|
Click Here to Login |
Register | Premium Upgrade | Blogs | Gallery | Arcade | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read | Log in |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
![]() |
#31 | |
Blue Crack Supplier
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 31,351
Local Time: 11:32 PM
|
Quote:
my understanding is that it is the conclusion of scientific research in genetics. can't reference an article for you at work, but i believe i have it in a book somewhere at home. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#32 | |
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,440
Local Time: 04:32 AM
|
Quote:
What was that fascinating book a year ago about a little boy who was raised as a girl (or v/v, can't remember), but who rebelled against his/her social programming? It was a true story. Have to check that one.... |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#33 | |
Blue Crack Supplier
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 31,351
Local Time: 11:32 PM
|
Quote:
i'm fairly certain that there is no "race gene" -- but i'll look it up when i get home. and i think the lesson stands -- the genetic difference between two white Americans is no more or no less than the genetic difference between a black and a white American. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#34 |
Acrobat
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 442
Local Time: 04:32 AM
|
You're probably right considering the genes that code for outer appearance traits make up a small percentage of the genome as a whole.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#35 | |
Blue Crack Supplier
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 31,351
Local Time: 11:32 PM
|
Quote:
thus underscoring the scientific rejection of any notions that certain races have certain "traits." |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#36 |
ONE
love, blood, life Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ewen's new American home
Posts: 11,412
Local Time: 12:32 AM
|
I have read that racial characteristics are, genomically speaking, so insignificant that on a DNA level, every single human being is more than 99% identical.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#38 |
Blue Crack Supplier
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 31,351
Local Time: 11:32 PM
|
hmmmmm ... can't seem to find the book that i was talking about earlier -- stupid move, misplaced lots of things.
anyway -- race and gender, is it innate? i do feel confident in asserting, at least among academics, that "race" is a socially constructed concept. the meaning of "race" has evolved over centuries. racism itself developed as a set of ideologies and pseudo-scientific doctrines after the Renaissance, especially with the industrialization of Europe and the process of colonization. racism became universal. non-European peoples were seen as inferior, and material ripe for exploitation. non-wetsern cultures are still seen as obstacles to development, and the idea that there is even race to begin (and then the century's old justification for one race as being better than the other) has done a wonderful job maintaining colonialist attitudes and exploits, despite the fact that there is no biologically valid difference between the genetic make-up of different "races." racial identities are constituted by power relations, and western representations of race have created ethnic identities not through any actual difference but through novels, theater, painting, films, television, music and photography. essentailly, race is a "social imaginary" which divides various cultrual groups into "imagined communities" by bonmding them together in media narrations created, usually, by the dominant (white) culture. gender -- we need to contrast this with "sex," in order to understand the difference between social consturction and biological determination. feminist thought posits that society not only influences personality and behavior, but also the ways in which the body appears. if the body is seen through social interpretation, then sex is not something seperate from gender, but is only an artifice under it. feminism itself is still debating the biological male/female difference, and some deliberately blur the distinction. how? postmodernity, of course! gender and race do not have a fixed meaning. individuals are composites of subjective elements. no one is naturally male or female. femininity and masculinity are socially constructed, and po-mo feminists do not concern themselves with finding an "authentic" female, but in showing that social construction of gender involves power relations. so there's some theory for thought. sorry i can't find the science part, but like i said, i feel pretty confident. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#39 |
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 5,454
Local Time: 10:32 PM
|
and your conclusions, gentlemen?
Inquiring minds want to know. ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#40 |
Blue Crack Addict
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 25,880
Local Time: 11:32 PM
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#41 | |
Acrobat
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 442
Local Time: 04:32 AM
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#42 | |
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: MD
Posts: 7,604
Local Time: 12:32 AM
|
Math class is hard!
Everyone's favorite former Treasury Secretary turned university president gets in trouble again:
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#43 |
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 5,454
Local Time: 10:32 PM
|
the "lack of conclusions" on this issue by our male counterparts, for me, says as much as if they had actually stated a viewpoint on this issue.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#44 |
ONE
love, blood, life Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 02:32 PM
|
Race exists in this world, it would be wrong to suggest that there are absolutely no differences between a negro and a caucasian, I would venture that there are a good many differences for better or worse in each that while minor when considering the simmilarities are differences nontheless. I think that the push to ignore the taxanomic value of race is driven by political correctness and politics. Races do exist in this world however much they can be blurred in many parts of the world and in the final analysis these slight differences in appearance and some other functions have no effect on individual worth or potential. When tracing the origins of man is it not better to have an agreed benchmark for the differing populations.
I do wonder would you have considered race to be a social framework if you were comparing two groups that had never encountered one another. As for postmodenism, I find most of what is churned out by that to be complete and utter garbage especially when it starts to argue that there are no such things as facts and only interperatations. It really gets under my skin when some take it to such an extreme level I make the suggestion that they consume a big glass of dihydrogen sulfate safe in the knowledge that science is but a social construct equally as valid as tribal sun worship ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#45 | |
Blue Crack Supplier
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 31,351
Local Time: 11:32 PM
|
Quote:
race exists in this world because it was invented and then maintained. there are superfical differences between a white person and a black person, but these are cosmetic and nothing more, and of no greater biological difference than that between you (assuming you're a white australian) and me (a white american). however, you're focusing on biological differences between the races, and those are the least important. it is the invented, imagined cultural differences between the races that constitute what "race" actually is, and more importantly, how it functions in power relations and politics. race is more of a socio-political identity than a biological one. if you were to place two groups together who had never seen each other before, you'd have the beginnings of the makings of two different races. they'd regard each other, notice the difference, and then through language, stories, art, whatever cultural practices, replicate and interpret these differences thus pushing these two groups apart. yes, there might be a biological difference between the two, but it is first what is noticed by the human eye (the most obvious differences, skin color to begin with, then body shape characteristics) and then what specific featuers one race chooses to exagerate in order to distinguish themselvse from that race. convoluded? probably my fault ... let's take an example: blackface. minstrel shows. what these performances do, wonderfully, is emphasize the performative nature of race, and notice the features of african-americans that white-americans chose to exaggerate -- lips, skin color, and wildly emotive gestures. you then get a chicken-and-egg situation -- when a black person sees a white person imitating a black person, and when white people are in control of the methods of cultural reproduction, the effect becomes, "what if that's really how i am?" "what if that is how we act?" "what if that is how i should be acting." one then feeds into the other, and you basically have white people creating, in a sense, "black people." and now that we have a category of "black people," suddenly there can be "white people." all categories of social difference pretty much follow this pattern -- and i could continue this with some personal examples and observations on gay culture, but i should go do some work. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|