Guest TrueMetis Posted September 10, 2009 Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 The population of the Americas occurred 10,000 to 20,000 years before the population of Europe. While it is possible that ~some~ Europeans migrated here (just as ~some~ Asians did) long after it was originally occupied, it is more likely that Americans migrated to Europe.Europeans actually are late-comers to the out of Africa migrations. On the evolutionary scale that would put them about 10,000 years behind Native Americans and 30,000 years behind Asians. I vaguely recall hearing about this, do you have a source? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lictor616 Posted September 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 Unlike you I don't scare so easily cause someone is black. I talk forcefully to blacks all the time. I call one the credit manager another the production manager and a third the custumer service rep. what did we say about anecdotes... anyways so you're a telephone tough guy... and um pardon my rudeness and racism... but how did you know they where black from just talking on the phone with them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lictor616 Posted September 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 I would say both are experiancing a false pride. I can't imaging anyone being proud as a white person that Harper is the PM and I find the same feeling amonst blacks towards Obama to be somewhat..umm...corny...schmaltzy...quite frankly I find it embarrassing. well then where is your opposition to this ? So far as I can tell this is the first time you said anything remotely unfaltering about black people.. but you're so quick to throw muck around at the OTHER SIDE of the racial spectrum... Again: double standard... you say you're equally astounded how any person could be proud of their race... yet you ONLY attack one side... the white one... nonsense! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lictor616 Posted September 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 Some quotes from your link, Lictor - I can see how you might be confused, as the title of the article contradicts what it actually says. I really think, though, you should make a habit of reading what you are linking to, so you can have more credibility in your posts. where is this quote from.. it looks like you copoy pasted a bunch of run on sentences together... the article on "even babies dscriminate" d says nothignof a doctor katz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lictor616 Posted September 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 Prove they were here first.They can be the legitimate heirs to part of North America but not all of it. Cause nomads have never been able to settle down and learn to farm. /Sarcasm No just a fool. you're right about that... neither are owed ANYTHING. Canada is the property of Western People so long as they are willing and ABLE to defend it as such... that's the law of life and nations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melanie_ Posted September 10, 2009 Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 where is this quote from.. it looks like you copoy pasted a bunch of run on sentences together... the article on "even babies dscriminate" d says nothignof a doctor katz Read the whole article, Lictor. The quotes I put in my previous post come directly from the article you linked to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted September 10, 2009 Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 what did we say about anecdotes... anyways so you're a telephone tough guy... and um pardon my rudeness and racism... but how did you know they where black from just talking on the phone with them? Why would you think I only talk on the phone to them? Sometimes I email them too. I know they are black 'cause I work with them. The credit manager muct approve all new accounts... You can do some of that on the phone but sometimes it requires face to face. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted September 10, 2009 Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 Again: double standard... you say you're equally astounded how any person could be proud of their race... yet you ONLY attack one side... the white one... nonsense! Yes your post is nonsense. Welcome to the state of self awareness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TrueMetis Posted September 10, 2009 Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 you're right about that... neither are owed ANYTHING. Canada is the property of Western People so long as they are willing and ABLE to defend it as such... that's the law of life and nations. Read it again I never said that they're not owed anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted September 10, 2009 Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 Evolution is not only quantitative is it qualitative. Nature knows of no equality, rather nature operates according to an iron law of INEQUALITY... even two twins are different! Actually, nature has the law of balance. Humans have been the only species to drastically upset that balance. Constant exponential growth in population means we have to artificially and mechanicly improve areas such as argiculture to have the ability to feed the population. We mow down forests which provide us with oxygen and filter the air, which are also habitats for thousands of animals. Our cities are sprawling across the land, and natural migration of animals has severly been altered just because of the 4 lane hiways and barriers that are in place. Come to think of it, I have seen a lot of roadkill this year compared to most. Anyways, sorry to get that off topic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted September 10, 2009 Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 Law of Balance? Incense? Bead curtains? Crystal divination? Che Guevara T-Shirts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted September 10, 2009 Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 Law of Balance? Incense? Bead curtains? Crystal divination? Che Guevara T-Shirts? Come on Doggy boy. I think you understand what I am talking about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted September 10, 2009 Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 No...what are you talking about? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted September 10, 2009 Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 No...what are you talking about? Nevermind, as you were. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lictor616 Posted September 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 Actually, nature has the law of balance. Humans have been the only species to drastically upset that balance. Constant exponential growth in population means we have to artificially and mechanicly improve areas such as argiculture to have the ability to feed the population. We mow down forests which provide us with oxygen and filter the air, which are also habitats for thousands of animals. Our cities are sprawling across the land, and natural migration of animals has severly been altered just because of the 4 lane hiways and barriers that are in place. Come to think of it, I have seen a lot of roadkill this year compared to most. Anyways, sorry to get that off topic. no... we are of nature... we are related to nature... to every aspect of it... we are subject to ALL OF ITS LAWS. Its true that we can temporarily delay the ramifications and consequences of nature... the consequence of flouting ITS laws, but eventually we will be called to account for our transgressions (such as INSANELY rejecting the eugenics necessary for survival) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lictor616 Posted September 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 Read the whole article, Lictor. The quotes I put in my previous post come directly from the article you linked to. the word "katz" appears NOWHERE in the text. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted September 10, 2009 Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 Nevermind, as you were. There is no Law of Balance and any balance in nature is merely perceived. Nature is about survival of the fittest...ask a water lily. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lictor616 Posted September 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 There is no Law of Balance and any balance in nature is merely perceived. Nature is about survival of the fittest...ask a water lily. precisely accurate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted September 10, 2009 Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 (edited) Well, of course, all I'd have would be personal anecdotes and vague feelings that such a thing might happen. After all, what serious academic would waste their career studying something so trivial?Well, one actually did: ...... Some interesting points from your article: ....while only one in six is a natural blonde, almost half of women lighten their hair. Last year they spent over £100 million on hair dye - and that doesn't include what they pay at the hairdressers .... I find it quite interesting that so many women would put so much time and money into something so 'negative;' something that's going to bring them "discrimination" and "demeaning remarks." Another interesting comment: Under closer questioning, the MBA students revealed that the blonde stereotype had indeed affected their judgement. Originally the MBA students didn't think candidates being blonde influenced their decisions. They didn't consciously look at a blondes and think 'they are less capable.' Only after "closer questioning" did they "reveal" that the blonde stereotype affected their judgement. One has to wonder what the "closer questioning" involved. One has to wonder if the "closer questioning" was geared towards the "revelations" that the study was looking to find; if the MBA students were, in fact, convinced by those doing the "closer questioning" that they were biased by stereotypes. Furthermore: Some managers feel that 'fake' blondes may be seen as too concerned with their personal appearance and therefore not serious at work. In fairness, the article did say that "fake brunettes" were not perceived that way, but how many times does a brunette's hair color cry out "fake!" So perhaps the brunettes were not obviously "fake" as the blondes were. There was no mention of clothing, either. Or hairstyles. Or age. Or weight. Or attractiveness. Too many unanswered variables for me to take this as proof of discrimination against blondes, because I think all of these variables could affect a person's judgment just as easily as hair color could. One last interesting point: When people are asked to rate various personality traits of people they tend to judge blondes as weaker and more submissive. But to me, here's the really interesting part: This may be deeper than a stereotype. American psychologist Jerome Kagan has investigated differences in temperament ....He speculates that the genes for blonde hair, blue eyes and shyness, may be a common biological package. One final thought: maybe the MBA students thought the blondes were "trying to sell something." Edited September 10, 2009 by American Woman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JB Globe Posted September 10, 2009 Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 It is a concept that the vast majority of humans understand. Just about anyone can clearly differentiate between members of at least 3 or 4 different human racial groupings (white, black, asian, etc) This is a very Euro-centric argument. The whole notion of "race" varies greatly from region to region and country to country. If you tried to pull the white/black/asian thing in Brazil, no one would understand what you were talking about, because race there is something completely different - there are dozens of "races" in addition to ethnic groupings such as German-Brazilians, Japanese-Brazilians, etc. The idea of race that exists in North America and Europe just doesn't go far beyond those regions. and others can differentiate between very specific races, such Danish, Scottish, Han Chinese, Mongol, Korean, Arab, Persian, or closer to home for you, even Ashkenazi and Sephardi are "races". Actually, those are all ethnic groups. here's no point saying these things don't exist. For those who believe in the genetic superiority of their race based in science, it's very important to let them know that not only is there no superiority, their identity has no scientific basis. It's a social construct - you might as well try to create an identity around people who's favourite colour is blue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted September 10, 2009 Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 Race being so nebulous as it is, I don't see much difference between what is a race and what is an ethnic group. The Japanese may well consider Phillipinos to be a differnt race....The Tutsi may well believe the Hutu are as well a different race. Given that theire is no scientific basis for race (note to lictor, by this I mean the not whack nut/not white racist quack spuedo scientists) they might as welkl be right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lictor616 Posted September 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 (edited) Race being so nebulous as it is, I don't see much difference between what is a race and what is an ethnic group. The Japanese may well consider Phillipinos to be a differnt race....The Tutsi may well believe the Hutu are as well a different race. Given that theire is no scientific basis for race (note to lictor, by this I mean the not whack nut/not white racist quack spuedo scientists) they might as welkl be right. the same scientific bases that distinguishes different species and sub-races of a any given species is the same for the different races of mankind... what don't you understand?! Your out of hand rejection is just a head-in-sand tactic... mtDNA markers are apparent often to HUMAN EYES... you can see their genetic expressions in eye color, eye shapes, nose shapes, skin tone, done structure, hairtype, facial angle, craniometry etc... You're right of course in saying that there are more then just the broadly defined races (black, white, yellow) etc... There are doubtless hundreds... if not outright THOUSANDS of sub races ... in the same way that genetic drift expresses itself in races of dogs. But to go from the notion (that you yourself concede) that there are "dozens of different races within a race" and that therefore "races don't exist" and "have no scientific basis" is obviously a pretty inane not to mention hopelessly absurd... If you can't see the difference between a black person and an inuit... then goodbye and good luck... but please stop imposing your hogwash on people who aren't fugitives from reality. Edited September 10, 2009 by lictor616 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melanie_ Posted September 10, 2009 Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 the word "katz" appears NOWHERE in the text. You've had ample time to actually read the article you posted, so I don't know why I'm even doing this. But anyway, page 4, paragraph 10, word 21 = Katz. As a refresher.... Is it really so difficult to talk with children about race when they're very young? What jumped out at Phyllis Katz, in her study of 200 black and white children, was that parents are very comfortable talking to their children about gender, and they work very hard to counterprogram against boy-girl stereotypes. That ought to be our model for talking about race. The same way we remind our daughters, "Mommies can be doctors just like daddies," we ought to be telling all children that doctors can be any skin color. It's not complicated what to say. It's only a matter of how often we reinforce it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted September 11, 2009 Report Share Posted September 11, 2009 Some interesting points from your article:....while only one in six is a natural blonde, almost half of women lighten their hair. Last year they spent over £100 million on hair dye - and that doesn't include what they pay at the hairdressers .... I find it quite interesting that so many women would put so much time and money into something so 'negative;' something that's going to bring them "discrimination" and "demeaning remarks." Because they believe it is a worthwhile trade-off. Whether they feel more attractive, or believe it improves their chances of finding a mate, or whether their mate likes the way it looks, they do it because they believe it is of some benefit to them. That does nothing to alter the fact that it also carries drawbacks. Anyway, you asked when blondes have ever been discriminated against, and I think the question has been satisfactorily answered. Another interesting comment:Under closer questioning, the MBA students revealed that the blonde stereotype had indeed affected their judgement. Originally the MBA students didn't think candidates being blonde influenced their decisions. And yet, they were wrong, as the results demonstrate. That Bates asked followup questions to determine an explanation for this bias does nothing to dispute the results. They didn't consciously look at a blondes and think 'they are less capable.' Only after "closer questioning" did they "reveal" that the blonde stereotype affected their judgement. One has to wonder what the "closer questioning" involved. One has to wonder if the "closer questioning" was geared towards the "revelations" that the study was looking to find; if the MBA students were, in fact, convinced by those doing the "closer questioning" that they were biased by stereotypes. So... Diane Kyle, Cal State, researches the topic and determines that there is real discrimination here.... Brian Bates, University of Brighton, conducts an experiment that produces the same result ...and you know more about performing research than either of them? Furthermore: Some managers feel that 'fake' blondes may be seen as too concerned with their personal appearance and therefore not serious at work. Isn't that a shocking statement? A manager who said "Single mothers may be seen as too concerned with their children and therefore not serious at work" would probably lose his job, and his employer would probably be open to a class-action lawsuit on behalf of every single mother who'd ever applied for work there and been turned down. But someone would say out loud that blondes might be too busy looking in the mirror to do their jobs? An excellent example of the sort of double standard I was talking about. There was no mention of clothing, either. Or hairstyles. Or age. Or weight. Or attractiveness. Too many unanswered variables for me to take this as proof of discrimination against blondes, because I think all of these variables could affect a person's judgment just as easily as hair color could. These details were all explained by Professor Bates himself: In a study I did at the London Business School for the BBC television programme 4x4 , MBA students, the bosses of the future, were given six CVs with photos attached, and a job description. They were asked to assess six candidates for a managerial job. There was one catch. I gave half of them a female candidate with blonde hair. The other half had exactly the same candidate, but this time she was a brunette. I wanted to see if they evaluated her differently. Same woman... same resume... just different hair color. And different evaluation of her qualifications, and different salary. One last interesting point:When people are asked to rate various personality traits of people they tend to judge blondes as weaker and more submissive. But to me, here's the really interesting part: This may be deeper than a stereotype. American psychologist Jerome Kagan has investigated differences in temperament ....He speculates that the genes for blonde hair, blue eyes and shyness, may be a common biological package. I notice that Mr Kagan is a psychologist, not a geneticist, so I can only speculate as to how credible this idea might be. But, supposing it is a valid idea, what do you suggest this means? If Mr Kagan were correct and there were some sort of genetic link between blonde hair and shyness, how does that relate to the topic of prejudice and discrimination and stereotype? As an aside... I suspect that Mr Kagan's ideas, regardless of their validity, might be extremely controversial. Because if there can be a genetic link between these particular superficial traits and shyness, then it is entirely plausible that there can be a genetic link between some other superficial traits and some other personality traits. If Mr Kagan had suggested that a dark skin tone may be linked with aggressive behavior, would people be comfortable with that statement? -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted September 11, 2009 Report Share Posted September 11, 2009 If you can't see the difference between a black person and an inuit... then goodbye and good luck... but please stop imposing your hogwash on people who aren't fugitives from reality. There are no questions about physical differences. Anyone who thinks that those differences actually anopunt to anything important, as August might say, is an idiot. I'm not sure how those differences relate to things that are important, like whether a black person is genetically predisposed to be a better or worse parent than another...and I'm pretty sure no one does. In otherwords, I have no idea whether your own racial genetic markers make you predisposed to be a racist clown, but I certainly hope not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.