Racism - Page 5 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Polls on politics, news, current affairs and history.

Is Racism a mark for a lack of education or intelligence?

Lack of Education
1
3%
Lack of Intelligence
3
8%
Both
11
28%
Neither
14
36%
Other
10
26%
User avatar
By SSDR
#15000771
@Pants-of-dog, I don't need to understand what you're trying to claim. There is nothing wrong with seeing more than one race within the human species. Germanic people are very different than Arabs or Africans for instance. Swedish people are different than Southern Slavic people. Me seeing that is NOT racist.

Me claiming that one is ABOVE or BELOW another IS. And NO ONE is claiming that here.
By Pants-of-dog
#15000772
SSDR wrote:@Pants-of-dog, I don't need to understand what you're trying to claim.


If you want to address my points or what I am discussing, then yes, you do.
By Pants-of-dog
#15000785
SSDR wrote:@Pants-of-dog, Then tell me, in a very simple manner, what you want me to *understand.*


1. Race is a real thing, but it is a social construct and not a biological reality.

2. Racism, as a belief, is irrational.

3. Critics of anti-racism fail to understand the motives of those who oppose racism, and often accuse us of “calling them Nazis” as a way of shutting down debate.
User avatar
By SSDR
#15000786
@Pants-of-dog, So you think that all humans have the same genetics?

Again, racism is the belief that races are placed in a hierarchy. Just because one is different than another, doesn't mean it's "racist." But believing that one is BETTER or WORSE (hierarchy) is racist.

Why are you against the "social construct of race?" If all Different races are equal?
User avatar
By Godstud
#15000787
The social construct of race is an excuse to discriminate against other humans. It's really just that simple, and this has always been the case.
By Pants-of-dog
#15000790
SSDR wrote:@Pants-of-dog, So you think that all humans have the same genetics?

Again, racism is the belief that races are placed in a hierarchy. Just because one is different than another, doesn't mean it's "racist." But believing that one is BETTER or WORSE (hierarchy) is racist.

Why are you against the "social construct of race?" If all Different races are equal?


I do not think you understood what I wrote.
User avatar
By Verv
#15000794
Pants-of-dog wrote:No, it is not OUR country because I do not live there.

Do you understand that I am not a resident or citizen of the USA?


When I say "our country," I am talking about other American readers and myself. I guess it is a habit from Korean where the fixed expression"uri nara" is used to refer to Korea.

No, since this is one of the central parts of your claim.

And you explicitly claimed this.

So provide the evidence, or concede that the whole race IQ argument is bogus.


A race is an ethnogroup, and it can be just as broad as an ethnogroup, and it can be narrow -- narrow to the point of referring to small tribal associations, and broad to the point of referring to a collection of people from a very large region that do not even speak languages in the same language family.

Let me ask this?

Certain ethnogroups have naturally greater abilities at running marathons.

Correct, or incorrect?

You basically said correct before, right?

Define “race”.

Provide evidence that the races are genetically distinct.


A race is an ethnogroup, and it can be just as broad as an ethnogroup, and it can be narrow -- narrow to the point of referring to small tribal associations, and broad to the point of referring to a collection of people from a very large region that do not even speak languages in the same language family.

Some evidence that they are genetically distinct would be the East African ethnogroup, and even more specific ethnogroups under it, excelling incredibly at marathon running and it being proven in statistically.

I'm unaware of any study that specifically talks about the "genetics of marathon running," but it is reasonable to conclude that the East African ethnogroup have a large amount of the genetic makeup that makes for good marathon runners.

Is that a reasonable conclusion?

Do not get off topic with gender.

DNA analyses show that races are not distinct, so your argument is bogus.


Races, if they are defined as ethnogroups, are sometimes distinct and sometimes not distinct genetically.

For instance, my mom and dad are both white people with white parents, and so when they conceived me and my brother, it was clear that I would be a white person, right? That was in my genes. I could not have been born to look like a non-white person, right?

That is genetic distinction.

And gender is biological, but that is off topic. But I wnated to say it again.

Not really, no.

Seriously, you need to define “race”.


A race is an ethnogroup, and it can be just as broad as an ethnogroup, and it can be narrow -- narrow to the point of referring to small tribal associations, and broad to the point of referring to a collection of people from a very large region that do not even speak languages in the same language family.
By Pants-of-dog
#15000811
Verv wrote:When I say "our country," I am talking about other American readers and myself. I guess it is a habit from Korean where the fixed expression"uri nara" is used to refer to Korea.


Sure.

As long as you understand that it is not our country.

A race is an ethnogroup, and it can be just as broad as an ethnogroup, and it can be narrow -- narrow to the point of referring to small tribal associations, and broad to the point of referring to a collection of people from a very large region that do not even speak languages in the same language family.


So a race is not a concrete and specific thing, but more like a word that can mean different things whenever you want it to.

And this is one of the reasons why we know that race is a social construct.

Let me ask this?

Certain ethnogroups have naturally greater abilities at running marathons.

Correct, or incorrect?

You basically said correct before, right?


No, I did not say that. I pointed out that this racing ability is limited to some people in one subtribe of one ethnic group in one country, and is therefore not applicable to all blacks.

Nor do we know if this running ability is something that is widespread in this subtribe, or if it is only marginally more widespread than in other populations and is only apparent when looking at Olympic level athletes.

A race is an ethnogroup, and it can be just as broad as an ethnogroup, and it can be narrow -- narrow to the point of referring to small tribal associations, and broad to the point of referring to a collection of people from a very large region that do not even speak languages in the same language family.


So a race is not a concrete and specific thing, but more like a word that can mean different things whenever you want it to.

And this is one of the reasons why we know that race is a social construct.

Some evidence that they are genetically distinct would be the East African ethnogroup, and even more specific ethnogroups under it, excelling incredibly at marathon running and it being proven in statistically.


Are you now arguing that the Kenyan nation is actually multiracial? That would be the logical implication of this argument you are making.

This would then disprove the idea that blacks as a whole are a race.

I'm unaware of any study that specifically talks about the "genetics of marathon running," but it is reasonable to conclude that the East African ethnogroup have a large amount of the genetic makeup that makes for good marathon runners.

Is that a reasonable conclusion?


No. At best, it is a reasonable hypothesis, but it would be foolish to leap to a conclusion without any other evidence except that which suggests the hypothesis.

Races, if they are defined as ethnogroups, are sometimes distinct and sometimes not distinct genetically.


Previously, you claimed they were distinct.

Now you are changing your argument. Okay.

For instance, my mom and dad are both white people with white parents, and so when they conceived me and my brother, it was clear that I would be a white person, right? That was in my genes. I could not have been born to look like a non-white person, right?

That is genetic distinction.


Yes, we discussed how a few genes code for melanin content in skin, and that this makes discernible differences in phenotypes, but that this is merely one difference and does not suggest that these differences are any more than that.

A race is an ethnogroup, and it can be just as broad as an ethnogroup, and it can be narrow -- narrow to the point of referring to small tribal associations, and broad to the point of referring to a collection of people from a very large region that do not even speak languages in the same language family.


So a race is not a concrete and specific thing, but more like a word that can mean different things whenever you want it to.

And this is one of the reasons why we know that race is a social construct.
User avatar
By Verv
#15000831
Pants-of-dog wrote:Sure.

As long as you understand that it is not our country.


As long as you understand that I will still say our country, I will understand that you aren't included when I say our country.

So a race is not a concrete and specific thing, but more like a word that can mean different things whenever you want it to.

And this is one of the reasons why we know that race is a social construct.


Race is a social construct insofar as the definitions are.

But the basis of the social construct is often genetic in nature.

For instance, East Africans is a social construct, but what we all mean when we say East African has a genetic component. We are indicating people with ethnic origins in East Africa, and thus who have genetic sets from East Africa, and thus will statistically be better distance runners and carriers of genes for better distance runners.

Do you agree with that assessment?

No, I did not say that. I pointed out that this racing ability is limited to some people in one subtribe of one ethnic group in one country, and is therefore not applicable to all blacks.

Nor do we know if this running ability is something that is widespread in this subtribe, or if it is only marginally more widespread than in other populations and is only apparent when looking at Olympic level athletes.


How about East Africans -- meaning, people whose ethnic origins lay in the Horn of Africa -- have genetic sets that are disproportionately much higher than other people to create long distance runners.

Or, stated more simply: East African genetics tend to produce better long distance runners, moreso than any other.

Is that true? Any issues?

So a race is not a concrete and specific thing, but more like a word that can mean different things whenever you want it to.

And this is one of the reasons why we know that race is a social construct.



And this is one of the reasons why we know that race is a social construct.[/quote]

Race is a social construct insofar as the definitions are.

But the basis of the social construct is often genetic in nature.


Are you now arguing that the Kenyan nation is actually multiracial? That would be the logical implication of this argument you are making.

This would then disprove the idea that blacks as a whole are a race.


Sure, Kenya has multiple cultures and ethnicities within it. I am no expert in them, though, and would defer to the opinion of a Kenyan.

... I think there can be be multiple cultures within an ethnogroup or race, though, right?

Like the existence of a Norwegian culture and a Serbian culture and a Spanish culture does not mean the white race does not exist.

You are not parsing the arguments properly but looking desperately for some semantical wiggle room so you don't have to deal with the real arguments that are just above the next hill. It feels like you are scared or something.

No. At best, it is a reasonable hypothesis, but it would be foolish to leap to a conclusion without any other evidence except that which suggests the hypothesis.


What is the reason, then, that East Africans are good long distance runners, if it is not genetic?

It is the only logical explanation.

What makes it not the rational conclusion?

Previously, you claimed they were distinct.

Now you are changing your argument. Okay.


There are some ethnogroups which are heterogeneous, such as the Qiang in China or the Persians or Mexicans or Colombians.

Yes, we discussed how a few genes code for melanin content in skin, and that this makes discernible differences in phenotypes, but that this is merely one difference and does not suggest that these differences are any more than that.


I receive not just the complexion from my parents, but also other physical and mental characteristics.

Agree or disagree?

So a race is not a concrete and specific thing, but more like a word that can mean different things whenever you want it to.

And this is one of the reasons why we know that race is a social construct.


And this is one of the reasons why we know that race is a social construct.[/quote]

Race is a social construct insofar as the definitions are.

But the basis of the social construct is often genetic in nature.
User avatar
By Zionist Nationalist
#15000875
the defeatist attitude of "not our country" is what will lead to the demise of the west if everybody will think this way but people are starting to wake up and hopefully such attitude will fade away

"we hate whites its not our country just take it all you poor foreignerers tear it down live off the work of people that built this country"

this is the result of white guilt
By Pants-of-dog
#15000893
Verv wrote:As long as you understand that I will still say our country, I will understand that you aren't included when I say our country.


But it is not our country.

Race is a social construct insofar as the definitions are.

But the basis of the social construct is often genetic in nature.

For instance, East Africans is a social construct, but what we all mean when we say East African has a genetic component. We are indicating people with ethnic origins in East Africa, and thus who have genetic sets from East Africa, and thus will statistically be better distance runners and carriers of genes for better distance runners.

Do you agree with that assessment?


No. Some parts are right and some parts are wrong.

How about East Africans -- meaning, people whose ethnic origins lay in the Horn of Africa -- have genetic sets that are disproportionately much higher than other people to create long distance runners.

Or, stated more simply: East African genetics tend to produce better long distance runners, moreso than any other.

Is that true? Any issues?


No, this is not true.

Sure, Kenya has multiple cultures and ethnicities within it. I am no expert in them, though, and would defer to the opinion of a Kenyan.

... I think there can be be multiple cultures within an ethnogroup or race, though, right?

Like the existence of a Norwegian culture and a Serbian culture and a Spanish culture does not mean the white race does not exist.

You are not parsing the arguments properly but looking desperately for some semantical wiggle room so you don't have to deal with the real arguments that are just above the next hill. It feels like you are scared or something.


No.

You do not get it.

You are claiming blacks are a race.

You are claiming Kenyans are a race.

You are claiming that the subtribe is a race.

They cannot all be races. If one is a race, the other two cannot be.

What is the reason, then, that East Africans are good long distance runners, if it is not genetic?

It is the only logical explanation.

What makes it not the rational conclusion?


Since not all East Africans are good runners, this question is based on a wrong premise.

There are some ethnogroups which are heterogeneous, such as the Qiang in China or the Persians or Mexicans or Colombians.


There are black Mexicans, and white ones, and Asian ones, and indigenous people living in Mexico. Mexico is not a genetic ethnogroup.

And this has nothing to do with whether or not races are distinct, which is one of the central premises of the race IQ debate, and which you have not only failed to support, but which you have dismissed as unimportant despite claiming it.

The race IQ debate between us is over and you have failed to support it.

I receive not just the complexion from my parents, but also other physical and mental characteristics.

Agree or disagree?


Is this going to lead to an argument?

Race is a social construct insofar as the definitions are.

But the basis of the social construct is often genetic in nature.


You have failed to support your claim that the races are genetically distinct.
User avatar
By Suntzu
#15000913
Anyone who thinks homo sapien is homogenous is not working with a full deck. Whether you call the different groups races or subspecies is academic. There are giant differences between the different groups in just about every area. A forensic biologist can tell the difference between these groups from just about anything they leave behind, skin, hair, blood, DNA or skeletal remains. It is politically correct to notice that all eight finalist in the men's or women's 100 meter at the Olympics are West African from various countries but not that 99% of the rocket scientists are White and male. Go figure! :lol:
User avatar
By ThirdTerm
#15000915
How about East Africans -- meaning, people whose ethnic origins lay in the Horn of Africa -- have genetic sets that are disproportionately much higher than other people to create long distance runners.


East Africans in the Horn of Africa are only 56% African (A, B, E1b). European or Near Eastern haplogroups make up over 40%: J (19.5%), R1b (20.8%), T (3.8%). Probably hg T carries mutations advantageous to long-distance runners. T1a1a* (L208) was found to be proportionately more frequent in the elite marathon runners sample (Moran et al. 2004) as this y-chromosome could play a significant role in determining Ethiopian endurance running success. Haplogroup T1a1a* was found in 14% of the elite marathon runners sample of whom 43% of this sample are from Arsi province.

Image
Haplogroup T-M184

Favourable genetic endowment has been proposed as part of the explanation for the success of East African endurance athletes, but no evidence has yet been presented. The Y chromosome haplogroup distribution of elite Ethiopian athletes (n=62) was compared with that of the general Ethiopian population (n=95) and a control group from Arsi (a region producing a disproportionate number of athletes; n=85). Athletes belonged to three groups: marathon runners (M; n=23), 5–km to 10–km runners (5–10K; n=21) and other track and field athletes (TF; n=18). DNA was extracted from buccal swabs and haplogroups were assigned after the typing of binary markers in multiplexed minisequencing reactions. Frequency differences between groups were assessed by using contingency exact tests and showed that Y chromosome haplogroups are not distributed amongst elite Ethiopian endurance runners in the same proportions as in the general population, with statistically significant (P<0.05) differences being found in four of the individual haplogroups. The geographical origins and languages of the athletes and controls suggest that these differences are less likely to be a reflection of population structure and that Y chromosome haplogroups may play a significant role in determining Ethiopian endurance running success.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 004-1202-y



E1b is also one of the major Y-DNA lineages in Slavic populations. It is likely that the ancestors of Thracians and Albanians were originally from North Africa and migrated to the Carpathians, the Common Slavic homeland, around 2800 BC. This African admixture may be advantageous to Russian or Slavic athletes who dominate the Olympics.

Two likely Slavic individuals from Usedom, in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (AD 1200) show hg. R1a-M458 and E1b-M215 (Freder 2010).
An early West Slav individual from Hrádek nad Nisou in Northern Bohemia (ca. AD 1330) also shows E1b-M215 (Vanek et al. 2015).
One sample from Székkutas-Kápolnadülő (SzK/239) among middle or late Avars (ca. AD 650-710), a supposed Slavonic-speaking polity, of hg. E1b-V13.
Two samples from Karosc (K1/13, and K2/6) among Hungarian conquerors (ca. AD 895-950), likely both of hg. E1b-V13, probably connected to the alliance with Moravian elites.

The finding of haplogroup E1b1b-M215 in two independent early West Slavic individuals further supports that the current distribution of R1a1a1b1a-Z282 lineages in Slavic populations is the product of recent bottlenecks. The lack of a precise subclade within the E1b1b-M215 tree precludes a proper interpretation of a potential origin, but they are probably under European E1b1b1a1b1-L618 subclade E1b1b1a1b1a-V13 (formed ca. 6100 BC, TMRCA ca. 2800 BC), possibly under the mutation CTS1273 (formed ca. 2600 BC, TMRCA ca. 2000 BC), in common with other ancient populations around the Carpathians (see below §viii.11. Thracians and Albanians). This gross geographic origin would support the studies of the Common Slavic homeland based on toponymy (Figure 66), which place it roughly between the Upper Oder and the Upper Dniester, north of the Carpathians (Udolph 1997, 2016).

https://indo-european.eu/2019/04/common ... p-e1b-v13/
Last edited by ThirdTerm on 24 Apr 2019 23:08, edited 1 time in total.
By Pants-of-dog
#15000924
So the genetics involved with long distance running excellence are shared by some black people and some white people but is not specific to any one group.
User avatar
By Suntzu
#15000955
Pants-of-dog wrote:So the genetics involved with long distance running excellence are shared by some black people and some white people but is not specific to any one group.


How 'bout the genetics involved in short distance sprints? How many Whites guys have won the Olympics in the last 20 years? For that matter, how many White men have won the Boston Marathon (or women for that matter) in the last 20 years?
By Hindsite
#15000961
Suntzu wrote:How 'bout the genetics involved in short distance sprints? How many Whites guys have won the Olympics in the last 20 years? For that matter, how many White men have won the Boston Marathon (or women for that matter) in the last 20 years?

I see racism having more to do with natural physical appearance or traits of a group rather than athletic ability that can be enhanced by training in the sport. For some races, it is easy to tell differences by their features, skin color, and type of hair.
User avatar
By Suntzu
#15000982
Hindsite wrote:I see racism having more to do with natural physical appearance or traits of a group rather than athletic ability that can be enhanced by training in the sport. For some races, it is easy to tell differences by their features, skin color, and type of hair.


It seems that White folks dominate science about as decisively as Black folks dominate running.
By Hindsite
#15000995
Suntzu wrote:It seems that White folks dominate science about as decisively as Black folks dominate running.

Perhaps, that is because more Black folks, at present, see training to run as a better way to gain success than studying science. However, there have been some famous Black scientist in the past and today, such as George Washington Carver and Neil deGrasse Tyson.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 13
End of maduro - hopefully.

Just going to leave this here, you are defending […]

Trump's Dumb Economics

I can't understand how we can simultaneously have[…]

My point is that science cannot be used as a guid[…]

Capitalism only allows things to get done through[…]