The FYM Racist Card Thread - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-25-2006, 09:39 PM   #1
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 07:12 PM
The FYM Racist Card Thread

I thought, since we all see both sides of the political spectrum play this card to their own political ends..... it would be interesting to have a universal RACE CARD thread.....

So here it is...

any time you feel the race card is being played, lets post about it in here.

Peace
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 01-25-2006, 09:47 PM   #2
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,689
Local Time: 06:12 PM
Thanks for posting this
__________________

__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 01-25-2006, 09:49 PM   #3
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 01:12 AM
^ Beat me to it!
__________________
yolland is offline  
Old 01-25-2006, 10:11 PM   #4
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 10:12 AM
How dare you! Race does not exist, it is all a social construction perpetuated by whitey to keep the black and brown man down, but theres no such thing as race because it is a social construction.

Repeat ad infinitum.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 01-25-2006, 10:32 PM   #5
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,496
Local Time: 07:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
How dare you! Race does not exist, it is all a social construction perpetuated by whitey to keep the black and brown man down, but theres no such thing as race because it is a social construction.

Repeat ad infinitum.

only sort of right.

race is not a social construct.

race is the performance of a social construct.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 01-25-2006, 11:25 PM   #6
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 10:12 AM
And any explorations into the biological nature of variation between breeding populations of human beings becomes a subject off limits.

Our similarities overwhelmingly outnumber our differences, but that does not make differences cease to exist.

Individual variation is also very large factor to be sure, the "science" of race from the 19th Century is very much a pseudoscience built upon an ethnocentric position. The idea of having common traits within a population occupying a specific environmental or geographic location with barriers but with gene flow with gradients between populations does not deserve to be thrown out the window in the name of anti-racism.

The existence of groups determined by multi-locus genetic analysis should not be used as a basis for bigotry. Race pride is absurd because populations are best suited to envionmental positions - the issues regarding intelligence and race are often cited by those with that particular sort of axe to grind, but that recent study of geometric competence within an Amazonian tribe shows that these attributes are deeply routed in humanity and did not arise since dispersal.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 01-25-2006, 11:47 PM   #7
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,689
Local Time: 06:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
And any explorations into the biological nature of variation between breeding populations of human beings becomes a subject off limits.

Well I think you answered that by admiting it's a pseudoscience based on bias.

IF there are any variations beyond the physical, it would be next to impossible to prove. The environmental factors are far too many.

Plus any "results" would prove to be far too dangerous.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 01-25-2006, 11:59 PM   #8
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 10:12 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


Well I think you answered that by admiting it's a pseudoscience based on bias.

IF there are any variations beyond the physical, it would be next to impossible to prove. The environmental factors are far too many.

Plus any "results" would prove to be far too dangerous.
Quite the contrary, taking measurements of the brain-pan of Nordic and Negroid specimens and demonstrating inherent Aryan superiority is pseudoscience. Performing genetic analysis on a set of DNA samples with proper methodology to avoid bias and group the samples according to genetic markers is not, that is scientific and is worthy of investigation.

Understanding the way in which humanity spread around the globe and our origins is based on the study of human variation and the exchange of genetic material.

Your statement about how results would be too dangerous shows that there is a danger that science becomes supressed for political reasons. That is a dangerous thing. It has paralells with the aims and designs of the creationist movement, namely supression of investigation and information to prevent a supposed belief system from being threatened.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 01-26-2006, 12:10 AM   #9
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,689
Local Time: 06:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Quite the contrary, taking measurements of the brain-pan of Nordic and Negroid specimens and demonstrating inherent Aryan superiority is pseudoscience. Performing genetic analysis on a set of DNA samples with proper methodology to avoid bias and group the samples according to genetic markers is not, that is scientific and is worthy of investigation.
But what can you tell from DNA alone? Can intelligence, behavior, etc be measured by DNA? I'm not sure what you are getting at.


Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer


Your statement about how results would be too dangerous shows that there is a danger that science becomes supressed for political reasons. That is a dangerous thing. It has paralells with the aims and designs of the creationist movement, namely supression of investigation and information to prevent a supposed belief system from being threatened.
Well you are proceeding under the assumption that racial profiling under science is plausible...

If it is, then you are right. But I haven't seen any studies to prove that, so until then I'll stick with the idea that it's dangerous.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 01-26-2006, 12:24 AM   #10
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 10:12 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


But what can you tell from DNA alone? Can intelligence, behavior, etc be measured by DNA? I'm not sure what you are getting at.
These are phenotypes - things that do have a degree of genetic determinism too but are also governed by environmental factors and random variation. Innate genetic differences for things like intelligence are minor compared to those differences caused by individual variation and environmental conditions (stick Albert Einstein to work in a coal mine from a young age and he would never have lent his mind to forming a new view of the universe).
Quote:
Well you are proceeding under the assumption that racial profiling under science is plausible...

If it is, then you are right. But I haven't seen any studies to prove that, so until then I'll stick with the idea that it's dangerous.
I do not think that it is dangerous, if there are common genetic factors within human populations that can lead to risk of certain diseases then understanding them and treating people with what will work the best is wise. The implications of race in a biological context extend beyond narrow minded discrimination and ill-founded assumptions of racial superiority.

Heres a paper as well
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 01-26-2006, 12:49 AM   #11
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,689
Local Time: 06:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
These are phenotypes - things that do have a degree of genetic determinism too but are also governed by environmental factors and random variation. Innate genetic differences for things like intelligence are minor compared to those differences caused by individual variation and environmental conditions (stick Albert Einstein to work in a coal mine from a young age and he would never have lent his mind to forming a new view of the universe).
This is exactly what I'm talking about...


Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer

I do not think that it is dangerous, if there are common genetic factors within human populations that can lead to risk of certain diseases then understanding them and treating people with what will work the best is wise. The implications of race in a biological context extend beyond narrow minded discrimination and ill-founded assumptions of racial superiority.
This is what I was trying to ask you. If you thought racial differences were "behavioral" or more "medical". I agree with the disease understanding of race, but I honestly don't think that's the point of most people who want to see the results of this type of science.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 01-26-2006, 01:02 AM   #12
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 10:12 AM
And if there is a genetic basis for race then it diminishes the hard line of race as an exclusively social construct.

Racial pride be it White Nationalism or Afrocentrism is flawed, the concept of genetic racial superiority can be readily disproven with the molecular data. The absence of racial superiority or inferiority does not in itself remove race and such a hardline position should not be taken. It is population genetics, it deals with geneflow within inbreeding populations and clinal variation and transmission of traits between distinct "races" over time.

There has not been enough seperation or time for the evolution of a more intelligent subspecies of Homo sapiens, if we do embark upon the path of genetic engineering then we could engineer people with greater potential intelligence and that potential would have a genetic basis.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 01-26-2006, 10:16 AM   #13
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,496
Local Time: 07:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
And if there is a genetic basis for race then it diminishes the hard line of race as an exclusively social construct.

Racial pride be it White Nationalism or Afrocentrism is flawed, the concept of genetic racial superiority can be readily disproven with the molecular data. The absence of racial superiority or inferiority does not in itself remove race and such a hardline position should not be taken. It is population genetics, it deals with geneflow within inbreeding populations and clinal variation and transmission of traits between distinct "races" over time.


right.

so race, as it is understood, is the performance of a social construct, otherwise known as culture.

the genetic differences you point out between "races" is absolutely valid, however that does not prove even the scientific existence of race. race definitions are usually sloppy, arbitrary, derived from custom and history, and that the existence of a "race" is willed into existence by the observer. "race" is an amalgamation of certain genetic traits -- insofar as such traits are affected and evolved through natural selection or migration -- but there is no race gene; there are no biologically singificant subcategories. "race" is simply not a valid way, either scientifically or culturally, to describe any population.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 01-26-2006, 01:32 PM   #14
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,430
Local Time: 12:12 AM
The old nature v. nurture debate... I remember this from my college days. As I recall, based on various studies, it's always a little of both.
__________________
nathan1977 is offline  
Old 01-26-2006, 09:03 PM   #15
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 10:12 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511

right.

so race, as it is understood, is the performance of a social construct, otherwise known as culture.
No it is not, in the complete absence of social interaction and expression, with thousands of samples of DNA from around the world, one can group them according to genetic markers, identify relationships and find the borders of distinct types and the clinal zones between them (which are a small part of the total).

Acknowledgement of distinct and identifiable groups of human beings on a genetic level that indicates common evolutionary linneage is defining race in biological terms.

Such methodology is independent of social interactions - it is objectively determining relationships between populations. It is a suspension of logic on par with young earth creationism to suppose that humanity is removed from the natural processes of evolution that act upon every other organism. It is not issuing arbitrary declarations of racial superiority, racial pride is not based upon evidence - it is based upon social expression. To pursue objective research into human population genetics is not arbitrary and requires very real and testable evidence to make conclusions with
Quote:
the genetic differences you point out between "races" is absolutely valid, however that does not prove even the scientific existence of race.
How so? Distinct and identifiable inbreeding populations with some gene flow from other populations. Identifying basal groups of human populations with genetic evidence and not arbitrary physiological evidence.

Quote:
race definitions are usually sloppy, arbitrary, derived from custom and history, and that the existence of a "race" is willed into existence by the observer.
One can hardly will into existence the genetic differences associated with inbreeding populations. Like many arguments the cultural invention of race requires the objective scientific evidence to have a very wide margin of uncertainty. Which is a good reason that the oft cited paper to support the absence of race (Lewontin RC, 1972) is used rather than more recent papers using more advanced and specific analysis which give contrary results (Edwards AW, 2003)
Quote:
"race" is an amalgamation of certain genetic traits -- insofar as such traits are affected and evolved through natural selection or migration -- but there is no race gene;
You are right there is no single gene to identify race, this is the argument of Lewontin, but when we analyise at multiple points of variation it is possible to distinguish people into well defined groups. There is no single race gene - that is true, likewise there is no single intelligence gene, it is a set of many different traits.
Quote:
there are no biologically singificant subcategories. "race" is simply not a valid way, either scientifically or culturally, to describe any population.
Wrong, there are statistically significant differences between inbreeding populations that can be objectively measured allowing grouping of individuals. These groups have some correlation to what we have considered race at a cursory level but reconstructions can be much more accurate in depicting the history of change and gene flow between populations.

It is a controversial subject to be sure. But to deny any and all evidence that identifiable groups of race exist as a reaction to history is wrong.

Race defined as identifiable groups of human beings that can be quantified by genetic evidence, with blurry clinal variation between boundaries and with complex histories of gene flow does exist. Human beings are subject to evolutionary mechanisms just as much as other species in the world and we can apply taxonomy to humanity - like most things in the natural world this is not a heirachy of development and any slight variation in aptitude between basal groups is outdone by individual variation. But that does not stop the basal groups themselves from existing.
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:12 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com