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.
Let's say you stunt the growth of a particular group of a given species and do so over a number of generations. after some length of time, you run a battery of tests. the tests should reveal "innate" differences between the two. And DNA tests may very well confirm this, since DNA itself evolves.
However, the question remains of what the differences in the two groups before the "policy event."
After all, it is not quite fair for one group to be "managed" in a certain way against their will and then at the point of freedom be tested and told you have less "native" ability. This is wrong-headed.
So let's think of the DNA as the sum of three parts: the deeper dimensions tied to being homo sapient sapient; the physical adaption embedded in our DNA journey; and the sociocultural dimension, organic and imposed.
The first two are more or less permanent and things that require thousands of years to evolve. Africans are unlike to evolve in appearance into Norwegians or vice-versa in a generation. The latter two can be influenced by policy and change. How long would it take? It depends on what we are talking about. But the easiest things of them all are the very things we seem to have trouble with!
Taking a poor kid and "re-educating" the kid to be an elite may take two-three generations tops to complete. And even within the first generation, that kid is going to have an amazing life.
How about certain physical attributes? Well, changes will require more than a generation or two, but within say 10-20, there can be some noticeable changes. Works in both ways, no?
Actually speaking as an Anthropologist I don't agree with you.
Quote:
From an Anthropological point of view what divides us is primarily cultural and societal.
I never got why anybody would be "proud" to be from whatever race anyway. The race you belong to is an accident of birth and has nothing with personal achivement so the pride aspect really does escape me.
Emotional and temperamental differences are cultural and societal not racial ( and within that definition trends are always bucked within whatever race you study) , and intellectual differences are non existent as first our criterion are biased as being defined strictly by white and western standardised tests which means measurement of intelligence are invalid as defined by a very narrow definition of intellectual capacity.
Interesting but in some ways the two statements are in conflict because as a result of human migration and the resultant "racialization" of humankind (accidents of birth) we have to accept that these diverse societies and cultures have been racially defined as a result of historical racialist definitions imposed by the dominant society. As a result, racial pride, while actually being pride in one's culture , are given expression through the shorthand of racial categorization.
The various races ARE different. The differences are not only in appearance. The differences include emotional, intellectual, temperment and much more. Ethnic groups differ as well. There is nothing wrong with being proud of one's race or ethnic group. The problems come with excessive pride, prejudice and discrimination.
- Reel
Not a surprising argument based upon your history of posts, but a position hardly supported in science. I defy you to present a credible study which demonstrates a statistically significant difference in emotional, or temperamental differences between humans. I excluded intellectual because I don't wish to drag this tread down by the need to argue over the conflicting arguments over IQ which could consume multiple threads on their own.
The entire concept of talking about race and ability is a subterfuge and a distraction from what is important. In the United States we are pledged to treat people as individuals. Using inconsequential differences among group averages as the basis for the treatment of an individual is abhorrent.
In the case of some minorities, like African Americans, where there was several hundred years of institutional discrimination, the courts decided that remedial action was warranted. The fact that we now have our first president with black roots shows that the process was needed and is working.
why is it so important to be proud of something you had absolutely nothing to do with? Ethnicity is such burden in this country we have to make the best of what is given us.
Now when Yakov Smirnoff says, "I'm proud to be an American" ,that means something to me.
I read this thread and the whole time I was pondering the original question (why isn't it ok to be white?) and here is my answer: It is. The problem white people have with being "proud" of their race is the past. Too many racists in the past used their racial pride as a means to degrade, belittle, dehumanize and exert power and rules over those who didn't look like them. I think this leads to some of the issues with the races today, because white people don't want to be blamed for what happened before, as they shouldn't, but we can't move forward until some acknowledgment has taken place (funny how no one has a racist ancestor, but someone was discriminating against minorities). Instead the media tries to put out the message that racism in America doesn't exist. Really? When did it die and who killed it?
For centuries Americans of African descent* have been trying to gain the respect they deserve as humans, but was denied. That is why there is Affirmative Action and other laws and rules in place. Americans of African descent had to have pride in their race to make it in life sometimes, because historically they were considered property and not a full person (they were actually deemed 3/5ths of a person). Some of the deterioration of racial identification in Americans of African descent can be seen even today, and it can be traced back to slavery. When there is one group telling another they are property with no human rights, that's just wrong. So it's okay to be white and it's okay to be proud to be white, but history dictates that there will be a group of people who will take the superior route with this line of thinking and will try to oppress those who don't look like them (White Supremists, Nazis, Skinheads, KKK). So be proud of who you were born, but don't use that as a weapon against people who weren't born looking like you.
* I will use African-American when white people use _______-American; the fact they can be called American, but the other minority groups have to identifiy with another country (some having never even visited said country) is another example of the deliberate separation between the races and the appearance of superiority of whites.
How come you can be proud to be Asian
Hispanic
Black
Gay
But if you're proud to be white you are considered prejudice.?
Doesn't the U.S., in so many different ways, express pride and privilege in Whiteness? In fact, hasn't this historically been the case? From my perspective, it seems redundant to verbally express pride in being White when it is already an inherent part of the U.S.
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.
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.
