benefits from this knowledge and it can help inform us in our decision making processes, individually and collectively.

Culturally, psychologically and socialy, we can measure, test, analyse and assess where race has an impact on individual or group behaviour patterns.

To seek to increase our knowledge and understanding of racial difference can only be a good thing in a just and civilised society.

However, only economically stable societies or socio-political systems can afford to be just and civilised.

I just do not believe that the scientific study of race will ever solve the issue of racism. It is clear that even to discuss race can be deemed racist.

The theory that racism is a human construct, drafted by the ruling elite in a simple game of divide and rule to ensure that the ruling elite remain so draws upon the most base of human of endeavour, the struggle for survival.

My theory is that racism as known in the West today, is the just and civilised society's form of xenophobia. At human beginning, all peoples gathered together in groups to cooperate as a means to greater chance of survival in a harsh world. Competition for resources is as relevant today as ever and when resources are perceived as being scarce, we seek to protect what we have achieved or accumulated. We are far more likely to feel that those we do not know will take our resources than those we do. In this way we see those who are unknown to us as a threat and are therefore more likely to enter into conflict with them.

World leaders, know this. They can rely upon natural human, survivalist, responses to divisory propoganda to further their drive for power. At present it seems to me that the focus upon racial differences has distracted from our understanding that we are all 'racist', that we would all opt to enter into conflict with or for those of our own domain and that under such competitive conditions, would all exhibit xenophobia to protect what is ours, life, hearth, home and family, ideology or country. The most obvious recent example being Hitler's Germany. After WW2, those who had fought a xenophobic enemy on a point of ideology that exterminated so many people, partitioned Eastern Europe and created the state of Yugoslavia. When Tito died and the Slavic countries opted for a return to separate nation status leading to ethnic war over ideology and competition for resources. People who had been neighbours became suspicious of eachother and xenophobia ruled. No matter how just or civilised we may become, when resources are scarce or perceived to be, people are most vulnerable to leaving go of any moral or ideological opposition to racism, forgetting what they have learned by the scientific evidence available to them that the human race is as diverse as the rest of the biosphere, and enter into conflict so as to protect or gain resources.

Race is not really in the genes, although there are average genetic difference between races. Race is mostly about culture: having a common language, a common cuisine, a common religion, a common traditional occupation or caste, a common territory demarcated as the racial homeland.

Fundamental to race is the concept of a common ancestry. Although this suggests that there must be genetic differences between the races and helps explain the degree of variation that does occur, the fact is that no pure races exist, nor have any such races ever existed. Patrilineage - tracing a person's heritage through his or her father's line - is a sexist fiction that ignores the fact that half a child's genes are inherited from its mother.

[edit on 19/3/09 by Astyanax]

I'd like to start off by saying that I feel we need to open a dialogue about race!

There's the problem to begin with.
How is Race even relevant to anything?
Its people, good and bad people, Race is just a made up word by morons, who have psych issues.

Im gunna make lotsa mocha babies!
That will be my contribution to making a better world.Out breed the racists!And throw some of these crazy theories for a loop.

Originally posted by OhZone
Whitewave, I disagree that studies of racial differences would be divisive.
I see it as furthering our understanding of each other.
We study cultures for this reason don't we?
Why not deepen the study?
We are not alike, not any of us. We , all 6+ billion of us are as different from each other as the snow flakes are different from each other. So differences are not anything new and studying them should not be avoided for some politically correct nonsense.
Nothing has ever been resolved by avoiding the issue.

Perhaps I should have clarified my thoughts. While any study of human beings can be innately beneficial, not all are essential.
Unless the study of variances in race pertains to medicine; ie: does one pill affect an ethnic group differently than another, etc. then focusing on our differences is, imo, not as beneficial as focusing on ways to overcome the differences that divide us.

In the medical world, we can take blood or vital organs from donors of one ethnic group and place them in someone from another ethnic group with no ill effects as long as there are enough similarities (type and crossmatch, etc.). We focus on that which is the same rather than that which makes us appear different. The outward differences are somewhat superficial.

I would prefer any studies on the differences between the races be with a goal toward how to benefit all races such as blood transfusion (invented by a black man who, ironically, died for lack of a blood transfusion).

Not all countries have the degree of blending of the races as we see in America. Some are rather strict about interracial breeding. In America, as our racial differences become less defined over time, we'll have to find something else to fight about.

You might like reading "The Souls of Black Folk" by W.E.B. duBois. It discusses in depth the psychological dimension of race (as a social construct -- genetic variation is continuous among individuals). The most well-known thesis in the essay is that of the "double consciousness" -- that black individuals are constantly perceived as being radically different from how they perceive themselves, and consequently, are forced into a performative role while in public.

reply to post by whitewave


There was a study done with children a long while back that was called “Brown Eyes, Blue Eyes”.

Color is the easiest way to discriminate because it takes little or no effort to identify your target.

As long as we are trying to be greater than rather than a part of we will always find some way to elevate ourselves above the other.

We learn nothing from our past. We have not learned that a circle is far more stable then a pyramid. We have not learned that the higher you build up the larger your foundation has to be. We have not learned that when a structure falls it usually falls from the top and the foundation remains. We have not learned that when you destroy the foundation the complete structure is obliterated.

We are all essential spokes on the wheel and with the lost of each spoke the wheel become less strong and more unstable. If we do not protect all the spokes on the wheel we are going to be for a very bumpy ride.

Mod Note: Excessive Quoting – Please Review This Link

[edit on Thu Mar 19 2009 by Jbird]

I don't believe race has anything to do with how people are. White, black, asian (''latino'' is not a race) is just generalizing. Amongst whites, blacks, and asians there are a lot of subgroups who are very different between each other.
Human skill and intelligence is only determined by its environment. It's a cultural thing, not a racial thing.

reply to post by teapot

The Science of Race? Genetically, racial difference can be measured, tested, analysed and assessed by DNA scientists and we can all be thankful for that in that it helps our understanding of the physical and biological attributes of ourselves and our neighbours. We can all enjoy greater health benefits from this knowledge and it can help inform us in our decision making processes, individually and collectively.

What would the DNA analysis show about the child whose grandfather’s father was Irish and his mother was Jewish who then produced her father who married a woman whose mother was Native American and father was Black with no verifiable lineage to Africa.

How would the DNA measure that child’s intelligence or skills?

DNA can “not” measure intelligence nor can it measure skills or abilities.

Please stop saying these things that are not true and no true science would support such a claim.

If you have racist beliefs or are a bigot at least be honest to yourself. All the fabricated nonsense passed off as scientific fact lends no weight to argument.

Regardless to the level of pigmentation present in your skin you will still easily recognized as misanthropic.




[edit on 19-3-2009 by NightSkyeB4Dawn]

Kudos to the civil discussion so far. Let's try to keep it that way, please.


Finally, an honest discussion about race!


TIA

Also of note is that this discussion is in the Science & Technology Forum.

Let's try to stay geared in that direction.

[edit on Thu Mar 19 2009 by Jbird]

reply to post by TheMythLives


While I completely agree with you on the psychological aspect of your argument, I must disagree with you on the physical side.

Racial differences do often define the probability of body types, projected physical capacity etc.

You can't tell me the average Asian is as tall as the average European, or average African... height being a physical aspect, you can see why I disagree with you here.

To add, Africans do appear on average to have an advantage when it comes to speed training (running races).
Also, different pigments of skin give advantages to body heat dissipation.


As such, I must disagree with you, the racial divides do depict on average, the physical advantages of a member.

But as for psychological advantages, I have yet to find any. Psychology does appear to be completely defined by upbringing and random disorders rather than race.
So on that area, I must agree with you.

Scientifically there is no such thing as race. All homo sapiens belong to the same species. We're not any more different than one another as members of the same species.

Race technically refers to localizations or groupings of people. For example political boundaries such as countries don't exist scientifically, but we put them in place in our minds and distinguish ourselves based on them.

reply to post by johnsky

ou can't tell me the average Asian is as tall as the average European, or average African... height being a physical aspect, you can see why I disagree with you here

I can tell you this because I have lived with quite a few Asian families and the children are quite tall though the parents are of smaller stature. This is because the children grew up on an American diet. So their height had more to do with diet than DNA.

I believe the problem here is that when you try to throw everyone into a box what you are going to get out of the box on random selection is going to be a toss up.

There are too many mixes in the genetic soup to come up with a one size fits all.

You make the mistake when you draw a conclusion based on a larger number of what appears to be like results because you are using a limited base.

The same exact parameters used to make your conclusion used on a select group of people in a different part of the country could yield completely different results.

The only factor that you can consistently repeat is the fact that we are all “human”. The rest is just a shot in the dark.

For the record:
I don’t really understand why my previous post was removed. It was not offensive in any way and it was directly related to a previous post regarding how common it is for people respond negatively to the differences among us. Neither was out of place or offensive IMO.

I just want to set the record clear. I don’t want anyone thinking that I tried to derail the thread or that have I been anything less than civil. I must admit that I am very surprised and pleased that the posts have remained civil in their tone and I would never do anything to undermine that.

Mod Note: How to Quote– Please Review This Link.

[edit on Fri Mar 20 2009 by Jbird]