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.
We all know that the rainbow is Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue, Indigo, Violet... But tell me, what is the exact wavelength where red becomes orange.
This is a map of average male phenotypes in Europe. Which ones are white? How do you know? Genes? Or just a feeling?
True, there are no sharp boundaries between population groups. Still, most humans are clearly identifiable as part of one group or another.
We all know that the rainbow is Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue, Indigo, Violet... But tell me, what is the exact wavelength where red becomes orange.
This is a map of average male phenotypes in Europe. Which ones are white? How do you know? Genes? Or just a feeling?
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dark Enlightenment
True, there are no sharp boundaries between population groups. Still, most humans are clearly identifiable as part of one group or another.
What do human beings have that are born and raised in different regions of the world have that human beings in other regions don't?
In the 21st Century the world is teaching everybody that there is nothing more 'evil' than simply being 'English'. For some reason these days the only people you can happily abuse without fear of being 'cancelled' are the 'English'.
I tend to agree with that. Look at the unrelenting effort to turn the United States from an Anglo-American country to a Latin American country.
I'm not disagreeing with you that racism was used to justify slavery, colonialism, imperialism, and even genocide.
Very good.
Quote:
What makes racism so believable isn't that it comes from an authority, but that people want to believe it.
People want to believe they're better. Authorities leverage that need to solidify power. Racism, nationalism, tribalism, religious rivalries, it's the same negative feedback loop. There's nothing special about racism.
"You're better than Them, and under my leadership I will see to it that They don't encroach on Your hard-fought-for rights!." Insert whatever values you wish for you and them - white/black, Huti/Tutsi, Catholic/Protestant, Sunni/Shia, Volksdeutscher/Slav, Communist/Imperialist - the list goes on. In Gulliver's Travels, Swift describes a raging war between those who cut their eggs from the large end vs. those who cut them from the little end with disturbing accuracy. Could have been written today.
Quote:
The reasoning behind racism has to be persuasive. It has to make sense.
You're an optimist. Because I don't see that in history at all.
Quote:
A lot of the old justifications for racism didn't make sense and a great many people were never persuaded by them.
But that's he thing - they were. Societies - entire empires - were built on the idea that certain people were made to rule over others. "God has willed it so" made sense to them. The Europeans get a lot of stick because they were the last to be successful in doing so, but the Chinese, for instance, weren't exactly subtle about their belief they were made to rule over the barbarians.
Quote:
The reason Scientific Racism was the height of racism was because it was far more persuasive than all other justifications that came before it, and it was permanent.
Completely disagree. Scientific racism - as practiced in the 19th and early 20th - came about because people were beginning to see scientists as authority figures. And the people who'd worn politicians' suits or religious vestments to preach the gospel of "You're better than Them" decided to don lab coats, because that was how you sold your message.
Quote:
So tell me Mr. Dane_in_LA, do you think they should do brain scan studies on every race to prove that all races are equally intelligent? Why or why not?
I don't think it's relevant to the debate at hand, nor really has much in the way of scientific value, but it could be interesting. Of course, intelligence is a damn tricky thing to define. And arguably, it's not the survival factor some seem to think it is. We're not governed by Princeton PhDs.
People want to believe they're better. Authorities leverage that need to solidify power. Racism, nationalism, tribalism, religious rivalries, it's the same negative feedback loop. There's nothing special about racism.
"You're better than Them, and under my leadership I will see to it that They don't encroach on Your hard-fought-for rights!." Insert whatever values you wish for you and them - white/black, Huti/Tutsi, Catholic/Protestant, Sunni/Shia, Volksdeutscher/Slav, Communist/Imperialist - the list goes on. In Gulliver's Travels, Swift describes a raging war between those who cut their eggs from the large end vs. those who cut them from the little end with disturbing accuracy. Could have been written today.
You're an optimist. Because I don't see that in history at all.
But that's he thing - they were. Societies - entire empires - were built on the idea that certain people were made to rule over others. "God has willed it so" made sense to them. The Europeans get a lot of stick because they were the last to be successful in doing so, but the Chinese, for instance, weren't exactly subtle about their belief they were made to rule over the barbarians.
Completely disagree. Scientific racism - as practiced in the 19th and early 20th - came about because people were beginning to see scientists as authority figures. And the people who'd worn politicians' suits or religious vestments to preach the gospel of "You're better than Them" decided to don lab coats, because that was how you sold your message.
I don't think it's relevant to the debate at hand, nor really has much in the way of scientific value, but it could be interesting. Of course, intelligence is a damn tricky thing to define. And arguably, it's not the survival factor some seem to think it is. We're not governed by Princeton PhDs.
Quote:
Completely disagree. Scientific racism - as practiced in the 19th and early 20th - came about because people were beginning to see scientists as authority figures. And the people who'd worn politicians' suits or religious vestments to preach the gospel of "You're better than Them" decided to don lab coats, because that was how you sold your message.
That was the position of government(s) not the science. People then as they do today, believe their government (and have personal prejudice) over science.
And God willed what? (i don't think i've ever read that in the oral accounts of Biblical age history)
Could be true as Priest (the only one who could read) wage wars, collected taxes and made laws (the church was a group of people in the Biblical era) could have said, God told me to tell you --- but even though they could not read, they knew in their heart and made covenants to God, so as to make concessions with the law of the land.
Darwin’s genius was that he figured out the majority of things about evolution without having any access to modern genetics where evolution can easily be observed at the DNA/cellular level.
Darwin himself would never have pursued his theory in light of the nature of the living cell and that of DNA.
The process of “Darwinian Evolution”, which is a preposterous impossibility is misunderstood and conflated with genetic adaptation, which is observable and measurable.
Darwin’s original theory proposed that the random mixing of primordial inert elements combined to create simple living material that then slowly evolved over ions of time by means of mutation and natural selection, from less complexity to greater complexity. But there are so many flaws in this theory that it’s difficult to decide which one is the most problematic.
Aside from the impossibility that the mixing of inert elements could ever result a living cell with the capacity to reproduce, for which cell division is required to have a genetic mutation, genetic mutation is itself subtractive, therefore one cannot expect evolution from less complexity to greater complexity from a subtractive process.
Then we have the subject of speciation, which requires the transition from one species to another, which again is an absurd proposition, to which no evidence has ever existed to explain how the process was possible.
It’s forgivable for Darwin to have entertained this as feasible, given he had no knowledge of DNA or access to the equipment which would have offered him the insight into the complexity of living cells. But for anyone today to still embrace the theory, given what we now know, is shear idiocy.
What do human beings have that are born and raised in different regions of the world have that human beings in other regions don't?
Among other things, we have differing tendencies toward various patterns of gene expression and mutation which lead to differing tendencies in body and brain morphology and function.
What do human beings have that are born and raised in different regions of the world have that human beings in other regions don't?
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dark Enlightenment
Among other things, we have differing tendencies toward various patterns of gene expression and mutation which lead to differing tendencies in body and brain morphology and function.
Are you saying that if one person is born with eyes that the socket slants and the other person is born with eyes that the socket is round --- one can see things more clearly than the other, as it is what did you say, gene expression and mutation? Which can lead to what, differing function?
Is there a science paper on this or did you just make that up?
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.
