IGCSE/GCSE/O & A Level/IB/University Student Forum
Teachers and Students => Debates => Topic started by: sabbath_92 on September 19, 2010, 07:29:16 am
-
Well to be honest, it's probably not as profound, since there aren't that many 'races' as the Indian subcontinent is not as diverse as the more developed countries. What I'm talking about is more akin to the term 'colourism', or the caste system or just any kind of discrimination based on things one wouldn't have control of. Say how the caste system in India still prevails, or how the Hazara ethnic group in Afghanistan are discriminated against because they are deemed 'inferior'. Has there been progress made in order to counteract these backward notions, or does it seem like we are bound to live with this ignorance for a long time to come? What are your thoughts on these? Do you ever find yourself discriminating someone on things like this?
I was watching the kite runner a moment ago, and this came to my mind :p, and I don't know if this is the appropriate board, but yah serious issue we are talking about here.
-
Rascism is only a little bit different from the glue that keeps society functioning.
-
Rascism is only a little bit different from the glue that keeps society functioning.
How so? Surely a society would function better and be more productive without the pointless hate-mongering and discrimination?
-
How so? Surely a society would function better and be more productive without the pointless hate-mongering and discrimination?
The roots are quite deep. You think people can live without prejudices?
-
The roots are quite deep. You think people can live without prejudices?
Yes. I come from a open minded family and am yet to meet a full on racist. And this is not the point. This is the 21st century and it's time these prehistoric narrow minded notions are put to rest.
-
Yes. I come from a open minded family and am yet to meet a full on racist. And this is not the point. This is the 21st century and it's time these prehistoric narrow minded notions are put to rest.
Races and societies thrive because of this. Survival goes to the fittest and groupism is the best way to ensure that.
-
Races and societies thrive because of this. Survival goes to the fittest and groupism is the best way to ensure that.
Thanks for the neo nazi input.
-
Isn't sexism racism against women?
-
I think we're all stupid :-\
-
I think we're all stupid :-\
REJECTED - comment not racist enough. 8)
I wouldn't say that racism is a positive emotion or that it should, in any way, be encouraged in the modern society but like many sad truths about our world this is one of those: we are born with superiority and inferiority complexes. Some of these beliefs are the fundamentals of a human brain--a Psychology major would understand--some are ingrained in us by our family, friends and general environment. But the most important factor, in all of this, is really about who we want to be and how we approach life. Racism is actually a reflection of what we see in ourselves when we look in the mirror, in my opinion.
Because of the slow progress in terms of developing our mindsets and beliefs in the South-Asian world, the reasons for which are very evident and need not be rambled upon, our environment has never helped to reduce racist attitudes. For instance, there is a trend of marrying within your castes in the Muslims and Hindus, which has dwindled over time but not sufficiently. Even if you ask a very educated and independent family why they are so stringent about this, they would maybe argue that the customs of other castes are impossible to cope with, the society would never accept such an act and blah blah blah. Translation of their reasoning: I'm okay with studying for fifteen hours on a Science exam, but never have I pursued to change this very important part of my life.
Racism exists fiercely in other forms throughout the world, from Africans slaughterings non-Africans simply 'because' and people from different parts of China refusing to patch up. It's even worse in the Western world, and though government stability contributes to providing equal rights to all races and creeds, it's not always successful. Ever wondered why? Because racism isn't just a political and nationwide issue; it's a personal game. To accept all races are equal, and that the Chinese really are very healthy (hard for people with superiority complexes) and that they eat living snakes (hard for people with inferiority complexes). Sadly, these attempts to differentiate yourself, your race and your background are just indicators of a low self-esteem, a desperate mechanism to gain attention and find some meaning to one's life.
-
It wasn't meant to be :P
We're all stupid...so I ain't being racist at all. ;D
-
It wasn't meant to be :P
We're all stupid...so I ain't being racist at all. ;D
See the irony. ::)
-
Thanks for the neo nazi input.
I was referring to the biological and psychological factor behind racism.
Just because fascists and nazis use the idea in wrong way doesn't make Darwinism invalid.Everyone is subject to the laws of Darwinism whether or not they believe in them, agree with them, or accept them. There is no trial, no jury, no argument, and no appeal.
You can try and argue but this is the way people behave. The selfish gene.
Does it mean I am a racist? Hell no. It just means you don't accept the truth. If you refuse to believe, then it's your problem with reality, not mine.
-
Yes. I come from a open minded family and am yet to meet a full on racist. And this is not the point. This is the 21st century and it's time these prehistoric narrow minded notions are put to rest.
Then you have yet to see the world in all its ugliness.
-
Strange that many Russians are neo nazis. I couldnt persuade one yesterday that black people had a right to life.
-
I was referring to the biological and psychological factor behind racism.
Just because fascists and nazis use the idea in wrong way doesn't make Darwinism invalid.Everyone is subject to the laws of Darwinism whether or not they believe in them, agree with them, or accept them. There is no trial, no jury, no argument, and no appeal.
You can try and argue but this is the way people behave. The selfish gene.
Does it mean I am a racist? Hell no. It just means you don't accept the truth. If you refuse to believe, then it's your problem with reality, not mine.
There is no biological factor behind racism. Yes, you might suggest that it's genetic (or, more properly, evolutionary) in that it was of benefit to the survival of early tribal 'proto-humans' to be instinctively distrustful of creatures who were significantly different from them, but there hasn't been ANY biological evidence that different races of human beings exist today. Of course you get stereotypes arising out cultures, appearance etc, but in the genetic level there aren't much differences from a person of African or Asian descent. The 'Darwinism' you mention in this paragraph is pure ignorance because for it to fit the bill you have to assume that homo sapiens have gone through further evolution as different races, when in REALITY there is no evidence of this. Unless you can prove me wrong. And from my experience, it's the multicultural cities in the world that are the ones that flourish the most.
The selfish gene is a different thing altogether and it's out of context. People are more likely to survive if they make efficient use of the resources available to them ignoring their petty prejudices aside, and thankfully that's the way we seem to be heading towards.
Racism is better explained through the fact that it is a curse that is INGRAiNED into the human psyche from experiences/family background rather than something you are born with.
-
Would I start a war here if I mentioned the Bell curve?
incidentally the chinese are supposed to be the most intelligent because of the tight nkit social structure needed to cultive rice in paddy fields.
England on the other hand was a wilderness inhabited by cavemen until the Romans came, about 4000 years after the first civilisation started, if by civilisation you mean the first organized settlements with proper power structures.
-
Would I start a war here if I mentioned the Bell curve?
The book has a number of fallacies.First of all it states that human intelligence is limited to g and only IQ tests can measure that. Secondly,it also mentions that g cannot be changed.
incidentally the chinese are supposed to be the most intelligent because of the tight nkit social structure needed to cultive rice in paddy fields.
England on the other hand was a wilderness inhabited by cavemen until the Romans came, about 4000 years after the first civilisation started, if by civilisation you mean the first organized settlements with proper power structures.
There is no support for genetic intelligence.... However we can assume that it's a form of evolution too. Right now where the world is headed, brains may turn into a vestigial organ. Hail the idiot box!
-
I saw an astounding video of an aboriginal girl doing an intelligence test. She had a minute to look at some objects then they were all jumbled and she had to remeber where they were. I think there were 20 or so and she scored 100%, where a western child might score 30%.
That intelligence is evolved cos survival for aboriginals in the desert depends on remebering the lay of the land and where the waterholes are. I think aboriginals probably have the same sort of intelligence. We don't need it in England cos there is water everywhere.
-
Intelligence relies on the principle use it or lose it. It is already accepted that the more complex environment an animal lives in, the smarter it gets.I guess that's what happened with our ancestors. They had to rely on their intelligence as they lacked the physical prowess for their survival.
But it's different now because survival is no more a problem for us. Our evolution has led to loss of the superior senses and agility our ancestors possessed. More and more people with ADD. Couch potatoes everywhere. The likelihood of our future generations lacking skills to do basic maths and having oversized stomachs is highly plausible.
-
We have genetically enhance intelligence to look forward to.
Imagine having an IQ of1000000000000000000000000000000 in one easy gene treatment.
-
Strange that many Russians are neo nazis. I couldnt persuade one yesterday that black people had a right to life.
Not surprised. Have a Russian guy in my school who thinks the same; except about all coloured people.
-
We have genetically enhance intelligence to look forward to.
Imagine having an IQ of1000000000000000000000000000000 in one easy gene treatment.
As far as racism is concerned, it is a learned trait, not inherited.
-
Rascism is inherited. It is probably the same thing that makes persian cats like other persian cats and not burmese cats or russian blue cats.
-
Rascism is inherited. It is probably the same thing that makes persian cats like other persian cats and not burmese cats or russian blue cats.
Racism is how the persian cat behaves with russian blue cats or burmese cats. They develop a superiority complex, they are not born with it.
-
I hate Racists people. >:(
If i had a chance, and i had a Nazi like Determination in me and those around me
I would literally Dance with them all >:(
-
All cats have a superiority complex.
-
I hate Racists people. >:(
If i had a chance, and i had a Nazi like Determination in me and those around me
I would literally Dance with them all >:(
WOW!
-
All cats have a superiority complex.
My grandma had kittens. When they were little, the black,brown,grey and white kittens would play together. :S
My cat looked like this (http://www.sheltermedicine.com/documents/scuba%20steve.jpg)
He never really had problems with the color of their fur...but they had problems with his. He died fighting another cat. Believe it.
-
He is now at a higher place. May his soul rest in peace :'(
O0
Yeah I miss him
-
My grandma had kittens.
Must have been painful.
-
My grandma had kittens.
Must have been painful.
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL.
(Y)
-
We have genetically enhance intelligence to look forward to.
Imagine having an IQ of1000000000000000000000000000000 in one easy gene treatment.
I don't think that much iq is possible. Again iq tests have a lot of problems.
It'd be better if we could do it like Neo. Download information directly into our brain. And learn martial arts in 3 seconds. 8)
-
As far as racism is concerned, it is a learned trait, not inherited.
Wrong. You are stating your beliefs without evidence.
-
There is no biological factor behind racism. Yes, you might suggest that it's genetic (or, more properly, evolutionary) in that it was of benefit to the survival of early tribal 'proto-humans' to be instinctively distrustful of creatures who were significantly different from them, but there hasn't been ANY biological evidence that different races of human beings exist today. Of course you get stereotypes arising out cultures, appearance etc, but in the genetic level there aren't much differences from a person of African or Asian descent.
That is such a huge claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
I suspect this belief has come into people because of the human genome project. They state "All human races are 99.99 % alike, so racial differences are genetically insignificant." The proof that they claim is unfortunately no proof at all. Everybody knows that in genetics, a difference of 0.1% is an ENORMOUS difference,
Comparing all the sources it has been found that the percentage difference is 99.5% not 99.99%. This 99.9 % thing is due to source error.
But if we compare it like that,Chimpanzees are 96% to 98% similar to humans, depending on how it is calculated.
- Cats have 90% of homologous genes with humans, 82% with dogs, 80% with cows, 79% with chimpanzees, 69% with rats and 67% with mice.
- Cows are 80% genetically similar to humans
- 75% of mouse genes have equivalents in humans , 90% of the mouse genome could be lined up with a region on the human genome 99% of mouse genes turn out to have analogues in humans (source)
- The fruit fly (Drosophila) shares about 60% of its DNA with humans
- About 60% of chicken genes correspond to a similar human gene.
- Bananas share about 50% to 70 % of its DNA with humans. (So are we bananas?)
A difference of only 0.1% therefore shows that people will have around three million base pairs in their DNA.(Keep in mind that it's about 0.5%) Yes, three million. And remember that it only takes ONE to turn an otherwise healthy human into someone who has Progeria for example. Just a single error out of more than one million base pairs prevented it from working at first. At that level, a very little can mean an awful lot.
Also Human genome project never proved that races don't exist. It proved that every human being on the planet is a human being. This point is irrefutable. You're just trying to say that because we're all the same SPECIES that there are no separate RACES. If that was the case, we'd all be one color with all the same traits...etc...etc. I don't understand why it is so hard to wrap one's mind around the fact that because you can determine differences between different populations, race is real.
Every other species on the planet has group variations WITHIN the species, yet current liberal dogma insists that human beings are an exception to this rule. As far as biology is concerned, putting human beings on a pedestal apart from other animals is about as "non scientific" as you can get.
If you dug up bones from hundreds/thousands of years ago, you could determine what the race of the skeleton was. If race isn't real, how is this possible? If science can determine this, how is there no genetic basis for race?And a dna test can determine someone’s racial ancestry even though race doesn't exist? Lol
Race is a "social construct" in the sense that, the classification is man made - as are all classifications. One can argue gender does not exist on the same ground one argues race does not exist - you won't get far with either. Race is real, to the extent any other genetic classification is real.
Bear in mind that race is perhaps the most polarizing and sensitive issue in the scientific community today and as such, it's very difficult for people in academia to present their unfettered opinion on the subject without serious repercussions (i.e., the Dr. James Watson controversy surrounding his views on Africa).
Most physical anthropologists, population geneticists, behavior geneticists, and psychologists who wish to keep their reputations untarnished understand that they have to do the ceremonial "race denial" at the beginning of their published works involving race; if they fail to do this, they face mass condemnation (as James Watson did). However, there do exist scientists who won't be intimated by the political climate and will openly state the biological validity of race. These people aren't crazed lunatics on the fringes of the scientific establishment, but rather published/peer-reviewed, widely respected, award-winning experts in their fields of research.
Most scientists don't deny race at all; they simply replace the word "race" with more politically correct terms, such as "population groups" or "clines", and so on. Seems familiar?
The truth of the matter is, the scientific community hasn't disproved race at all, it's one of the areas of most contention in the discipline. Most scientists will tell you that "not enough research has been done on the subject to know one way or another" (when in actuality there has been), then you'll find a minority of scientists who say that race, does indeed, exist and opposing minority which contends that it doesn't.
The reason why most anthropology textbooks, for example, get away with saying race "doesn't exist" is because they invariably set up an outdated straw man as a definition for race. However, after burning that straw man and claiming that, as a result, race is merely a "social construct," they always subsequently make mention of the bell curve theory and sociobiology, and state how "controversial" race remains in the academic community today.
Slightly over half of all biological/physical anthropologists today believe in the traditional view that human races are biologically valid and real. Furthermore, they tend to see nothing wrong in defining and naming the different populations of Homo sapiens. The other half of the biological anthropology community believes either that the traditional racial categories for humankind are arbitrary and meaningless, or that at a minimum there are better ways to look at human variation than through the 'racial lens.'
Is it wrong wishing things were different? Is it wrong disagreeing with natures unjustness?
What about reality?
What about the the truth?
What about the obvious?
Sorry to break it down to you , but race exists BIOLOGICALLY. Go on and ignore all of those to make yourself feel better. See, human beings are not equal. "ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL, BUT SOME ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS"
The fact that a racial denier is happier than a believer is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one.
-
That is such a huge claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
I suspect this belief has come into people because of the human genome project. They state "All human races are 99.99 % alike, so racial differences are genetically insignificant." The proof that they claim is unfortunately no proof at all. Everybody knows that in genetics, a difference of 0.1% is an ENORMOUS difference,
Comparing all the sources it has been found that the percentage difference is 99.5% not 99.99%. This 99.9 % thing is due to source error.
But if we compare it like that,Chimpanzees are 96% to 98% similar to humans, depending on how it is calculated.
- Cats have 90% of homologous genes with humans, 82% with dogs, 80% with cows, 79% with chimpanzees, 69% with rats and 67% with mice.
- Cows are 80% genetically similar to humans
- 75% of mouse genes have equivalents in humans , 90% of the mouse genome could be lined up with a region on the human genome 99% of mouse genes turn out to have analogues in humans (source)
- The fruit fly (Drosophila) shares about 60% of its DNA with humans
- About 60% of chicken genes correspond to a similar human gene.
- Bananas share about 50% to 70 % of its DNA with humans. (So are we bananas?)
A difference of only 0.1% therefore shows that people will have around three million base pairs in their DNA.(Keep in mind that it's about 0.5%) Yes, three million. And remember that it only takes ONE to turn an otherwise healthy human into someone who has Progeria for example. Just a single error out of more than one million base pairs prevented it from working at first. At that level, a very little can mean an awful lot.
Also Human genome project never proved that races don't exist. It proved that every human being on the planet is a human being. This point is irrefutable. You're just trying to say that because we're all the same SPECIES that there are no separate RACES. If that was the case, we'd all be one color with all the same traits...etc...etc. I don't understand why it is so hard to wrap one's mind around the fact that because you can determine differences between different populations, race is real.
Every other species on the planet has group variations WITHIN the species, yet current liberal dogma insists that human beings are an exception to this rule. As far as biology is concerned, putting human beings on a pedestal apart from other animals is about as "non scientific" as you can get.
If you dug up bones from hundreds/thousands of years ago, you could determine what the race of the skeleton was. If race isn't real, how is this possible? If science can determine this, how is there no genetic basis for race?And a dna test can determine someone’s racial ancestry even though race doesn't exist? Lol
Race is a "social construct" in the sense that, the classification is man made - as are all classifications. One can argue gender does not exist on the same ground one argues race does not exist - you won't get far with either. Race is real, to the extent any other genetic classification is real.
Bear in mind that race is perhaps the most polarizing and sensitive issue in the scientific community today and as such, it's very difficult for people in academia to present their unfettered opinion on the subject without serious repercussions (i.e., the Dr. James Watson controversy surrounding his views on Africa).
Most physical anthropologists, population geneticists, behavior geneticists, and psychologists who wish to keep their reputations untarnished understand that they have to do the ceremonial "race denial" at the beginning of their published works involving race; if they fail to do this, they face mass condemnation (as James Watson did). However, there do exist scientists who won't be intimated by the political climate and will openly state the biological validity of race. These people aren't crazed lunatics on the fringes of the scientific establishment, but rather published/peer-reviewed, widely respected, award-winning experts in their fields of research.
Most scientists don't deny race at all; they simply replace the word "race" with more politically correct terms, such as "population groups" or "clines", and so on. Seems familiar?
The truth of the matter is, the scientific community hasn't disproved race at all, it's one of the areas of most contention in the discipline. Most scientists will tell you that "not enough research has been done on the subject to know one way or another" (when in actuality there has been), then you'll find a minority of scientists who say that race, does indeed, exist and opposing minority which contends that it doesn't.
The reason why most anthropology textbooks, for example, get away with saying race "doesn't exist" is because they invariably set up an outdated straw man as a definition for race. However, after burning that straw man and claiming that, as a result, race is merely a "social construct," they always subsequently make mention of the bell curve theory and sociobiology, and state how "controversial" race remains in the academic community today.
Slightly over half of all biological/physical anthropologists today believe in the traditional view that human races are biologically valid and real. Furthermore, they tend to see nothing wrong in defining and naming the different populations of Homo sapiens. The other half of the biological anthropology community believes either that the traditional racial categories for humankind are arbitrary and meaningless, or that at a minimum there are better ways to look at human variation than through the 'racial lens.'
Is it wrong wishing things were different? Is it wrong disagreeing with natures unjustness?
What about reality?
What about the the truth?
What about the obvious?
Sorry to break it down to you , but race exists BIOLOGICALLY. Go on and ignore all of those to make yourself feel better. See, human beings are not equal. "ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL, BUT SOME ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS"
The fact that a racial denier is happier than a believer is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one.
Impressive. :)
Is that you? :P
Wonderful job Sabbath. You brought out an 'Abortion mistake' we knew not. ;)
-
That is such a huge claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
I suspect this belief has come into people because of the human genome project. They state "All human races are 99.99 % alike, so racial differences are genetically insignificant." The proof that they claim is unfortunately no proof at all. Everybody knows that in genetics, a difference of 0.1% is an ENORMOUS difference,
Comparing all the sources it has been found that the percentage difference is 99.5% not 99.99%. This 99.9 % thing is due to source error.
But if we compare it like that,Chimpanzees are 96% to 98% similar to humans, depending on how it is calculated.
- Cats have 90% of homologous genes with humans, 82% with dogs, 80% with cows, 79% with chimpanzees, 69% with rats and 67% with mice.
- Cows are 80% genetically similar to humans
- 75% of mouse genes have equivalents in humans , 90% of the mouse genome could be lined up with a region on the human genome 99% of mouse genes turn out to have analogues in humans (source)
- The fruit fly (Drosophila) shares about 60% of its DNA with humans
- About 60% of chicken genes correspond to a similar human gene.
- Bananas share about 50% to 70 % of its DNA with humans. (So are we bananas?)
A difference of only 0.1% therefore shows that people will have around three million base pairs in their DNA.(Keep in mind that it's about 0.5%) Yes, three million. And remember that it only takes ONE to turn an otherwise healthy human into someone who has Progeria for example. Just a single error out of more than one million base pairs prevented it from working at first. At that level, a very little can mean an awful lot.
Also Human genome project never proved that races don't exist. It proved that every human being on the planet is a human being. This point is irrefutable. You're just trying to say that because we're all the same SPECIES that there are no separate RACES. If that was the case, we'd all be one color with all the same traits...etc...etc. I don't understand why it is so hard to wrap one's mind around the fact that because you can determine differences between different populations, race is real.
Every other species on the planet has group variations WITHIN the species, yet current liberal dogma insists that human beings are an exception to this rule. As far as biology is concerned, putting human beings on a pedestal apart from other animals is about as "non scientific" as you can get.
If you dug up bones from hundreds/thousands of years ago, you could determine what the race of the skeleton was. If race isn't real, how is this possible? If science can determine this, how is there no genetic basis for race?And a dna test can determine someone’s racial ancestry even though race doesn't exist? Lol
Race is a "social construct" in the sense that, the classification is man made - as are all classifications. One can argue gender does not exist on the same ground one argues race does not exist - you won't get far with either. Race is real, to the extent any other genetic classification is real.
Bear in mind that race is perhaps the most polarizing and sensitive issue in the scientific community today and as such, it's very difficult for people in academia to present their unfettered opinion on the subject without serious repercussions (i.e., the Dr. James Watson controversy surrounding his views on Africa).
Most physical anthropologists, population geneticists, behavior geneticists, and psychologists who wish to keep their reputations untarnished understand that they have to do the ceremonial "race denial" at the beginning of their published works involving race; if they fail to do this, they face mass condemnation (as James Watson did). However, there do exist scientists who won't be intimated by the political climate and will openly state the biological validity of race. These people aren't crazed lunatics on the fringes of the scientific establishment, but rather published/peer-reviewed, widely respected, award-winning experts in their fields of research.
Most scientists don't deny race at all; they simply replace the word "race" with more politically correct terms, such as "population groups" or "clines", and so on. Seems familiar?
The truth of the matter is, the scientific community hasn't disproved race at all, it's one of the areas of most contention in the discipline. Most scientists will tell you that "not enough research has been done on the subject to know one way or another" (when in actuality there has been), then you'll find a minority of scientists who say that race, does indeed, exist and opposing minority which contends that it doesn't.
The reason why most anthropology textbooks, for example, get away with saying race "doesn't exist" is because they invariably set up an outdated straw man as a definition for race. However, after burning that straw man and claiming that, as a result, race is merely a "social construct," they always subsequently make mention of the bell curve theory and sociobiology, and state how "controversial" race remains in the academic community today.
Slightly over half of all biological/physical anthropologists today believe in the traditional view that human races are biologically valid and real. Furthermore, they tend to see nothing wrong in defining and naming the different populations of Homo sapiens. The other half of the biological anthropology community believes either that the traditional racial categories for humankind are arbitrary and meaningless, or that at a minimum there are better ways to look at human variation than through the 'racial lens.'
Is it wrong wishing things were different? Is it wrong disagreeing with natures unjustness?
What about reality?
What about the the truth?
What about the obvious?
Sorry to break it down to you , but race exists BIOLOGICALLY. Go on and ignore all of those to make yourself feel better. See, human beings are not equal. "ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL, BUT SOME ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS"
The fact that a racial denier is happier than a believer is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one.
This was STUNNING MAN.
You Just OWN opponents in Debates.You have tried Model United nations senore?
You would have won hands down if you have participated.
-
Thanks Alpha and Arsenal. ::)
Don't hate me when I say most of my debate experience comes from debating religion. :P
The 'Darwinism' you mention in this paragraph is pure ignorance because for it to fit the bill you have to assume that homo sapiens have gone through further evolution as different races, when in REALITY there is no evidence of this.
Social darwinism. Please understand the context.
The selfish gene is a different thing altogether and it's out of context. People are more likely to survive if they make efficient use of the resources available to them ignoring their petty prejudices aside, and thankfully that's the way we seem to be heading towards.
It seems you and I read different books. If not , wikipedia doesn't summarise the book properly.
Selfish gene - serving their own interests. Sacrificing themselves to protect the lives of its kin- "Kin selection"
Equals to Racism on a smaller scale.
-
Thanks ~~~~~ and ~~~~~~~~. ::)
That wasn't a typographical mistake.
Dude, you don't shoot someone who holds a gun.
I can start with the P-thing too. ::)
-
I'm a mistake - legalize abortion!
With a name like that you could get away with anything
-
[SPOILER]
That is such a huge claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
I suspect this belief has come into people because of the human genome project. They state "All human races are 99.99 % alike, so racial differences are genetically insignificant." The proof that they claim is unfortunately no proof at all. Everybody knows that in genetics, a difference of 0.1% is an ENORMOUS difference,
Comparing all the sources it has been found that the percentage difference is 99.5% not 99.99%. This 99.9 % thing is due to source error.
But if we compare it like that,Chimpanzees are 96% to 98% similar to humans, depending on how it is calculated.
- Cats have 90% of homologous genes with humans, 82% with dogs, 80% with cows, 79% with chimpanzees, 69% with rats and 67% with mice.
- Cows are 80% genetically similar to humans
- 75% of mouse genes have equivalents in humans , 90% of the mouse genome could be lined up with a region on the human genome 99% of mouse genes turn out to have analogues in humans (source)
- The fruit fly (Drosophila) shares about 60% of its DNA with humans
- About 60% of chicken genes correspond to a similar human gene.
- Bananas share about 50% to 70 % of its DNA with humans. (So are we bananas?)
A difference of only 0.1% therefore shows that people will have around three million base pairs in their DNA.(Keep in mind that it's about 0.5%) Yes, three million. And remember that it only takes ONE to turn an otherwise healthy human into someone who has Progeria for example. Just a single error out of more than one million base pairs prevented it from working at first. At that level, a very little can mean an awful lot.
Also Human genome project never proved that races don't exist. It proved that every human being on the planet is a human being. This point is irrefutable. You're just trying to say that because we're all the same SPECIES that there are no separate RACES. If that was the case, we'd all be one color with all the same traits...etc...etc. I don't understand why it is so hard to wrap one's mind around the fact that because you can determine differences between different populations, race is real.
Every other species on the planet has group variations WITHIN the species, yet current liberal dogma insists that human beings are an exception to this rule. As far as biology is concerned, putting human beings on a pedestal apart from other animals is about as "non scientific" as you can get.
If you dug up bones from hundreds/thousands of years ago, you could determine what the race of the skeleton was. If race isn't real, how is this possible? If science can determine this, how is there no genetic basis for race?And a dna test can determine someone’s racial ancestry even though race doesn't exist? Lol
Race is a "social construct" in the sense that, the classification is man made - as are all classifications. One can argue gender does not exist on the same ground one argues race does not exist - you won't get far with either. Race is real, to the extent any other genetic classification is real.
Bear in mind that race is perhaps the most polarizing and sensitive issue in the scientific community today and as such, it's very difficult for people in academia to present their unfettered opinion on the subject without serious repercussions (i.e., the Dr. James Watson controversy surrounding his views on Africa).
Most physical anthropologists, population geneticists, behavior geneticists, and psychologists who wish to keep their reputations untarnished understand that they have to do the ceremonial "race denial" at the beginning of their published works involving race; if they fail to do this, they face mass condemnation (as James Watson did). However, there do exist scientists who won't be intimated by the political climate and will openly state the biological validity of race. These people aren't crazed lunatics on the fringes of the scientific establishment, but rather published/peer-reviewed, widely respected, award-winning experts in their fields of research.
Most scientists don't deny race at all; they simply replace the word "race" with more politically correct terms, such as "population groups" or "clines", and so on. Seems familiar?
The truth of the matter is, the scientific community hasn't disproved race at all, it's one of the areas of most contention in the discipline. Most scientists will tell you that "not enough research has been done on the subject to know one way or another" (when in actuality there has been), then you'll find a minority of scientists who say that race, does indeed, exist and opposing minority which contends that it doesn't.
The reason why most anthropology textbooks, for example, get away with saying race "doesn't exist" is because they invariably set up an outdated straw man as a definition for race. However, after burning that straw man and claiming that, as a result, race is merely a "social construct," they always subsequently make mention of the bell curve theory and sociobiology, and state how "controversial" race remains in the academic community today.
Slightly over half of all biological/physical anthropologists today believe in the traditional view that human races are biologically valid and real. Furthermore, they tend to see nothing wrong in defining and naming the different populations of Homo sapiens. The other half of the biological anthropology community believes either that the traditional racial categories for humankind are arbitrary and meaningless, or that at a minimum there are better ways to look at human variation than through the 'racial lens.'
Is it wrong wishing things were different? Is it wrong disagreeing with natures unjustness?
What about reality?
What about the the truth?
What about the obvious?
Sorry to break it down to you , but race exists BIOLOGICALLY. Go on and ignore all of those to make yourself feel better. See, human beings are not equal. "ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL, BUT SOME ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS"
The fact that a racial denier is happier than a believer is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one.
[/SPOILER]
Lol this is rubbish. You are basically providing information someone would learn in a grade 10 biology class as 'evidence'. I can't be bothered to explain all the points bit by bit, maybe in a few days.
It seems you and I read different books. If not , wikipedia doesn't summarise the book properly.
Selfish gene - serving their own interests. Sacrificing themselves to protect the lives of its kin- "Kin selection"
Equals to Racism on a smaller scale.
Kin doesn't equal to race. It means looking out for your own, and it doesn't always have to be for people of your own ethnicity. Ethnicity maybe one of the categories but you can't isolate it as the only way in which the 'selfish gene' works. I suggest you read a book that wasn't written during the time Darwin was around as many advances has been made.
-
[SPOILER][/SPOILER]
Lol this is rubbish. You are basically providing information someone would learn in a grade 10 biology class as 'evidence'. I can't be bothered to explain all the points bit by bit, maybe in a few days.
10th grade science is enough to ward off ignorant people like you who has provided no information, no evidence, just ignorant wild claims and refusal to accept reality. ;D Why don't you try and debunk this 10th grade science ? Can't?
And from my experience, it's the multicultural cities in the world that are the ones that flourish the most.
So you call this an evidence huh? :D Your belief has NOTHING to do with reality.
I can provide lots of evidence (Peer reviewed papers, etc) but I'll wait and see what you'll do first. Cheers
-
What about social darwinism?
This has a lot to do with race.
Chinese/Indian people are damned good businesspeople but Africans/South Americans are not.
This must have a genetic origin in part cos Africans and South Americans in rich countries dont become nearly as successful in business even after several generations.
Behaviour is determined by genes in part - see how identical twins separated at birth may pursue identical careers, marry almost identical people, like the same food, films, books etc.
-
What about social darwinism?
This has a lot to do with race.
Chinese/Indian people are damned good businesspeople but Africans/South Americans are not.
This must have a genetic origin in part cos Africans and South Americans in rich countries dont become nearly as successful in business even after several generations.
Behaviour is determined by genes in part - see how identical twins separated at birth may pursue identical careers, marry almost identical people, like the same food, films, books etc.
You can't stereotype the whole population of the world's second largest continent based on the thought that Africans aren't good businessmen, especially when it is an established fact that we are all descended with origins from that continent, AND the fact that there is more genetic variation between Africans themselves than Africans and some other ethnicity. (source:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30502963/).
The reason that African economies are so far behind is because of lack of proper leadership in the time it was required the most, corruption and possibly cultural differences. One reason that Indians or Chinese people are better business people can be explained by the effect of nature vs. nurture, which pretty much also sums up the whole issue about the differences between the races. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_versus_nurture
-
10th grade science is enough to ward off ignorant people like you who has provided no information, no evidence, just ignorant wild claims and refusal to accept reality. ;D Why don't you try and debunk this 10th grade science ? Can't?
So you call this an evidence huh? :D Your belief has NOTHING to do with reality.
I can provide lots of evidence (Peer reviewed papers, etc) but I'll wait and see what you'll do first. Cheers
This is rubbish because there are mistakes in your sources and your pseudo-intellectualism is laughable. There is 99.5% similarity in the genetic structure between you and your, say, friend you are not related to, and this doesn't prove anything. There are still advancements being made regarding the topic and the fact that you think you understand all of it is nothing but ignorance. Since you seem to be so fond of citing sources (which I'm sure is just wikipedia) read this and tell me what you understand. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genetic_variation
-
[SPOILER][/SPOILER]
Kin doesn't equal to race. It means looking out for your own, and it doesn't always have to be for people of your own ethnicity.
Read the whole post before making assumptions.
Selfish gene - serving their own interests. Sacrificing themselves to protect the lives of its kin- "Kin selection"
Equals to Racism on a smaller scale.
Context my friend, context.
-
Ethnicity maybe one of the categories but you can't isolate it as the only way in which the 'selfish gene' works.
Ethnicity is the whole point here. Do you think we are discussing marshmallows here?
-
This is rubbish because there are mistakes in your sources and your pseudo-intellectualism is laughable.
Who's who.
" I suggest you read a book that wasn't written during the time Darwin was around as many advances has been made.
"The selfish gene" was written in darwins time?!! Nobel prize for you. 8)"
-
There is 99.5% similarity in the genetic structure between you and your, say, friend you are not related to,
I mean there is 0.5% DIFFERENCE between you and your kins or 2-4% DIFFERENCE between you and a chimpanzee or 10 % DIFFERENCE between you and a cat or 30-50% between you and a banana and not the other way around. Get it?
Again,
There is 99.5% similarity in the genetic structure between you and your, say, friend you are not related to, and this doesn't prove anything.
There is no biological factor behind racism. Yes, you might suggest that it's genetic (or, more properly, evolutionary) in that it was of benefit to the survival of early tribal 'proto-humans' to be instinctively distrustful of creatures who were significantly different from them, but there hasn't been ANY biological evidence that different races of human beings exist today.
Of course you get stereotypes arising out cultures, appearance etc, but in the genetic level there aren't much differences from a person of African or Asian descent.
Thus you're wrong. It proves something, which goes -
Your pseudo-intellectualism is laughable. There are still advancements being made regarding the topic and the fact that you think you understand all of it is nothing but ignorance.
QED.
Funny thing that the problem didn't even require me to do anything at all. You just proved it all by yourself.
-
What about social darwinism?
This has a lot to do with race.
Again, social darwinism has lots of problems with it. It tends to suggest that there is a superior race. Or "caucasians" are naturally better than other races. Or in case of nazis who promoted this idea by replacing it with "Aryans". That's where all the problem comes from. And that's why most of the people are inclined towards not accepting the reality of racism.
People's line of thinking -
“If there really are different racial groups, then one must be The Master Race, which means -- oh my God – that Hitler Was Right! Therefore, we must promote whatever ideas most confuse the public about race. Otherwise, they will learn the horrible truth and they'll all vote Nazi.” Ignorance is bad in this case.
Off course, there are different racial groups. And of course their members tend to inherit certain different genes, on average, than the members of other racial groups.
And that means racial groups will differ, on average, in various innate capabilities. But that also means that no group can be supreme at all jobs. To be excellent at one skill frequently implies being worse at something else. So, there can't be a Master Race.
Any person who watches sports can clearly tell this. Men of West African descent monopolize the Olympic 100m dash, but their explosive musculature, which is so helpful in sprinting, weighs them down in distance running, where they are also-rans.
Similarly, there are far more Samoans in NFL than Chinese, simply because Samoans tend to be much, much bigger. But precisely because Samoans are so huge, they'll never do as well as the Chinese in gymnastics.
Similarly,South Americans and Europeans dominate the european football leagues. The number of Asians ib those leagues is handful.I think any sane person who watches sports will agree with this.
But people tend to close their eyes from the truth. Because they believe in "equality". ahem.
-
By social darwinism I mean some cultures are better than others. The British had little culture once but travelled widely adopting the cultures of others.
It is a path to success to copy the ideas of others if they are better than yours.
So Japan copied western technology and China has copied western capitalism. Both countries thrived.
It is a path to failure to think your ways better - like the French and much of Africa.
-
Races do not exist as genetically discrete groups as there isn’t enough genetic variation between DEMOGRAPHICS of a large number of humans from different ethnicities (reading a DICTIONARY will make you realize that the word is related to the part of the world/culture you are from and doesn’t relate to race) and this is seldom argued in the scientific community.
Whether or not this is because you think the topic is controversial is a different thing altogether, and when you have sufficient knowledge about genetics to not put forward something like humans are not the same as a banana (lmao), you are going to make a breakthrough in this field. Till then please stop polluting this thread with this nonsense, the keyword in the original post was ‘racism’ and it’s affects. Keeping the discussion there would be nice as this isn't going anywhere. End of.
-
=
It is a path to failure to think your ways better.
Not when you are debating ;)
-
I think they are saying there is more variation within ethnic groups than between ethnic groups.
Anyway ethnic is misleading. Serbs and croats are not different ethnic groups but they still hate each other. I can imagine a situation where some cult somewhere shuts themselve off for a hundred years, emerges and speaks slightly differently and finds themselves discriminated against by a society that has moved on.
-
Well to be honest, it's probably not as profound, since there aren't that many 'races' as the Indian subcontinent is not as diverse as the more developed countries. What I'm talking about is more akin to the term 'colourism', or the caste system or just any kind of discrimination based on things one wouldn't have control of. Say how the caste system in India still prevails, or how the Hazara ethnic group in Afghanistan are discriminated against because they are deemed 'inferior'. Has there been progress made in order to counteract these backward notions, or does it seem like we are bound to live with this ignorance for a long time to come? What are your thoughts on these? Do you ever find yourself discriminating someone on things like this?
I was watching the kite runner a moment ago, and this came to my mind :p, and I don't know if this is the appropriate board, but yah serious issue we are talking about here.
No child-black,brown,red,white or yellow is born racist. And haha when a child is born, he doesn't know whether he is a banana or a fruitfly or a human..so haha.
-
No child-black,brown,red,white or yellow is born racist. And haha when a child is born, he doesn't know whether he is a banana or a fruitfly or a human..so haha.
Every child is born innocent.
It is his/her society or parents that mold him/her to their own beliefs; biased as they may be.
-
Every child is born innocent.
It is his/her society or parents that mold him/her to their own beliefs; biased as they may be.
Seconded.