Caucasians

[M.Dancer]

I'm not making a scientific argument. In fact I'm pointing out that the politico-scientific emperor has no clothes in this case.

If the claim is being made that there is very little difference between apes and humans, it makes it very hard to argue that race doesn't exist because there is very little difference between races

...in which case, you don't have an argument, period.

Perhaps if you could make an argument for what ever it is that you are arguing for that isn't full of holes......

[ScottSA]

I'm not making a scientific argument. In fact I'm pointing out that the politico-scientific emperor has no clothes in this case.

If the claim is being made that there is very little difference between apes and humans, it makes it very hard to argue that race doesn't exist because there is very little difference between races

...in which case, you don't have an argument, period.

Perhaps if you could make an argument for what ever it is that you are arguing for that isn't full of holes......

What exactly do you think you've proved by posting those two snippets? There seems to be no correlation.

[Rue]

Every so often, this forum produces a post that is exceptional.

Rue, above, you have written such a post. In this case, you have not only made points that are thought-provoking but you have done it in a way that is polite.

My hat is off.

Why thanks August. In between his choking Scott knows I respect him.

Edited July 18, 2007 by Rue

[NovaScotian]

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID...11683414B7F0000

Scientists Identify Gene Difference Between Humans and Chimps

The DNA sequences of humans and chimpanzees are 98 percent identical.

Should apes have human rights?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/6505691.stm

"Apes are special because they are so closely related to us," says Mr Redmond. "Chimpanzees and bonobos are our joint closest living relatives, differing by only one per cent of DNA - so close we could accept a blood transfusion or a kidney. Gorillas are next, then orang-utans.

Gene Separates Early Humans From the Apes"

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/SciTech/reuters20020826_393.html

It may help influence how viruses and bacteria infect cells, and with how cancer cells interact, Varki said. "There are some clues that it might have something to do with brain plasticity," he added.

Humans and chimps share more than 98 percent of their DNA,

Who cares? If anything this degrades the argument that race doesn't exist. If the claim is being made that there is very little difference between apes and humans, it makes it very hard to argue that race doesn't exist because there is very little difference between races.

It is impossible to tell the race of an individual based on DNA. At least not yet, because the difference is so tiny.

Edited July 18, 2007 by NovaScotian

[RB]

I mean why are we so worried about securing/protecting values and sentiments of Caucasians. All the whites ever did to other cultures was to convert, mate, destroy and wipe out the cultures....yes? Isn't it time for bye bye, good riddance to inevitable

Strange how we are always wanting to free people, protect them .... by imposing our own democracies as in Iraq

Least we sit around pondering about a hold that is simply slipping away, like:

The less we see the less we are likely to have!

I mean, look, the worry really comes to this - who is going to rule the world, who calls the shots, who has population numbers, who has the wealth, this is much more concern for whites...yes?

[ScottSA]

I mean why are we so worried about securing/protecting values and sentiments of Caucasians. All the whites ever did to other cultures was to convert, mate, destroy and wipe out the cultures....yes? Isn't it time for bye bye, good riddance to inevitable.

That, perhaps more than anything I could ever say, demonstrates the hate, self-hate, and envy that is pitted against caucasians in the west. It's why I don't want my daughter to inherit a world with no place to retreat to.

[jefferiah]

As for the existence of race I think the people making the argument that it does not exist are being a little dishonest with themselves. Now in one sense it may be very true what M. Dancer is saying, and I quite agree with him, that race is relative. And he quite rightly points out as well that the people of India (though not all) are Caucasians because India was invaded by the Aryans. And we sometimes refer to people who are caucasian as being Indo-European. The lines between race can become blurry if you analyze them in the most profound way. But for all practical purposes the idea of race is not offensive and it can be very beneficial, and despite the claims of some people that they don't believe in it, they really do.

Now look if a man burglarized my house in the middle of the night when I was home and I managed to get a good look at his face it would go a long way in helping the police if I described him as being caucasian, asian, black, etc. I am quite certain that all the people arguing about the relativity of race and its non-existence would have no trouble picking out what ScottSA means by a white girl.

If we were in a room of ten people and one of them was black, and I said "See that guy what's his name."

You might say "What guy?"

And I will say "The black guy."

Will you then say "Black guy? What are you talking about? There is no such thing as black guys. I am not familiar with that concept or term. Could you please be more specific?"

[jefferiah]

And Scott is right in ignoring your chimp argument Kuzadd, because by that logic not only can we no longer distinguish between caucasians as being caucasian, black as being black, we can also no longer distinguish between humans and chimps.

[jefferiah]

RB, the asserttion that all white people ever did is destroy is quite a broad generalization, and if it were made about any other group you would call it racism. Why would you want to preserve Caucasian? I dont know. Maybe you don't, but I don't see any problem with talking about the possible extinction of an entire "non-existent" race and Kimmy's desire to preserve blonde people. I am not really worried about the extinction of Caucasians, but I see nothing wrong with the idea of someone making an effort to keep blonde people in existence. By the same token if black populations were falling and a few black guys said "you know i would like there to be black people in the future" I have no problem with it. It may be that it seems pointless to you, but as long as the people are not hurting anyone in their attempts to preserve then its not bad. This idea of preservation in and of itself is not evil.

[jefferiah]

To put it in Rue's way------maybe Scott and Kimmy like wine, and not just one kind of wine, maybe they want the future to be filled with many kinds of wine.

[kuzadd]

Who cares? If anything this degrades the argument that race doesn't exist. If the claim is being made that there is very little difference between apes and humans, it makes it very hard to argue that race doesn't exist because there is very little difference between races.

In any event its moot. To claim that race doesn't exist is more or less claiming that the emperor's new clothes are very nice.

actually scottsa, it degrades your arguement. Only in that it show how foolish your arguement is.

There is extremely little difference, genetically speaking between human race and apes (approx 2%)

There is no difference really except for environmental response evolutions, expressing themselves genetically.

Therefore it makes it very hard to argue that race does exist,to quote you. "because there is very little difference between races."

[kuzadd]

And Scott is right in ignoring your chimp argument Kuzadd, because by that logic not only can we no longer distinguish between caucasians as being caucasian, black as being black, we can also no longer distinguish between humans and chimps.

Thereby, it blows the race arguement out of the water, by your own admission.

You wrote because" by that logic not only can we no longer distinguish between caucasians as being caucasian, black as being black"

We can't distinguish, except for some environmental responses that evolved through time, get it yet?

Coloured skin, a response to sun exposure, the blood disorder I cited, common amongst people, who orignate around the mediterranean region, black, white & olive skin.

If you needed a transfusion, would you take blood from a person of colour?

Of course you would , cause it's the same as yours.

in fact, we are so very nearly genetically indistinguishable from apes, that they can be transfused with our blood, in all likelihood.

bye bye bogus race arguement.

[Bonam]

Yes, because when you encounter a person in real life, the first thing you see is their gene sequence. While genetic differentiation between races may be minimal, how does that relate in the slightest or contradict the fact that there are very obvious physically visible differences? No one is trying to define races exclusively by their genes.

When you go to a grocery store and see a pile of yellow apples, red apples, and green apples, do you care that genetically they are almost identical? Does their genetic similarity prevent you from being able to tell between the different "races" of apples? Would you argue that different types of apples do not exist, and that all apples are exactly interchangeable and identical? I'd guess that the answer is no.

Edited July 19, 2007 by Bonam

[ScottSA]

And Scott is right in ignoring your chimp argument Kuzadd, because by that logic not only can we no longer distinguish between caucasians as being caucasian, black as being black, we can also no longer distinguish between humans and chimps.

Thereby, it blows the race arguement out of the water, by your own admission.

You wrote because" by that logic not only can we no longer distinguish between caucasians as being caucasian, black as being black"

We can't distinguish, except for some environmental responses that evolved through time, get it yet?

Coloured skin, a response to sun exposure, the blood disorder I cited, common amongst people, who orignate around the mediterranean region, black, white & olive skin.

If you needed a transfusion, would you take blood from a person of colour?

Of course you would , cause it's the same as yours.

in fact, we are so very nearly genetically indistinguishable from apes, that they can be transfused with our blood, in all likelihood.

bye bye bogus race arguement.

I think it's you who is not getting it. This is logic 101:

1 Your position is that there is no such thing as race.

2 You supply in evidence the fact that genetic difference between races is minimal, thereby hinging your argument that race doesn't exist on genetic similarity.

3 You, for some reason, supply evidence that genetic difference between apes and humans is minimal too.

Fact: Apes and humans are different.

Therefore, if apes and humans are different in spite of genetic similarities, your contention that races do not exist because of genetic similarities is severely weakened by your own evidentiary claims.

And frankly the whole argument, even if you hadn't managed to torpedo its hull on your own, is nonsensical. Regardless of whether the differences in the genetics of race are minimal or not, the phenotypology of race is obvious. Everybody knows what "race" means, everybody can see the difference between races (No way is anyone going to give me a treaty card, for instance), and really all you're practising is obscurantism. In using this argument, you're fitting the emperor with new clothes.

[M.Dancer]

To paraphrase Mr Clemens......"everyone talks about the whites but no one will do anything about it."

[Hollus]

What is you argument Scott? Are you saying that there is a difference between 'races' beyond physical appearance?

[ScottSA]

What is you argument Scott? Are you saying that there is a difference between 'races' beyond physical appearance?

Yes, obviously there must be a genotype difference in order for there to be a phenotype difference, regardless of how "small" one might want to claim it is. But none of that really matters. The fact is that race exists; denying it is foolish and amounts to nothing more than dragging a red herring back and forth over the path.

[M.Dancer]

Maybe if you provided a "legal" definition of what white means....

[jefferiah]

And Scott is right in ignoring your chimp argument Kuzadd, because by that logic not only can we no longer distinguish between caucasians as being caucasian, black as being black, we can also no longer distinguish between humans and chimps.

Thereby, it blows the race arguement out of the water, by your own admission.

You wrote because" by that logic not only can we no longer distinguish between caucasians as being caucasian, black as being black"

in fact, we are so very nearly genetically indistinguishable from apes, that they can be transfused with our blood, in all likelihood.

bye bye bogus race arguement.

no, you misunderstood what i said. I am saying that your argument is useless because it would also mean that we could not distinguish between humans and chimps. I never said I agreed with it. I am saying if you want to play it that way, then you have to realize that your logic-not mine-would also mean that there is no diffetrence between a human and a chimp. And since I dont think you would agree with that, then your argument is useless.

[jefferiah]

Maybe if you provided a "legal" definition of what white means....

That is ridiculous though M Dancer. I will quote my example of a house with ten people. One of them is a black guy. I say "Whats that guys name?"

You say," Who do you mean?"

I reply with the most obvious way to describe him. "The black guy"

Do you then say..."sorry i do not know what a black man is. Could you be more specific and provide a legal definition?" Do you think this makes you a sensitive enlightened person? It makes you a person who pretends he is blind.

You would know who I was talking about. You would be able to pick out a white girl for Scott. And if you can do these things. Then whether or not the difference is a matter of scientific relativity, you still can't claim ignorance and say you don't know what people mean when they say caucasian, black, asian. And if you know these things, then your argument is dishonest and hypocritical.

But aside from all this, it doesn't matter either way. If Scott wants to marry a white girl, he doesnt need to provide you of a legal definition of what that is. It shouldn't matter to you. He will judge what he considers white.

[M.Dancer]

Maybe if you provided a "legal" definition of what white means....

That is ridiculous though M Dancer. I will quote my example of a house with ten people. One of them is a black guy. I say "Whats that guys name?"

I ask because i care...............

The term caucasian has nothing to do with skin colour (although many caucasians are what might be called white. British Anglo Saxons are caucasian, Punjabis are caucasian, Turks are caucasian, Iranians....etc etc........

White is also unclear. Are the Spanish White? WHat about mexicans? Sicilians? Finns? Slavs......seems rather arbitrary to me.

So if someone proposes that the white race ( what ever that may be) needs to be preserved, before we can even talk about how, I wnat to know who is white.

.....Allow me to start.....Be it resolved that to be white, you must have at least one blue eye. Failing to have at least one blue eye means the individual is not white.

[Peter F]

The term caucasian has nothing to do with skin colour (although many caucasians are what might be called white. British Anglo Saxons are caucasian, Punjabis are caucasian, Turks are caucasian, Iranians....etc etc........

White is also unclear. Are the Spanish White? WHat about mexicans? Sicilians? Finns? Slavs......seems rather arbitrary to me.

So if someone proposes that the white race ( what ever that may be) needs to be preserved, before we can even talk about how, I wnat to know who is white.

.....Allow me to start.....Be it resolved that to be white, you must have at least one blue eye. Failing to have at least one blue eye means the individual is not white.

Obviously M.Dancer is correct. A caucasian homeland would have to define what caucasian means for immigration purposes (if only to allow the homeless caucasians in).

[guyser]

.....Allow me to start.....Be it resolved that to be white, you must have at least one blue eye. Failing to have at least one blue eye means the individual is not white.

You forgot inability to dance, or having rhythm .

[M.Dancer]

.....Allow me to start.....Be it resolved that to be white, you must have at least one blue eye. Failing to have at least one blue eye means the individual is not white.

Research has forced me to amend this definition. It seems that some Ukranians, who are clearly Slavs infused with Mongolian and Tartar blood....have Blue eyes.

Therefore, Be it resolved that to be white, you must have at least one blue eye and one or less Ys in your family name and that Y cannot be in any place other that the last letter of the Family name (as in Clancy).

[ScottSA]

Obviously M.Dancer is correct. A caucasian homeland would have to define what caucasian means for immigration purposes (if only to allow the homeless caucasians in).

Wrong. Simply halting immigration across the board would work just fine. Then all this confusion amongst the left over what constitutes caucasian would be moot.