[Tsundoku]

D, on 01 May 2010 - 03:51 AM, said:

Epiph, on 30 April 2010 - 05:10 PM, said:

Yeah, but non-Kenyans are not negatively effected, as a whole, by the perception that they will not be as able to run a marathon as a Kenyan. Non-Kenyans may be acting as representatives for the rest of the non-Kenyan world when they win or lose a marathon against a Kenyan, but non-Kenyans are not an oppressed minority.

Our society may indeed dictate that a non-Kenyan is not negatively effected by being unable to run a marathon, but genetics hardly cares what our society thinks of the different predispositions it creates, does it? Both cases are a particular characteristic being genetically predisposed favourably for one group and not everyone else, so how are they different aside from one being considered too racist to be believed in by our society?

Because unlike running marathons (apparently), intelligence is apparently equated with worth. According to some of the knee-jerk reactions anyway.

I refute this with - how many dumb-as-dog-shit athletes are worshipped for being able to run/dunk/hit a ball/hit another person/etc and elevated to special status? Pretty much all of them, from primary school onwards. It just gets worse as the crop thins and the standard raises as the years go on. These purely physical specimens (personal character aside) are considered of greater "worth" than others. Geeks in high school get picked on for it, then everyone wonders why they end up doing a Columbine. Now I know sports prowess crosses genetic racial (and yes they do exist, stop saying they don't when the evidence is right in front of you) lines, as does intelligence, but what about that magical word we keep seeing (and conveniently ignoring) - "Predisposition"?

It's OK to be POSSIBLY genetically predisposed to run faster, but not to score higher on an IQ test? OK here I'm going to say I think IQ tests are pointless, because some people can do well for those sorts of tests and it means nothing in the rest of their lives. Just because you can do some basic maths in your head a little faster than most, or figure out which side of the cube the 3 dots are on doesn't mean diddly-squat.

So yeah, is the genetic marker for running (for example) more strongly associated with the genetic markers that decide a kid comes out black? Maybe, who knows? But all of a sudden everyone gets up in arms about a different possible correlation which when you think about it means butt-fuck-all in our modern superficial culture, where let's face it - sportsmen and women are worshipped to a far far greater degree than any scientist, or CEO.

Of course, I'm only a white, straight male, so I'm speaking from the position of ultimate world power ...
/sarcasm.

When it comes to DNA (the National Dyslexics Association ), I think anything is possible - even the reverse of what this poor silly women is postulating - until we find irrefutable proof. Which of course will be around the time we dis/prove the existence and power of God.

So get off your high horses and STFU already. I'm really sick of people screaming "RACIST!" any time someone dares bring up some sort of possible difference. The woman in question is - ON THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED - guilty of nothing more than a serious error of social-political judgement. She should have known something like that could come back to bite her in the arse (as some of you may remember I am quite well qualified to talk about ) , but maybe she really was naive and sheltered. And maybe - like some many other famous emails before her, usually to do with sex with coworkers - she was just stupid enough to trust the receivers. The person who passed this on straight to the people who would create the most inflammatory response is a dead set fucking arsehole and deserves to be "outed" more than the women in question. Even our religious friends believe there is special place in Hell for traitors.

And when it comes to so-called "intelligence", I'd much rather have the WISDOM to be able to properly use what I DO have than be able to do pointless tests fairly well. But then again, common sense ain't that common - witness the current storm in a teacup.

(Or should I have said "storm in a Tea Party cup to be all hip and topical? )

EDIT:
@Sixty
Well put. I would have repped you, but I ran out.

This post has been edited by Sombra: 01 May 2010 - 06:01 AM

[Soulessdreamer]

I can understand where this flawed argument arose.

It is a case of looking at only some of the facts not all. Or picking and choosing only those which support your hypothosis and glossing over those that don't

If you look at history from 0BC on it shows most of our societies advances and innovations come from counrties that are geographicaly 'white'.

This of course ignores all the great "black" civiliations of pre BC.

What those who use this argument for white superiority or black inferiority fail to consider or ignore is the reason for those advances, the pressures that forced those innovations. not to mention the deep rooted conditioning imposed by climate.

Enslaved Africans brought to europe and america were not lazy for wanting to sleep in the midday heat it was a biological rsponse to hundreds of years living in a place where the noonday sun could kill and the beast hunting was in the twilight when our eyes work best. (its why are eyes work like they do.)

When you live in an abundent paradise you don't need to work out how to preserve food for months or get high yeild crops out of a patch of dirt.

"White" cultures innovated because in the european climate they had moved into not to do so was to die.

Nessescity is the mother of invention not race/ethnicity.

TTFN

[worry]

I"m curious as to whether you've read Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond.

[Use Of Weapons]

I have -- great book, lots of food for thought. I understand that some prominent anthropologists have criticised Diamond's conclusions on various grounds, but I thought he built a pretty robust case for a layperson to understand. And I'm a huge fan of his multi-disciplinary approach.

[Morgoth]

Amusingly, all this focus on white cultures bringing forth most of the technological advancements up until the 19th century is also, I'd argue, false.

China harvested natural gas for fuel several centuries before year 0 and utilized drilling techniques that were "rediscovered" as the height of engineering in the US during the early 19th century. This is just one of an army of examples one can use.

[Horangi]

Morgoth, on 06 May 2010 - 04:22 PM, said:

Amusingly, all this focus on white cultures bringing forth most of the technological advancements up until the 19th century is also, I'd argue, false.

China harvested natural gas for fuel several centuries before year 0 and utilized drilling techniques that were "rediscovered" as the height of engineering in the US during the early 19th century. This is just one of an army of examples one can use.

While I partly agree in terms of initial discoveries, I would disagree that the focus is misplaced. I actually taught an undergrad course using Guns, Germs, and Steel as a text a few years back. In reality, inventing a technology is relatively unimportant unless you actually effectively exploit it. East Asian scholars were great at coming up with new ideas but really stunk at implementation. For example, the Koreans invented metal movable type 200 hundred years before Gutenberg, but promptly banned its use.

To get on topic, I don't think any respectable scientist would believe that there are meaningful differences in intelligence between population groups. At the same time, I believe it is naive to assume that genetic divergence in intellectual predisposition hasnt occured between genetic populations. However, assuming that the IQ variance between people of different skin colors correlates to a genetic predisposition is simply poor logic for all the reasons mentioned in this thread. In other words, I would suspect that there is some measurable yet essentially unimportant difference in average intellectual predisposition between the Icelandic who happen to be fair skinned and New Guinean aborigines who incidentally happen to be dark skinned. However, I think there's just as good a chance that the New Guineans came out on top in the meaningless contest of intellectual predisposition.

While I think its something of a worry to the PC crowd, I see nothing inherently flawed in seeing a genetic component to intelligence. Its not an esoteric concept. I doubt there is a single gene that determines the outcome, but I would be willing to bet that a discrete set of genes do. Of course since, well no one, actually taps their true intellectual potential, that genetic component is only relevant at the extremes.

[werewolfv2]

so toss this on the fire


a recent study shows that the earlier migrations of humans out of Africa got mixed a touch with neanderthals, the humans that stuck around in Africa didnt get this mix.

so, does that mean the pure humans are African, and the rest of us are mutts?

Hitler would have had a tizzy with this one

that being said, I feel like an earlier poster. It isnt the color of skin that makes a persons worth, its how that person chooses to live their life.

I also find it total BS that (in the US at least) we have a black history month and other things like that. Its ok for somebody to say "Im poud to be black, or brown" but if a white person says "Im proud to be white" they are racist. And another thing.. African American? Fine, call yourselves that if you want, but call me Caucasian American or European American.. wtf.. Cant we just all be American? (we shall be taking over Canada shortly, the girlscouts are getting ready to march)

This post has been edited by werewolfv2: 09 May 2010 - 01:07 AM

[worry]

Werewolv2 did you just copy that from the Big Book of Email FWDs I Get From Racist Distant Relatives and Co-Workers © 2009, Racist Penguin Publishing? Naughty naughty!

[Adjutant Stormy~]

I don't think history should be edited to be more racially sensitive. Likewise, science shouldn't be edited either. I'm going to listen to data, irrespective of whether or not it confirms my sensibilities. Now, that said, there's not really any good data to be had - tests (IQ, standardized, etc) are useful, but not unbiased. Just keeps muddying the waters.

[Shinrei]

worrywort, on 09 May 2010 - 02:35 AM, said:

Werewolv2 did you just copy that from the Big Book of Email FWDs I Get From Racist Distant Relatives and Co-Workers © 2009, Racist Penguin Publishing? Naughty naughty!

Wait, what? What was racist about what he posted? He called white people mutts, and then said

Quote

It isnt the color of skin that makes a persons worth, its how that person chooses to live their life.

I don't think it's BS that there is a black history month, but I don't think saying that = racism. As for the African American label, I actually don't like that label. Why? Because if you leave America, or are talking to a black-non-american-in-america, what the hell are you supposed to say? If we're proud of black history month, we shouldn't be ashamed of using "black" as a label.


You really seem quick to bandy the racist label around...

[Epiph]

It does show a lack of awareness about what the default of white really means, though, which is often tied to a racist outlook.

We have a Black History Month because all the history we learn K-12 is white, European history; in order for black history to become common knowledge, and in order to fight racism, Black History Month exists as a sort of outreach and paltry attempt to make it up to minorities that our educational system doesn't really think they contributed all that much to history. To say, "Screw talking about and pointing out race," is to be post-racial, and to be post-racial is to ignore the racial inequities that still exist today, and thus, to, at the least, not fight racism and inequality.

I would love it if we started calling Caucasian Americans that. It would be some sort of indication that white, European are not actually the default that our culture makes us out to be.

[Shinrei]

Well, I don't have any issue with there being a black history month - what you say Epiph is very true. But we should really have an Asian history month, and a Native American history month and a Hispanic history month too. (I am not being facetious). We are not ready to be post-racial, that's for sure.

But if that one part of werewolf's post is misguided, I think it's unfair to call him racist.

[Shinrei]

Oh, and I may be strange, but should I take citizenship here in Japan, I don't ever want to be known as XXX-Japanese. I would prefer to just be accepted as Japanese(period).

[Illuyankas]

I suggest a communal term that describes each and every single human being, regardless of race, nation or creed. In the absence of any pre-existing options, I vote for 'dickbags'.

[MTS]

Illuyankas, on 09 May 2010 - 06:20 AM, said:

I suggest a communal term that describes each and every single human being, regardless of race, nation or creed. In the absence of any pre-existing options, I vote for 'dickbags'.

Most men don't like being dickbags, so I vote for asshole.

This post has been edited by MTS: 09 May 2010 - 06:27 AM

[Illuyankas]

Fucking dickbags, always complaining.

[worry]

I didn't say anyone (besides theoretical distant relatives and co-workers, I guess) is racist. But the latter half of the post, from "that being said" onwards, is basically a list of memes that are popular in racist chain emails. If you aren't aware of the phenomenon of racist (or otherwise abrasive, illogical) chain emails, then you are fortunate, but they are a fact of life for some folks. When they are attributed, it is usually to social commentators like George Carlin and Andy Rooney, although that almost invariably turns out to be false (exception to the rule: Charlie Daniels). At least among the people I know, it's a common enough occurrence that I wouldn't need to explain the reference, but occasionally I forget this is a highly international board.

As far as "bandying" about the term racist, I've mentioned racism in three threads, that I recall. This one, the Arizona Law, and If the Tea Party were black. If I have to explain why I think it's a pertinent component of those particular debates, then we are operating on entirely different wavelengths in terms of what we believe racism to be. But if you believe I was calling poster werewolfv2, the individual, a racist, then you simply mistook my meaning, and I apologize for the misunderstanding.

Here's a link to one of those chain emails, if you want an example: http://www.sodahead....at/blog-100897/

This post has been edited by worrywort: 09 May 2010 - 06:36 AM

[Adjutant Stormy~]

Epiph, on 09 May 2010 - 05:45 AM, said:

To say, "Screw talking about and pointing out race," is to be post-racial, and to be post-racial is to ignore the racial inequities that still exist today, and thus, to, at the least, not fight racism and inequality.

Isn't post-racial the goal? Race shouldn't matter as an estimation of value, which means that you're ignoring it.

Shinrei, on 09 May 2010 - 06:08 AM, said:

Well, I don't have any issue with there being a black history month - what you say Epiph is very true. But we should really have an Asian history month, and a Native American history month and a Hispanic history month too. (I am not being facetious). We are not ready to be post-racial, that's for sure.

Why stop there? Why not a Pacific Islander history month? Or any racial association? What if large numbers of people don't associate with 'Asian?' Should there be Chinese history month? Japanese? Korean? Do you see where this breaks down? It's kinda silly.

Why shouldn't we try to be post-racial?

This post has been edited by Adjutant Stormy: 09 May 2010 - 08:56 AM

[MTS]

Adjutant Stormy, on 09 May 2010 - 08:44 AM, said:

Epiph, on 09 May 2010 - 05:45 AM, said:

To say, "Screw talking about and pointing out race," is to be post-racial, and to be post-racial is to ignore the racial inequities that still exist today, and thus, to, at the least, not fight racism and inequality.

Isn't post-racial the goal? Race shouldn't matter as an estimation of value, which means that you're ignoring it.

Race shouldn't matter, but unfortunately, it does matter in some places at the moment, such as employment. I can be post-racial and live my life under the creed that race has no value, and that is commendable, but if I do nothing to fight the inequality that actually exists, I'm ignoring the reality that race does, unfortunately, have actual 'value'. Thus, nothing will get done to rectify racial inequality.

This post has been edited by MTS: 09 May 2010 - 08:53 AM

[Shinrei]

Well, _________history month could just become observational weeks. I mean, I remember black history month in school, but it was just a time to highlight important african americans in the midst of the history curriculum. It didn't dominate the entire history taught for the entire month.

Although now that I think about it, I learned about native american history and asian american history while I was in school, and there was no particular month for them. Maybe it's just enough to be sure they're part of the curriculum.


@worrywort, werewolf wrote a post on the discussion board of what I presume is his actual opinion. Your comment then said his opinion was just like a racist email. How is that not implying he holds racist views?