A Conversation About Race

[lictor616]

In this post Lictor I I provide words used to repudiate the notion you hold that there are white, black and Asian races and each race has a different intelligence level.

Scientific work abetting the idea that race is real, typological, and hierarchically arranged is actually rather an old occupation, you know. In the mid-1840s we see Samuel Morton measuring crania to get at cranial capacity and then to try to rank the races on the amount of cranial capacity they have, and to equate that with racial differences and intelligence.

And really about every 20 years somebody else comes along, almost with a best-seller, perhaps with a new method for measuring intelligence, ultimately to show that there is a ranking in intelligence, usually with whites up top.

The most recent effort was The Bell Curve, which came out in 1994 and literally reached number two on the best-seller list in 1994, behind a book, by the way, written by Pope John Paul. The Bell Curve threw a couple spins into this. One is that it actually promoted Asians as being closer to the top, also broke down whites a little bit more. But fundamentally it was the same type of book as was written by Morton in 1850; you use the same basic methods and the same basic logic.

Their argument went something like this: there is something called intelligence that we can put our fingers on, that we can measure; intelligence is some sort of univariable; it's one-dimensional. That intelligence then is measurable by something called an intelligence test that actually measures intelligence. And then that intelligence is highly heritable; it's something we really do get in our chromosomes, in our genes; it comes to us that way, it is highly heritable. Then one has to say that there is such a thing as white, black, and Asian, or whatever groups you're comparing, that they are real, that they are measurable, that they are reproducible.

But then let's to back and look at the assumptions again. Is there a white group, a black group, an Asian group? Are these reproducible? Are they trained equally? Can we really measure a variable called intelligence? Is it really something that's not affected by environment, about how we're trained, how we grow up, what stimulation we have by children?

I'll give you an example. One test has shown that just a little bit of lead in the blood can affect intelligence - a little bit of lead in the blood, prenatal, can affect intelligence by easily eight points on an intelligence score. Are we to believe that those factors were unimportant in looking at the differences in IQ scores? Of course not. "

your statement is only correct if you really believe that IQ doesn't measure any type or degree of intelligence...

IQ is a very valid method of ascertaining intelligence. Is the most accurate way of knowing if a person has the right mental faculties to succeed in certain societies. And with very tiny exceptions, IQ is generally correct.

Many leftists reject IQ since it conflicts with their religious doctrine of "equality"... but most of the opposition to IQ testing is weak and ridiculous

Edited September 19, 2009 by lictor616

[lictor616]

*repost*

Edited September 19, 2009 by lictor616

[lictor616]

Lictor this is in specific response to your comments to me.

When you came on this board the context for which you used the word “superior” was not enunciated in limited reference to suggesting one identified group’s reported lower rates of disease were preferable to another’s with a higher rate of that same disease.

In fact it was and remains referenced to suggesting blacks are less intelligent then whites and uglier in physical appearance. Your words and the context in which you used superiority in regards to comparisons between blacks and whites are there for anyone to see.

So your attempt now in response to me to try suggest you only meant to refer to superiority in a limited context is about as subtle as an elephant with an erection

As you now would have me believe you are confused, i.e., “huh Rue come again”, just for you and to show I care, I have obtained for you the words of Alan Goodman, Professor of Biological Anthropology at Hampshire College who is co-editor of Genetic Nature/Cultural Anthropology and Science Beyond the Cultural Divide and Building a New Bio-Cultural Synthesis and whose words I quote can be found at the following web-site: http://www.pbs.org/race/000_About/002_04-b...round-01-07.htm.

In this post I will provide excerpts that specifically repudiate your attempt to suggest race is a biological entity. In the next post, I will provide excerpts that specifically repudiate your attempt to suggest high or lower medical rates of illness in certain groups proves biological race. In my third post I will provide his excepts that specifically repudiate your suggestions "blacks" are less intelligent than "whites".

I will also state this Lictor. Your previous attempt to simply label any view you do not agree with as “sociological” and therefore invalid is nonsensical. First off you did not provide a definition of “sociological”. Therefore that lends to the appearance it is something you fabricated as a device to assign a negative label to anything you disagree with and then to be used to dismiss anything you disagree with, without having to provide a rational basis for your rejection other than to call it “sociological”. No Lictor, you don’t get to fabricate subjective negative lables and get to throw them out to summarily dismiss anyone’s words that you do not agree with-all that does Lictor is show you are unable to respond with an objective basis to establish your grounds for repudiation-that exercise is I would mention about as subtle as Paris Hilton’s cold sores that break out on her mouth.

“To understand why the idea of race is a biological myth requires a major paradigm shift - an absolutely paradigm shift, a shift in perspective. And for me, it's like seeing what it must have been like to understand that the world isn't flat. The world looks flat to our eyes. And perhaps I can invite you to a mountaintop or to a plain, and you can look out the window at the horizon, and see, "Oh, what I thought was flat I can see a curve in now." And that race is not based on biology, but race is rather an idea that we ascribe to biology.

That's quite shocking to a lot of individuals. When you look and you think you see race, to be told that no, you don't see race, you just think you see race, you know, it's based on your cultural lens - that's extremely challenging. “

“Scientists have actually been saying for quite a while that race, as biology, doesn't exist - that there's no biological basis for race. And that is in the facts of biology, the facts of non-concordance, the facts of continuous variation, the recentness of our evolution, the way that we all commingle and come together, how genes flow, and perhaps especially in the fact that most variation occurs within race versus between races or among races, suggesting that there's no generalizability to race. There is no center there; there is no there there in the center. It's fluid. »

“But think about race and its universality or lack thereof. Where is your measurement device? There is no way to measure race first. We sometimes do it by skin color. Other people may do it by hair texture. Other people may have the dividing lines different in terms of skin color. What's black in the United States is not what's black in Brazil or what's black in South Africa. What was black in 1940 is different from what is black in 2000. Certainly, with the evolution of whiteness, what was white in 1920 - as a Jew I was not white then, but I'm white now, so white has changed tremendously.”

“For race to have meaning, for race to be more than skin-deep, for race to be more than a typology, one has to have concordance. In other words, skin color needs to reflect things that are deeper in the body, under the skin. But, in fact, human variation is rather non-concordant.

I'll give you an example of concordance. Height is actually quite concordant with weight. As we get taller, we gain weight, we have more weight. One aspect of size is concordant with another aspect of size.

But most of human variation is non-concordant. Skin color or eye color or hair color is not correlated with height or weight. And they're definitely not correlated with more complex traits like intelligence or athletic performance. Those things evolve and develop in entirely different ways. Just as skin color develops in a different way from size, intelligence, athletic performance, other traits develop in different and independent ways.

A map of skin color gradients looks sort of like the map of temperature. It gets lighter, as you go towards the poles and it's darker near the equator. But then take a map of, say, the distribution of blood type A. Looks entirely different. There's no relationship between the two maps. The distributions are non-concordant. Simply, one is not related to the other.

When we adopt a racial view, we have to see concordance. And perhaps if we don't see it, we make it up. Because if there's no concordance, there is no race. So, racist scientists, for example, have to see a concordance between skin color and IQ, otherwise there's no meaning there, there is no there there. There's nothing under the skin. Race stops at the color of your skin.”

“Richard Lewontin did an amazing piece of work which he published in 1972, in a famous article called "The Apportionment of Human Variation." Literally what he tried to do was see how much genetic variation showed up at three different levels.

One level was the variation that showed up among or between purported races. And the conventional idea is that quite a bit of variation would show up at that level. And then he also explored two other levels at the same time. How much variation occurred within a race, but between or among sub-groups within that purported race.

So, for instance, in Europe, how much variation would there be between the Germans, the Finns and the Spanish? Or how much variation could we call local variation, occurring within an ethnicity such as the Navaho or Hopi or the Chatua.

And the amazing result was that, on average, about 85% of the variation occurred within any given group. The vast majority of that variation was found at a local level. In fact, groups like the Finns are not homogeneous - they actually contain, I guess one could literally say, 85% of the genetic diversity of the world.

Secondly, of that remaining 15%, about half of that, seven and a half percent or so, was found to be still within the continent, but just between local populations; between the Germans and the Finns and the Spanish. So, now we're over 90%, something like 93% of variation actually occurs within any given continental group. And only about 6-7% of that variation occurs between "races," leaving one to say that race actually explains very little of human variation.”

‘The idea of race, of course, assumes that there are set boundaries between the races, but we know that to be untrue. You know, there's no racial boundary that's ever been found. Any trait that one looks at, one tends to see gradual variation from one group to another. The facts of human variation are that it's continuous, it's not lumped into three or four or five racial groups.’

empty piffle.... all of this.. The question I posed is very direct and needs not much circumlocution

I'll repeat again: ARE BLACKS "BLACK" AND HAVE SUCH FACULTIES AS BLACK SKIN PERMITTING THEM TO RESISTS BETTER AGAINST THE HARMFUL EFFECTS OF THE SUN AND OTHER SPECIFIC ILLNESSES BECAUSE OF THEIR GENES... OR BECAUSE OF WHITE-RACISM AND POVERTY AND SOCIAL CONSTRUCTS...

If you really think that race is some sort of optical illusion maintained by some silly social construct and has no basis in reality, and that the reason black people resist skin cancer better is due to the placebo effect of racism or something of the sort, then say so... that way we can spare each other much heartache and needless head scratching.

[lictor616]

Here Lictor are the Professor’s specific responses to your attempt to suggest differences in medical rates of illness in different groups prove biological races exist.

"Frequently studies are done that show that there are racial differences in all sorts of diseases. Blacks, for example, have twice the rate of infant mortality in the United States than whites. Native Americans, overall, have higher rates of diabetes. And so the question is, how do you interpret that?

First, that may mean to some people - oh, the differences between blacks and whites are really about prenatal nutrition. That's why there are differences in infant mortality. Other individuals may think that that has something to do with medical care. And other individuals may think it has to do with genetics - that there really is something about African-American genes.

So until we address that fundamental confusion about what race is, you know, we're going to be open to different actions and interpretations. And clearly, if you think it's genetics, it may lead to one medical intervention or maybe no medical intervention. If you think it's nutritional, it leads to another. If you think it's medical care, it leads to yet another potential medical intervention.

"How did sickle cell originate and what does that reveal about the racial world view?

Sickle cell is a nice way to think about the difference between a racial world view and a world view in which you look at adaptation, change, adjustment to different environments. To the racial world view, sickle cell was seen as a disease of African-ness, a condition of African-ness, perhaps even a pathology of African-ness.

And so to find sickle cell was to find evidence of African-ness by definition. It was typological. If a person from Italy had sickle cell, it must be because they had some African blood - they must be polluted with African blood. And that was the end of the story. If you had sickle cell, you're African; if you're African, you might have sickle cell. And it's a rather pre-Darwinian and perhaps comforting story. But, it's also a very wrong story.

The right story - and I think the much more interesting story - emerged in the 1950s. And that was with a couple of discoveries. The first one was a discovery that sickle cell, which is a change in red blood cells that gives it a sickle shape, actually confers an advantage in fighting malaria. An individual who has one sickle cell allele, but not both - what we call sickle cell 'trait' - has a selective advantage in situations in which you have endemic malaria.

Individuals who had sickle cell trait seemed to resist malaria better than other individuals. And malaria is, and has been, one of the greatest killers of humanity of all time. If ever there is a selective pressure, malaria is it. And so those individuals might actually survive and prosper, and then the number of subsequent individuals with sickle cell trait would increase in a population because that allele would be selected for.

Well, that's one thing. The other thing was to actually take a close look at where malaria actually arose and became endemic and severe. Then also to look at who has sickle cell. Frank Livingston did this, and lo and behold the two maps matched extremely well. Places in which malaria was endemic, and had been endemic for a long time, were exactly the places in which sickle cell was highest. Conversely, places where endemic malaria was rather low were places in which sickle cell was virtually non-existent.

He had more than a smoking gun there. He had a nice evolutionary story and a rather tight one about how, perhaps, 5,000 years ago, for instance, in West Africa, endemic malaria became a serious problem when people started cutting down forests in the origins of agriculture. And individuals who had sickle cell were selected for, and it expanded.

Sickle cell isn't an African disease. It is true that some Africans have sickle cell, particularly individuals who have ancestry around West Africa. That's one of the highest places of sickle cell. But, it's also true that East Africans hardly have any sickle cell. South Africans don't have any sickle cell. But, it's also a Middle Eastern disease, and it's also a Mediterranean disease. Individuals in Turkey and Greece and Italy, Sicily, have sickle cell; more than individuals do in South Africa, or in East Africa. So, sickle cell is not an African disease; it's a condition that developed in response to malaria. "

If the above is confusing to you Lictor, try read one paragraph at a time and take breaks in between.

In essence the professor is taking the "exception-as-rule" logic... all of this is very deceiving...

Yes sickle cell is majority black... but since greeks can also have it... we're all equal...

Yes west africans are 90% lactose intolerant, and nordic europeans about 1% ... but some nordic europeans can be lactose intolerant... hence we're all exactly the same.

Yes one black in about 12 million can develop blue eyes... hence we're all equal and the same.

Yes the drug bidil was designed for applications to specifically black patients seeking treatment for heart ailments, but since 1% of the patients using bidil are hispanic... we're all equal.

In essence he makes the typical and recurring liberal mistake, he takes REAL measurable RACE BASED differences, and simply SAYS that because some exceptions occur that the differences aren't real... its called the discounting game... its on par with saying ... "hey we humans all bleed red... so we,re really all the same inside"! its nonsense on stilts, its unscientific, and if he was talking about any other phenomenon that wasn't race based he'd be laughed out of the room

Pretty soft headed stuff...

Edited September 20, 2009 by lictor616

[M.Dancer]

How to make a a very weak and jejune rebuttal. part deux

Rue...

Sickle cell isn't an African disease. It is true that some Africans have sickle cell, particularly individuals who have ancestry around West Africa. That's one of the highest places of sickle cell. But, it's also true that East Africans hardly have any sickle cell. South Africans don't have any sickle cell. But, it's also a Middle Eastern disease, and it's also a Mediterranean disease. Individuals in Turkey and Greece and Italy, Sicily, have sickle cell; more than individuals do in South Africa, or in East Africa. So, sickle cell is not an African disease; it's a condition that developed in response to malaria.

"

Yes sickle cell is majority black... but since greeks can also have it... we're all equal...

[lictor616]

How to make a a very weak and jejune rebuttal. part deux

"

Its another deliberate misrepresentation... South Africa is part White, part asian, part Indian... East Africa doesn't have the jungle or similar geographical conditions. West Africans are different from east africans, and have admixtures of Mediterranean, arab, north African etc.

To sample how prevalent it is in "Mediterranean" people living in the US:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/22..._Greek_ancestry

1960

Sickle cell anemia in an American white boy of Greek ancestry

Authors: J J Campbell, F A Oski

Journal: American journal of diseases of children

A 7-year-old American white boy of Greek ancestry had sickle cell anemia. The disease in this patient was not accompanied by painful episodes or recognizable hematologic complications, although he did demonstrate considerable delay in skeletal maturation. The patient sought medical attention for a dermatologic problem that was ultimately diagnosed as pityriasis rubra pilaris. To our knowledge, this is the first demonstrated example of sickle cell anemia in a white male described in the United States.

American journal of diseases of children (1960). 01/03/1977; 131(2):186-8.

[Argus]

Then explain to me why everybody says that natives have it so good on reserves? Especially after you explain your twisted version of what idiots in society and this form called so-called benefits? It is way more complicated then your BS blurb here. When your ancestors came here they smelled like pee and poop so if you don't like it go back....what about the 70 % that live off reserve? You haven't got a clue except for all the BS crap you read and hear in the news which has totally brainwashed the likes of you

Let me be clearer then. It is the inability of people like you to argue or even coherently state your believes with regard to natives on this site which draws people to mock, jeer and insult you and your poorly ordered, badly communicated ideas and beliefs. For whatever reason, most on this site who routinely argue on behalf of natives haven't got the communications skills to do more than insult everyone and lessen whatever sympathies they might have towards the native cause.

So no, this site doesn't dislike natives. It dislikes the people who argue - or attempt to argue - on behalf of natives, most of whom appear to have anti-social personality disorders.

And whatever you think of the benefits, natives drain the treasure of many billions every year. We don't have an office spending billions on Irish every year, or Chinese every year. Why do we require one for natives? Because natives are set up on some kind of quaint, historical parks which are completely uneconomical and provide no jobs or lives beyond handouts. That isn't entirely their fault by any means. But most native chiefs now see their mission in life as getting as many handouts as possible from the government (and not incidentally, skimming off whatever they can for them and their friends and families). They resist any suggestion of change which does not involve massive transfers of both wealth and power to themselves.

[Pliny]

Values are not things and have no value? I don't think redistribution of wealth is a proper word to describe soclialism. Canada's health care system is socialistic. If my money is put to good use to help another person get better or get proper care, then so be it. We all pay into this system, some get more out of it than others, because they need it. We are all in this together right?

The government is not in it with us. They are taxing, spending and making the rules that benefit their preferences - the NDP would be a horrible representation of the citizens. The two major political parties have their own set of preferences. I Like Harper somewhat and feel he would, if he had a majority, cut the size of government somewhat but I could be wrong politicians are rather fickle.

Even when you pay into a health plan at work, it is socialistic. Because everyone pays into it, and everyone can get something out of it when they need it most. To me this is like saving for that rainy day.

Note that what everyone is getting out ifi it is getting more and more costly with less and less service.

If you pay taxes there is socialism. How else are your roads, communications and other public services going to get built? There is more socialism in your life than you really think.

Off topic I know ...

There is more in your life than you think, I already know there is too much.

[Rue]

your statement is only correct if you really believe that IQ doesn't measure any type or degree of intelligence...

IQ is a very valid method of ascertaining intelligence. Is the most accurate way of knowing if a person has the right mental faculties to succeed in certain societies. And with very tiny exceptions, IQ is generally correct.

Many leftists reject IQ since it conflicts with their religious doctrine of "equality"... but most of the opposition to IQ testing is weak and ridiculous

You misunderstood what I stated and no what I stated does not suggest i.q. tests are invalid.

What I stated is that i.q. tests are bias in favour of the culture of the person who created the i.q.test, i.e., they reflect built in biases of that creator.

The i.q. tests now used across North America are most often the result of the same psychometric format devised in Princeton, New Jersey. They reflect a white, middle class bias. No they would not be accurate if you use them on a person who lives in the rain forests of Brazil. A person from the rain forests of Brazil would be no more capable of filling one out then a typical urban North American would be of being able to understand basic lessons of survival someone would need to live in the Amazon.

The i.q. tests used on people of the same culture as the test creator probably are more valid.

What I stated is i.q. tests have a serious weakness in that they do not properly address and take into consideration cross cultural differences.

I would certainly agree the entire premises of Western civilization now relies heavily on i.q. testing. However what I also know is i.q. tests also have problems in that they also do not necessarily take into consideration low scores caused by dyslexia, dyscalcula or other learning disabilities that may cause the person with them to learn to compensate for their imbalances that then enable them to function at very high levels even though they may do badly on the i.q. testing.

In addition standard i.q. testing does not test emotional intelligence and most now agree isolating intellectual from emotional intelligence which these tests do, also distorts their accuracy.

Certain persons are born with the condition called idiot savante. For unknown reasons their brain seems to be impaired and their i.q. is registered at a verty low score, but in one specific area, i.e., multiplying, painting, playing music, singing, they can exhibit highly advanced skills. They are a classic and extreme example of what happens when someone can have tremendous skills in some or few areas but not in others.

May would argue simply testing one's ability to calculate under conditions of limited time or comprehending the reasoning formulae used in i.q. tests only tests one part of the brain.

I did obtain one of my graduate degrees in Applied Psychology at OISE-University of Toronto and met a lot of students doing their Ph.d's in psychometric testing and one doing his on artificial intelligence.

I am no expert in psychometric testing or intelligence testing and do not claim to be. In the context I raised it with you, I used it to show how it can be distorted by cross cultural phenomena among other things.

The fact that I contend it has limitations, does not mean I stated it is completely invalid nor did the people I referred to suggest i.q. testing is completely invalid. What I said and quoted was that it CAN BE invalid and lead to distortions in the circumstances I suggested.

Your leaping to the conclusion I said something else, with due respect I would suggest is you projecting. I note

you tend to restate everything everyone says to you in simple, absolute, rigid terms and so in the above case unintentionally misunderstood what I said.

I agree with you that making a sweeping general statement that all i.q. tests are not valid or should be thrown out would not be helpful.

I do think personally however far too much importance is placed on them and they lead to turning people into

numbers. Each person has a unique design like a finger print or snow flake when it comes to intellectual, emotional and physical capacity, potential and actual state of evolution.

By their very nature i.q. tests make subjective assumotions and build them into the tests as "norms" all people are supposed to understand and are assumed to be universal reality.

What I am telling you is the geometry, calculus, logic, these i.q. tests attempt to measure assume many things starting with the fact that material methods of definition are rational while non material ones are not.

That in itself can cause these tests to be distorted when applying them to people who live outside the Western world where value is determined on an individual level and by amount of material the individual aquires or is said to have the capacity to obtain.

Many of the calculation tests are presented based on the assumption people use monetary systems and currencies or own property on individual basis that do not exist in many cultures.

[Rue]

Lictor I and others presented to you our basis for stating that genetic conditions

do not establish race is a biologically distinct entity.

Your response was to state:

"Yes sickle cell is majority black... but since greeks can also have it... we're all equal..."

No actually it is not majority black. You simply fabricated that comment. Even if it was true, the fact that

African descended people may have higher rates of it does not prove they are a biological entity

dintinct from non African descended people-that was precisely the point explaining why it prevails

in many groups regardless of their skin colour or whether they look black to you or not.

When you stated, "since greeks also have it...we're all equal.." you show you did not understand

what was presented to you. The fact that ethnic Greek peoples or black African peoples both have

sickle cell anemia might mean persons of both categories who have it, have the same genetic trait.

Having the same genetic trait does not make someone equal or unequal, it does indicate whether they

share a genetic trait or not.

It is precisely because black Africans and ethnic Greeks share the same genetic traits trying to argue they are

distinct biological entities is absurd. Genetically they are not. They have sufficient similiarities in their

genetic traits to make any distinction based on biology impossible.

This brings us back to your comment. You throw out equality but clearly are throwing it back into the

actual method you wish it to be used and that is the one you engage in, a subjective social construct

where you believe dark skin or the shape of noses or texture of hair makes one "equal" or "unequal".

No Lictor, neither I nor the people who have challenged you ever claimed all Greeks and black Africans

"look the same".

Your constant attempt to change the subject and mis-state it to suggest blacks and whites are

different because you think we look different is what we challenge.

Your subjective presumption that if people look different they must be genetically or biologicallty different

is what was challenged and repudiated and in fact has not been debunked by you with any objective tests

or scientific evidence.

I am still waiting for you to provide one objective test from a scientist that proved there are biologically distinct

races.

I won't hold my breath.

[GostHacked]

I get a feeling you made an effort to misread what I wrote...

No, you need to be much more clearer when posting. That is key here to have someone else understand your point of view. Which you keep changing, so it's hard to not misread what you post.

I said that Russia was not 20% asian/oriental... our friend griz was under the impression that Tatars, Chuvash and other minorities were somehow non-white as well... I corrected that mistake. Chuvash people for instance are often blond and even look nordic, thye resemble the Finnish Sami in some aspects as well. calling them "non-white orientals" is nonsense.

You do know that Indians are Asians as well. So not all Asians look like Chinese, Vietnamese, Japanese ect. They have different skin colour! You can be Asian without being Oriental. So not all Russians who are asians need to look like asians.

To say that Japanese are xenophobic is to show one's own ignorance of that country. Japan is a very "achieved" country, who is not at ALL afraid of foreign influences... not in the slightest.

Now it seems to be you who are not paying attention to what I am saying. You simply need to look at their immigration policies to show that they are xenophobic. Just because culture gets imported, does not mean those people will be accepted as immigrants. This is why you don't see many foreigners as permenant residents there. And the reason why you see mostly a homogenous Japanese society.

Anyone who says different is simply ignorant of reality.

Considering your view of reality, I am not the one who is ignorant.

[CrazeeEddie]

Very good question. Affirmative action does not mean that you hire black over white if all else is equal (or for education purposes admit black over white).

Affirmative action places aside a quota to accommodate people who are the members of a group that has faced barriers in the past (Jim Crow laws for example, i'm certain you know what those are).

Wrong, AA is exactly what you say it is not, no matter how you word it. It means that you must hire the non caucasian or non male person. This is very much a prejudice practice, whether you agree with it or not. People need to understand that 'barriers in the past' have become the opposing barriers of today.

[lictor616]

You misunderstood what I stated and no what I stated does not suggest i.q. tests are invalid.

What I stated is that i.q. tests are bias in favour of the culture of the person who created the i.q.test, i.e., they reflect built in biases of that creator.

yet Nothern Asiatics (Koreans, Chinese, Japanese) routinely perform better then "whites" in controlled US IQ tests...

maybe "white racist cultural bias"... is really pro asian anti-white?...

again... empty piffle.

[lictor616]

Now it seems to be you who are not paying attention to what I am saying. You simply need to look at their immigration policies to show that they are xenophobic. Just because culture gets imported, does not mean those people will be accepted as immigrants. This is why you don't see many foreigners as permenant residents there. And the reason why you see mostly a homogenous Japanese society.

OH I SEE! Never mind the fact that Japanese readily embrace foreign influences of all types (more then any other nation on earth mind you) ... culinary, musical, artistic, athletic... cultural and otherwise.

since they don't have any black or brown faces in their cities... that makes them paranoid xenophobic shut ins! on par with Appalachia rednecks!

I guess that without the racial aspect... you're not really diverse.... (!)

A japanese city with Indian, French, Viet-Namese, German, Italian cultural, culinary etc influences is still xenophobic of the racial composition doesn't include a sufficient amount of certain races!

how egalitarian and not "race based" this diversity is!

[GostHacked]

OH I SEE! Never mind the fact that Japanese readily embrace foreign influences of all types (more then any other nation on earth mind you) ... culinary, musical, artistic, athletic... cultural and otherwise.

Great, you have come back. You have absolutely no clue at all do you.

since they don't have any black or brown faces in their cities... that makes them paranoid xenophobic shut ins! on par with Appalachia rednecks!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan

Ethnic groups 98.5% Japanese, 0.5% Korean, 0.4% Chinese, 0.6% other[2]

This would make it the most homogenous country/culture/society on this planet. Again, you have no clue what you are talking about.

One more thing. as I said before, culture has been imported into the country (almost like every other country on this planet) but because that happens, does not mean those people get imported as well. Their immigration is very very low.

Edited October 21, 2009 by GostHacked

[lictor616]

Great, you have come back. You have absolutely no clue at all do you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan

This would make it the most homogenous country/culture/society on this planet. Again, you have no clue what you are talking about.

One more thing. as I said before, culture has been imported into the country (almost like every other country on this planet) but because that happens, does not mean those people get imported as well. Their immigration is very very low.

? was I at all disputing that Japan was one of the most racially homogeneous nations on earth? ABSOLUTELY NOT! Your failure to grasp my point is exactly the problem with this debate...

no matter how tolerant and open to foregn influences japan is (and Japan is VERY open to foriegn influences) you still regard them as a morally defective Nation because they don't have... .1 million nigerians, or 500 000 pakistanis, 2 million Hispanics etc living amongst them...

its clear that to you, the RACIAL aspect is central.

Yes their immigration is very low... and good for them! Japan is a MODEL, something to emulate... rather then import slave wage mediocrities from the four corners of the globe, they prefer to keep their society homogeneous and try to cope with labor issues by inventing brilliant robots and actually ELIMINATING the need for unskilled labor as much as possible. Japan has no "racism" in its society... racism is only possible when you have DIFFERENT races in your society... Japan doesn't loose billions, in affirmative action schemes, class action discrimination lawsuits, and policing crime prone minorities... it doesn't have to divert so much of its economic lifeblood and energy to "fighting racism" and other useless log rolling nonsense. Most importantly, Japan is able to open itself to what IT considers the best foreign influences and shutting out the bad... so they can have shawarmas and shish taouk without sharia law... they can have butter chicken without hindu turbans or polygamy, they can have american baseball WITHOUT americans, they can have scotch whiskey WITHOUT Scots, they can have an opera company without italians, they can have rap music without inner city ghetto blacks.

Culture can cross borders on its own WITHOUT importing foreigners, and the various and serious problems they bring with them. I know you see cultures only as races, but try to be a little more open minded.

Japan is a stable rational society, that (unlike canada or the US) isn't in danger of destroying its social fabric and identity despite opening itself to foreign influences.

Edited October 21, 2009 by lictor616

[Oleg Bach]

Why is it when we get a blind right wing topic it is always you who starts it. I can't be bothered to read your postings because I already know what they contain...Let me explain something to you - genetics is what it's about..not race. There are those that are bred in an inferiour manner with an inferiour outcome. Human beings from all "RACES" have their duds... To look at a whole culture and paint them with the same brush is brutally stupid. How is it possible that out of millions in one race in YOUR mind not ONE mating had a good and profoundly superiour outcome? It's impossible that one race or culture is fully inferiour...Now I am going to read your post. I bet it's about putting down a whole race instead of focusing on the individuals that are losers in that race.

[Oleg Bach]

Okay - I get it....so you don't like the fact that social engineers are trying to destroy some families and extended families - Nations in effect - race! This is just refined clan warfare..It has been going on for centuries - Who I detest are the old anglo elite that are not loyal to their race (family) and disrespect the decendants of what they percieve as their former surfs. Look at our welfare system and the drugging of children - the anglo pharma people and the bankers are in on that...and they use Jewish professionals to do the incrimental genocide of white people - there _ now you know.

[GostHacked]

? was I at all disputing that Japan was one of the most racially homogeneous nations on earth? ABSOLUTELY NOT! Your failure to grasp my point is exactly the problem with this debate...

no matter how tolerant and open to foregn influences japan is (and Japan is VERY open to foriegn influences) you still regard them as a morally defective Nation because they don't have... .1 million nigerians, or 500 000 pakistanis, 2 million Hispanics etc living amongst them...

its clear that to you, the RACIAL aspect is central.

No where did I say they were defective. You should just stop making stupid conclusions that are not true. But you are wrong about Japan not being subject to racism as you like to think. It is not racism against blacks, whites ect.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4671687.stm

An independent investigator for the UN says racism in Japan is deep and profound, and the government does not recognise the depth of the problem.

Doudou Diene, a UN special rapporteur on racism and xenophobia, was speaking at the end of a nine-day tour of the country.

http://dyske.com/?view_id=677

Racism in Japan manifests differently from it does in truly multi-racial countries like the US. As I have said in my past essays, there are two independent forms of racism: unconscious/psychological racism and conscious/ideological racism. They must be addressed separately. We are all racists to a degree in the former sense of the term. In the latter case, we choose to be or not to be a racist. Without distinguishing these forms of racism, we cannot effectively analyze racism in Japan. On one hand, Japanese people can be exceedingly nice to foreigners, but on the other, they can be as rude as any nation can be.

Culture can cross borders on its own WITHOUT importing foreigners, and the various and serious problems they bring with them. I know you see cultures only as races, but try to be a little more open minded.

You have no idea how opened minded I am. I don't see cultures as races, you do. And you have proven that with many of your posts in other threads about race and racism. Many of us here on the board has had to post just to show how much of a racist you actually are. You are about the equivelant of Japan, not knowing and understanding racism because you see the society as homogenous. That can create more racisms towards other cultures other than their own.

Japan is a stable rational society, that (unlike canada or the US) isn't in danger of destroying its social fabric and identity despite opening itself to foreign influences.

It is not rational if you cannot see your own forms of rasiscm. It is not rational to have that fear of other cultures and other people. Xenophobic by definition is a fear of outsiders. Part of the reason why immigration is so low. And like I said, because culture has been imported to an extent, the people of those cultures are not being imported on the same scale.

Government here is facilitating that racism, just like it facilitates it here in Canada, or the US. The powers that be simply benefit from us being pitted against one another. When all that stops, and we lose the fear of each other, we can all get along and put all the bull that has been given to us, aside. I don't fear any culture or 'race'. I do fear some individuals who end up hijacking thier race, culture, religion, in order to get their racist ideals across.

We simply not need to be afraid of each other, there is no need. Be proud of our differences and at the same time celebrate our similarities. If we start with what makes us similar, in the end we find out we are really not that different from each other.

It just takes someone with some guts and rational thinking to make that connection.

[Strangles]

Wrong, AA is exactly what you say it is not, no matter how you word it. It means that you must hire the non caucasian or non male person. This is very much a prejudice practice, whether you agree with it or not. People need to understand that 'barriers in the past' have become the opposing barriers of today.

The quotas are in place to make sure our public institutions are slightly reflective of our ethnic makeup.

They are not exclusive.

Edited October 25, 2009 by Strangles

[Pliny]

We simply not need to be afraid of each other, there is no need. Be proud of our differences and at the same time celebrate our similarities. If we start with what makes us similar, in the end we find out we are really not that different from each other.

It just takes someone with some guts and rational thinking to make that connection.

Being proud of our differences and finding out we are really not that different from each other is kind of fuzzy thinking.

Basically, race is part of self identity. In discussing the Japanese I wouldn't say they are racist but they have a strong identity of themselves as a people. This is what you would call being "proud of their differences", but you see that pride as being racist and exclusive.

I see natives and blacks in North America not just being proud but "defiantly" proud. They are inclined to separate themselves from the established society because it iis perceived to be "white" or European. they don't see any connection to what they have contributed to the creation of the extant society. It is a pity they have been made to feel so different and the big problem is it continues today in the form of affirmative action and quotas which are equally as bad, if not worse than, outright contempt.

The idea of "we have to love everybody and then everything will be fine" sounds very nice and noble but in reality we have our affinities and alliances, and our experiences and education that invite prejudices and biases. Injustices can and do occur out of our perspective, sometimes unintentionally, sometimes intentionally, and in light of that there will always be some animosity somewhere. All we, as a species, can do is attempt to ensure justice and reason prevail. It doesn't so easily when deep-seated and historical cultural, political or religious beliefs demand contempt of those with a different set of cultural, religious or political beliefs or are perceived to be exclusive. We do have to realize we are all in the same boat and it behooves us to do our best to get along.

You may perceive the Japanese as being exclusive and that is the apparency but their adoption of practices and customs from other cultures does not demonstrate contempt or racism. They are a very respectful and honest people and it is a big part of their culture to be so.

I have never been to Japan but that is what I have learned about them from reading and my, admittedly limited, personal experience.

[lictor616]

No where did I say they were defective. You should just stop making stupid conclusions that are not true. But you are wrong about Japan not being subject to racism as you like to think. It is not racism against blacks, whites ect.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4671687.stm

http://dyske.com/?view_id=677

laughable,

how can a country that is 99.7+% homogeneous have "racism"?

Logically it cannot, racism can only happen when people of different races try to live in the same nation...

How could a Japanese person discriminate against someone of the exact same ethnicity, culture and race?

So again, racism is a non-issue in Japanese society.... sure Japan may retain a very low opinion of Blacks and other minorities... but, as rational people... they don't try to live with them or interfere with their lives... they are intelligent enough to know that sepeartion and non-intervention make the best neighbors.

Japanese may think of Europeans as a little crazy, and maybe stupid... but that doesn't concern them because nearly none are in their midsts... White people are only people with whom they trade... that's all...

[Strangles]

laughable,

how can a country that is 99.7+% homogeneous have "racism"?

Logically it cannot, racism can only happen when people of different races try to live in the same nation...

How could a Japanese person discriminate against someone of the exact same ethnicity, culture and race?

So again, racism is a non-issue in Japanese society.... sure Japan may retain a very low opinion of Blacks and other minorities... but, as rational people... they don't try to live with them or interfere with their lives... they are intelligent enough to know that sepeartion and non-intervention make the best neighbors.

Japanese may think of Europeans as a little crazy, and maybe stupid... but that doesn't concern them because nearly none are in their midsts... White people are only people with whom they trade... that's all...

When Japan invaded China it conducted racist policies.

Yes, a Japanese can be racist.

When Europeans invaded north America, they conducted racist policies (killed the natives, enslaved the blacks). Racist policies.

When the Hutus decided they had to kill the Tutsies, there were racist policies used.

When 99% homogeneous Germany decided to invade the rest of Europe, they implemented racist policies.

Now, you wish to argue its impossible to be racist in a homogeneous society?

Edited October 25, 2009 by Strangles

[lictor616]

The quotas are in place to make sure our public institutions are slightly reflective of our ethnic makeup.

They are not exclusive.

In canada about, 23% of advertisements actors are black or mulatto... yet blacks constitute perhaps 2.3% of the total population of canada... a major over-representation.

By and large affirmative action has nothing to do with ethnic makeup, which would be bad enough since in essence this would still be institutional racism... and please don't tell me that displacing people to include blacks SOLELY because of their race is not barefaced racism that absolutely DOES negatively affect people.

In essence you're okay with a system that puts a black in a position (of employment or other) simply to fill some quota ?

Never mind that you would never be for it if it were used by white people... lets say a public institution for some reason gets to be 34% asian and 40% black... would you be okay with displacing 10 to20% asians and blacks to put in white people to "reflect the ethnic makeup" of our society... of course not!

[lictor616]

When Japan invaded China it conducted racist policies.

Yes, a Japanese can be racist.

When Europeans invaded north America, they conducted racist policies (killed the natives, enslaved the blacks). Racist policies.

When the Hutus decided they had to kill the Tutsies, there were racist policies used.

When 99% homogeneous Germany decided to invade the rest of Europe, they implemented racist policies.

Now, you wish to argue its impossible to be racist in a homogeneous society?

well again, these countries were only racist when they were in contact with OTHER NATIONS...

you fail to grasp that without proximity or interference or mixing... none of this racism is possible.