I know that this can be a polarizing topic but with the specific groups brought into mind, I thought that maybe a generalized discussion might help.

I am currently in my last quarter. In three months I graduate with a BA in Anthropology (study of man). The one class that I have left to take that is required for me to graduate is what we call a Social and Behavioral Science capstone. The course I chose just happens to be entitled Race and Racism.

Growing up I never understood the concept of race nor understood why people didn't like someone because they were different. When high school hit, I could see the differences and the perception of what I was supposed to be when I left high school. Against those perceptions, I am in college and on the point of receiving a degree. The reason I bring this up is because it bears some relation to what Race is.

So what is race?

The only way I can explain it is from the social science definition. Race is a social construct based upon the perceived physical differences. Society determines where one perceived race ends and where another begins and implies a social hierarchy. For the science buffs: THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS TO SUPPORT SUCH DISTINCTIONS. In fact there is more genetic variation within a group than between groups. This leads to ethnicity.

Ethnicity refers to the cultural differences learned through socialization. This brings to mind the concept of what culture is. Culture is the group of learned behaviors and ideas of a group.

The reason I define these two distinctly is that few people know the distinction between the two though there are times when race and ethnicity overlap. My reason for starting this thread is to gain an idea of what other people think these two terms mean to them. As an anthropology student, I am aware that there are differences between people and their ideas and I try to be the willing the listener which I am most of the time.

Racism is an ongoing problem in the world today. Here in the United States we tend to think that those days are over when in fact it is not. There are many who have experienced racism overtly or not overtly. California is one of those states that doesn't overtly show racism like Tennesse might. Like many other behaviors and ideas, it is learned and is therefore passed on to future generations. The negative effects tend to be poor perceptions of the minority groups being targeted and a general acceptance of stereotypes. This is perpetuated not just by the older generations and history, but things like the media perpetuate stereotypes and it becomes the mindset of the population. An example is the stereotype of the gay man. Usually the media portrays gay guys as the ones who talk like valley girls and do that 'girlfriend' move with the index finger. This doesn't hold true for all gay guys. I have met gay guys who act like the other guys I hang out with and I have noticed that athletes like dancers and gymnists have that body that moves in a feminine way. I can see why back in the 60's it wasn't easy for a male dancer. It's mostly anout perception that has us in this rut that we are in now.

Now that I have had my say, any comments?

In the past black peoples, their society and culture were widely considered
lesser than that of the white peoples... (do you still...?) Because especially
technologically I think the whites were mostly far more advanced...

But nowadays we say there is no difference and we all still think with the
same primitive Stone Age brains... (Which is propably true...)

So...

Do you consider the knowledge to be part of evolution and developement ??

Or do you think we and our societies are and have been all equal because
we all have and have had the same primitive brains ??

I agree with JM12's definition of race when she says that there's no scientific basis to even divide humans into races. Race is something invented by the first explorers and conquistadors to justify their treatment of the people whose skin is of different color. This happened basically because most of those explorers were in search for money and riches and when they saw a technologically less developed people whose skin is, in addition, of some strange different color and who have a huge amount of gold and other riches, they knew what they had to do to get it. Let's also not forget that Christianity had a huge influence on the people of Europe of that time, even the governments and that it was more aggressive and quicker to judge people who have different convictions.

So what happened because of all that? A lot of African tribes were enslaved and those people were dubbed the lesser race, which was justified by the color of their skin and their pagan religions. Their sacred artifacts were stolen by the explorers who made a fortune on them. The same principle extended to the American continent after it was discovered. Just yesterday I've read some general stuff about the conquistadors and what I remembered most was the story of Cortйs and Montezuma. Montezuma came with his entourage and greeted Cortйs in a very friendly manner and their meeting ended with Cortes capturing him and then killing a huge number of Aztecs in the process. In later conflicts Montezuma ended up dead and the Aztec empire destroyed, its riches plundered. Another case is that of Atahualpa, the ruler of the Inca, who was captured by Pizarro and held for ransom. What's worse is that just after the ransom was paid Pizarro ordered Atahualpa to be strangled, for he was no longer necessary. After Atahualpa's death it was easy to conquer and destroy the rest of the Inca Empire.

Now, why am I telling all this? Because I think it proves my point on why the concept of races and especially lesser races was invented and why enslaving those people, or killing them was not illegal.
When we're on the subject of modern day racism, I have to state my utter and complete puzzlement on why a racist organization like the KKK is allowed to exist in the US. I mean I know you can't make those people (I'd like to call them something else, but this is a PG-13 forum) change their opinions of the people of different skin color, but you sure as hell can forbid them to publicly promote hatred, racism and inequality. They can be a-holes if they want to, but they should keep their intolerant views to themselves instead of convincing the rest of the world that they are right.

That's all from me for now. Gotta get back to studying. :D

Race? Humans don't have races. Dogs have races. Humans just have their skin coloured different. Should we treat them below garbage and discrimine them just because their skin isn't white? I say no. Besides, it wouldn't fit well with me being a "racist" seeing as my dad is of black descency.

And those are my 0.02 Ђ. Bear with me, i'm 12. :P

We're all roughly as primitive as one another. Skin, hair and eyes aren't going to change that.

Somehow, if you are going to call race "artifical", you may as well question every "artifical" construct as well, like, say, the United States of America. Where is proof that the USA really exist? It does not. No country exist really, they are all artifical constructs within our mind of the citizens of the USA and of the politicans of the USA. Mother Nature is blind to such idiotic thinking that there is a "country" residing in the "middle" of "North America", and doesn't really care where it sends its hurricanes.

Coming off from that point, I can understand the appeal of racism, even though I hate it. Artifical constructs help to define people into different groups. And wheter you are black or white, thinking that your group is more better than another group, or all groups in general, make you feel happy and content. You feel superior, and that superiority feeling is what drives racism.

And the fear that, if race really means nothing, and everyone finds that out, then everyone is...equal. This means I am equal to an Afghani, who is equal to an Iraqi, who is equal to a Hispanic, who is equal to a Black, who is equal to a White, who is equal...etc. We are all equal...which means, well, nothing, an utterly nihilistic concept. If everyone is free, then how can you appericate freedom? Freedom is meaningless unless you are able to opresss someone, or you belong to a group that you feel is more superior.

Luckily, we can elimnate racism without having to elimnate artifical distinictions. We can keep Nationalism, ideologies, political parties, religion, etc. and still have this belief of superiority and 'freedom' meaning something.

Somehow, if you are going to call race "artifical", you may as well question every "artifical" construct as well, like, say, the United States of America. Where is proof that the USA really exist?
Would you not agree that it exists as a cultural construct, as other countries?
Coming off from that point, I can understand the appeal of racism, even though I hate it. Artifical constructs help to define people into different groups. And wheter you are black or white, thinking that your group is more better than another group, or all groups in general, make you feel happy and content. You feel superior, and that superiority feeling is what drives racism.
I would have to disagree. Personally, I think it is fear of the different that drives racism...

And the fear that, if race really means nothing, and everyone finds that out, then everyone is...equal. This means I am equal to an Afghani, who is equal to an Iraqi, who is equal to a Hispanic, who is equal to a Black, who is equal to a White, who is equal...etc. We are all equal...which means, well, nothing, an utterly nihilistic concept. If everyone is free, then how can you appericate freedom?
By exercising it?

I'm not sure that total freedom exists, since that would include the freedoms to be enslaved and to enslave...?

Would you not agree that it exists as a cultural construct, as other countries?

It's still a construct though, and a construct that really has no basis in reality.

I would have to disagree. Personally, I think it is fear of the different that drives racism...

Should we divide racism into postive racism and negative rascim, like Orwell divided nationalism into postive nationalism and negative nationalism?

Postive racisim is the belief that your race is superior. (White supermastis rallies, Black Nationalists, etc.)

Negative racism is the belief that other races are out to get you. (Nazis' fear of Jews)

You must be seeing the negative denying aspects of racism while I see the postive affirming effects of racism. They both play a role, and usually "postive racism" has a negative racism tone in it...if your race is the best, all other races must be jealous, no?

By exercising it?

Everyone has the same rights as you do. So you use a right...but well? Is it good?

Let me take an example of a left-wing utopia. Everyone has an equal amount of money, an equal amount of freedom, and an equal amount of property. So everyone is equal. Which means everyone is the same. There is no distinictions.

But we need distinctions to mean something. How can someone be proud that they are "rich" if everyone is a millionare? How can someone be proud that they are "smart" if everyone has 200 IQ? How can you be proud that you are "loved by God" if everyone is loved by God? How can you be proud that you are "good" if everyone is sinless? You need the opposite for things to have meaning and to make you feel happy. So you must have slavery to exist so that you can be proud that you are free.

I'm not sure that total freedom exists, since that would include the freedoms to be enslaved and to enslave...?

I interpert it to say that you and everyone else have a limited, but an equal, amount of freedom. This is what people mean when they want others to be 'free'. Even the Anarchist takes away the freedom to kill and the freedom to enslave.

True freedom would be the "Hobbean State of Nature", where everything is chaotic and people are left to fend for their own. Eventually, there will be order that will come from this state of nature, and a government shall be formed.

I'm not sure that total freedom exists, since that would include the freedoms to be enslaved and to enslave...?

Freedoms ? Illusions, Mister InSidious, vagaries of perception; the temporary constructs of a feeble human intellect...

In the past black peoples, their society and culture were widely considered
lesser than that of the white peoples... (do you still...?) Because especially
technologically I think the whites were mostly far more advanced...
Taking point from the Out of Africa theory which I believe holds water, technological advancement began in Africa. In Olduvai gorge, yes I am bringing in the Leakeys, came what we now call the Olduvai tool kit which consists of the hammerstone and the anvil and then you hit and get the flakes. It was relatively simple. We don't start seeing the handaxes until later. So to say that knowledge is a part of evolution, I would say yes. Knowledge is learned behavior but it bears correlation to the enlargement of the bipedal apes' brains from the the cup of brains in Australopithecines to the cup and a half from the Homo habilus ('Handy Man'), etc.


Should we divide racism into postive racism and negative rascim...An impossiblility much like there is no such thing as a positive stereotype. Stereotypes are meant to depict certain groups in a certain light. I am 3/4 Hispanic, predominately Mexican-American and I look like one. Lucky for me I haven't been called derogatory names like spic and cherry picker but back before Cesar Chavez started the United Farmworkers movement, Hispanic children were encouraged to go to trade school and learn a trade. They weren't encouraged to go to college. The same reality exists were Hispanics are expected to be garbage collectors, gardners, etc. My brother and mother are lucky because they are what you call a white Hispanic. My brother though looks more Italian due to our Sicilian genes and my mother is white because of her Lithuanian German half.

What I listed is just a mere example of how within one ethnic group there is more variation. As I may have mentioned before, society defines where racees begin and end. One of my favorite text is called The Mismeasure of Man by Gould. Within in, he brings to light some of the perceived physical differences that were used to justify the put down of groups, particularly people of African descent and these ideas were conceived by men who were considered brillant for their time.

One example is the prognathus or projection of the jaw that tends to appear in people of African descent. This was used to say that Africans were the so called 'missing link' between man and ape. Really it was just a form of genetics and if you look at the cranium, you can see it. It is a trait that is useful in identifying ethnicity in forensics. We call it nasal guttering.

A famous one was done by measuring the brain capacity with buckshot. Big error taken was that there were no allowances for proportiion with height. This was used to discriminate against females as well by saying that they weren't smart enough. Racism doesn't just occur with ethic groups but with gender as well. Nice isn't it?

I'm not sure that total freedom exists, since that would include the freedoms to be enslaved and to enslave...?

I don't feel "True Freedom" will ever exist, not on an international scale. I believe that as long as their is humanity there will be one group whom destroy ther sense of freedom by their actions. I think that there will always be a sense of a 'heirarchy' in society in that there will always be a group that dominates or precides over another group. If history has taught anything, however, is that those whom threaten freedom of a particular group of people (i.e. Nazis, Saddam) will ultimately fall. My point is that i think that humanity will always strive for a sense of freedom, but will never necessarily achieve a sense of complete freedom.

If history has taught anything, however, is that those whom threaten freedom of a particular group of people (i.e. Nazis, Saddam) will ultimately fall. My point is that i think that humanity will always strive for a sense of freedom, but will never necessarily achieve a sense of complete freedom. To that I add: Any ideology that needs to attack the thing that least threatens it is an ideology that will not outlive it's own generation. Inclusion, not exclusion, is the key to survival. I don't know how much of this is ideal or not but history has shown that eventually those groups like the Nazi or as where this quote came from, the Afrikaaners will topple because there will be a time when the minority groups will unite to stand up.
To quote another source, 'There is no freedom without the law' I mean that you have to have some form of law and order. To be free to do whatever without regard for anything else is chaos or anarchy. There will always be hierarchy but when that hierarchy violates what people call freedom then that is when it turns into tyranny.

I am oversimplifying things but social science in general is complicated because the main focus is society and human beings. Truth be told we are complex beings and it is very difficult to put everythign in nice and neat little columns. That is natural science :D

Somehow, if you are going to call race "artifical", you may as well question every "artifical" construct as well, like, say, the United States of America. Where is proof that the USA really exist? It does not. No country exist really, they are all artifical constructs within our mind of the citizens of the USA and of the politicans of the USA. Mother Nature is blind to such idiotic thinking that there is a "country" residing in the "middle" of "North America", and doesn't really care where it sends its hurricanes.

Or you could be a scientist and not make judgment. I don't believe JM12's use of the word "artificial construct" meant that everything artificial is inherently bad. In fact, society is an artificial construct as well. Politics too. It's a useless debate as they do have a root in reality, it's just we, humans, who created this reality.




I believe Tocqueville predicted the US civil war the best. He saw that the only way for the Southern states to actually continue slavery was consider the Africans as subhumans and as such ineligible for the same basic rights as the rest of the population.

I've felt racism in my life yes. I'm not white, I'm Asian, not as bad as Muslims or Blacks, but not the best either. At any rate, I'm not complaining about my situation. Alone, I can't stop anyone from being racist. I can't get a Chinese girl's parents to accept my inferior Vietnamese blood (and the fact that I don't worship the Holy Land, Toronto). Not going to make me lose some sleep.

Anyway, I believe that with globalization, it might be possible that differences be "ironed out" over time and racism will slowly become less and less important. Hate of cultural differences too.

I am oversimplifying things but social science in general is complicated because the main focus is society and human beings. Truth be told we are complex beings and it is very difficult to put everythign in nice and neat little columns. That is natural science

Yet people still do it...trying to understand society as a simple thing...

I've felt racism in my life yes. I'm not white, I'm Asian, not as bad as Muslims or Blacks, but not the best either. Look on the bright side: at least you're really good at math :D

Anyway, I believe that with globalization, it might be possible that differences be "ironed out" over time and racism will slowly become less and less important. Hate of cultural differences too. I couldn't agree more. As our collective consciousness is raised, it will become increasingly difficult to sustain in-group bias (insofar that we will begin to recognize all humanity as our "in-group"). The hard part will be letting go of those institutions that promote in-group bias, but I have every confidence that it can be done.

Just look at how much the internet has helped to promote international communication on even the lower scales of the economy. Anyone with a PC and internet connection can communicate with people anywhere in the world. A few decades from now, it will be even more difficult not to think globally. But perhaps I'm more optimistic on this point than I should be. Who knows for sure?

An impossiblility much like there is no such thing as a positive stereotype.

Er...George Orwell hated postive nationalism, and I used that to base postive racism.

When I said "postive racism", I meant the racism that the racists apply to THEMSELVES. The White racist sees his race as great and mighty and powerful and needing to be protected, yadda yadda yadda.

It is the symbols that I believe racism is based on, the belief that your race is superior.

To that I add: Any ideology that needs to attack the thing that least threatens it is an ideology that will not outlive it's own generation.

Hm. No wonder the Roman Empire managed to get itself killed after, say, about 1000 years? And of course, nobody would ever seek to copy such a corrupt empire that oppressed any ethnic group as long as they were not Roman (they even fought a Social War against fellow Italians), and murdered off tons of Jews and Christians. I mean, who would ever seek to borrow the name Senate from the Roman Empire and praise the crimes of the racist Roman Empire?

...Oh wait. It's the American Republic.

Truth be told we are complex beings and it is very difficult to put everythign in nice and neat little columns

You have to though, in order to understand it. Sweeping generalizations and abstract notions are necessary in understanding stuff. Otherwise, we will say:

" is a very complex subject. That is all. Any questions?"

Or you could be a scientist and not make judgment. I don't believe JM12's use of the word "artificial construct" meant that everything artificial is inherently bad. In fact, society is an artificial construct as well. Politics too. It's a useless debate as they do have a root in reality, it's just we, humans, who created this reality.

Thing is, if everything is artifical, then why should the idea of 'race' be hated and the idea of 'globalization' and 'tolerance' be praised when, in all fairness, neither of them actually exist.

I believe Tocqueville predicted the US civil war the best. He saw that the only way for the Southern states to actually continue slavery was consider the Africans as subhumans and as such ineligible for the same basic rights as the rest of the population.

Which leads to a more important point. Was the South justified in leaving the Union? We may disagree with their racism, but let us assume for a moment that their premise, that Blacks are inferior and that slaves are property, is correct.

If so, and even if not, shouldn't Southerners have the right to DECIDE for themselves how they want to live? Shouldn't Southerners have a right to self-determination? It was this right that caused for the Americans to sign the Declaration of Indepedence...so why is this right not given to Southerners?

The Southerners may believe in something we hate, but still, humans should have a right to rule over themselves, and not to have people impose rules and laws upon them, especially from people up North. Isn't [i]that a form of slavery?

Anyway, I believe that with globalization, it might be possible that differences be "ironed out" over time and racism will slowly become less and less important. Hate of cultural differences too.

But that really wouldn't be the elimination of racism? It would rather be the Human Race becoming...well...one race. Each human seeing itself as superior to everything else. You still have racism, but it is the racism of the human race, the "tolerated" racism, by which the human race, by virtue of its virtues, is allowed to take over the universe.

I don't believe JM12's use of the word "artificial construct" meant that everything artificial is inherently bad.
I never said this. I said that race was a social construct and that was basing off the accepted definition within the social sciences. SilentScope was the one who used artificial in his responses. I never said that it is bad but the concept of race and the reasoning for justification I find to be something not rooted in a science that would be readily accepted is something that I find slightly ridiculous. If you read Stephen Jay Gould's The Mismeasure of Man, you would see what I mean. It would be wise if you remember who said what. I never said artificial is bad because when it comes to material things, it does have its uses. :D

You have to though, in order to understand it. Sweeping generalizations and abstract notions are necessary in understanding stuff. Otherwise, we will say:

" is a very complex subject. That is all. Any questions?"

An extremely dumb assumption. You confuse what is vulgarization and what is trying to actually understand complex phenomenons. What people generally try is to vulgarize the subject in order to make it understandable to the majority. As such, when talking to my friends about politics, I dumb things down, not because they're not as smart, but because they might not have such a deep interest nor what I consider basic knowledge to understand some more complicated concepts.

Simplification is a necessity but it does not mean that the subtle nuances disappear.



Thing is, if everything is artifical, then why should the idea of 'race' be hated and the idea of 'globalization' and 'tolerance' be praised when, in all fairness, neither of them actually exist.

Because they do exist. As such, you might as well say we shouldn't study society or politics because they are artificial constructs. Artificial is not synonymous with inexistent.



Which leads to a more important point. Was the South justified in leaving the Union? We may disagree with their racism, but let us assume for a moment that their premise, that Blacks are inferior and that slaves are property, is correct.

If so, and even if not, shouldn't Southerners have the right to DECIDE for themselves how they want to live? Shouldn't Southerners have a right to self-determination? It was this right that caused for the Americans to sign the Declaration of Indepedence...so why is this right not given to Southerners?

The Southerners may believe in something we hate, but still, humans should have a right to rule over themselves, and not to have people impose rules and laws upon them, especially from people up North. Isn't [i]that a form of slavery?

Right to sovereignty of nations eh? Isn't it morally ambiguous to deny the right to freedom to some people and then on the other hand, claim that you should be free. A clear contradiction in your reasoning and the premise of Blacks being inferior is almost a disgusting rationalization of racism. Only if that was true would your argument have any value. Unfortunately, it isn't so your imaginary world example holds nothing. This is about racism, not sovereignty.



But that really wouldn't be the elimination of racism? It would rather be the Human Race becoming...well...one race. Each human seeing itself as superior to everything else. You still have racism, but it is the racism of the human race, the "tolerated" racism, by which the human race, by virtue of its virtues, is allowed to take over the universe.

Isn't it one race and different cultures already? Aren't we superior in many ways to a dog or a rabbit? Or are the dog and rabbit empires going to supplant us with their superior technology in the near future? Certainly, they have abilities we don't, but currently, apart from roaches who can survive everywhere, it's humanity who dominates and does whatever it wants with the world. Unless you're an animalist, I don't see how you can disagree.


It would be wise if you remember who said what. I never said artificial is bad because when it comes to material things, it does have its uses.

My mistake. You did say social construct. I remove what I said :)

Simplification is a necessity but it does not mean that the subtle nuances disappear.

Eventually, however, to understand subtle nuances, you have to simplify it, at least for yourself.

Because they do exist. As such, you might as well say we shouldn't study society or politics because they are artificial constructs. Artificial is not synonymous with inexistent.

They are artifical, and they do exist, but even with that, you are telling me that one artitifcal construct is better than another artifical construct. They both are artitifical constructs, and really, neither is objective. You can prefer one or the other, but it doesn't matter what you prefer.

Right to sovereignty of nations eh? Isn't it morally ambiguous to deny the right to freedom to some people and then on the other hand, claim that you should be free. A clear contradiction in your reasoning and the premise of Blacks being inferior is almost a disgusting rationalization of racism. Only if that was true would your argument have any value. Unfortunately, it isn't so your imaginary world example holds nothing. This is about racism, not sovereignty.

/shrugs. I was merely making a questioning on why some people are willing to give freedom to some people (Blacks, to be able to rule themselves) and not freedom to other people (the slaveholders of the Blacks, to be able to rule others). How come we can give freedom to one group and ALSO deny freedom to the other group? That to me, seems quite hypocritical.

You treat the Black with more respect than the White Slaveholder. Yes, this may be justifiable for your belief. But I always like understanding other people's viewpoints, and if you accept the premise that blacks are inferior to whites, then what the Slaveholders did was justifiable.

But you have to prove to me that the premise is wrong, that we should discard this construct. It is up to each human to decide what is right and wrong, in the end, if everything is artifical and there is no real concrete meaning, therefore, it really did not matter if Blacks are inferior to Whites or Whites and Blacks are equal.

Isn't it one race and different cultures already? Aren't we superior in many ways to a dog or a rabbit? Or are the dog and rabbit empires going to supplant us with their superior technology in the near future? Certainly, they have abilities we don't, but currently, apart from roaches who can survive everywhere, it's humanity who dominates and does whatever it wants with the world. Unless you're an animalist, I don't see how you can disagree.

1) Here is what I am afraid of: Oppressing the Earth. Tearing the Earth to pieces. Strip-mining it. And then rinsing, and repeating on all the other planets in the solar systems! It is this human-centric viewpoint that would threaten to turn the Human Race into a race that would consume the whole solar system, heck, the whole universe, to sastify itself!

Who caused Global Warming? Humans. Who caused the exinticion of many species? Humans. Who pollute the Earth? Humans Who caused the religious wars, the non-religious wars, all wars in general that ruin the Earth's landscape? Humans.

...But who causes death? The laws of nature. If it wasn't for death, we would mistake ourselves to be God, and we would go and ravage the worlds, destroying all natural resources, and ruining all the planets.

Strangely, I treat the Earth with more dignity than I would treat my fellow species. The Earth is silent, it does not speak and boast of its virtues. It never committed any crimes whatsoever, as it knows what It is doing is necessary. It is older than us. If it wasn't for the Earth, we wouldn't even exists, and then start on this march to global, and later intergalactic conquest.

Surely, the Earth is a good planet, and I am not advocating for, say, murdering off all Humans to perseve our nice little planet. But...prehaps maybe we should realize that we AREN'T superior and that we are at the mercy of other forces, that we are pretty weak, and that, in essence, we should pay respect to Nature rather than think ourselves superior, like mini-Gods. I find this sort of racism, the racism of Human Beings, to be quite stupid: Not only is it ignoring facts, such as the fact that we are at the mercy of nature, but it also causes humans to harm nature and pollute.

2) Alien xenopohiba. "Let us murder the bugs and the itty-bitty green dudes!" If aliens exist, this is what will happen, we think we're the best and that we'll go out and genocide any who disagree with that. Not exactly conductive to the main goals of tolerance.

Ok I see that SilentScope001 has taken this to involve Mother Earth and human intervention, etc. It would probably be wise to stick with relationships bewteen groups of people. That was my original intention anyway.

You treat the Black with more respect than the White Slaveholder. Yes, this may be justifiable for your belief. But I always like understanding other people's viewpoints, and if you accept the premise that blacks are inferior to whites, then what the Slaveholders did was justifiable.
This 'premise' is supported by other things that I have mentioned. One is the biological determinist theory. It's the idea that they are inferior because they were born that way; that it is their genes. Again this is from Stephen Jay Gould's book The Mismeasure of Man. Also there is another good book that the slaveholders have used to justify slavery: the Bible. Yes they have used the Bible. The popular one that I know of comes from Joshua 9:20 "The children of Ham turned black for their sins and shall be unto the rest hewers of wood and drawers of water. They shall be as servants unto us." Nice huh?

To take this discussion into modern times with a more current example, what of the assumptions that the federal government of the US that anyone with an Arabic name should be put on the terrorist watchlist? Isn't this some form of racism if you look at it? True that there are no rights being denied except for maybe certain jobs like the military but to single out a group for being what they are, isn't that a form of racism?

They are artifical, and they do exist, but even with that, you are telling me that one artitifcal construct is better than another artifical construct. They both are artitifical constructs, and really, neither is objective. You can prefer one or the other, but it doesn't matter what you prefer.

No, I never said something like that. They can be both objective at their base, but humans do put a subjectivity on them. To be honest, I kind of lost you here.


/shrugs. I was merely making a questioning on why some people are willing to give freedom to some people (Blacks, to be able to rule themselves) and not freedom to other people (the slaveholders of the Blacks, to be able to rule others). How come we can give freedom to one group and ALSO deny freedom to the other group? That to me, seems quite hypocritical.

Okay, I suggest you read classics books from Hobbes and Locke.

People give up a part of their freedom so they can live in a society, so that peace can exist. Pure freedom, the State of nature, is anarchy among humans. We would live no longer then an antelope.

As a matter of fact, why are you following laws? Why can't you just go kill, steal and rape whatever and whoever you want? I mean, why would the government deny you that freedom and give it to people who don't do any of those things?

You treat the Black with more respect than the White Slaveholder. Yes, this may be justifiable for your belief. But I always like understanding other people's viewpoints, and if you accept the premise that blacks are inferior to whites, then what the Slaveholders did was justifiable.

No, I treat racist black people the same I treat racist white people. As a matter of fact, like I said, your premise is unacceptable because it is absolutely false. It is based on nothing. No scientific evidence points to blacks being inherently inferior then whites.


But you have to prove to me that the premise is wrong, that we should discard this construct. It is up to each human to decide what is right and wrong, in the end, if everything is artifical and there is no real concrete meaning, therefore, it really did not matter if Blacks are inferior to Whites or Whites and Blacks are equal.

Science proved the premise wrong.

In fact, you're just trying to say that racism is something good and acceptable. I hope you're white and you live in an all white place because...
It's almost as if you're trying to discredit every social science out there because it apparently is "artificial" and has no "real concrete meaning". What is that supposed to mean? Society does not exist? Politics don't exist? History doesn't exist? None of those things are concrete. Society is the relation between humans, politics is the relation of power between humans in a society and history is what happened between these people throughout the ages. It doesn't "exist". It's not concrete, you don't touch it. It's still there. You can try to deny it all you want but I don't even understand what your point really is.

Ok I see that SilentScope001 has taken this to involve Mother Earth and human intervention, etc. It would probably be wise to stick with relationships bewteen groups of people. That was my original intention anyway.

You're right. Sorry.

To take this discussion into modern times with a more current example, what of the assumptions that the federal government of the US that anyone with an Arabic name should be put on the terrorist watchlist? Isn't this some form of racism if you look at it? True that there are no rights being denied except for maybe certain jobs like the military but to single out a group for being what they are, isn't that a form of racism?

Possibly.

No, I never said something like that. They can be both objective at their base, but humans do put a subjectivity on them. To be honest, I kind of lost you here.

Globization, liberal democracy, the idea of tolerance and society, everything, is all social constructs. I don't see how a social construct can be "objective" at all.

Okay, I suggest you read classics books from Hobbes and Locke.

People give up a part of their freedom so they can live in a society, so that peace can exist. Pure freedom, the State of nature, is anarchy among humans. We would live no longer then an antelope.

Yes I know about Hobbes and Locke. At least we would still be free, no? But I understand most people dislike the Hobbean State of Nature. I'd like to live there though, it is, to me, the purest expression of freedom, and if freedom is so important, then why give it up?

As a matter of fact, why are you following laws? Why can't you just go kill, steal and rape whatever and whoever you want? I mean, why would the government deny you that freedom and give it to people who don't do any of those things.

If society creates laws, and we should obey them, then why is it okay for slaves to run away from your masters? Why is it okay for slaves to disobey the laws then? Aren't they breaking the law of the government?

Maybe, it's a conflict between two ideas of Freedom: The Freedom of the Slaveholder to enslave, and the Freedom of the Slave to be freed. Which freedom should be preferred then?

No, I treat racist black people the same I treat racist white people. As a matter of fact, like I said, your premise is unacceptable because it is absolutely false. It is based on nothing. No scientific evidence points to blacks being inherently inferior then whites.

...Didn't you just say Science is 99% only accurate? And, it is easy to rig data to support the racist viewpoints. I've seen it been done against Muslims, claiming that they are inferior because most crimes were committed by Muslims. No mention on how reliable the stats are, but they printed it, and they believed it. So, well, maybe there is scientific evidence, for a given value of "scientific" and "evidence".

In fact, you're just trying to say that racism is something good and acceptable. I hope you're white and you live in an all white place because...

Nope. Muslim, live in a muliticultural neighborhood, pretty tolerant people. I've been on the receiving end of racism in the past, having been taunted in some months after 9/11, and I will be in the future.

I have never ever said racism was good. I just try to understand it, just all. I understand why the Southerns believed this way, and why they wanted to rebel. I do not believe in their premises. But I do respect their viewpoints. Understanding what a person is arguing is not condoing their viewpoints in any way, shape, or form. It's merely a form of respect for your foes and enemy.

It's almost as if you're trying to discredit every social science out there because it apparently is "artificial" and has no "real concrete meaning". What is that supposed to mean? Society does not exist? Politics don't exist? History doesn't exist? None of those things are concrete. Society is the relation between humans, politics is the relation of power between humans in a society and history is what happened between these people throughout the ages. It doesn't "exist". It's not concrete, you don't touch it. It's still there. You can try to deny it all you want but I don't even understand what your point really is.

If it isn't concerte, if it can easily be made and broken, then one social construct is equally valid as another. Racism is a social construct. Tolerance is a social construct. What is good? What is bad? Why should we prefer one social construct over another? We can't rely on the social constructs to tell us what is good and what is bad, the social constructs of racism and the social constructs of tolerance all claim to be correct.

Ya know, whatever you religious views are, we all originated from a common ancestor: Christianity=Adam&Eve/Abraham/Noah&family, and evolution=goey ooze. (bs, by the way ;)) i'm not saying those are the only religions there are, but i'm a Christian, and our, main opposition comes from evolutionists and all those pihutas, so without delving to much into it, i also believe that the only way to be hurt by racism is to actually believe in it. some one calls me white: ok, ya. someone calls martin luther king jr black, he wrights a speech he stole from edison i think. at least the "all men are equal" part.

why am i refered to as a lurker? that sounds creepy. hooray 1st post on a sensitive topic that some vet's gonna torch me for.

why am i refered to as a lurker? that sounds creepy. hooray 1st post on a sensitive topic that some vet's gonna torch me for.Welcome!
Naw, no torching. I would like to invite you over to the evolution thread so that I can better understand the basis of your argument though ;)

Take care!

Globization, liberal democracy, the idea of tolerance and society, everything, is all social constructs. I don't see how a social construct can be "objective" at all.

Ok, politics is the relations of power between the individuals in a society. How is that basic element not objective?



Yes I know about Hobbes and Locke. At least we would still be free, no? But I understand most people dislike the Hobbean State of Nature. I'd like to live there though, it is, to me, the purest expression of freedom, and if freedom is so important, then why give it up?

No, in all technicality we would be slave to the State of Nature. You consider freedom the ultimate value. That is untrue to an extent. If you think like that, you oversimplify the nature of humans. Humans need freedom but they also need society. Humans have no natural defenses. We don't have a horn, no super speed, no camouflage, nothing but a brain. So humans ganged up so they could survive. Survival being a necessity, humans gave up part of their freedom in order to live a decent life.




If society creates laws, and we should obey them, then why is it okay for slaves to run away from your masters? Why is it okay for slaves to disobey the laws then? Aren't they breaking the law of the government?

I believe you don't understand some basic principles of democracy. Those laws allowing slavery contradicts the ultimate law, the Constitution. The Constitution allows equal rights to everyone, regardless of ethnicity. No law made in the State can go against the Constitution unless there's a special clause that allows it in said Constitution.

Now before you say something like "why should we obey the Constitution?" and something else like that, well, live with it. That's how it works.




...Didn't you just say Science is 99% only accurate? And, it is easy to rig data to support the racist viewpoints. I've seen it been done against Muslims, claiming that they are inferior because most crimes were committed by Muslims. No mention on how reliable the stats are, but they printed it, and they believed it. So, well, maybe there is scientific evidence, for a given value of "scientific" and "evidence".

Actually, you obviously know nothing of the subtle nuances that must be made when reading such data. Statistics stating these supposed evidence did not follow a rigorous methodology. In fact, it's not worth more then my toilet paper. In fact, you mention people rigging data. How is that science then?

You can't stop people from being idiots and believing everything someone who looks like a scientist says. You have no point.





I have never ever said racism was good. I just try to understand it, just all. I understand why the Southerns believed this way, and why they wanted to rebel. I do not believe in their premises. But I do respect their viewpoints. Understanding what a person is arguing is not condoing their viewpoints in any way, shape, or form. It's merely a form of respect for your foes and enemy.

There's a difference in understanding, I think everyone can understand it, but then, why are you arguing with me about this? For the sake of the argument? As a matter of fact, I don't respect their viewpoints at all. I respect caviar leftists who make good arguments. I respect people whose arguments are not pure idiocy. I respect those who believe we should not eat animals. I don't agree with any of them, but I admit that they do have relatively valid arguments. I find it admirable when someone can defend a viewpoint that can be defended. I respect even more those who are ready to back down on there position if it can't be defended. However, racists who justify their problems by attacking others? I have no respect for any of them.



If it isn't concerte, if it can easily be made and broken, then one social construct is equally valid as another. Racism is a social construct. Tolerance is a social construct. What is good? What is bad? Why should we prefer one social construct over another? We can't rely on the social constructs to tell us what is good and what is bad, the social constructs of racism and the social constructs of tolerance all claim to be correct.

Frankly, I'm quite tired of your mindless relativism. It almost seems as if you only want to be the biggest relativist in the history of humanity. If you want to know what is good or what is bad, well, find the answer yourself. It's your own morals, not mine.

Ok, politics is the relations of power between the individuals in a society. How is that basic element not objective?

I'm thinking more of the different ideas here, and such. Politics could be objective. The ideas of tolerance and racism, however, are not.

No, in all technicality we would be slave to the State of Nature. You consider freedom the ultimate value. That is untrue to an extent. If you think like that, you oversimplify the nature of humans. Humans need freedom but they also need society. Humans have no natural defenses. We don't have a horn, no super speed, no camouflage, nothing but a brain. So humans ganged up so they could survive. Survival being a necessity, humans gave up part of their freedom in order to live a decent life.

This may all be true, but that still does not discount why one society should be supported or not. Why is one group should be declared morally correct and another group morally incorrect.

I believe you don't understand some basic principles of democracy. Those laws allowing slavery contradicts the ultimate law, the Constitution. The Constitution allows equal rights to everyone, regardless of ethnicity. No law made in the State can go against the Constitution unless there's a special clause that allows it in said Constitution.

It does. There is a clause within the Constitution that basically allows, for the purpose of represenation, a slave, to be counted as 3/5 of a person, in the "3/5 compromise". This was done because slave owner states were worried of the high population in the North would mean that the Slaveholder states would be locked out of power within the House of Represenatives. This was part of the consitution in order to please slaveholders. There was also another agreement that Conress would not ban the slave trade for a certain amount of time...once that time was passed, the slave trade was banned, but not slavery.

The Consitution also allows for people to own property and to not have that property being stolen. If you accept the premise that slaves are property, then you have a basis for allowing the Slave States to state that their ability to hold slaves cannot be not hampered. This was ruled in the Superme Court case of "Dredd Scott".

...Now, it is against the Consitution to have slavery. But it was not back then.

Now before you say something like "why should we obey the Constitution?" and something else like that, well, live with it. That's how it works.

Either that, or just go to a society that does not obey the Consitution. People did have this right, and many slaveholders did excerise it. Near the end of the Civil War, Brazil, still a slaveholding nation, allowed for Southern and Confederate farmers to arrive to South America and bring their slaves. A couple of slaveholders took up that right and fled over there to Brazil, where they suffered from farming troubles and such. Brazil did in the end abolish slavery, but the descendants of the Confederacy still live there today and hold celebrations of the Confederacy past.

So, really, I guess my argument has a flaw. If you hate a law, then just leave to a nation that does not have such a law. If you do not move, well, you are consenting to that law, and then you are forced to follow it. The problem is what if every society bans something, but then that means you are out of luck.

Actually, you obviously know nothing of the subtle nuances that must be made when reading such data. Statistics stating these supposed evidence did not follow a rigorous methodology. In fact, it's not worth more then my toilet paper. In fact, you mention people rigging data. How is that science then?

Science is the framework of gathering evidence. You have a hypothesis, you create an experiment, you test the experiment, you gather conclusions, you rinse and repeat.

You believe Muslims causes crime. That is an hypothesis. You create an experiment: Let check stats of criminals who are arrested, and see how many Muslim versus how many non-Muslims are arrested. You gather the conclusion: More muslims are arrested, therefore, Muslims start crime.

You can't stop people from being idiots and believing everything someone who looks like a scientist says. You have no point.

I have a point. You can't say that you are right and they are wrong, just because you disagree with them, and they believe in different stats. It is up to you to prove they are idiots, but according to them, they are not idiots. I give their word equal standing to your word.

There's a difference in understanding, I think everyone can understand it, but then, why are you arguing with me about this? For the sake of the argument?

I am arguing because you said that because we created this reality, we must obey this reality, and that the creation of reality does not mean it has no meaning. I disagree, because there are two social constructs and no reason why to prefer either.

As a matter of fact, I don't respect their viewpoints at all. I respect caviar leftists who make good arguments. I respect people whose arguments are not pure idiocy. I respect those who believe we should not eat animals. I don't agree with any of them, but I admit that they do have relatively valid arguments. I find it admirable when someone can defend a viewpoint that can be defended. I respect even more those who are ready to back down on there position if it can't be defended. However, racists who justify their problems by attacking others? I have no respect for any of them.

You do realize that most people DON'T back down from a debate, and that they are willing to defend something to the death. All positions can theortically be defenisble, if someone wants to.

I respect racists because they are human beings, just like us. They have the same access to the faculaties, the abilites to reason, and the same resources that we do. I disagree with their positions, but I must first understand excatly what they are saying. Once I do, I try to counter their points, and once they counter my points I merely say, "I agree to disagree".

To do anything else would be to deny racists are smart or claim that racists are idiots that shouldn't be argued with. This, I feel, is hypocrisim. If all humans are equal, then we should treat racists with respect, as well as the non-racist as well. If we do not, then, well? Aren't we too committing the same sins we accuse the racists of, by not being tolerant of other people's ideas, and of calling those who are racists "idiots" who do not deserve to live.

Frankly, I'm quite tired of your mindless relativism. It almost seems as if you only want to be the biggest relativist in the history of humanity. If you want to know what is good or what is bad, well, find the answer yourself. It's your own morals, not mine.

I already have morals, which may be similar to your own. But you are saying that we should prefer one social construct over another, and you are not given me any reason to do such a thing. You only say that tolerance is "good", but the racist says racism is "good" so that doesn't mean anything.

Regardless, it might be best to end this topic, as we now understand our positions. I'll leave. Let agree to disagree.

Actually, I'm going to attempt to post something else. An attack on racism. See if this thing would be likable or not. This post is to show you indeed how close we are in morals, that we both hate racism...

Now, this attack on racism is directed towards persuading a racist to abandon his belief, rather than directed towards proving racism wrong. I would rather preach to the racist than preach to the Converted, as in, those who are not racist. I want to make my points be useful, and joining the mob that has already lots of power isn't my idea of help. Instead, I am isolating myself with the racist, so that the racist and I am on equal grounds and so that I cannot rely on popular opinon.

Please forgive me in advance if these proofs seem to fail.

1) Science says racism has no basis in biology. I believe in Science. However, you can question certain statstics and come up with numbers. I disagree with those numbers, but we will be on a deadlock. Suffice to say, we disagree on this issue. (Not a very convicing point, I admit...)

2) Racism is not followed by the majority of the population by which you live in. Now, I understand that sometimes, the majority is wrong, but it is nice to listen to their arguments, since they must be valid, since most people believe them. Bandwagon appeal? Sure, but also realize that many people hate racists, and would possibly attack you at every turn if they believe you are a racist. Suppressing your beliefs of racism would be good indeed, in order to protect your own interests. If you do not give into society, you could get punished. (NOTE: This only applies to societies that indeed are not racist. If the society is racist, please ignore this point.)

3) Directed Towards Anti-Semitism: If it is indeed true that the Jews are responsible for taking over everything, as you claimed, then it leads us to question why is that a bad thing? Remember, the Jews are God's "chosen people", no? Prehaps God really does choosen Jews. What make you believe God has not really choosen the Jews, since it makes no sense that God would let Jews control the world and yet hate them at the same time? Maybe you should follow the Jews or in fact convert to Judaism rather than oppose them feebly against the will of God.

4) Tied somewhat to the Anti-Semitism argument, but more generalized: There is no proof that your race is superior. It could very well be that your race is inferior, and in fact Blacks are the true power. If everyone is considered equal, then you will not be able to be attacked or be enslaved by a superior race. Following this idea equality, even if it is not proven if equality is true or not, is good for the protection of the White race, as it prevents society from turning against you.

5) Racism makes little sense economically. If you hire only whites or only blacks, you restrict the population from which you are hiring from, and also limit the amount of qualified people that exist. There may be qualified Blacks, you know. Having an equal view of the two populations in choosing who to hire or fire is good for the bottom line.

6) If Racism is true, then it really does not matter what society says about Racism. Race will still play a role. Sure, you could see Black people taking over certain companies, but either they run it to the ground, or they are just one person out of the rest of the Black population, an anomly that is easily dismissed. Then why worry about codifying it? Race plays a huge role, as you claim, so why bother enforcing it by laws? Just stand back and watch what will happen to Blacks and Whites. Best to remain silent on the matter. And if racism turns out to be wrong on the societical level, well, at least be glad you didn't adhere to a false idea.
===
Now, Clauses 2-6 has the main goal of attempting to stop the racist from following racism. I see that Clause 1 is the one that I actually agree with and believe in , along with everyone else, and Clauses 2-6 are appealing to the racist, trying to get them to reconsider their views.

This would be an example of how I would treat the racist with respect while still disagreeing with his ideas. Would the idea work?

2) Racism is not followed by the majority of the population by which you live in. Now, I understand that sometimes, the majority is wrong, but it is nice to listen to their arguments, since they must be valid, since most people believe them. Bandwagon appeal? Sure, but also realize that many people hate racists, and would possibly attack you at every turn if they believe you are a racist. Suppressing your beliefs of racism would be good indeed, in order to protect your own interests. If you do not give into society, you could get punished. (NOTE: This only applies to societies that indeed are not racist. If the society is racist, please ignore this point.)
Ah but if you think about it, it is the majority group, the one with the power and privileges, that creates the stereotypes that encourage racism. The majority group is the group that sets the standard of what the 'best' group is and the degrees of acceptability. As I said before, race is a social construct and it is society that determines where a race begins and ends.

Racism makes little sense economically. If you hire only whites or only blacks, you restrict the population from which you are hiring from, and also limit the amount of qualified people that exist.
It would if you believe that a black isn't smart enough to do a skilled job like run an office machine. Morton's measuring of cranial capacity supported this idea for many years before it was shown that cranial size bears correlation with height. Thus only showing that there is no genetic basis for race.

Ah but if you think about it, it is the majority group, the one with the power and privileges, that creates the stereotypes that encourage racism. The majority group is the group that sets the standard of what the 'best' group is and the degrees of acceptability. As I said before, race is a social construct and it is society that determines where a race begins and ends.

Well, er...Whites were the minority in South Africa, and yet they managed to keep their policy and rule South Africa until the 1990's. I guess what I mean is the majority ideology "in power", that is of society?

Racism was the social construct who was in power in the past. Now, tolerance is the social construct who is in power. So, follow the new societical construct?

It would if you believe that a black isn't smart enough to do a skilled job like run an office machine. Morton's measuring of cranial capacity supported this idea for many years before it was shown that cranial size bears correlation with height. Thus only showing that there is no genetic basis for race.

Hm. Never thought of it like that. So would this mean taller people are indeed smarter or more powerful than shorter people? Er...maybe not.

Anyway, I concede my point would indeed be crushed, and be sublimated over to Point 1: Racism is unjustifed because Science found no proof for racism.

I don't believe that we will ever 'overcome' racism nor prejudice. It's quite common in Sweden for example to hire someone who's surname is "Svensson" over someone who's name is "Muhammad" for example. I'm sure that not everyone practices this kind of racial 'profiling' if you may, but racism is and always will exist.

There will always be someone who thinks his/hers race is superior, and all others obsolete or 'lesser' people.

I feel that It's naive to think that there will be some kind of a peace between all races, since cultures often clash and are hard to mix together.

There will always be someone who thinks his/hers race is superior, and all others obsolete or 'lesser' people.
In anthropology, we refer to this as ethnocentrisim. It is based upon the world view of a particular group. Of course we will have this because it is in human nature to categorize and the like.

Well, er...Whites were the minority in South Africa, and yet they managed to keep their policy and rule South Africa until the 1990's.
This is part of colonialism which is the dominating of another group through political, social, economic and cultural aspects. It is done by a more powerful group over a less powerful group. The problem with South Africa was the high tension between the African tribes. There is a history of huge dislike between them. Remember that these groups were chiefdoms meaning that their rulers are charismatic rulers and that the wield authority but not actual power hence they didn't have the power to unite against the Afrikaaners. It is the same thing with the Celts when the Romans conquered them. There was no central leadership. In South Africa, the Dutch settlers had the physical power to make them do what they wanted hence the colonialism and the rise of the Arfikaaners.
To continue further I will use the example from the book The Power of One. In this the narrator is an English boy who at an early age is subjugated to the tortures of the Boers (Afrikaaners) simply for being English. The reason being is that when the Boer Wars began, the English locked up 20 thousand Afrikaaner women and children into the first concentration camps where many died of diseases like malaria and typhoid. This goes to show that even among white groups there is racism. BTW the Boers called the English rooinecks or 'red necks' and it became the derogatory term for the English.

Hm. Never thought of it like that. So would this mean taller people are indeed smarter or more powerful than shorter people? Er...maybe not.
Morton is a scientist mentioned by Stephen Jay Gould in the book The Mismeasure of Man. The book contains refuting evidence against biological determinism, that genes are responsible for the low class you are in. I encourage this as a read for there is also interesting info on Broca and Yerkes and the IQ tests which are totally bogus anyway.

Morton is a scientist mentioned by Stephen Jay Gould in the book The Mismeasure of Man. The book contains refuting evidence against biological determinism, that genes are responsible for the low class you are in. I encourage this as a read for there is also interesting info on Broca and Yerkes and the IQ tests which are totally bogus anyway.

Hm...I did read a bit about Social Darwinism in my class, and it does make sense. Better males would attract better females, and surivial of the fittest. It isn't really "scientific", per se, but I can understand where it is coming from.

I doubt the IQ tests are bogus. They are a measurment of how intelligent you are in certain areas, meaning they are prone to inaccuracy, but they are not bogus. All tests are prone to some degrees of errors, and to throw all of them out because they have errors means that we won't be able to catogerize ourselves.

Somehow, the wikipedia article states that Stephen Jay Gould is prone to controversty, and that many people hate him, especially many scientists. Er. It also seems that the langague both Stephen Jay Gould and his enemies use are far too complex for me, a layperson, to understand, so really, I think I should suspend judgement on this issue, because I really am an uninformed person. Sorry, JediMaster21.

And biological determisim is a theory that I somewhat follow. While it is not responsible for the low class you are in, that's deterimned by who's your mother and father is...

It does determine your intelligence, your height, your weight, your innate behaviors, your ability to criticize or support society, the chance that you can get a lethal dieases you can get in the future that can impact you, your skin color...Prehaps, or most likely, scientific studies will be able to find out exactly how these genes will affect you.

It does determine your intelligence, your height, your weight, your innate behaviors, your ability to criticize or support society, the chance that you can get a lethal dieases you can get in the future that can impact you, your skin color...Prehaps, or most likely, scientific studies will be able to find out exactly how these genes will affect you.
And it is exactly that attitude that allowed the majority group, the whites, to dominate over the minority groups. The idea that the way you are is because of your mother and father is a tool used to keep the minority groups down. It is also psyhological. If you constantly tell someone that they never will be good enough, eventually they will be acclimated to that mindset and think that about themselves and not attempt to explore their full potential.

Somehow, the wikipedia article states that Stephen Jay Gould is prone to controversty, and that many people hate him, especially many scientists. He may be one of controversy but I wouldn't put much stock in a wikipedia article and I have laid my reasons why before. Gould has that personality because he challeneges in radical ways the norms that have been accepted.

I doubt the IQ tests are bogus. They are a measurment of how intelligent you are in certain areas, meaning they are prone to inaccuracy, but they are not bogus. All tests are prone to some degrees of errors, and to throw all of them out because they have errors means that we won't be able to catogerize ourselves.
Which is exactly why they are bogus. The so called intelligence tests are catered to a specific group. Again a discrimination. If you gave the same test that a person here in the States would take to someone in rural Mexico, they would fail. In a Nahuatl mindset, why is knowing who the 42nd president of teh US important? IQ tests are a form of discrimination in of itself and a complete misuse of their original intention thanks to Yerkes.

It also seems that the langague both Stephen Jay Gould and his enemies use are far too complex for me, a layperson, to understand, so really, I think I should suspend judgement on this issue, because I really am an uninformed person. Sorry, JediMaster12.
The language is the same that I use, that of the social sciences. The reason I defined race and ethnicity the way I did is because that is what social scientists use when referring to specific groups. Gould is difficult to read but I like his style and the way how he presented Morton's skull measuring and Broca's idea that smart people brains weigh more makes it hilarious. It's easy to criticize in hindsight and you would think that people would learn from their mistakes but they don't because we still see the same things happening.

And it is exactly that attitude that allowed the majority group, the whites, to dominate over the minority groups. The idea that the way you are is because of your mother and father is a tool used to keep the minority groups down. It is also psyhological. If you constantly tell someone that they never will be good enough, eventually they will be acclimated to that mindset and think that about themselves and not attempt to explore their full potential.

Er...um...

There are differences, but these differences are genetic. For example, a Black person may be more likely to get Sickle-cell aniema. Why? Genetics, reproduction, evolution.

Does that mean we should organize lynch mobs against Blacks because they are inferior for getting sickle-cell aniema? I doubt it.

He may be one of controversy but I wouldn't put much stock in a wikipedia article and I have laid my reasons why before. Gould has that personality because he challeneges in radical ways the norms that have been accepted.

Wikipedia is useful becuase they attempt to present all sides of an issue, and is likely to be a place of great flaming, so that I can see what lots of other people see on the issue. If Gould challengs the norms, then I would have to choose between Gould or the norms. Sounds pretty hard when both the norms and Gould start screaming at each other with large terms that I can't understand at all.

Which is exactly why they are bogus. The so called intelligence tests are catered to a specific group. Again a discrimination. If you gave the same test that a person here in the States would take to someone in rural Mexico, they would fail. In a Nahuatl mindset, why is knowing who the 42nd president of teh US important? IQ tests are a form of discrimination in of itself and a complete misuse of their original intention thanks to Yerkes.

Have you even taken an IQ test?

The IQ test that I have taken have nothing to do with presidents. They may have to do with vocabulary, with context clues, logic puzzles, geometirc shapes, but never Presidents. And I got a 114 on that one test.

And, no, bogusness means nothing. We need to make the IQ tests more accurate, not go and say they are stupid. We need to measure how intelligent people are instead of saying the intelligence of one person is equal to the intelligence of another person. We need ranks, otherwise...well?

If we don't divide ourselves up in ranks, then everyone is equal. And I do not know if humanity would actually like equality, or if they would secretly hate it. There is no where to go, no where to strive for, no where to laugh on. Everyone is equally smart, everyone is equally stupid, everyone is equally free, everyone is equally slave. Without ranks, life have no meaning, there would be no reason to struggle or to make their lives better or to hate or to love, as everyone would be the same.

The language is the same that I use, that of the social sciences. The reason I defined race and ethnicity the way I did is because that is what social scientists use when referring to specific groups. Gould is difficult to read but I like his style and the way how he presented Morton's skull measuring and Broca's idea that smart people brains weigh more makes it hilarious. It's easy to criticize in hindsight and you would think that people would learn from their mistakes but they don't because we still see the same things happening.

If I can't understand a word they are saying, how can I go and say Gould is right? Or that his enemies are right? I can't. How can I know about the mistakes the stupid people are 'making' if I can't even understand the words he is saying. He might make it too simplisitic, and may want to confuse me, or delude me, or whatever.

Can't one just suspend judgement on the issue rather than just ally with anyone?
===
Oh. Here's something interesting.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=41cf8ef1-d41a-45e9-83e4-aae85d0fd52c&k=52797)

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/16/earlyshow/main2686598.shtml)

The Duke players get the charged dropped. The first link talks about the blogger who helped the defense team. The second link talks about the Duke players thinking of suing for the false allegation.

On one hand: it is possible the black female is lying. On the other hand, it didn't really matter if the rape case was a lie or not. The case revealed lots of racism.

SilentScope: I have taken an IQ test before and found it ridiculous. There is no way to make a better IQ test because it would specifically cater to a specific group. In fact to explain this, there is the idea of multiple intelligences. I heard of it mentioned in class but hey.
Wikipedia may present different sides but I'd hardly call it a reputable source for backing up an argument seeing as just about any old joe can change an entry.

Without ranks, life have no meaning, there would be no reason to struggle or to make their lives better or to hate or to love, as everyone would be the same.
So you are saying then that by having heirarchu it is ok to be prejudiced and the like? When you start having heirarchy you start the paths towards race and prejudice and discrimination. Heirarchy is the basis for it.

There are differences, but these differences are genetic. For example, a Black person may be more likely to get Sickle-cell aniema. Why? Genetics, reproduction, evolution.
Um people of African descent are more likely to get sickle cell amenia. It is common for peope of African descent to get this. There are rules to the exception. Sickle cell is a genetic disorder on the protein chain where one amino acid is substituted for another causing the hemogloblin to bend in half. Then again genetics is a numbers game, a game of chance. It is 50-50 for boy or girl. For blood groups it is 1 in 4 that you will get O type. Should we start discrimination on them because the game of life dealt them that set of cards? Life has already discriminated against the person with sickle cell. The upside is that a person with sickle cell will m=not be affected by malaria. Life is discriminatory. We just make it more so by our funny little ideas of perceived differences.

SilentScope: I have taken an IQ test before and found it ridiculous. There is no way to make a better IQ test because it would specifically cater to a specific group. In fact to explain this, there is the idea of multiple intelligences. I heard of it mentioned in class but hey.

I find the idea of multiple intelligences somewhat laughable when I heard of it within my English class, but plausible.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this issue. Not like it matters.

So you are saying then that by having heirarchu it is ok to be prejudiced and the like? When you start having heirarchy you start the paths towards race and prejudice and discrimination. Heirarchy is the basis for it.

Er...no.

All I am saying is that the feelings of racism is what founds this heriachy. I personally feel that racism is what creates this heirarchy, but racism could also be used as a justification for manintaing the heirarchy, I can admit that.

All I am saying is anything that can create this heriachy is good, because it prevents humans from being equal. But we do not need racism to create heirachy. Capitalism, nationalism, ideologies, wealth, status, laws, IQ tests, etc. can all create an heirachy in which one person believes himself superior or inferior to someone else. Racism in fact may be poor in creating such a hierachy, due to the fact it is increasingly condmened and questioned, not to mention I personally oppose it.

But we need to prevent ourselves from believing ourselves to be equal, because it would really lead to nihlism.

Um people of African descent are more likely to get sickle cell amenia. It is common for peope of African descent to get this. There are rules to the exception. Sickle cell is a genetic disorder on the protein chain where one amino acid is substituted for another causing the hemogloblin to bend in half. Then again genetics is a numbers game, a game of chance. It is 50-50 for boy or girl. For blood groups it is 1 in 4 that you will get O type. Should we start discrimination on them because the game of life dealt them that set of cards? Life has already discriminated against the person with sickle cell. The upside is that a person with sickle cell will m=not be affected by malaria. Life is discriminatory. We just make it more so by our funny little ideas of perceived differences.

...So if life is discriminatory, then isn't racism techincally natural? It does destroy the concept of racism being an abstract notion, and a social construct, if it does...techincally...has a bearing on real life?

Also, as for your comment on why we should not discrimnate on people just because you got a different set of cards...You do realize however that by that logic, every thing we rank do becomes quite artibrary.

"Why should we treat Bobby the Millionare with respect? He's just a lucky who has a million dollars. Why, if Bobby was unlucky and down on the street, he would not be treated with much respect as he would today! Stop this 'wealth discrimination'! NOW!"

"Stop this talking about Thomas the Teacher! Thomas is smart, but the reason he is smart is because he got a good education and his parents told him to listen! Why, if Thomas did not get a good education and if his parents did not tell him to listen, he would be a loafer! Stop this 'educational discrimination' now!"

Well, somewhat. The logic does make some sense. In fact, I would agree with it, except well, it does destroy almost everything we believe in.

Some social constructs may need to be kept, even if they are nothing more than lies. Just make sure that we kill only one social construct, the construct of racism, while creating brand new ones to replace it.

All I am saying is that the feelings of racism is what founds this heriachy
It's the other way around. Hierarchy begets racism because people are being categorized and labeled.

Some social constructs may need to be kept, even if they are nothing more than lies. Just make sure that we kill only one social construct, the construct of racism, while creating brand new ones to replace it.
To kill racism is just another for of dicriminatory practices. You seek to exterminate the idea and impose a new system inplace when in fact that new system will just as badly before rank everything and assign worth.

It's the other way around. Hierarchy begets racism because people are being categorized and labeled.

Prehaps. I just thought that if it wasn't for the National Socialist racism, there would be no justification of the Third Reich hierachy, and hence no Third Reich hierachy. But it could go either way.

To kill racism is just another for of dicriminatory practices. You seek to exterminate the idea and impose a new system inplace when in fact that new system will just as badly before rank everything and assign worth.

Ah, now, we reach something that is key, more important than this debate of racism.

If the ideas that promote Racism gets killed off (and there is no indication that it can EVER be destroyed)...I'd be fine with it, as long as humans are still essentially, and to each other, unequal. However, you are not.

Humans may be, in the large scheme of things, basically the same. But if so, what meaning of life would there be? Equality means everyone is under the same laws and obligations, get the same rights, and such. It may sound appealing, but it really is not as appealing as it first seems. If everyone has an equal sense of 'worth', it is the same as if everyone has an equal sense of 'unworthiness', and you do feel insiginifcant and unimportant. Your life isn't that useful at all, and is merely taking up space.

Another thing, we judge ourselves by how good or how bad a fellow human being fares in life. If everyone has, say, 1 million dollars, we would not consider ourselves rich at all.

If however, we live in a world where 80% of the world has $0.80, and the 20% of the world has $1, the 20% of the world would feel smug, and the 80% of the world would feel disappointed. At the cost of the unhappiness of the 80% of the world, the 20% of the world becomes somewhat happy since they have 'worth'. But, even for the 80% of the world, there is always the possiblity that they could rise to the 20% of the world...so it provides them a goal, a purpose for living...which is to become rich.

I just don't see how dignity for humanity can be maintained if everyone is equal. There has to be some form of social hierarchy just so humans feel important and happy. Is there a way to keep this dignity for mankind and prevent nihlism and outright disappointment with mankind while removing hierachies?

The important thing is not whether humans are inherently equal between themselves, it might never happen. There will be rich and poor, success stories and flops. However, the chances to move from one social "rank" to another must be equal. The equality in front of the law must also be maintained. That is the basis of our system.

I think that everyone is born as a human being, out of any group or caterization.

When they are raised, that is when they are influenced by whoever they are raised by, making them think the way that they do. If we have the simple tolerance to figure out that everyone is born equal, and has the same rights, so much would be better in this world.

Of course, if someone is raised with a "evil" or against freedom - I can't think of a better word - then it would not be considered racism to discriminate what they think, because they then think the very motives that cause so much suffering in the world, and thus should be. Tolerance should not be met with ignorance, but ignorance should not be met with tolerance either.

I am a Hindu, and I know that whatever people believe in the world, they should be judged on the things they do in their influence. In the U.S, would it be right to discriminate against a Muslim who realizes that everything that all these . . tyrants and terrorists are doing is wrong, whyshould they be considered one of them.

Racism is stupid, and generalism.

When they are raised, that is when they are influenced by whoever they are raised by, making them think the way that they do.
What you are describing is culture. Culture is the shared/learned behaviors of a group. It is shared and it is learned. There are two ways it can change: innovation and invention. Often it is spread through migration.

Equality means everyone is under the same laws and obligations, get the same rights, and such. It may sound appealing, but it really is not as appealing as it first seems. If everyone has an equal sense of 'worth', it is the same as if everyone has an equal sense of 'unworthiness', and you do feel insiginifcant and unimportant.
Have you been on the receiving end of demeaning labels? I know that you mentioned you are Muslim and I know that if you are here in the states, you could expect a fair amount of racism especially after Sept. 11. The reason I ask is that from what you say sounds as if you would rather thrive on this whole notion of unequality and putting people down. True that the world isn't all sunshine and rainbows. It is a nasty and cold hearted place. People don't like to be told that they are unworthy. In fact that seems rather counter productive of the idea that if people reach their potential, they could reach their goals. I believe that was based of the ideology of capitalism. I could be wrong but ED would have to confirm that.
What I think the general idea of equality is is what is written on that little piece of paper called the Declaration of Independence, that it is a certain inalienable right to life and liberty. This is based upon natural law. The inherent idea that everyone is equal. The problem that has happened is that people see otheres as unequal and that is often based upon the perceived physical differences.

I have never ever said racism was good. I just try to understand it, just all. I understand why the Southerns believed this way, and why they wanted to rebel.
Not all Southerners were like this. There were mixed reasons to leave the Union. True they wanted to preserve their way of life and the peculiar institution. They also were arguing over state's rights. They believed that the federal govt. was interferring with what should be rightfully in the control of the states. Remember that the states have the police powers of the education, health and safety of the people within its borders. Also some people fought the war on the side of the Confederacy in that they could not turn a sword against their homeland. Ties to the homeland were very strong. Just thought I'd clarify.

Lets take this to a different angle. We are all well aware of stereotypes and that they are portrayed to an astonishing degree in the media, particularly in movies and TV. A movie example is and old movie by Mel Brooks called Blazing Saddles. That movie is full of ethnophaulisms or ethnic slurs, ethnic jokes and flat out comedy. The groups affected are blacks, Chinese, whites and or course a reference to the Irish.
In a politically correct world, this would be seen as an obscenity. I have seen Malibu's Most Wanted and I have noted that people are as straightlaced as a corset when the funny scenes come on. Personally I do not have a problem with it. I see it for what the intent is and that was the comedic effect of poking fun. I understand that it can be offensive to some but if you don't like it, you don't have to watch it. As a Mexican-American, I even make jokes and my favorite bad joke is the one about the Mexican fire chief naming his two sons. My mom made a funny about Italians and we are part Sicilian. Of course we understand that it can be offensive so we ask if we could tell it.

My thoughts are as to why we have become so straightlaced in general. I am also curious about your thoughts on this.

The biggest bunch of bunk I've ever heard regarding racism is that only people in (political/cultural?) control can be racists. It's a self serving minority based position, whether that minority is white, black, asian, etc....

I grew up in the inner city, and me and my Friends were terrorized by the Black and Asian Gangs in our area, but I found my self thinking that it's ok for them to mess with me cause my (possible) Ancestors enslaved Africans or made India part of the British empire. It's called white Guilt, and it's just as bad as Racism, because it aids the divide and it's just another reason to separate people.
We need to step into the now and think about a future without inherited hate.

The biggest bunch of bunk I've ever heard regarding racism is that only people in (political/cultural?) control can be racists. It's a self serving minority based position, whether that minority is white, black, asian, etc....
That is not necessarily true. Even within the minority group, the group with the limited to no access to resources, there are stereotypes and racism. There's this one scene I remember from Mi Familia (My Family) where the brother Chucho and his homies are standing toe to toe with this other pachuco at his sister's wedding reception. The eldest brother Paco is the narrator. He goes on telling that they hated each other but didn't have a reason why. He even says that "they were so full of mach bull **** it was incredible." That just goes to show you that even within groups there is racism.