What is Racism?

Originally posted by masqua

Originally posted by kimish
Well of course, they are different, are they not? Generally speaking they are both flies (Note I say 'generally speaking'). They are both flies (for the sake of argument) but they are different. So do we call them all fruit flies or horse flies? No, we label them due to their biological differences. Just as we label human races upon biological differences, which you claim is wrong.

There are biological differences in people who have evolved in varied climates and different foods. It's also why there are no wild parrots living in the Canadian north. They wouldn't survive the winters.

You label human biological differences as race, but stop short designating any other species in the same way. It's obvious that this is just mental gymnastics based on the egotistical notion that humans are not part of the fauna of this earth. Next will be the notion that we 'came from another planet' and colonized the earth somewhere around 8 million years ago.

But here are some differences in thinking about human biological differences,all humans are more related than any two groups of flies cats and dogs even between chimps, and it only take nine months to change those differences in humans,for at best all of us are linked by only a 100kyrs

The above is a vid if you haven't seen it before is well worth watching it explained who we are as a family.

Originally posted by kimish
Evolution did bring about different species and breeds of certain animals. Why wouldn't it be true with humans? Oh, it is! We just call our breeds/species 'races' to make it sound more civilized.

The notion of race started out 400 years ago as politically expedient, in that it helped legitimize taking over the governance of foreign countries, as in India during the British reign. It also worked for the Dutch in Indonesia and European colonialism in the Americas.

Today, it has pretty well morphed itself into the medical establishment and is seen as not so much politically expedient as it is handy in identifying tendencies in various genetic groups of people (the sickle cell thing).

Because it has been transposed into the biological field, the idea of separate races remains alive today. The odd thing is that such a method of distinction is NOT used in other countries, and, if they don't, why is it that it has no appreciable effect on the medical industry where notion of race has been dropped?

It's pure semantics. A rose is still a rose by any other name.

reply to post by masqua


How in the hell am I supposed to rebuttal that!??
*sigh*
I'll be back.

I'd also like to commend all the posters for keeping this discussion civil.

reply to post by Spider879


I watched just over 35 minutes of the video and would agree with much of what was presented as evidence towards the 'Out of Africa Migration'. I would have watched more, but the over-dramatization was beginning to wear me down a bit.

Regarding to the comparison of modern humans to insects, I would say that various species of dragonflies have been around as long as the various hominid species. I mean to say that modern humans evolved the same way as dragonflies did... only in different ways.

Originally posted by GrandStrategy
Racism is pretty clear. There are people out there who want everything to fall under the banner of racism because racism, rightly, carries lots of emotional weight.

Therefore, they (usually wet behind the ear middle class liberals) want to exploit that and see that people who make remarks about x nation or x collective are considered racist, even though there is no racial/ethnic sense to the claim. It's cashing in on a buzzword, devaluing the real thing in the process.

While I do identify with your rather derogotary characterization and do think that "wet behind the ear middle class liberals) don't understand racism (because of not directly experiencing it), I don't believe it (racism) is being 'exploited'. I think race, racism is an important discussion - one that has to be had and the sooner the better.

There's a pretty obvious effort from some quarters to muddle all bigotry and prejudice(say that of xenophobia or religious intolerance) with racism. I've even heard it said that you can't make remarks about people living in caravans because they're deemed a "group", now I've got nothing against travelers but come on, that's funny isn't.

I think racism is the place to start this conversation as it encompasses all bigotry and prejudice. As we see happening racism is being hidden by economic differences, religious differences, and cultural differences.

The point of this thread was to discuss this very point - Just what is racism? My belief is that there is trend to deny 'racism' and 'race' as relevent in today's world. But I still see most bigotry as racism when defined as 'hatred of the other'.

Now we are having a pleasant discussion about different terms - racism, discrimanation, prejudice and bigotry that is most productive. Maybe the term 'racism' is no longer a valid term.

Actual racism as was defined and as the word was created for is pretty clear, and those that suffer from it know what it is.

Too literal for my liking or experience as the physically 'racial' boundaries really aren't at all clear.

We have the word racism for bigotry on grounds of race/ethnicity. We have sexism for bigotry on grounds of sex. There's homophobia and the like for bigotry based on sexual orientation. Xenophobia for bigotry founded on bigotry for nations and there people. And you can keep going. There's lots of terms like this and all have fairly obvious meanings. To see people exploiting the severity of racism and using it as a catch-all phrase is disappointing. I'm sure people who do it mean well but to me comparing something like a dislike of religions or a dislike of a country with good old fashioned racism is doing real racism a huge disservice and sort of trivialising it if you ask me

Maybe bigotry is a better word but I do think, other than sexism, most of your example have a underlying racism to them.

Originally posted by gosseyn

Why do you chose to set the focus on certain differences instead of others ? Why don't you say that people with different blood types belong to different races ? And what would you say if the blood type was a visible difference ? What about people with different eyes colors, do they belong to different "races" ? What about the size of people, isn't that difference enough to say that tall people belong to a different "race" ? etc etc.

And, why do you think you can make the choice for me when you say that this or that difference = a different race ?
see here
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Good point - we could define racism by blood type.

I am not trying to make any choice for you or any others - I'm just interested in discussion of the topic. Frankly I don't know what racism is - and have trouble understanding it in 'Racial' terms, hence the thread.

Originally posted by masqua
Racism is the belief in races, whether one is talking biologically or sociologically.

What used to be a social construct has, in America particularly, been institutionalized by the medical profession to such a degree that it is used in the US census. Most western countries have, in recent decades, disassociated themselves from using such ideas. Racism today has evolved into separating people, one from the other, by their obvious differences, such as hair, eye and skin colour, etc., instead of their standings in relation to their conquerors (e.g. East Indians to the British Empire, American Indians to the European settlers, African slaves to the slavers, etc.) Where this current new line of thinking will eventually fail is in the multicultural blender that this world is increasingly becoming. When everyone is partly everyone else through mixed marriages, the notion that medical distinctions can be made based on biological sub-groups will fade away..


There is only 1 race of humans on this planet.

edit on 22/5/13 by masqua because: clarity

Now that is a nice and consise definition.

The institutionalization of race is a whole other thread to consider.

Originally posted by masqua

The notion of race started out 400 years ago as politically expedient, in that it helped legitimize taking over the governance of foreign countries, as in India during the British reign. It also worked for the Dutch in Indonesia and European colonialism in the Americas.

Racism has been practised a lot longer then 400 years. It was used, certainly, by Europeans to justify colonization but didn't start there.

Today, it has pretty well morphed itself into the medical establishment and is seen as not so much politically expedient as it is handy in identifying tendencies in various genetic groups of people (the sickle cell thing).

Using a 'label' or shorthand to simplify communication is a human trait but a 'model is just a model and not the thing modeled'.

Because it has been transposed into the biological field, the idea of separate races remains alive today. The odd thing is that such a method of distinction is NOT used in other countries, and, if they don't, why is it that it has no appreciable effect on the medical industry where notion of race has been dropped?

I don't know, perhaps because of some usefulness. Why do you think that medicine still uses race as a diagnostic criteria?

It's pure semantics. A rose is still a rose by any other name.

But one that has real world consequences and is deserving of discussion and not dismissal.

Originally posted by FyreByrd

Racism has been practised a lot longer then 400 years. It was used, certainly, by Europeans to justify colonization but didn't start there.

No? Please show me some instances where the term 'race' existed prior to the 1600's. You might be able to re-write history.

reply to post by masqua


Haha! Semantics again! The term 'race' as it pertains to us, humans, may have been coined 400 years ago but a form of racism has always been around. Call it prejudice, bias, bigotry, what ever... people have always hated, despised, feared, loathed others for being different. This can be seen in caste systems and through slavery.

I have always felt that racism(as in judging another on race and then discriminating) stems from a biological function innately, but as humans we have the ability to process the drive as it bubbles up within our brains. Perhaps it serves as a preservation drive at some deep level, assuring the dominance and/or thriving of a species.
Now it is like the appendix, a less required function that is an psychological appendage of our ancient selves?

A teacher once took us to the park to observe some ducks. There were white ducks and wild ducks in the same area and they both acted discriminately towards each other. We were told to examine the behavior. My impression was that initial discrimination had it's place in nature, but as humans, we can recognize this reaction within as it rises and see it for what it is, then let it go. Just my thoughts...

Peace,
spec

reply to post by kimish


Exactly... the sons of ham sham thingy.

Nobody ever enjoyed running into the strange 'not like us' bunch, but nobody in old Rome thought those burly Germanic tribes trashing the city were another 'race' of humans. After all, they had them in the Roman Legions for centuries already. Good soldiers, those Northerners. Kinda like when the Saxons invaded the British Isles. All that wild red hair blowing in the wind. Yeehaw Saxon spear men, Saxon bowmen.

Originally posted by kimish

Originally posted by masqua

Originally posted by kimish
Well then if what you say is true then shouldn't we do away with canine breeds? Instead of wolves, coyotes, dingos and dogs, we should just label them canines?

Question: Are all breeds of dogs 'dogs' or are they various breeds?

Standard breeds exist only because interbreeding is not allowed. Good thing we don't treat humans the same way... isn't it? In the same way, is a caucasian a breed or a race?

edit on 22/5/13 by masqua because: clarity

ETA: Yes, all dogs are dogs. But we have breeds of dogs to distinguish. Just as humans, correct? So by your logic there are no 'breeds' of humans. They are all one. As are dogs. But we label dogs by breeds because there are biological differences.

Inter breeding does occur, that's why we have mutts. In Austrailia dingos are breeding with domesticated dogs thinning out the dingo population. Soon enough dingos will cease to exist in Australia. But dogs are dogs and so forth. And there are 'breeds' of dogs. If there weren't breeds of dogs than names such as English Mastiff and Irish wolfhound wouldn't exist, right? They'd all be called 'dogs'?

Inter breeding is also the cause of different breeds. For example, the Dogo Argentino en.wikipedia.org... is a culmination of 10 breeds bred over a period of time to make one breed. And when Dogos are bred with other Dogos they have Dogo puppies. The same Breed/race

Is Caucasian a breed or a race? Well, because us humans are 'special' we label our breeds as races.

edit on 22-5-2013 by kimish because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-5-2013 by kimish because: (no reason given)

Caucasian is an outdated 18th taxonomic variant of the term Caucasoid, and it is no longer used by contemporary anthropologists.

Please read this:

"Humans show only modest levels of differentiation among populations when compared to other large-bodied mammals, and this level of differentiation is well below the usual threshold used to identify subspecies (races) in nonhuman species. Hence, human races do not exist under the traditional concept of a subspecies as being a geographically circumscribed population showing sharp genetic differentiation." - Jefferson M. Fish


Human variation lies on a continuum and it can't be partitioned into genetically distinct "races" or breeds; geographical ancestry or clines more aptly describes population groups. My dismissal of "race" as a valid and coherent biological category is not political correctness, it's rooted in a basic understanding of human variability.

Racism is treating your biological uniqueness of your ethnic background as some sort of victory you personally accomplished verses a simple luck of the draw.

It's being scared and or feeling inadequate and inferior around people different then you. It doesn't necessarily have to be skin color. White's and other colors are racist to their own skin.

Originally posted by kimish
If race is a social construct then why are some races more prone to some diseases and others are not? Cycle Cell Anemia is an example.

What you're describing here is borderline racism by definition Kimish...

Racism is usually defined as views, practices and actions reflecting the belief that humanity is divided into distinct biological groups called races and that members of a certain race share certain attributes which make that group as a whole less desirable, more desirable, inferior or superior.

Divided into distinct biological groups - check

Belief that members of a certain race share certain attributes which make that group more or less desirable, superior or inferior - check

Racism is not just the belief that some races are inferior overall - but more about dividing homo-sapiens into imaginary groups then believing some certain attributes make some races superior or inferior.

We are all one race, the human race, and it's the division based on superficial differences which lead to racism in the first place, and I think you're perpetuating those biological groups and inferior/superior attributes.

When we see ourselves as one species, one biological group (the homo sapien), it destroys racism.

It's the divisions which lead to racism occurring, although they alone are not enough - they are the starting point of it all.

reply to post by polarwarrior


Your quoted source says (in my words using the same dialogue) "usually defined as belief that humanity is divided into distinct biological groups called races" and "certain race share certain attributes which make that group as a whole less desirable, more desirable, inferior or superior". I've never said anything about one race being more desirable than another. I did say, however, that some races are better at some things (on average) than others.
[I used the -1+1 analogy in a previous post to best describe what I mean, I'm not too good at putting my thoughts into words]. I digress, some races are better than others at certain things (on average), this can't be disputed. Now, it doesn't mean that one race is inferior or more/less desirable, it just means that said race is better suited for X.

But according to your source, I am a racist. I'm ok with that. I call myself a race realist. And I don't hate anyone for the color of their skin or the clothes they wear or whom they pray to. I hate people that are assholes. And it just so happens that assholes come in all shapes and sizes.

There has been racism since the dawn of man. It will never end. It's a sad fact. The best we can do is to educate and appreciate one another. WWJD. The best it can do is alleviate a lot of the racism.

Originally posted by kimish

Your quoted source says (in my words using the same dialogue) "usually defined as belief that humanity is divided into distinct biological groups called races"

Belief = something one likes. A German word meaning to love.

There has been racism since the dawn of man.

I disagree. There has been tribalism since the dawn of man. Clans fighting clans, not 'races'.

It will never end.

True, and I agree that it's sad. It won't end until we all have a common enemy which is not human. Then we'll band together, but probably only temporarily.

WWJD

Interesting that you mention that, since the word 'race' is nowhere to be found in the bible.

The best it can do is alleviate a lot of the racism.

And tribalism, religious conflict, imperialism, class warfare and a whole range of other disreputable human traits. I'm with you on that.

Originally posted by kimish
reply to post by polarwarrior

 

Your quoted source says (in my words using the same dialogue) "usually defined as belief that humanity is divided into distinct biological groups called races" and "certain race share certain attributes which make that group as a whole less desirable, more desirable, inferior or superior". I've never said anything about one race being more desirable than another. I did say, however, that some races are better at some things (on average) than others.
[I used the -1+1 analogy in a previous post to best describe what I mean, I'm not too good at putting my thoughts into words]. I digress, some races are better than others at certain things (on average), this can't be disputed. Now, it doesn't mean that one race is inferior or more/less desirable, it just means that said race is better suited for X.

But according to your source, I am a racist. I'm ok with that. I call myself a race realist. And I don't hate anyone for the color of their skin or the clothes they wear or whom they pray to. I hate people that are assholes. And it just so happens that assholes come in all shapes and sizes.

There has been racism since the dawn of man. It will never end. It's a sad fact. The best we can do is to educate and appreciate one another. WWJD. The best it can do is alleviate a lot of the racism.

edit on 22-5-2013 by kimish because: (no reason given)

Ok there are local adaptation to environment this can be seen in the body's reaction to certain diseases ex; while some population of Africans and their descendants are susceptible to sickle cell disease not all carry the gene,interestingly enough Greeks and others carries the same exact trait

From these original foci of the HbS mutation, the gene spread along trading routes to North Africa and the Mediterranean, was transported in large populations to North and South America and the Caribbean during the slave trade, and latterly has spread to Northern Europe by immigration from the Caribbean, directly from Africa to the United Kingdom, France, Belgium, and Holland, and from Turkey to Germany. The relative prevalence of these haplotypes in the Americas reflects the different origins of their African peoples, approximately 70% of HbS associated chromosomes having the Benin haplotype, 10% Senegal and 10% Bantu. Haplotype frequencies in Jamaica are similar to the USA but the Bantu haplotype accounts for the majority of HbS associated chromosomes in Brazil.9 — Graham R. Serjeant, MD, FRCP, MRC Laboratories (Jamaica), University of the West Indies, Kingstom.
exploring-africa.blogspot.jp...

To view the study out side of a blog you will have to pay
www.sciencedirect.com...


Now body types and abilities Jamaicans and other blacks from the U.S are typically sprinters and could smoke a Kenyan in relatively short distances but run out of gas in a marathon are these different races or just adaptation based on environment.

Knew Sammy great guy in person..RIP..

racism is no knowing that we all bleed red unless your a xxxxxing vulcan