U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old Today, 10:25 AM
 
Location: New York
521 posts, read 478,471 times
Reputation: 540

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by dude5568 View Post
One last time and I'll try and write it in a way that is easy to understand .

point 1 ) - People look different from one another . A Norwegian looks different than a Nigerian who looks different than a Korean.

point 2 ) - These " Phenotypic " differences in skin color , hair texture , nose width , lip thickness and on an on are caused by " environmental " factors of the respective regions these populations evolved in .

point 3 ) - How we classify " race " in America has varied tremendously over the years . It has now ( post WW2 ) settled to a " European phenotype " and christian/jewish religion and identifying with a Western civilization . This is in a Social context . Technically , middle easterners and north africans are classified as " White " by the census bureau but of course not seen as such socially . Did you know Indians were also classified as " White " by the 1970 census but self petitioned to be placed in a different category .

point 4 ) - You can make generalized statements like Europeans have a certain percentage of Neanderthal DNA or Denisovan DNA and so on and I'll not refute this . The point is that this is just an interesting tidbit of information and holds no tangible biologic meaning .

point 5 ) - Humans are very similar genetically ( 99.9 percent same).

point 6) - " Race " is what people say it is ( hence a social construct ) . It is a system of classification that has malice at it's core and has brought untold misery to people's lives whether be it slavery , segregation or the holocaust . That combined with that fact that it is a scientifically dubious system of classifying people is my argument for why I discredit it. We humans are insecure , imperfect beings . Before long , curiosities about someone's phenotype evolve into a judgement about their intelligence , morality and culture ( as is abundantly evident on this thread itself ). That is where the problem starts .

Last point ) - No one is saying people don't look different , No one is saying there are not genetic clusters among populations , no one is saying europeans might not have more neanderthal DNA than sub saharan africans and on and on . What I am saying is that these little tidbits are not justifications to divide people into " races ".

It's the classic chicken or the egg . That means that if you for whatever reason WANT to SEE people as different you can use all these " tidbits " to justify what you want to do and what fits your social and political agenda . Your agenda might be a benign one ( " in the name of the truth " or " to show those liberals and social justice warriors whose right " ) or a malicious one ( " all jews must die " ) but that does not change the fact that you CHOOSE to see the world this way . We all evolved from about 3000 " pre humans " about 70,000 years ago and where you draw the line from that till August , 2019 is up-to you man.

Looking at the world this way has only brought mayhem and misery . We are all the same . Whether you accept it or not.

I believe now I am truly done.
This proves you have not studied this topic in depth. All of your arguments are surface deep. Explore this site:
https://jaymans.wordpress.com/hbd-fundamentals/
Itís really good and if your in to this stuff youíll definitely learn a lot.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old Today, 11:06 AM
 
15,596 posts, read 7,977,051 times
Reputation: 8060
Europe was not dominant 500 years ago for people who know of world history outside of Europe.

However, the rise of white supremacy as an ideology began around the 1700s when Europeans began to colonize the world. IMO Europeans got an advantage because they had advanced weapons and some were dissatisfied with aspects of their home countries (in relation to social classes/lack of ability to rise in wealth, weather, resources, religious persecution, etc). They also because of their advanced weapons in the 1700s and the strength that provided them, were heavily driven by greed and materialism to conquer other peole.

IMO white supremacy is primarily based upon greed, violence, and materialism. I personally believe all of humanity has these traits but that certain European people (not all or even a majority - primarily the Spanish and British and later the French) were more interested in these pursuits than other people.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 11:13 AM
 
15,596 posts, read 7,977,051 times
Reputation: 8060
Quote:
Originally Posted by montydean View Post
This proves you have not studied this topic in depth. All of your arguments are surface deep. Explore this site:
https://jaymans.wordpress.com/hbd-fundamentals/
Itís really good and if your in to this stuff youíll definitely learn a lot.
FYI - didn't read all this thread and just saw this post after posting my own, but will give you some advice that you should not rely upon blogs (wordpress is a blog) as a good citation for your information. I have a wordpress blog myself and even note on it for people to review the sources I provide and not to rely on the information I write.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 11:16 AM
 
46,257 posts, read 18,302,407 times
Reputation: 19298
Quote:
Originally Posted by residinghere2007 View Post
Europe was not dominant 500 years ago for people who know of world history outside of Europe.

However, the rise of white supremacy as an ideology began around the 1700s when Europeans began to colonize the world. IMO Europeans got an advantage because they had advanced weapons and some were dissatisfied with aspects of their home countries (in relation to social classes/lack of ability to rise in wealth, weather, resources, religious persecution, etc). They also because of their advanced weapons in the 1700s and the strength that provided them, were heavily driven by greed and materialism to conquer other peole.

IMO white supremacy is primarily based upon greed, violence, and materialism. I personally believe all of humanity has these traits but that certain European people (not all or even a majority - primarily the Spanish and British and later the French) were more interested in these pursuits than other people.
Are you kidding?

In 1519, Spain and Briton had sailed ships to North America, The Pope in Rome ruled over a religious empire that stretched from Gaul to Northern Africa. They had the Turks on the run, and were moving into the Middle East. This despite the specter of the Black Death. There was no other group of people with such far ranging influence as Europe.

And remember this was 1500 years AFTER the Roman empire, the birthplace of Western Civilization had conquered much of the known world.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 11:19 AM
 
15,596 posts, read 7,977,051 times
Reputation: 8060
Quote:
Originally Posted by dude5568 View Post
One last time and I'll try and write it in a way that is easy to understand .

point 1 ) - People look different from one another . A Norwegian looks different than a Nigerian who looks different than a Korean.

point 2 ) - These " Phenotypic " differences in skin color , hair texture , nose width , lip thickness and on an on are caused by " environmental " factors of the respective regions these populations evolved in .

point 3 ) - How we classify " race " in America has varied tremendously over the years . It has now ( post WW2 ) settled to a " European phenotype " and christian/jewish religion and identifying with a Western civilization . This is in a Social context . Technically , middle easterners and north africans are classified as " White " by the census bureau but of course not seen as such socially . Did you know Indians were also classified as " White " by the 1970 census but self petitioned to be placed in a different category .

point 4 ) - You can make generalized statements like Europeans have a certain percentage of Neanderthal DNA or Denisovan DNA and so on and I'll not refute this . The point is that this is just an interesting tidbit of information and holds no tangible biologic meaning .

point 5 ) - Humans are very similar genetically ( 99.9 percent same).

point 6) - " Race " is what people say it is ( hence a social construct ) . It is a system of classification that has malice at it's core and has brought untold misery to people's lives whether be it slavery , segregation or the holocaust . That combined with that fact that it is a scientifically dubious system of classifying people is my argument for why I discredit it. We humans are insecure , imperfect beings . Before long , curiosities about someone's phenotype evolve into a judgement about their intelligence , morality and culture ( as is abundantly evident on this thread itself ). That is where the problem starts .

Last point ) - No one is saying people don't look different , No one is saying there are not genetic clusters among populations , no one is saying europeans might not have more neanderthal DNA than sub saharan africans and on and on . What I am saying is that these little tidbits are not justifications to divide people into " races ".

It's the classic chicken or the egg . That means that if you for whatever reason WANT to SEE people as different you can use all these " tidbits " to justify what you want to do and what fits your social and political agenda . Your agenda might be a benign one ( " in the name of the truth " or " to show those liberals and social justice warriors whose right " ) or a malicious one ( " all jews must die " ) but that does not change the fact that you CHOOSE to see the world this way . We all evolved from about 3000 " pre humans " about 70,000 years ago and where you draw the line from that till August , 2019 is up-to you man.

Looking at the world this way has only brought mayhem and misery . We are all the same . Whether you accept it or not.

I believe now I am truly done.
This was a great post and it is true. Race is a sociological created structure used to oppress or highlight a particular group. It is not biological.

Per the "last point" above, there are different genetic clusters of humans, but those clusters cannot be confined in sociological "racial" categories. South Asian Indians and Japanese people are descended from different genetic clusters of humans. Norweigians and Italians are descended from different genetic clusters of humans. Mbuti and Tuaregs of Africa are descended from different genetic clusters of humans.

We are all the same but we have minor differences. Those biological differences do not and cannot account for the "race" of an individual because if we are going to go by genetic clusters instead of sociological "race" we'd have hundreds to thousands of different types of humans to classify and review/treat differently. There are different clusters of people within Japan and India for instance. There are different clusters within France and Germany.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 11:25 AM
 
15,596 posts, read 7,977,051 times
Reputation: 8060
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaldoKitty View Post
Are you kidding?

In 1519, Spain and Briton had sailed ships to North America, The Pope in Rome ruled over a religious empire that stretched from Gaul to Northern Africa. They had the Turks on the run, and were moving into the Middle East. This despite the specter of the Black Death. There was no other group of people with such far ranging influence as Europe.

And remember this was 1500 years AFTER the Roman empire, the birthplace of Western Civilization had conquered much of the known world.
The largest empires on earth at that time were not centered in Europe so they were not the most powerful globally - only within you all's minds because you all focus more on them than other people around the world. I understand why that is the case for Americans (we have a very Eurocentric perspective in America) but if you study world history, you'd know (and probably do know) that the Spanish and the British were not the largest empires in the world at that time. Even the Catholic church was not. The Ming dynasty of China was probably the largest at that time. They also had boats and weapons and a literate culture.

ETA: the bold is incorrect for 1519. Again, probably just based on your Eurocentric knowlege of history, but this is very incorrect. And what would you consider "the known world?" Asia was known in 1519 and it was not conquered by the main European powers of Britain and Spain at that time. Neither was the majority of the Americas. Contrary to what many of you believe, there actually were large kingdoms in North and South America as well and they did not fall by 1519, neither had the African empires.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 11:30 AM
 
11,088 posts, read 4,128,544 times
Reputation: 5351
If you go back far enough, we all share common ancestors. All of us. There is not much that the Bible and Charles Darwin agree about, but on this singular point, they are in concurrence.

We are all related to Donald Trump and Barack Obama. Also to Xi Jingping, Nerandra Modi, Neslon Mandela, Fidel Castro, Mohammad bin Salman and Bibi Netenyahu.

We are one race, the human race. Case closed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 11:31 AM
 
46,257 posts, read 18,302,407 times
Reputation: 19298
Quote:
Originally Posted by residinghere2007 View Post
The largest empires on earth at that time were not centered in Europe so they were not the most powerful globally -....
Name the largest empires on Earth in 1519. Let's talk about them. We'll see who knows about them. Tell us the most powerful people in 1519 in terms of global influence.


<crickets>


By the 1500s, Western Civilization was beginning to dominate the world.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 11:33 AM
 
12,707 posts, read 3,969,410 times
Reputation: 3838
Quote:
Originally Posted by residinghere2007 View Post
This was a great post and it is true. Race is a sociological created structure used to oppress or highlight a particular group. It is not biological.
It is biological.

Quote:
Per the "last point" above, there are different genetic clusters of humans, but those clusters cannot be confined in sociological "racial" categories. South Asian Indians and Japanese people are descended from different genetic clusters of humans. Norweigians and Italians are descended from different genetic clusters of humans. Mbuti and Tuaregs of Africa are descended from different genetic clusters of humans.
Sure they can both sociologically and biological because some "genetic clusters" are more or less different than another.

Quote:
We are all the same but we have minor differences. Those biological differences do not and cannot account for the "race" of an individual because if we are going to go by genetic clusters instead of sociological "race" we'd have hundreds to thousands of different types of humans to classify and review/treat differently. There are different clusters of people within Japan and India for instance. There are different clusters within France and Germany.
You're just repeating your fallacy about "genetic clusters" again by implying all genetic clustering is equally differentiated and dispersed. That's nonsense.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 11:42 AM
 
15,596 posts, read 7,977,051 times
Reputation: 8060
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtl1 View Post
It is biological.



Sure they can both sociologically and biological because some "genetic clusters" are more or less different than another.



You're just repeating your fallacy about "genetic clusters" again by implying all genetic clustering is equally differentiated and dispersed. That's nonsense.
You're showing your ignorance about genetics and the evolution of the science.

Race cannot be sociological and biological because there is no defining biological trait associated with particular "race" of people. As noted Asian Indians and Japanese are both of the "Asian Race" yet they are drastically different in appearance. Arabs are also Asians and are drastically different from the Chinese. Why do you continue to believe that Indians, Chinese, Nepalese, Polynesians, etc. are all of the "Asian race" when they are a myriad of different genetic clusters of people?

I'll note the most interesting thing about these threads/conversations is the discomfort many of you seem to have with the idea that the 18th century notion of "races," something created when there was no way to look at the actual genetic makeup of our species, is more correct than current information about the subject.

It is interesting that you are very heavily invested in separating humanity in a generic instead of a specific manner.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top