Racism

[August1991]

IIRC, Alliance Fanatic was, well, a fanatic.

Racism? Let me push this thread in a slightly different direction.

Always a tough topic but I look at it a little differently. There's always going to be a lot of "they're different than I am" when you're trying to warm up to first generation immigrants.

KISS, young men and women are always looking at differences, and that's where I would look for evidence of "racism".

Tall guys, blonde girls seem popular. Blue eyes in general now. Fat is not popular now - but straight white teeth, good diploma and fine speech are. The ability to make one laugh. Rich parents. A car.

Of course, such criteria tend to change. Such are the young, what was cool becomes hot.

-----

In his time, Shakespeare was shrewd and perspicacious. If I wanted to understand racism, I'd re-read Romeo and Juliet.

Edited July 4, 2009 by August1991

[Remiel]

The Solutrean Hypothesis in North American archaeology

The Solutrean hypothesis claims similarities between the Solutrean industry and the later Clovis culture / Clovis points of North America, and suggests that people with Solutrean tool technology crossed the Ice Age Atlantic by moving along the pack ice edge, using survival skills similar to that of modern Eskimo people. The migrants arrived in northeastern North America and served as the donor culture for what eventually developed into Clovis tool-making technology. Sites such as Cactus Hill, Virginia, have yielded artifacts which appear to bridge the temporal and technological gap between Solutrean and Clovis cultures.

James M. Adovasio found stone blades and cores near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania which he dated to 16,000BP[1]. Archaeologists Dennis Stanford and Bruce Bradley concluded that the Clovis point did not derive from any stoneworking tradition from Asia known from the archaeological record. Instead, they traced a line of stone artefact development starting with the points of the Solutrean culture of southern France (19,000BP) to the Cactus Hill points of Virginia (16,000BP) to the Clovis point[2][1]. This would mean that people would have had to move from the Bay of Biscay across the edge of the Atlantic ice sheet to North America. This journey appears to be feasible using traditional Eskimo techniques still in use today, technology which would have been available to the Solutrean people.[1]

In addition, certain mtDNA anomalies in pre-Columbian Amerind populations leave open the possibility of alternate migration patterns into the Americas. Geneticist Douglas Wallace of Emory University, studying the mitochondrial DNA of Native Americans, found an mtDNA type called X. Geneticist Stephen Oppenheimer reports that X occurs 'only among Europeans and Native Americans, with a single report from southern Siberia, but the link between the Old and New Worlds is up to 30,000 years old'[3]. However, the most recent study of complete genomes suggests a single founding population, including type X, arriving via the Beringia route from Asia.[4]

In short, the idea of a Clovis-Solutrean link remains rather controversial and does not enjoy wide acceptance. The hypothesis is challenged by large gaps in time between the Clovis and Solutrean eras, a lack of evidence of Solutrean seafaring, lack of specific Solutrean features in Clovis technology, and other issues.

And beyond that... What you completely fail to grasp is that even if racism is unavoidable there is no valid argument for embracing it. Every other "race" is still closer to you than every other "species" and yet it is a crime to hunt species in danger of extinction. We make considerations. Hell, cruelty to animals is a crime, as well.

Even if we take some controversial arguments about racial or civilizational conflict to be true (thanks, but no thanks, Sammy Huntington), it remains true that in an increasinly technologically advanced world that cosmopolitanism figuratively at war with itself is far preferable than segregationalists literally at war with each other.

Overcoming racism does not mean its annihilation. It means marginalizing its effects. And that is completely within the realm of possibility. And it is necessary as well.

[lictor616]

And beyond that... What you completely fail to grasp is that even if racism is unavoidable there is no valid argument for embracing it. Every other "race" is still closer to you than every other "species" and yet it is a crime to hunt species in danger of extinction. We make considerations. Hell, cruelty to animals is a crime, as well.

Even if we take some controversial arguments about racial or civilizational conflict to be true (thanks, but no thanks, Sammy Huntington), it remains true that in an increasinly technologically advanced world that cosmopolitanism figuratively at war with itself is far preferable than segregationalists literally at war with each other.

Overcoming racism does not mean its annihilation. It means marginalizing its effects. And that is completely within the realm of possibility. And it is necessary as well.

no valid argument for embracing racism?

Is there any valid argument for embracing your family?

Dyou ever wonder why parents prefer THEIR own children to others? Its precisely the same phenomenon. We prefer our children for no rational reason other then THEY ARE OURS. Parents LOVE their children EVEN if they are not objectionnably superior to others...

Is there a valid argument for preferring your own children to that of others? Wouldn't it be preferable if we could love ALL CHILDREN EQUALLY? Imagine... no more orphans, no more abused children... wouldn't that be super?

Race is an extended FAMILY... a immediate biologically related unit. It's immediately recognizable.

You talk about "marginalizing the effects of racism" which in essence means you will willfully ignore what is right in front of you ... it amounts to pretending that racism isn't real in its effects and it means you're willing to dice your future on such a whim.

Why do you think this is a wise approach to race awareness? Why do you think its desirable to "overcome" what is natural and right? Where do you even base your optimism that such an unnatural state of affairs is possible?

Racism is stronger then ever today.

I would suggest to you that the only way to end "racism" is to end diversity... Japan is racially homogeneous for instance and has no "commission for racial equality" no "affirmative action" no costly "diversity is our strength" propaganda machine, no law suits over discrimination... nothing of the sort!

Racism is only possible when people of different races "for some reason or other" are trying to live in the same country...

And this is what leads to wars , genocides and all sort of bloodshed and log rolling hardships...

I don't understand why anti-racists are so keen on ending racism by multiplying the root causes of it...

Edited July 4, 2009 by lictor616

[lictor616]

INcidentally your wikipedia article doesn't say that the Solutrean "hypothesis" is controversial for its racial undertones but for its TOOL MAKING ones. They are not sure that the "clovis making" displays an automatic relatedness to the type found in southern France (but it does to the kind found in northern Spain).

There is however NO DOUBT whatsoever about the racial makeup of the people who populated america first... research the paracas mummy, the (Peñon Woman) http://www.vimeo.com/473625, Skull of the Minnesota Woman... there are numerous archeological evidence of European (or caucasoid) presence thousands of years before the even the existence of Western Civilization...

Of course, many Natives and Mexicans will oppose this for quite rational reasons... ie: they are racists and detest white people and don't want to legitimize their presence on this continent (after all they want us out)... but it doesn't change the fact that Europeans WERE THERE...

Edited July 4, 2009 by lictor616

[Strangles]

no valid argument for embracing racism?

Is there any valid argument for embracing your family?

Is there a valid argument for claiming superiority? Embracing your family greatly differs from hating your neighbors.

Dyou ever wonder why parents prefer THEIR own children to others? Its precisely the same phenomenon. We prefer our children for no rational reason other then THEY ARE OURS. Parents LOVE their children EVEN if they are not objectionnably superior to others...

Loving one's child does not constitute hate for other children. It does not mean forceful separation, and it certainly doesn't mean the subjugation of those children who aren't yours.

Race is an extended FAMILY... a immediate biologically related unit. It's immediately recognizable.

Race is created to categorize different subsets of humans, however it has become easily confused with skin colour/pigmentation. Groups of people with the same skin colour can actually vary greatly from other people with the same skin colour while sharing more similarities in physical features with a group of different skin colour.

That is the fallacy of all racialist, especially race supremacists, they fail to understand this and it is why they remain a laughing stock of mainstream society.

Why do you think this is a wise approach to race awareness? Why do you think its desirable to "overcome" what is natural and right? Where do you even base your optimism that such an unnatural state of affairs is possible?

Its possible because its been achieved before, and it has been achieved in societies that already exist today.

It is desirable because it will create a greater understanding and minimize conflicts, both internally and externally. It will create a more cohesive society at the both micro and macro level.

Racism is stronger then ever today.

Race baiters and racial supremacists will have you beleive so. This is something debatable. Racism is more openly discussed today, to its detriment.

I would suggest to you that the only way to end "racism" is to end diversity... Japan is racially homogeneous for instance and has no "commission for racial equality" no "affirmative action" no costly "diversity is our strength" propaganda machine, no law suits over discrimination... nothing of the sort!

Thats not true at all. Japan has no such commissions because it does not want to deal with such problems. Japan has small ethnic groups who are oppressed and are at the low rungs of society. Luckily for them, many are intermixed and can hide their "otherness", hence blend in with Japanese society. Japan is an island with a small island isolationist culture.

If in fact Japan had won WW2 against China, and the Japanese plans of settling Chinese Manchuria had materialized, the massive Japanese, Chinese and Korean race schisms would have been much easier for all to see today.

Naturally it has taken 2-3 generations to intermix Japanese, Chinese and Koreans into immigrant cultures in the west where they have chosen to adopt new countries (Brazil, Jamaica, Canada).

A good example is Japanese Canadians who have been here for 3 generations, and are the most likely asian group to intermarry in Canada. The Chinese and Koreans are the least, and this is simply due to their 1st generation parental traditions, which will erode within another 2 or 3generations.

Racism is only possible when people of different races "for some reason or other" are trying to live in the same country...

And this is what leads to wars , genocides and all sort of bloodshed and log rolling hardships...

Not true at all. You completely fail in this argument its almost embarrassing. Racism is much worse if there is country wide separation. Germany under the NSDAP was a heavily homogeneous yet a highly racist nation, which ended up invading its neighbors and killing millions of them based on racial superiority beliefs. Polish Jews and Africans in the North African theatre of war will definitely have something to say about "racism doesn't exist in homogeneous countries".

A complete fallacy that is often perpetrated by Dixiecrat segregationists and race baiters.

I don't understand why anti-racists are so keen on ending racism by multiplying the root causes of it...

Since the 60s end of segregation, race relations in the USA have improved greatly (unless you were pro segregationist or anti civil rights, in that case this is your worst nightmare coming true). There are now mixed neighborhoods, schools, unions, clubs, universities, workplaces and so on. Don't let a few forum comments and hate websites which represent a tiny minority let you believe otherwise.

And the notion, usually put forward by the race baiters and so called self proclaimed "racialist" that blacks there have created only black organizations (other than gangs) is completely false. Even organizations like the NAACP have no restrictions for light skinned people.

Edited July 4, 2009 by Strangles

[CANADIEN]

Racism is a term liberals use when threatened by the facts.

It's a term used when dealing with racist behaviours, attitude and acts.

[CANADIEN]

its based on differences.

you see someone form china, they have "funny eyes"

you hear an anfrican-canadian singing rap, he's "stupid"

etc...

I once had someone lecture my for 10 minutes on how "I'm not a racist, I'm right"

he show'd me a picture of a few african-americans and said "look at how their jaw sticks out, and their head is big in the back... now look at this picture of an ape"

that's when I threw him out of my room. He did have a point though, "White men" and "Black men" look different. it's more then skin, it your shape. I know some people from the mid-east, and yes, compared to a normal "white man" they have big noses.

people look at someone, see their big nose, see their slanted eyes, and say "he's different, he must be stupid" or something like that. Racisim starts when you notice the differences, because by noticing them, you are accepting that there are differences.

I grew up in Toronto, and it literally takes me about a week to clue in that this or that guy is black. I just dont notice it, it's not important to me. I'm sorry to say that I do notice the gender gap, but I'm trying to fix that.

am I making any sence here?

Racism is not when you notice physical differences. It's when somehow think they make some groups of people better human beings than others.

[CANADIEN]

Is there a valid argument for claiming superiority? Embracing your family greatly differs from hating your neighbors.

Loving one's child does not constitute hate for other children. It does not mean forceful separation, and it certainly doesn't mean the subjugation of those children who aren't yours.

Race is created to categorize different subsets of humans, however it has become easily confused with skin colour/pigmentation. Groups of people with the same skin colour can actually vary greatly from other people with the same skin colour while sharing more similarities in physical features with a group of different skin colour.

That is the fallacy of all racialist, especially race supremacists, they fail to understand this and it is why they remain a laughing stock of mainstream society.

Its possible because its been achieved before, and it has been achieved in societies that already exist today.

It is desirable because it will create a greater understanding and minimize conflicts, both internally and externally. It will create a more cohesive society at the both micro and macro level.

Race baiters and racial supremacists will have you beleive so. This is something debatable. Racism is more openly discussed today, to its detriment.

Thats not true at all. Japan has no such commissions because it does not want to deal with such problems. Japan has small ethnic groups who are oppressed and are at the low rungs of society. Luckily for them, many are intermixed and can hide their "otherness", hence blend in with Japanese society. Japan is an island with a small island isolationist culture.

If in fact Japan had won WW2 against China, and the Japanese plans of settling Chinese Manchuria had materialized, the massive Japanese, Chinese and Korean race schisms would have been much easier for all to see today.

Naturally it has taken 2-3 generations to intermix Japanese, Chinese and Koreans into immigrant cultures in the west where they have chosen to adopt new countries (Brazil, Jamaica, Canada).

A good example is Japanese Canadians who have been here for 3 generations, and are the most likely asian group to intermarry in Canada. The Chinese and Koreans are the least, and this is simply due to their 1st generation parental traditions, which will erode within another 2 or 3generations.

Not true at all. You completely fail in this argument its almost embarrassing. Racism is much worse if there is country wide separation. Germany under the NSDAP was a heavily homogeneous yet a highly racist nation, which ended up invading its neighbors and killing millions of them based on racial superiority beliefs. Polish Jews and Africans in the North African theatre of war will definitely have something to say about "racism doesn't exist in homogeneous countries".

A complete fallacy that is often perpetrated by Dixiecrat segregationists and race baiters.

Since the 60s end of segregation, race relations in the USA have improved greatly (unless you were pro segregationist or anti civil rights, in that case this is your worst nightmare coming true). There are now mixed neighborhoods, schools, unions, clubs, universities, workplaces and so on. Don't let a few forum comments and hate websites which represent a tiny minority let you believe otherwise.

And the notion, usually put forward by the race baiters and so called self proclaimed "racialist" that blacks there have created only black organizations (other than gangs) is completely false. Even organizations like the NAACP have no restrictions for light skinned people.

Hear, hear, hear.

Further, the root cause of racism is not physiological differences between human beings, or even the recognition that they exist. racism stems in part from human nature (we can, and a bit too often, will let the dark side of our nature shine), but for the most part it is the result of ignorance and stupidity.

lictor, the one who is trying to convince himself that is hatred (racism) is good and natural. pointed out to experiments that show that babies can differentiate skin colours. As far as i know, babies don't start crying, and toddlers don't crawl away screaming just because the little bundle of joy next to them has a different skin colour. Racism is a learned behaviour.

[August1991]

Further, the root cause of racism is not physiological differences between human beings, or even the recognition that they exist. racism stems in part from human nature (we can, and a bit too often, will let the dark side of our nature shine), but for the most part it is the result of ignorance and stupidity.

... dark side of our nature ... WTF?

Honest people discriminate all the time in choosing a potential friend, or partner. Race? There are many ways to define race. And there are many ways to choose.

I think this thread is 19th century, in a 21st century world. God knows what the 22nd century will be like.

Edited July 4, 2009 by August1991

[lictor616]

Is there a valid argument for claiming superiority? Embracing your family greatly differs from hating your neighbors.

Loving one's child does not constitute hate for other children. It does not mean forceful separation, and it certainly doesn't mean the subjugation of those children who aren't yours.

what a deceitful reply.

? And why does preference for one's race AUTOMATICALLY MEANS you hate others?

Does appreciation for your own race automatically means your detest others? Really surely you thought of that before...

And freedom of association doesn't Mean FORCED INTEGRATION... People usually SELF SEGREGATE regardless ... people should be free to do associate with who they want... If people want to self segregate, it doesn't mean they'll be subjugating other people.

why is it okay to have a "black community" or a "black college" but not a white one?

[CANADIEN]

... dark side of our nature ... WTF?

Honest people discriminate all the time in choosing a potential friend, or partner. Race? There are many ways to define race. And there are many ways to choose.

I think this thread is 19th century, in a 21st century world. God knows what the 22nd century will be like.

The human capacity to hate and to act upon that hatred is our dark side. I know they are some who glorify it, I'm not one of them.

And there is a world of difference between choosing friends or partners and chosing to hate or dismiss as inferiors entire groups of people on the basis of physical features.

You got something right though. We are in the 21st century. Time to get rid of racism.

[lictor616]

Racism is not when you notice physical differences. It's when somehow think they make some groups of people better human beings than others.

that's not the DEFINITIVE definition of racism... as I have noted before and often here... THERE IS NO SET DEFINITIVE DEFINITION OF RACISM...

Racism is a subjective concept to begin with... Some people actually think racism can only happen to numerical racial minorities in a country... there are hundreds of subjective and contradictory definition of racism itself...

[CANADIEN]

what a deceitful reply.

Yet you chose to write it.

And why does preference for one's race AUTOMATICALLY MEANS you hate others?

Does appreciation for your own race automatically means your detest others? Really surely you thought of that before...

And freedom of association doesn't Mean FORCED INTEGRATION... People usually SELF SEGREGATE regardless ... people should be free to do associate with who they want... If people want to self segregate, it doesn't mean they'll be subjugating other people.

why is it okay to have a "black community" or a "black college" but not a white one?

Your hatred of non-whites and your belief that skin colour is a determinant factor in the value of a human being are well known facts. You have advocated, and still advocate, separation of races. You have expressed foundness for societies, such as pre-independance Haiti, that were based on racial inequality. And there's your dislike of most things Jewish and flirting with Holocaust denial.

So don't expect to fool anyone by pretending that this is all merely about preferring to be around whites.

[CANADIEN]

that's not the DEFINITIVE definition of racism... as I have noted before and often here... THERE IS NO SET DEFINITIVE DEFINITION OF RACISM...

Racism is a subjective concept to begin with... Some people actually think racism can only happen to numerical racial minorities in a country... there are hundreds of subjective and contradictory definition of racism itself...

What you note and logic are two different concepts.

[lictor616]

Since the 60s end of segregation, race relations in the USA have improved greatly (unless you were pro segregationist or anti civil rights, in that case this is your worst nightmare coming true). There are now mixed neighborhoods, schools, unions, clubs, universities, workplaces and so on. Don't let a few forum comments and hate websites which represent a tiny minority let you believe otherwise.

And the notion, usually put forward by the race baiters and so called self proclaimed "racialist" that blacks there have created only black organizations (other than gangs) is completely false. Even organizations like the NAACP have no restrictions for light skinned people.

According to who? The number of racially exclusive organizations have EXPONENTIALLY MULTIPLIED in the past 40 years... The black actors guild? The Black Caucus? The Negro College Fund? The NAACP? The Black scuba divers instructors league? The Korean mathematician association at berkley? BET?

Race relations have gone so down hill now, that we actually live in a dual class system that's based on race... If your of a certain race, you're eligible to all manner of privileges and deference because of it? Affirmative action is an excellent example of this... it uses race to allocate jobs, opportunities, raises. Affirmative action is based on "racism" and is now official government policy in both CANADA AND THE US... how's that for "ending racism"? Is the solution to racism ... more racism?

And what a joke! You think that an organization who's sole purpose is in their name: THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE... is not racist somehow because it can hire "other races" to advance the black race ... even as you know that is ALWAYS at the expense of another race!

Mixed neighbourhoods? Just recently Maguinty deplored the segregatedness of the GTA ... how there is a Jamaican ghetto, a "Brown town" for Indians and Pakistanis, a China town etc... Different Races for all practical purposes DO NOT LIVE TOGETHER, minority neighbourhoods and white flight are glaring and incontrovertible proof of this... Did you know that the GTA has 24 committees and black community groups wanted to officially segregate and submit their municipalities to different municipal rules to "non black ones"... how many petitions have been signed for these groups to get their own ALL BLACK SEGREGATED SCHOOLS?

Are you this ignorant of the real world around you?

[lictor616]

Yet you chose to write it.

Your hatred of non-whites and your belief that skin colour is a determinant factor in the value of a human being are well known facts. You have advocated, and still advocate, separation of races. You have expressed foundness for societies, such as pre-independance Haiti, that were based on racial inequality. And there's your dislike of most things Jewish and flirting with Holocaust denial.

So don't expect to fool anyone by pretending that this is all merely about preferring to be around whites.

my belief is not that "SKIN COLOR is a determinant factor in the value of human beings"... My position (one supported by the scientific community) is that there is no such thing under the sun as equality... And that race (or genetic inheritance) does have an impact on the character (physical and mental) of a population.

Asians did not build civilizations equal to that of Africans...

[CANADIEN]

According to who? The number of racially exclusive organizations have EXPONENTIALLY MULTIPLIED in the past 40 years... The black actors guild? The Black Caucus? The Negro College Fund? The NAACP? The Black scuba divers instructors league? The Korean mathematician association at berkley? BET?

Race relations have gone so down hill now, that we actually live in a dual class system that's based on race... If your of a certain race, you're eligible to all manner of privileges and deference because of it? Affirmative action is an excellent example of this... it uses race to allocate jobs, opportunities, raises. Affirmative action is based on "racism" and is now official government policy in both CANADA AND THE US... how's that for "ending racism"? Is the solution to racism ... more racism?

And what a joke! You think that an organization who's sole purpose is in their name: THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE... is not racist somehow because it can hire "other races" to advance the black race ... even as you know that is ALWAYS at the expense of another race!

Mixed neighbourhoods? Just recently Maguinty deplored the segregatedness of the GTA ... how there is a Jamaican ghetto, a "Brown town" for Indians and Pakistanis, a China town etc... Different Races for all practical purposes DO NOT LIVE TOGETHER, minority neighbourhoods and white flight are glaring and incontrovertible proof of this... Did you know that the GTA has 24 committees and black community groups wanted to officially segregate and submit their municipalities to different municipal rules to "non black ones"... how many petitions have been signed for these groups to get their own ALL BLACK SEGREGATED SCHOOLS?

Are you this ignorant of the real world around you?

Noboby would claim things are perfect, but unlike you most people with a brain don't look at the days of Jim Crow and "no dogs or Jews" signs with nostalgia. And people with the capacity to lift themselves above a need to compensate for their personal shortcomings don't think of "one race, one system of thoughts, one set of opinion" as a societal model.

Edited July 4, 2009 by CANADIEN

[CANADIEN]

my belief is not that "SKIN COLOR is a determinant factor in the value of human beings"... My position (one supported by the scientific community) is that there is no such thing under the sun as equality... And that race (or genetic inheritance) does have an impact on the character (physical and mental) of a population.

Asians did not build civilizations equal to that of Africans...

PARTS of the scientific community has written and theoricized on differences. Only nutbars, and that includes you, of course, claim that there is scientific basis for the absurd notion that race has anything to do with the intelligence of a person.

The Ute culture did not get to the same level of technology as the Aztec culture, yeet the utes and Aztecs were likely closer together than the French and English.

[lictor616]

Thats not true at all. Japan has no such commissions because it does not want to deal with such problems. Japan has small ethnic groups who are oppressed and are at the low rungs of society. Luckily for them, many are intermixed and can hide their "otherness", hence blend in with Japanese society. Japan is an island with a small island isolationist culture.

If in fact Japan had won WW2 against China, and the Japanese plans of settling Chinese Manchuria had materialized, the massive Japanese, Chinese and Korean race schisms would have been much easier for all to see today.

Are you serious in claiming that the Japanese doesn't have an NAACP chapter because "it doesn't want to" address the problem of black inequality? NONE LIVE THERE GENIUS!

Yes Koreans and Chinese are the minorities... how's that for Diversity in Japan... their only minority groups are CLOSELY related and often INDISTINGUISHABLE.

Japan an small Isolationist culture!?!?!?! Have you ever even been there? of course not!

Japan is actually a devastating refutation of the ignorant view that homogeneity means dull uniformity. (This is the implication, of course, of the common assertion that immigrants have livened up Canada, saving it, presumably, from the suffocating sameness of "whiteness").

Japan has as much variety—cultural, esthetic, culinary—as we have here in our befouled diverse country. Whether it is clothing styles, amateur orchestras, motorcycle clubs, art exhibits, restaurants or museums, Japan is fully diverse, there are countless ways to be japanese, countless outlets of japanese lifestyle. Traditional Japanese instruments like the koto and shamisen have never been more popular, but Japan also produces internationally-known classical musicians (Seizi Ozawa to name one of them) ... here sample this bit of western musical mastery championed here by Ozawa)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzMGzBKRttU

In addition to its own sports like sumo or judo, Japan has mastered baseball to the point that it sends Japanese stars to the major leagues... So clearly you entire argument of "isolationist" close minded dumb Japanese collapses with a pinprick... I could also go on and comment on how marvelously well run and progressive Japan is... it is MILES ahead of the US and canada in science and technology... their cities (despite the overpopulation) are spotlessly clean, their streets have no pot holes, their crime rate is a slither of ours, their average IQ higher then our own, their economy much more solid (despite their few resources).

so please, go to Japan, I have been... and it will perhaps (if you are not immune to logic) open your eyes to the wonder of a society not at grips with the "multicultural squalor" and "racial problems" we have in north america...

[lictor616]

PARTS of the scientific community has written and theoricized on differences. Only nutbars, and that includes you, of course, claim that there is scientific basis for the absurd notion that race has anything to do with the intelligence of a person.

The Ute culture did not get to the same level of technology as the Aztec culture, yeet the utes and Aztecs were likely closer together than the French and English.

argh god her's the link again canadian...

http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/001951.html

Ernst Mayr, "perhaps the greatest evolutionary scientist of the twentieth century", might be called the Linnaeus of the Modern Synthesis {neo-Darwinism}, his Systematics and the Origin of Species set forth the biological species concept still in use today, with large utility for explaining speciation.

Recently, while thumbing through some archived issues of the AAAS' Daedalus I found this amazing essay of his {Winter 2002. Vol. 131, pg. 89},

The Biology of Race and the Concept of Equality. Ernst Mayr

"There are words in our language that seem to lead inevitably to controversy. This is surely true for the words "equality" and "race." And yet among well informed people, there is little disagreement as to what these words should mean, in part because various advances in biological science have produced a better understanding of the human condition.

Let me begin with race. There is a widespread feeling that the word "race" indicates something undesirable and that it should be left out of all discussions. This leads to such statements as "there are no human races."

Those who subscribe to this opinion are obviously ignorant of modern biology. Races are not something specifically human; races occur in a large percentage of species of animals. You can read in every textbook on evolution that geographic races of animals, when isolated from other races of their species, may in due time become new species. The terms 11 subspecies" and "geographic race" are used interchangeably in this taxonomic literature.

This at once raises a question: are there races in the human species? After all, the characteristics of most animal races are strictly genetic, while human races have been marked by nongenetic, cultural attributes that have very much affected their overt characteristics. Performance in human activities is influenced not only by the genotype but also by culturally acquired attitudes. What would be ideal, therefore, would be to partition the phenotype of every human individual into genetic and cultural components.

Alas, so far we have not yet found any reliable technique to do this. What we can do is acknowledge that any recorded differences between human races are probably composed of cultural as well as genetic elements. Indeed, the cause of many important group differences may turn out to be entirely cultural, without any genetic component at all.

Still, if I introduce you to an Eskimo and a Kalahari Bushman I won't have much trouble convincing you that they belong to different races.

In a recent textbook of taxonomy, I defined a "geographic race" or subspecies as "an aggregate of phenotypically similar populations of a species inhabiting a geographic subdivision of the range of that species and differing taxonomically from other populations of that species." A subspecies is a geographic race that is sufficiently different taxonomically to be worthy of a separate name. What is characteristic of a geographic race is, first, that it is restricted to a geographic subdivision of the range of a species, and second, that in spite of certain diagnostic differences, it is part of a larger species.

No matter what the cause of the racial difference might be, the fact that species of organisms may have geographic races has been demonstrated so frequently that it can no longer be denied. And the geographic races of the human races established before the voyages of European discovery and subsequent rise of a global economy - agree in most characteristics with the geographic races of animals. Recognizing races is only recognizing a biological fact. "

Edited July 4, 2009 by lictor616

[CANADIEN]

Are you serious in claiming that the Japanese doesn't have an NAACP chapter because "it doesn't want to" address the problem of black inequality? NONE LIVE THERE GENIUS!

Yes Koreans and Chinese are the minorities... how's that for Diversity in Japan... their only minority groups are CLOSELY related and often INDISTINGUISHABLE.

Japan an small Isolationist culture!?!?!?! Have you ever even been there? of course not!

Japan is actually a devastating refutation of the ignorant view that homogeneity means dull uniformity. (This is the implication, of course, of the common assertion that immigrants have livened up Canada, saving it, presumably, from the suffocating sameness of "whiteness").

Japan has as much variety—cultural, esthetic, culinary—as we have here in our befouled diverse country. Whether it is clothing styles, amateur orchestras, motorcycle clubs, art exhibits, restaurants or museums, Japan is fully diverse, there are countless ways to be japanese, countless outlets of japanese lifestyle. Traditional Japanese instruments like the koto and shamisen have never been more popular, but Japan also produces internationally-known classical musicians (Seizi Ozawa to name one of them) ... here sample this bit of western musical mastery championed here by Ozawa)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzMGzBKRttU

In addition to its own sports like sumo or judo, Japan has mastered baseball to the point that it sends Japanese stars to the major leagues... So clearly you entire argument of "isolationist" close minded dumb Japanese collapses with a pinprick... I could also go on and comment on how marvelously well run and progressive Japan is... it is MILES ahead of the US and canada in science and technology... their cities (despite the overpopulation) are spotlessly clean, their streets have no pot holes, their crime rate is a slither of ours, their average IQ higher then our own, their economy much more solid (despite their few resources).

so please, go to Japan, I have been... and it will perhaps (if you are not immune to logic) open your eyes to the wonder of a society not at grips with the "multicultural squalor" and "racial problems" we have in north america...

You mean the Japanese society (unlike you) is not afraid of what is different? Interesting, btw, that you value it both for its homogeneity and its diversity. But then, the expectation that you will ever make sense is one I do not have.

Edited July 4, 2009 by CANADIEN

[lictor616]

Noboby would claim things are perfect, but unlike you most people with a brain don't look at the days of Jim Crow and "no dogs or Jews" signs with nostalgia. And people with the capacity to lift themselves above a need to compensate for their personal shortcomings don't think of "one race, one system of thoughts, one set of opinion" as a societal model.

okay okay canadien, tone down the ad hominems... you seem pretty convinced of your point of view and then should have no problem in focusing on the actual topic at hand instead of me personally... Ad hominems are the hallmark of sore looser.

[CANADIEN]

argh god her's the link again canadian...

http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/001951.html

Ernst Mayr, "perhaps the greatest evolutionary scientist of the twentieth century", might be called the Linnaeus of the Modern Synthesis {neo-Darwinism}, his Systematics and the Origin of Species set forth the biological species concept still in use today, with large utility for explaining speciation.

Recently, while thumbing through some archived issues of the AAAS' Daedalus I found this amazing essay of his {Winter 2002. Vol. 131, pg. 89},

The Biology of Race and the Concept of Equality. Ernst Mayr

"There are words in our language that seem to lead inevitably to controversy. This is surely true for the words "equality" and "race." And yet among well informed people, there is little disagreement as to what these words should mean, in part because various advances in biological science have produced a better understanding of the human condition.

Let me begin with race. There is a widespread feeling that the word "race" indicates something undesirable and that it should be left out of all discussions. This leads to such statements as "there are no human races."

Those who subscribe to this opinion are obviously ignorant of modern biology. Races are not something specifically human; races occur in a large percentage of species of animals. You can read in every textbook on evolution that geographic races of animals, when isolated from other races of their species, may in due time become new species. The terms 11 subspecies" and "geographic race" are used interchangeably in this taxonomic literature.

This at once raises a question: are there races in the human species? After all, the characteristics of most animal races are strictly genetic, while human races have been marked by nongenetic, cultural attributes that have very much affected their overt characteristics. Performance in human activities is influenced not only by the genotype but also by culturally acquired attitudes. What would be ideal, therefore, would be to partition the phenotype of every human individual into genetic and cultural components.

Alas, so far we have not yet found any reliable technique to do this. What we can do is acknowledge that any recorded differences between human races are probably composed of cultural as well as genetic elements. Indeed, the cause of many important group differences may turn out to be entirely cultural, without any genetic component at all.

Still, if I introduce you to an Eskimo and a Kalahari Bushman I won't have much trouble convincing you that they belong to different races.

In a recent textbook of taxonomy, I defined a "geographic race" or subspecies as "an aggregate of phenotypically similar populations of a species inhabiting a geographic subdivision of the range of that species and differing taxonomically from other populations of that species." A subspecies is a geographic race that is sufficiently different taxonomically to be worthy of a separate name. What is characteristic of a geographic race is, first, that it is restricted to a geographic subdivision of the range of a species, and second, that in spite of certain diagnostic differences, it is part of a larger species.

No matter what the cause of the racial difference might be, the fact that species of organisms may have geographic races has been demonstrated so frequently that it can no longer be denied. And the geographic races of the human races established before the voyages of European discovery and subsequent rise of a global economy - agree in most characteristics with the geographic races of animals. Recognizing races is only recognizing a biological fact. "

As I suspected... not a word, nott a syllab, stating that some races are more intelligent than others. :lol:

[lictor616]

You mean the Japanese society (unlike you) is not afraid of what is different? Interesting, btw, that you value it both for its homogeneity and its diversity. But then, the expectation that you will ever make sense is one I do not have.

again... ad hominem abusive... why even make such a pronouncment? Are you too confused in your temper tantrums to notice that I HAVE BEEN TO JAPAN? I was also an exchange student in Venezuela through A.F.S. for a year. And notice of course that i'm am PRAISING JAPANESE CULTURE..

and still... after all of that... you call MOI close minded and xenophobic?

keep deferring attention away from the argument, the most minimally discerning amongst us know that you can't refute what I say.

[lictor616]

As I suspected... not a word, nott a syllab, stating that some races are more intelligent than others. :lol:

no talk about any silly "RACIAL EQUALITY EITHER" genius... back to your cave now..

Edited July 4, 2009 by lictor616