What's new
By:
Filters

Am I racist?

Darkwing Duck said:
I thought you didn't want black as a race to be part of the conversation? Was I wrong there? Is it back in?

In any case, if that individual has training or schooling in human biology, and has knowledge of this thread, that person will ask you why you're erecting a straw man.

I implore you to define a specific race with the definition you supplied. Make up a race if you want to. I think I have an idea what you mean when you use population. What you'll find is when you use specific traits together, there will be other individuals outside that population that have those traits, and if you go general, there will be no reasonable determining line separating those of that race and those not of that race.

Back to that hypothetical individual, when that person tells you he/she is black, ask them how they define being black. Will he/she use biologically terminology to differentiate the most obvious trait (since a color is used as the name of the race), like I have 87% melanin content or comparative measures, like "my skin is darker than others." In the U.S., many will attribute "being black," to adhering to cultural expectancies. Thus, they're using race culturally, so, not unsurprisingly as it's been used already by people who seem to understand and have studied biology in some way, shape or form, as a social construct.

But please, again, try to do so biologically. Define a race. When you look at the entire genotype instead of just the phenotype, you'll likely find more diversity outside of the phenotype than within it. And if you're determined to ONLY use the phenotype to define a race, then what purpose would it show? For instance, if you identify with "white," there are other "white" people you can and cannot receive blood from, and that percentage isn't going to change when you look at those identifying with "black" on whether you, the white person, can receive blood from. So defining race using only the phenotype has no impact on biology whatsoever, leaving race defined by phenotype useful only in the cultural setting, making it, yet again, a characteristic of a social construct.
Click to expand...
1. If you are as educated as you are acting, how in the hell are you possibly arguing that there are not different populations on this earth? It is obvious to anyone over five years old that people are different in different areas of the world, and there are heritable traits that have become pretty standard to groups of people. Northern Europeans are white in general. Africans, for the most part are black. I don't understand why you feel the need to bring up pigmentation percentage. It is asinine to say that you think Europeans and Africans have the same skin color, even if you are just being a dick about it.

2. Let's not call it race then if you do not think that race exists, or don't like the word. But how do you explain the difference in heritable traits of on group of people vs another? How do you explain an isolated group like the Australian aborigines that were isolated for around 40,000 years and are not closely related genetically to any other modern humans? How do you explain Africans not having Neanderthal DNA of we are all supposed to be he same? Literally the rest of the world shares up to 2% Neanderthal DNA. If not race, population, ethnicity, then what shall we call these distinctions?

3. Australian aborigines are a race that can be pretty clearly defined as those people who are native to Australia before other people arrived there in modernity. Their DNA has been proven to be most closely related to Africans who left Africa nearly 75,000 years ago. They were isolated there for tens of thousands of years, developing traits that suited life in the deserts of Australia, their skin producing more melanin to combat the sun being one of them. Many African people are the same way, obviously there are many different groups in Africa, but a lot of Africans are tall and lanky because it was better for staying cool in the hot sun, an enhanced cooling mechanism for their bodies.
 
b_line said:
1. If you are as educated as you are acting, how in the hell are you possibly arguing that there are not different populations on this earth? It is obvious to anyone over five years old that people are different in different areas of the world, and there are heritable traits that have become pretty standard to groups of people. Northern Europeans are white in general. Africans, for the most part are black. I don't understand why you feel the need to bring up pigmentation percentage. It is asinine to say that you think Europeans and Africans have the same skin color, even if you are just being a dick about it.
Click to expand...

But you can't differentiate because the lighter skinned "black" people have lighter skin that the darker skinned "white" people, so skin color ISN'T sufficient for racial identification.

2. Let's not call it race then if you do not think that race exists, or don't like the word. But how do you explain the difference in heritable traits of on group of people vs another? How do you explain an isolated group like the Australian aborigines that were isolated for around 40,000 years and are not closely related genetically to any other modern humans? How do you explain Africans not having Neanderthal DNA of we are all supposed to be he same? Literally the rest of the world shares up to 2% Neanderthal DNA. If not race, population, ethnicity, then what shall we call these distinctions?
Click to expand...

Alleles, different genes. People can, and do, have the genetic material required for what you want to classify but not fit in that classification. That's the problem. You must be incredibly specific on defining a group or it loses scientific muster. You would have to say, for example, a geographical locale where a specific group of people tend to mate with show a trend toward a certain trait. Race, or any other simple nomenclature, is insufficient since at that point, there would be, as I said, millions of "races" or whatever term you'd want to use to try to clarify.



3. Australian aborigines are a race that can be pretty clearly defined as those people who are native to Australia before other people arrived there in modernity. Their DNA has been proven to be most closely related to Africans who left Africa nearly 75,000 years ago. They were isolated there for tens of thousands of years, developing traits that suited life in the deserts of Australia, their skin producing more melanin to combat the sun being one of them. Many African people are the same way, obviously there are many different groups in Africa, but a lot of Africans are tall and lanky because it was better for staying cool in the hot sun, an enhanced cooling mechanism for their bodies.
Click to expand...

"a lot of x" is insufficient for racial identity. There are Africans that are not lanky and not tall. There are non-Africans that are lanky and tall. That's where problems lie. Are aborigines black or not? As you say, the gene pool is fairly diverse from Africans. There are way too many exceptions and inconsistencies to properly classify people by race.
 
b_line said:
1. If you are as educated as you are acting, how in the hell are you possibly arguing that there are not different populations on this earth? It is obvious to anyone over five years old that people are different in different areas of the world, and there are heritable traits that have become pretty standard to groups of people. Northern Europeans are white in general. Africans, for the most part are black. I don't understand why you feel the need to bring up pigmentation percentage. It is asinine to say that you think Europeans and Africans have the same skin color, even if you are just being a dick about it.

2. Let's not call it race then if you do not think that race exists, or don't like the word. But how do you explain the difference in heritable traits of on group of people vs another? How do you explain an isolated group like the Australian aborigines that were isolated for around 40,000 years and are not closely related genetically to any other modern humans? How do you explain Africans not having Neanderthal DNA of we are all supposed to be he same? Literally the rest of the world shares up to 2% Neanderthal DNA. If not race, population, ethnicity, then what shall we call these distinctions?

3. Australian aborigines are a race that can be pretty clearly defined as those people who are native to Australia before other people arrived there in modernity. Their DNA has been proven to be most closely related to Africans who left Africa nearly 75,000 years ago. They were isolated there for tens of thousands of years, developing traits that suited life in the deserts of Australia, their skin producing more melanin to combat the sun being one of them. Many African people are the same way, obviously there are many different groups in Africa, but a lot of Africans are tall and lanky because it was better for staying cool in the hot sun, an enhanced cooling mechanism for their bodies.
Click to expand...

Africans are genetically closest to Europeans. Fact

Your notions about melanin are just that notions.

Watch the link. I time indexed it for you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvG1ylKhzoo&feature=youtu.be&t=56m30s
 
Jazz Insider said:
still dont get how u knew he was mexican and other person was white, tbh.
maybe u mean hispanic? no worries, its a common mixup amongst racialists such as yoself.
Click to expand...
87971c3a418c45b175d58354e46497f7.jpg
 
Beer said:
I am selling something online. Big things, that need to be picked up in person. I have a set price and am getting a decent amount of interest.

Person A is wants me to hold it until 7 when they can get off work and come and get it. Has not mentioned price, just that they would like it. Normally I'd just say ok and hold it for them and tell everyone else to F off. The only "problem" is .... wait for it .... this person is of Mexican heritage. That's not really a problem in and of itself as Mexicans need washers and dryers as much as the next race. The problem lies in my past business dealings with Mexicans. I for some reason or another have done a fair amount of dealings with Mexicans via garage sales, stuff sold on KSL etc .... and every time they show up, conveniently forget how to speak English, try to shove half the agreed upon amount into my hand and try to get out and or away while I try and explain that's half or less than half of the price of the item and they cannot have said item until the total amount is in my hand. Its a pain in the ***.

Person B is a middle aged caucasian who has told me she would give me $400 cash and will come pick them up tonight. Now she contacted me second, but I'd rather deal with her as its almost a guarantee that it will be a simple transaction.

I am selling to person B. Am I a racist?
Click to expand...

I don't think your racist. I mean, just off this post, there's not enough to know if you are one. Then again, I'm a believer that being a racist has connotations of power and systemic abuse associated with it so my bar is much higher than most. I do believe you're a class A bigot though.

While reading your post, the question that begged to be asked in my mind is how you came to the conclusion that the person you were dealing with was of Mexican heritage. I do my fair share of craigslisting out here and never, not once, has the discussion of race or ethnicity come up. I think I understand where you're coming from if only from this part of your post:

as Mexicans need washers and dryers as much as the next race.
Click to expand...

Like GF, I've always used the first come, first serve policy. It's the easiest thing to do. Since, I don't want my time wasted and I don't want to waste anyone elses time, I always make sure to discuss the details of the transaction before agreeing to a sale. It's easier that way.

Anyway, yeah, you sound like a bigot.
 
VINYLONE said:
While reading your post, the question that begged to be asked in my mind is how you came to the conclusion that the person you were dealing with was of Mexican heritage. I do my fair share of craigslisting out here and never, not once, has the discussion of race or ethnicity come up. I think I understand where you're coming from if only from this part of your post:
Click to expand...

To save you some time in reading back through all 20 pages. He left a VM, he sounded like every other Mexican just learning English. I guess he could have been a Russian with a Mexican accent but its unlikely. Now before you go off saying "Well, he might have been Venezuelan or Costa Rican or blah blah." Thats stupid so save your breath.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top