Racial Sterotypes

[blazarwolf]

I would like this thread to be a free-for-all, but only to be read by the uneasily offended. Perhaps this will be a very touchy subject, But it is a course of interest for me. Ever since the holocaust, people have strayed away from defining Racial charectaristics. When i search for a accurate definition. I try to find the accurate root words, aswell as selective casuation for such.

For example: The root for Jews tends to be Nuerotism and Xenophobia... These can be considerd defense mechanisms selected throught their history. The history of Jewish Acheivement can be derived from such (socially alienating themselves and having nothing better to do than read), coupled with perhaps a increased ability to understand words from a inbreed ability to memorize books (Torah)... Aswell possibly greater selective time in what may be considerd "Modern civilization". Even Nazi lititure has points, but bends it to the negative... Rabbinic lititure also has points, but bends it to the positive...

 

Part of this came from reading a book on the different breeds of dogs.. we are all diffrent, we have had unique micro-evolutionary paths, and unique charecteristics (phsychological and phisical). Much of this knowlege will be lost in the future when we are all the same shade of brown.

 

Another example of positive-negative bending is that of the irish sterotype.. One could say they are liars, but I perfer storytellers. Could this be linked to the potato famine? Hearing a good story does make one happier with an empty stomach?

 

I totally agree with any argument that states nurture often accounts for a majority of psychological influences. What would be an situation that increases nature influences? Isolation? Social alienation?

 

Again just go at it... Even if want to say blacks are retards.. They obviosly arent, and even if they were, they have proven supperior cordination, reaction time, and perhaps visual perception... Which is mostly to the CNS (brain). The I.Q. test has long been known to be inadaquete to what its supposed to represent.

 

I have a feeling people wont want to touch this one.. Lets talk about race, lets talk about a part of what makes us unique...

 

Why are indians (the first ones) so nice, trustworth, philosophical? perhaps more rooted in enviorment than the previos statments? Why do japanese seem so good at math? Why do russians seem crazy (might be the jew in them) Why are germans masters of efficiancy? Why are swiss.... wierd? Why do french hate the idea of race? Why do Aboriginies have photographic memory? Why do black people seem violent and aggressive in youth, but wise in age?

 

Just some sample questions. No questions or answers will be considerd wrong.

[iNow]

Those aren't racial stereotypes. Those are generalized assertions with little to no supporting evidence. You are trying to achieve a detailed canvas by painting with the broadest brush possible, and that ain't gonna happen.

 

Where did you learn that nonsense? You don't seem to have ever met many people of different ethnic backgrounds, so you are instead filling in the gaps with your imagination and misconceptions.

[Sisyphus]

Wow. Well, I haven't even heard of half those "stereotypes." Are these your own observations or what? Anyway, putting aside for a moment the issue of whether any have some real-world statistical basis and supposing that they do, most of these things seem primarily cultural. There really isn't any genetic basis for, for example, being Swiss. Populations are too much in flux, and there is continuous interbreeding, so distinct traits in that small and integrated a group can't possibly rise over the "background noise" to be measurably significant. There barely is even for the major traditional distinctions, like "black" and "white." Another example is recent evidence that there is essentially zero genetic difference between English, Scottish, Welsh, and Irish. Yet certainly stereotypes of those different groups are quite different, so whatever basis they have is cultural.

[blazarwolf]

Those aren't racial stereotypes. Those are generalized assertions with little to no supporting evidence. You are trying to achieve a detailed canvas by painting with the broadest brush possible, and that ain't gonna happen.

 

Where did you learn that nonsense? You don't seem to have ever met many people of different ethnic backgrounds, so you are instead filling in the gaps with your imagination and misconceptions.

 

The point of this thread was not a detialed argument, but a brainstorm amoung science fellows to assist me in my own research. Most threads here are such brainstorms and not supported arguments. To assert that i have not met people of many backrounds, or that im ignorant is more bold than my own.

 

I think my post was clear enough in its organization.

 

IF you dont believe Ashekanzi jews have genetic factors to there psyche, you are wrong or uninformed. Indeed they are probably one of the most sterotypical races. I did not separate culture and genetics becuase there is no purpose. Arguments on both would be appreciated. Cultural influences drives selection of genetics. Understanding both is key to me.

 

Or to say Africans dont have sterotypical aspects to there psyche is also Invalid. Its proven they have 15% greater levels of FF testosterone. If you dont understand the implications, im sorry.

 

I could argue alot of things, it would be an 45 page essay, with citations. Thats not what my purpose is. I dont care if you draw similaritys between ancient roman behavior and modern day itialian, or if you make bold statements like "Native girls are slutty". Finding strong statements to start from, is difficult from anyone except a uneducated white supremisist.

 

I think I said, i dont believe anyone is supperior, but we are different, natural influences have there effect. If you dont know this, if you dont understand this, you are as ignorant as the common definition of the word "racist".

 

People are so soft these days, this thread might aswell be deleted, it was a mistake.

[YT2095]

it May have helped you to have been a little more Specific in your Question and aims, as it stands your OP it`s rather disorganized wouldn`t you agree?

[blazarwolf]

I have a feeling people wont want to touch this one.. Lets talk about race, lets talk about a part of what makes us unique....

 

That sums it up, with genetic and cultural influences of such. And attempts to tie the two together. I felt i needed alot of banter to have people properly understand.

[Phi for All]

I have a feeling people wont want to touch this one.. Lets talk about race, lets talk about a part of what makes us unique...

I don't feel my "race" is part of what makes me unique.

[mooeypoo]

I don't feel my "race" is part of what makes me unique.

I find these discussions very interesting, but I think that this time the presentation of it, at least, is a bit confused.

 

First off, I think the 'questions' you've raised - the differences between races - are not differences between races, but rather between societies. The xenophobia of the Jews, for instance, is social and cultural, not racial.

 

In fact, you need to prove that the Jews are a race by themselves to have stated this 'difference', which leads me to the next point -- a race is a scientific term, and I am not sure we're using it right in this debate.

 

I am not sure I know the full answer myself, but it's definitely not a matter of opinion. We need to first establish what races are and then examine what the differences are between them, if any.

 

If we talk political-correctness, then I agree with Phi. My race does not have any bearing on who I am. I was born 'into' it with no choice and no bearing as to my personality.

 

There are, however, known differences between races. For example, Caucasians and Blacks (lacking a better name, as un-PC as it may be) differ on some biological diseases that each has more chances of getting. I don't remember the names but the biology-majors here could probably help, as well as a google search, I imagine.

 

There appears to also be some sort of classification in Medicine as well in terms of race (look here for example), so there ARE differences. They might be irrelevant ethically and we would like them to be irrelevant socially, but there are still differences.

 

On a side note, I see this the same as I see women rights issues -- Whoever argues that women and men are totally equal is blind. Obviously the two sexes are different, and we should acknowledge that. Each has strengths and weaknesses in different aspects. We should acknowledge it, but not let it interfere with things that do NOT have a bearing on such issues (like status in the workforce, or whatever else). Same, in my opinion, with races. The fact we should, ethically and socially, treat everyone the same and equally, does not mean that there are no differences.

 

So, if we are talking about differences in races, we need to first establish how we classify a race. Then, we need to establish what we are talking about -- the cultural differences (in which case I am not sure it's about race but rather a culture, geography, or historical issue) or biological differences.

 

We can still discuss this without being offended, I just think we need to be more focused on what it is we are debating about.

 

~moo

[Glider]

I think if one ignores differences in appearance, which in themselves make no difference, then all other differences between people (by which I mean those that actually make a difference to behaviour and attitude) are cultural and so are self-imposed.

[JohnB]

As moeypoo said, you first have to define "race". Personally I don't think this can be done.

 

There is only one race, "human". Any physical differences between various subgroups are purely cosmetic. While those of say, African descent, may be more inclined to certain diseases, the same can be said for redheads amoungst caucasians. Does this mean redheads are a separate race?

 

If a person is 1/4 each of Caucasian, Amerind, Asian and African, to what "race" does he belong?

 

Drawing arbitary, imaginary lines to separate humans into "races" is the basest form tribalism. (He looks like me, therefore he is like me.) What utter rubbish. What we say today about another "race" is the same as Ugh was saying to Og 50,000 years ago about the tribe in the next valley.

 

At least the thread is in Pseudoscience where it belongs.

[mooeypoo]

As moeypoo said, you first have to define "race". Personally I don't think this can be done.

 

There is only one race, "human". Any physical differences between various subgroups are purely cosmetic. While those of say, African descent, may be more inclined to certain diseases, the same can be said for redheads amoungst caucasians. Does this mean redheads are a separate race?

 

If a person is 1/4 each of Caucasian, Amerind, Asian and African, to what "race" does he belong?

 

Drawing arbitary, imaginary lines to separate humans into "races" is the basest form tribalism. (He looks like me, therefore he is like me.) What utter rubbish. What we say today about another "race" is the same as Ugh was saying to Og 50,000 years ago about the tribe in the next valley.

 

At least the thread is in Pseudoscience where it belongs.

 

Socially, I agree, but from my examination of medical issues, there seems to actually be a sort of importance to 'race'..

 

Again, there are diseases that are more common with Jews than anyone else, birth defects or diseases that are prone to certain races..

 

I agree that it's not important ethically, socially or psychologically, but I think that if we already started a debate about this, we might aswell not ignore these biological issues. I am not saying that one race is better than or worse than the others, I'm saying that it APPEARS (look at the link above) that biology does not agree with our PC.

[JohnB]

Mooey, that's what I meant about "arbitary". I'm sure that there are diseases that affect one "racial" group more than another. However if that is to be the criterion for determining "race", if fair haired people were more susceptable to some diseases, then we would have to conclude that "Blondes" are a "race" too.

 

Ditto brunettes, redheads and people with freckles. There are no criteria that can be used to define "race" in any really meaningful way.

 

Even diseases that are associated with a given race may be the result of societal and dietary customs. Should that be the case, then the disease is associated with those societal and dietary customs and anyone who follows those customs would be more at risk regardless of "race".

 

A disease may be related to the amount of Melanin in the skin, but that is what it relates to, not race.

 

A group of immigrants from Mozambique move to Ireland. Their children have irish names, they speak with an irish accent and they dress and behave as an irishman would. In societal, dietary and every other custom, they are irish. Talk to them on the phone and you can't tell their family hasn't been in ireland for 1,000 years. The only difference now is the colour of their skin.

 

So are they members of the "Irish" race or the "African" one?

Socially, I agree, but from my examination of medical issues, there seems to actually be a sort of importance to 'race'..

I'm willing to bet that closer examination will show that the various effects stem not from race but from some more basic factor. "Race" is just a lazy grab bag that people get stuffed into for convenience.

 

From the American Anthropological Association Statement on "Race".

With the vast expansion of scientific knowledge in this century, however, it has become clear that human populations are not unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups. Evidence from the analysis of genetics (e.g., DNA) indicates that most physical variation, about 94%, lies within so-called racial groups. Conventional geographic "racial" groupings differ from one another only in about 6% of their genes. This means that there is greater variation within "racial" groups than between them......These facts render any attempt to establish lines of division among biological populations both arbitrary and subjective.

(Emphasis mine.)

 

Scientifically, there is only one race, Human. Social and moral divisions are left up to individual choice.

[DrP]

Kenyans and Ethiopians have dominated world distance running for ages. Is this cultural or racal?

[JohnB]

Is this cultural or racal?

A survival trait.

 

Look at the Olympics, the black guys are really good at running while the white guys are good at shooting. What does this tell you?

[MonsieurChauvin]

Just Saying...

 

I am sick and tired of hearing certain individuals criticize others for employing generalizations of sex or ethno-racial differences between individuals. There are no logical objections to constructing a statistical generalization based on the relative probability of trait possession within a given population demographic. It is always safe to generalize as long as one realizes that the various characteristics of contemporary female socio-sexual behaviour (for example) gravitate around certain statistical polarities.

 

Secondly, I would like to say that there is a definite, objective biological basis to the concept of race, but that sexual differentiation between man and woman is of a much deeper biological origin than ethno-racial difference. For one thing, racial differentiation of the human species begins about the time of hominid emergence from ancient Africa anywhere between 10 - 70, 000 years ago, whereas sexual differentiation has existed from the very beginning of the 2 million year existence of the genus Homo. As a matter of fact, sex antedates race by about 85 million years, actually beginning with the existence of the primate family that Homo sapiens is now descended from.

 

Additionally, it is much easier to change one’s ethno-racial make-up (by adopting ethno-national dress, learning a new language, tanning one's skin etc.), a construct which is socially and culturally manufactured to a certain extent, as opposed to one’s sex, which is deeply rooted within human physiology (reconstructive sex re-assignment surgery anyone?).

[iNow]

Well, that's all a load of crap.

 

Prove me wrong with a reference or three, I dare ye.

[Sayonara]

He can't - banned for hate speech.

[iNow]

Works for me. Thanks, Sayo.

[JohnB]

Hear, hear.

[john5746]

I think this is a good link. Basically, genes and culture play a big part in the health of an individual. While race is not a great genetic marker, its better than nothing. Race and culture would be just another piece of information in your family history. Hopefully soon, we will have better genetic information on individuals. The trend should be towards treating people as unique, not as widgets.

 

http://www.post-gazette.com/healthscience/20020507hgene0507p3.asp

 

A group of immigrants from Mozambique move to Ireland. Their children have irish names, they speak with an irish accent and they dress and behave as an irishman would. In societal, dietary and every other custom, they are irish. Talk to them on the phone and you can't tell their family hasn't been in ireland for 1,000 years. The only difference now is the colour of their skin.

 

So are they members of the "Irish" race or the "African" one?

 

African Irishmen? No there is more difference than the color of the skin. There are genetic differences as there are with everyone else in Ireland. Changing locations does not change the genes you inherited. Trying to push social norms into science is wrong.

 

I'm willing to bet that closer examination will show that the various effects stem not from race but from some more basic factor. "Race" is just a lazy grab bag that people get stuffed into for convenience.

 

The link I provided clearly identifies racial differences in a disease. The more basic factors will be genes and environment, but until they are all determined, race and location will come in handy.

 

Scientifically, there is only one race, Human. Social and moral divisions are left up to individual choice.

 

Yes, social and moral decisions are choices, but genetics is not. My family history should have no affect on me socially and morally, but a decent doctor should take it into account for my treatment.

[JohnB]

I think this is a good link. Basically, genes and culture play a big part in the health of an individual. While race is not a great genetic marker, its better than nothing.

Given that your link reports that the differences between "races" account for only 5% of genetic differential and that 95% of differences therefore occur within "races", I would say that using race would be misleading, if anything.

African Irishmen? No there is more difference than the color of the skin. There are genetic differences as there are with everyone else in Ireland. Changing locations does not change the genes you inherited.

Perhaps you missed my point. There is no way to use genetics to differentiate one race from another, therefore any such division is purely arbitary, without factual foundation and scientifically unsound.

 

(See point above) The immigrants will have more in common genetically with the native irishmen than with the people they left behind, so how do you justify using genetics to define "race"?

 

In the example I used, the only difference was the colour of the persons skin, is that what you use to define race?

The link I provided clearly identifies racial differences in a disease. The more basic factors will be genes and environment, but until they are all determined, race and location will come in handy.

No, it shows genetic differences to be a factor. It also says;

For instance, someone is commonly considered "black" if he has one black parent and one white parent, or even if he just has one black grandparent. From a biological standpoint, however, there is no logic for such labelling.

(Emphasis mine.)

My family history should have no affect on me socially and morally, but a decent doctor should take it into account for my treatment.

Your family medical history yes. However your own link says;

"Nobody would make clinical decisions based on a racial profile," he said. "Race is a very crude predictor of any sort of differential response to medication."

 

My argument is simple. Since there are no scientifically valid methods to differentiate one "race" from another any such division of the human species is arbitary, unprovable and unsound. In a nutshell, the entire concept of "race" is bullsh*t.

[john5746]

My argument is simple. Since there are no scientifically valid methods to differentiate one "race" from another any such division of the human species is arbitary, unprovable and unsound. In a nutshell, the entire concept of "race" is bullsh*t.

 

We mostly agree, yet we can see in Tobago that taking race into account provided a clue as to a possible genetic link to disease. They had to separate people into groups somehow. While grouping people by race may not be very effective, I think it is more effective than lumping everyone into a single group.

If I am an African American with hypertension, I might ask my doc about taking something other than an Ace Inhibitor for treatment or if I do take one, I would be more careful about monitoring the effectiveness.

[JohnB]

We mostly agree, yet we can see in Tobago that taking race into account provided a clue as to a possible genetic link to disease.

I think the problem I have with the article is that they seem to be taking a small sub group (Tobagans) and trying to extrapolate that to a larger "racial" group. It strikes me that the pressure for small genetic change on a small island would be radically different from the pressures on a continent.

[blazarwolf]

A survival trait.

 

Look at the Olympics, the black guys are really good at running while the white guys are good at shooting. What does this tell you?

 

I often trust books more than what I am tought, however i was tought that Africaners have a higher ratio of slow oxidative muscle fibers to fast twitch than whites. Ive attributted this to the fact you see alot of huge black body builders, but rarley see them do well, or even compete in "the worlds strongest man" (its more a strength competition rather than endurance). symetrically: you rarley see a white runningback of equal size move as fast as the black one.

 

 

In addition to the ratio of different types of muscle fibers, ive actually read from books, ethiopians and kenians are tall and thin as a trait to easily loose heat, and move quickly across the plains.

 

At least the thread is in Pseudoscience where it belongs.

 

Well i boycotted becuase it was, I also felt bad for calling out a homosexual...

It's not false science. Its a loose collection, a brain storm, of inferences and diffucult to prove facts... if i wanted to talk about a proven fact, i would have asked "why to ashekanzi jews have average I.Q.s of 108-112, most specifically in reading comprehention", but i doubt anyone has anything to add to the theorys i already know.

[blazarwolf]

Okay stop deleting my post just becuase im drunk and hard to understand(and admit to it), you really dont understand what knowlege is about... do you? do you want me sober? do you??????????

 

I have ****ing azbergers, you might aswell kick me off the bus cuz im black. (delete this too and watch you site fall from 8th grade science to 3rd.