Am I racist?

[Darkwing Duck]

Ok, sounds good. When someone tells me they are black or asian or otherwise different than I am, I will go ahead and tell them they are not, and that they are exactly the same as me, because Darkwing Duck told me that is the case. Apparently you know enough about every single human on earth to tell me that there are no heritable traits that make anyone else distinct from any other person.

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.

 

[Deleted member 848]

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.

*grabs popcorn*

DD nailing it.

 

[Jamezz]

#Gobliterating

 

[QuinSnydersHair]

I smoke em peace pipe.

 

[b_line]

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.

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]

*grabs popcorn*

DD nailing it.

If you call nailing it denying that heritable traits and differing ancestry exist, then I guess you could be right in your own mind.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

If you call nailing it denying that heritable traits and differing ancestry exist, then I guess you could be right in your own mind.

Unfortunately, when one strawmans, it's hard to take one seriously.

 

[Jazz Insider]

in conclusion i think we can all agree OP is racialist

 

[Darkwing Duck]

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.

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?

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.

"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.

 

[♪alt13]

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.

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

 

[fishonjazz]

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.

 

[Hantlers]

This thing is still going?

Idiots.