A Conversation About Race

Oleg Bach · September 15, 2009

Another heads up. In Toronto they release black gangsters who are carrying pistols. This is done because we have racists that appoint judges..the judges are instructed to continue to use the catch and release policy for preditors...because they know that the black gangsters will kill any other potential black leadership candidates on a street level...This way our white trash judicary does not have to dirty their hands and do the killing themselves - very clever.

lictor616 · September 15, 2009

Rue
Why do we not us Race being appplied to animals in any way? Why is this strictly a human applied term?

it isn't... and we do... we use any of these terms: race, subrace, to sub-specie to cline to mtDNA group, breed etc...

Edited September 15, 2009 by lictor616

Oleg Bach · September 15, 2009

Because animals as far as we know aren't racist.

The race called dog...naturally excludes the race called cat. Even within the dog race their are sub groups...a terrier no matter how small will always attack a great dane.

lictor616 · September 15, 2009

Because animals as far as we know aren't racist.

hmmmmm I guess that's why house cats and pumas naturally mingle and freely copulate and produce offspring (who are all equal of course as the races of man)

yes in real life nature is like a Walt Disney movie with lions and meerkats chilling together with wilderbeasts and hogs and insects... singing songs of peace and love... animals NEVER fight or discriminate ... that's just evil racists who do that...

GostHacked · September 15, 2009

Because animals as far as we know aren't racist.

Which brings it to being a social contruct and not valid scientific term when using it in terms of classification living beings in the tree of life (anatomy), which is (Domain), Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species. No clines, no race, no clades, The only other term they use below species is sub-species.

Human is species, but caucasion, negro and mogoloid are all sub-species and if you will even sub-sub-species? If you can scientificaly prove that they are sub-species, then you have something. Race is simply a term that is used to describe social contructs/differences and not biological differences.

Oleg Bach · September 15, 2009

I want to be a negro....I like the sound of that word! Kind of bluesy..

GostHacked · September 15, 2009

hmmmmm I guess that's why house cats and pumas naturally mingle and freely copulate and produce offspring (who are all equal of course as the races of man)

If you see house cats and pumas NATURALLY mingling, then I will agree with you. Puma is a wildcat, My cat Havana (muted tortiose shell) is a domesticated cat. You are wrong that they can produce offspring. I am not sure if Havana can handle that kind of love.

http://www.tigertouch.org/cats/overview.html

Generally speaking, two dissimilar animals belonging to the same genus are considered as belonging to different species if they do not interbreed and produce viable offspring: they either physically cannot interbreed, such as a puma and a housecat (boggles the mind, not to mention the housecat!); would not interbreed naturally, such as a jaguar and a leopard, which just don't have the right smells and signals to inspire mating; or their offspring would be sterile, such as a lion and a tiger, whose offspring is a "liger" if the father is a lion or a "tigon" if he is a tiger, but is always sterile. Conversely, if two such animals do interbreed and produce viable offspring, they naturally and quickly become the same species even if they weren't to start with -- interbreeding will do that sort of thing -- though they may maintain enough differences to be classed as separate subspecies.

yes in real life nature is like a Walt Disney movie with lions and meerkats chilling together with wilderbeasts and hogs and insects... singing songs of peace and love... animals NEVER fight or discriminate ... that's just evil racists who do that...

You have heard of the Law of the Jungle right? Stonger, better, faster, smarter animals will prevail. The hunter and the hunted. Man is quite different from the rest of the animal kingdom (I hope you don't dispute the fact we are animals)

ToadBrother · September 15, 2009

thanks for the heads up,
to quote again Ernt Mayr, "perhaps the greatest evolutionary scientist of the twentieth century", and what might might be called the Linnaeus of the Modern Synthesis {neo-Darwinism}, in his "Systematics and the Origin of Species"

"Even though all of us are in principle equal before the law and ought to enjoy an equality of opportunity, we may be very different in our preferences and aptitudes. And if this is ignored, it may well lead to discord"

Quote mining Mayr will hardly endear you. The entire essay can be found here:

http://www.goodrumj.com/Mayr.html

And it don't say what you wish it would say.

lictor616 · September 15, 2009

Quote mining Mayr will hardly endear you. The entire essay can be found here:
http://www.goodrumj.com/Mayr.html

And it don't say what you wish it would say.

um how about you read him again:

in "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."

ToadBrother · September 15, 2009

You have heard of the Law of the Jungle right? Stonger, better, faster, smarter animals will prevail. The hunter and the hunted. Man is quite different from the rest of the animal kingdom (I hope you don't dispute the fact we are animals)

The thing is that I don't think we are. To be sure, in some respects we are; clearly our capacity for reasoning and general intellectual capacity, far exceed even our closest relatives. But, at the same time, we are animals like any other. We are a highly social animal, and like any social animal, but in particular other primates and most tellingly; hominoids (great apes), we organize into dominance hierarchies, with clear lines of authority.

This idea of nature simply a bloody business is false. While, to be sure, predation is a harsh business, there are just as many examples of co-operation. We, like most social species, have found a route to success by co-operating, by altruistic behaviors, by putting the greater good before the needs of the individual. You'll find the same sorts of behaviors in chimpanzees and canids.

ToadBrother · September 15, 2009

um how about you read him again:
in "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."

There are certainly races, but they do not neatly line up with your Victorian belief in the superiority of Europeans. Despite your awkward and moronic attempt to state that Sub-saharan Africans are not more genetically diverse than other human populations (using, idiotically enough, mtDNA, instead of nuclear DNA as your justification), the fact is that in sub-Saharan Africa there are at least four or five populations that could best be described as separate races. It's because of your obsession with skin color, you literally ignore the forest for the trees.

The genetic notion of "race" is considerably different than the old Victorian view.

And man, are you dishonest bigot. You're still quote mining. How depraved you are. It must be your race.

Edited September 15, 2009 by ToadBrother

lictor616 · September 15, 2009

Which brings it to being a social contruct and not valid scientific term when using it in terms of classification living beings in the tree of life (anatomy), which is (Domain), Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species. No clines, no race, no clades, The only other term they use below species is sub-species.
Human is species, but caucasion, negro and mogoloid are all sub-species and if you will even sub-sub-species? If you can scientificaly prove that they are sub-species, then you have something. Race is simply a term that is used to describe social contructs/differences and not biological differences.

except that animals are actually INSTINCTIVELY racist and "speciest"...

lictor616 · September 15, 2009

There are certainly races, but they do not neatly line up with your Victorian belief in the superiority of Europeans.

again an emotional and silly ad hominem "mined" reply...

oh so now THERE ARE CERTAINLY RACES!?!?! ahahah! Its like talking to a schizo! why are you talking to me then? I'm not the one saying that races are optical illusions... Rue Dancer and company do... so take it with them then!

to requote and repeat myself (again):

"All of you completely FAIL in this debate because you barely dispute my central thesis: the descriptive idea that whites are discriminated against as second class citizens and that humans are naturally racists AND the normative idea that they ought to be able to go their own way. Instead, you spend your time disputing the idea that other races are inferior. That I may or may not think that is not essential to my argument. It's totally superfluous."

"Most of the "race doesn't exist camp" try to attack the archaic definition of "pure race." As anyone in science understands, races are mere taxonomies that look at the infrequencies or frequencies of differentiating genetic alleles between population groups. As I said most of the speudo intellectuals that claim to attack the concept of race ... argue against old and etiolated notions of purity and other sophisticated pollameré. the arguments of most of your posts Rue are perhaps valid and interesting for 1895."

ToadBrother · September 15, 2009

except that animals are actually INSTINCTIVELY racist and "speciest"...

A puma not mating with a house cat isn't an issue of race. Yes, it's speciest, in the respect that for a number of reasons (sexual selection, behavioral mating changes, etc.) the two species will no longer even attempt reproduction (for the same reason a gorilla probably won't recognize when a human female is fertile, because humans, for whatever reason, hide estrus).

But humans seem to have no such issue. European sailors seemed to have no issues with mating with Native Americans, Andaman Islanders, Australian Aborigines, Polynesians, South-east Asians, etc. The sexual signals that are so very important to sexual organisms when they seek mating opportunities, work for all H. sapiens, whether you're an Inuit or an Australian Aborigine.

lictor616 · September 15, 2009

you literally ignore the forest for the trees.

Being able to generalize people and group them into clines or races and looking at the BIG PICTURE is actually looking at the forest NOT THE INDIVIDUAL TREES.

The people who focus on the individual trees, are the people who tell us that race is meaningless, that everyone is unique (yet for some reason equal) all at once... these are the people who when confronted by general facts about a group or race triumphantly point out to individual exceptions... to them exceptions are the rule...

now how about you cook up some other insult laced reply as a substitute for an actual argument...

GostHacked · September 15, 2009

The thing is that I don't think we are.

We are animals, because we are not plants. It's a simple long standing classification. -

To be sure, in some respects we are; clearly our capacity for reasoning and general intellectual capacity, far exceed even our closest relatives. But, at the same time, we are animals like any other. We are a highly social animal, and like any social animal, but in particular other primates and most tellingly; hominoids (great apes), we organize into dominance hierarchies, with clear lines of authority.
This idea of nature simply a bloody business is false. While, to be sure, predation is a harsh business, there are just as many examples of co-operation. We, like most social species, have found a route to success by co-operating, by altruistic behaviors, by putting the greater good before the needs of the individual. You'll find the same sorts of behaviors in chimpanzees and canids.

Are you talking about cooperation within a species, or cooperation between two different species? I think within species, there is strong evidence, but I don't see as much cooperation between two different species. It does exist, I will grant you that.

GostHacked · September 15, 2009

except that animals are actually INSTINCTIVELY racist and "speciest"...

Show me.

ToadBrother · September 15, 2009

again an emotional and silly ad hominem "mined" reply...
oh so now THERE ARE CERTAINLY RACES!?!?! ahahah! Its like talking to a schizo! why are you talking to me then? I'm not the one saying that races are optical illusions... Rue Dancer and company do... so take it with them then!

Races do not correlate to your view. You talk, for instance, about blacks, as if sub-Saharan Africans were a simple, homogenous genetic group. That is, in fact, so inaccurate as to be an outright falsehood.

As Mayr himself says in the article you tried so dishonestly to make sound like he was a vile bigot like you, he points out that variability even with racial groups is so high that you can't simply make overarching statements about any such group.

lictor616 · September 15, 2009

A puma not mating with a house cat isn't an issue of race. Yes, it's speciest, in the respect that for a number of reasons (sexual selection, behavioral mating changes, etc.) the two species will no longer even attempt reproduction (for the same reason a gorilla probably won't recognize when a human female is fertile, because humans, for whatever reason, hide estrus).
But humans seem to have no such issue. European sailors seemed to have no issues with mating with Native Americans, Andaman Islanders, Australian Aborigines, Polynesians, South-east Asians, etc. The sexual signals that are so very important to sexual organisms when they seek mating opportunities, work for all H. sapiens, whether you're an Inuit or an Australian Aborigine.

by puma I meant "wildcat"...

of course... both are of the EXACT SAME SPECIE einstein...

Genus Felis:

Chinese Mountain Cat (Felis bieti)

Domestic Cat (Felis catus)

Jungle Cat (Felis chaus)

Sand Cat (Felis margarita)

Black-footed Cat (Felis nigripes)

Wild Cat (Felis silvestris)

ToadBrother · September 15, 2009

Are you talking about cooperation within a species, or cooperation between two different species? I think within species, there is strong evidence, but I don't see as much cooperation between two different species. It does exist, I will grant you that.

A lot depends on how you define co-operation. Symbiotic relationships are relatively common (think lichen). But one rather striking is example is our relationship with a few varieties of wolves, which we have heavily bred into dogs.

lictor616 · September 15, 2009

Races do not correlate to your view. You talk, for instance, about blacks, as if sub-Saharan Africans were a simple, homogenous genetic group. That is, in fact, so inaccurate as to be an outright falsehood.
As Mayr himself says in the article you tried so dishonestly to make sound like he was a vile bigot like you, he points out that variability even with racial groups is so high that you can't simply make overarching statements about any such group.

I said earlier that there were "hundreds probably thousands" of races around the globe.. and that the broadly defined races with which we classify is lacking precision. But it is acceptably accurate and expedient...

and either way to quote your own source:

"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."

ToadBrother · September 15, 2009

by puma I meant "wildcat"...
of course... both are of the EXACT SAME SPECIE einstein...

Genus Felis:

Chinese Mountain Cat (Felis bieti)

Domestic Cat (Felis catus)

Jungle Cat (Felis chaus)

Sand Cat (Felis margarita)

Black-footed Cat (Felis nigripes)

Wild Cat (Felis silvestris)

A puma is not a "wildcat". A puma/cougar is a separate genus. No one can, or particularly wants to read your diseased mind.

Yes, many wildcat populations are completely interfertile with domestic cats, which is why, for instance, European wildcat populations have gone into precipitous decline, simply because they are being bred out of existence.

lictor616 · September 15, 2009

A puma is not a "wildcat". A puma/cougar is a separate genus. No one can, or particularly wants to read your diseased mind.
Yes, many wildcat populations are completely interfertile with domestic cats, which is why, for instance, European wildcat populations have gone into precipitous decline, simply because they are being bred out of existence.

diseased mind my oh my are we getting pissy pantsed here?

By the way a wildcat will no more breed with a house cat as a puma and a tiger...

(they are all by the way genetically VERY similar, and share the highest mtDNA material then even two humans of the same ethnicity)

ToadBrother · September 15, 2009

diseased mind my oh my are we getting pissy pantsed here?
By the way a wildcat will no more breed with a house cat as a puma and a tiger...

Could you provide some citations.

(they are all by the way genetically VERY similar, and share the highest mtDNA material then even two humans of the same ethnicity)

Apart from the fact that I doubt you even know what mtDNA is, please provide citations in actual scientific journals for this one. Some "expert" you managed to find after googling to justify your hatred of other people whose skin color you don't share is hardly what I would consider legitimate.