Black boxer bias

[kayjay]

Sonofsis, I know a lot of people in Cultural Studies write in this way. But you have to also understand that these pseudosciences are also politically motivated.

Race is not a "cultural construct." It's biological, just not deeply biological (i.e., differences among races don't pertain to basic organic functions). And it would contradict all the principles of science to deny outright that racism has no connection to the deep psychological determinants of discrimination; it can't be an island in our psychology. I know that a bunch of half wit cultural theorists are writing books to the contrary, but a discriminating mind (pu intended) will see past them.

[dansapien]

whats a black?

[sonofisis]

Sonofsis, I know a lot of people in Cultural Studies write in this way. But you have to also understand that these pseudosciences are also politically motivated.

Unless you have any distinct criticism for the highly praised work of both Frank Snowden and Basil Davidson, then your quackery (no offense. Used for lack of a better term) and original research in trying to give them generalized/sweeping criticism shall be disregarded. Neither was in any way politically motivated and both of their works are required reading in their respective fields. Scholarly criticism of their efforts is virtually non-existent among the intellectual elite in academia and their findings have been repeated.

Race is not a "cultural construct." It's biological, just not deeply biological (i.e., differences among races don't pertain to basic organic functions).

You're sadly confused my friend, as "race" is a four letter word invented by Europeans based on an arbitrary taxonomic system which has no genetic validity whatsover. There is no single point of divergence or marker that would indicate distinct lineages that would qualify people to be categorized by sub-species. There is a clinal shift from one population to another and what people selectively refer to as "races" are merely outliners who follow the same cline.

Quoting the American Anthropological Association:

In the United States both scholars and the general public have been conditioned to viewing human races as natural and separate divisions within the human species based on visible physical differences. 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. In neighboring populations there is much overlapping of genes and their phenotypic (physical) expressions. Throughout history whenever different groups have come into contact, they have interbred. The continued sharing of genetic materials has maintained all of humankind as a single species. - Source

^If this is what you were referring to in reference to your "politically motivated" statement, and not Davidson and Snowden, then excuse my disarray. If indeed you were referring to the discrediting of "race" as a natural concept, then again, you are mistaken since such conclusions were drawn over a stretched period of time and these views were not easily transitional. Most importantly, the conclusions were made based on the best science available (especially genetics) which effectively deconstructed the bunk concept and traced its history back to Europeans who invented it as a justification for their own political motives. This is contrary to your own su****ions.

And it would contradict all the principles of science to deny outright that racism has no connection to the deep psychological determinants of discrimination; it can't be an island in our psychology.

By definition, racism is discrimination based of these deep seeded feelings of in group superiority. I'm not sure that I ever denied that. However, there is nothing by way of science (anthropology, sociology, or psychology) to suggest that these feelings are innate HUMAN traits which arose as a mechanism for survival. This is the point of contention.

I know that a bunch of half wit cultural theorists are writing books to the contrary, but a discriminating mind (pu intended) will see past them.

^No, a bunk theory (like racism being innate among humans) based on nothing, and a sound theory, bordering scientific fact, and inferred from copious amounts of data are two different things. The "half wit" comment was unnecessary and can be seen as an ad hominem and fallacy in logic since you're rebutting thin air and not anything tangible. I've already cited someone from the department of Sociology and Anthropology and a few historians on why it is bankrupt to assume that discrimination has always been based on phenotypical variation. We see an opposite trend as a matter of fact and no amount of su****ion or reluctance to accept will obscure the scientific data in question.

[Wiley Hyena]

Who cares? This thread sucks. Let it go. The world has changed..for the better.

[sonofisis]

Who cares? This thread sucks. Let it go. The world has changed..for the better.

Nothing is wrong with a healthy debate or dialogue Mr. Grump. If it bothers you, please don't feel obligated to stay. As long as we aren't exchanging racial slurs, it is all copasetic.

[kayjay]

. There is no single point of divergence or marker that would indicate distinct lineages that would qualify people to be categorized by sub-species . . .


, 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. In neighboring populations there is much overlapping of genes and their phenotypic (physical) expressions. Throughout history whenever different groups have come into contact, they have interbred. The continued sharing of genetic materials has maintained all of humankind as a single species. - Source

)

Good reply. None of it contradicts what I said. I said race is biological but not deeply biological. That excludes races being distinct subspecies. You mention interbreeding: that would be relevant only if I claimed that they are distinct species (the ability to interbreed fertile offsping belongs to the definition of of 'species'). You mentioned overlapping of genes; again, I didn't imply there there were no common traits, or that genetic divergences among races are greater than divergences within races. All of this points towards race being a 'natural concept', but one of minimal biological significance.

The attempt to 'deconstruct' the concept of race (and place it on one side of a dichotomy between nature and culture) belongs to a political agenda opposed to but within the same discourse as the old racist theories themselves.

There is science behind this, but it's no longer science when you talk of "an invention to justify political motives." Race wasn't invented, it was just overestimated. In the 19th C it was believed that the racial lineages were more distinct than they in fact are; it turns out that race isn't a big deal biologically. It doesn't follow, however, that there are no races, though it sounds like a harmonious idea to say so.

[sonofisis]

Good reply. None of it contradicts what I said. I said race is biological but not deeply biological. That excludes races being distinct subspecies. You mention interbreeding: that would be relevant only if I claimed that they are distinct species (the ability to interbreed fertile offsping belongs to the definition of of 'species'). You mentioned overlapping of genes; again, I didn't imply there there were no common traits, or that genetic divergences among races are greater than divergences within races. All of this points towards race being a 'natural concept', but one of minimal biological significance.

Actually you were directly contradicted since you assert that "race" isn't a cultural phenomenon and has a biological basis, when conversely the American Association of Anthropology apparently does not agree. There is no distinction between "deeply biological" and "biological" as "race" has no biological validity whatsoever. Referring to slight variations in phenotype as being indicative of a racial category is flat out wrong. Again, "race" is a four letter word with no defining ability.

Also to clarify, the above which is in italics was a quote from the AAA and not a statement from me; I was citing. There is nothing contained therein which would support your interpretation that they support any natural concepts of "race" and I have no idea how you drew this conclusion from the cited text.

This is a quote from the paragraph directly below that one, which I'm afraid you did not read:

Quote:
For example, skin color varies largely from light in the temperate areas in the north to dark in the tropical areas in the south; its intensity is not related to nose shape or hair texture. Dark skin may be associated with frizzy or kinky hair or curly or wavy or straight hair, all of which are found among different indigenous peoples in tropical regions. These facts render any attempt to establish lines of division among biological populations both arbitrary and subjective.

Historical research has shown that the idea of "race" has always carried more meanings than mere physical differences; indeed, physical variations in the human species have no meaning except the social ones that humans put on them. Today scholars in many fields argue that "race" as it is understood in the United States of America was a social mechanism invented during the 18th century to refer to those populations brought together in colonial America: the English and other European settlers, the conquered Indian peoples, and those peoples of Africa brought in to provide slave labor.


^Please pay special attention to the bold print Kayjay, as they literally destroy any notions you may have had and support to a tee what I've been trying to explain to you.

The attempt to 'deconstruct' the concept of race (and place it on one side of a dichotomy between nature and culture) belongs to a political agenda opposed to but within the same discourse as the old racist theories themselves.

This is a crack pot conspiracy theory which has no business in a scientific debate. The average biological anthropologist would see such nonsense as kooky and merely go on about their work.

I'd like to explain something to you as far as my method of attaining knowledge, which may be different from yours. If I come across a view that I may be opposed to, my way of going about it is to first address the data (not the researcher/s) and ascertain why it is flawed, wrong, or methodologically unsound. In this instance, you have failed to do this and instead choose to remain blissful without straining your self to tackle the contradictory (to your position) conclusions. Under this strategical fallacy, one can present as much evidence as is humanly possible only to be met with a similar conspiracy theory that tells us nothing by way of rebuttal. Therefore, those with scientific minds pay no attention to such unconfirmed accusations since they have nothing to do with the data.

There is science behind this, but it's no longer science when you talk of "an invention to justify political motives."

You must have a poor understanding of science since the first step in the scientific method is observation.

For instance, the concepts of race are not scientifically derived and spring for the most part, from biblical myths. "Caucasian" is in reference to Japheth, a son of Noah who supposedly settled around the Caucasus mountains in northern Europe, subsequently birthing offspring in that region and giving rise to a so-called "Caucasoid race".. "Negroid" is attributed to Noah's son Ham, and the word is derived from "Negro", which in turn is derived from Latin (Niger) and it simply means "Black"... It is historically documented that such terms were taken out of context and used for justification of slavery, among other things. I seriously suggest that you read up on Ham's curse as not to be left in the dark on this. It is also suspect that you cast political motivations on esteemed scientists who most likely don't think like you do, yet you're comfortable in criticizing them for addressing past political motivations of Europeans who invented the concept. That is called being hypocritical and doesn't really help your case at all. Though again, what they suggest is already confirmed and documented; what you suggest has no foundation in evidence or even logic.

Race wasn't invented, it was just overestimated.

No, it was invented. This makes no sense either, to be blunt and I'm not confident that you even understand the concept of "race" as it applies to biology.. Either it can be demonstrated as true or it isn't, there are no in betweens. You can't "slick talk" your way out of being wrong (not with me at least), sorry.

In the 19th C it was believed that the racial lineages were more distinct than they in fact are; it turns out that race isn't a big deal biologically.

It turns out that it doesn't exist and in the 19th century there was no way to test the validity of "racial lineages" since DNA had not yet been discovered. Now that we have discovered it, we have demonstrated that there is no such thing as racial lineages (in human beings). As a challenge to you, I'd like you to name one (since human lineages are indeed accompanied by names).

It doesn't follow, however, that there are no races, though it sounds like a harmonious idea to say so.

^It doesn't follow to the layman, non-scientific mind. One can easily simplify what they will according to illusions, which is why due to the planet's spherical shape, ancient astronomers looked up and believed that we lived on a flat earth that was covered by a dome. Creative and convenient, just like the idea of "race", but in the 21rst century such ideas are seen as unscientific.

[Chief Vash]

Is this just a race thread? Or is this a "bash the original poster" thread?

[sonofisis]

Suggested Reading for Kayjay:

The Persistence of Racial Thinking and the Myth of Racial Divergence: S.O.Y. Keita and Rick A. Kittles, American Anthropologist (1997)

“Race”: Confusion About Zoological and Social Taxonomies, and Their Places in Science:
S.O.Y. Keita, A.J. Boyce, Field Museum of Chicago Institute of Biological Anthropology, Oxford University, American Journal of Human Biology, 13: 569–575 (2001)

^The above are PDF files and of course you need the appropriate software to open them.

[kayjay]

I appreciate the links, and I will check them, though not tonight