USMB Race Politics Poll

[Whyte.Devyl]

Which statement(s) holds the most truth to you?
This is an effort to provide a graduated scale of possible beliefs regarding the word "race". The scale measures the degree of public/government involvement utilizing 'race' as a factor.

More than one choice may be made.

A
'Race' regardless of how physically identifiable, has absolutely no significant influence on an individual. There is no inherent superiority/inferiority of 'races' as individuals within each 'race' all share the same human potential.
Absolutely oppose 'race' as a factor in any public agenda, because 'race' represents a group identity, which contradicts individualism.
Examples: Oppose 'race'-based laws pertaining to segregation, desegregation, affirmative action, so-called "hate" crimes. Oppose any public documentation of 'race'.
Possible labels: Libertarian

B
'Race' is a logical or even taxonomical classification of humans sharing similar evolutionary collections of inheritable, physical traits. These surface distinctions have no bering of any sort regarding inherent superiority/inferiority, however some recognition is given to group identity.
Some public documentation should pertain to 'race', though limited only to informational purposes.
Examples: Support 'race'-based classifications in public Census documents, law enforcement statistics, and medical trends.
Possible labels: Realist

C
'Race' exists as a hierarchy of inherent, inheritable superior/inferior abilities at different tasks. Believe that there are certain roles for certain 'races' to play within any given society, though each different 'race' has a place.
'Race'-based public agendas are acceptable if they are somehow justified for the good of the social elite.
Examples: Support media/educationally based 'racial' distinctions and group identity politics.
Possible labels: Capitalist, Racialist, Elitist

D
'Race' exists paradoxically as a "social construct", with certain 'races' as historically or culturally superior/inferior. Physical traits clearly observable to all are merely figments of imagination, yet these same figments of imagination should be deciding factors in public institutions.
Examples: Strongly oppose any private discrimination of any sort while strongly supporting public 'race'-based discrimination in redistribution or quota systems.
Possible labels: Progressive, Marxist, Communist

E
All 'races' on this planet should be one someday.
Believe in the undisputable superiority or eventuality of a global amalgamated 'race'.
Examples: Support genocide as a solution to 'race'-relations. Strongly support forced or coerced miscegenation through every available channel.
Possible labels: Assimilation Theorist, (mixed-'race') Supremacist

F
There should only be one 'race' on this planet and it should be (insert 'race' here).
Believe in the undisputable superiority of (insert 'race' here).
Believe in violent means to ensure that only (insert 'race' here) exists on this planet.
Examples: Support genocide as a solution to 'race'-relations. Strongly support the extermination of other 'races' through every available channel.
Possible labels: Fascist, (insert 'race' here) Supremacist

 

[Whyte.Devyl]

Useful contemporary definitions.


Racist

Main Entry: rac·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈrā-ˌsi-zəm also -ˌshi-\
Function: noun
Date: 1933
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination

Genocide

Main Entry: geno·cide
Pronunciation: \ˈje-nə-ˌsīd\
Function: noun
Date: 1944
: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group

Genocide - United Nations

The Convention defines genocide as any of a number of acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group, and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

 

[Whyte.Devyl]

My own choice is somewhere between "A" and "B".

I recognize that there are indeed 'races' of people, and that these 'races' were formed by evolution. IMHO different 'races' are neccesary for the survival of the entire human species, in other words true 'racial' diversity is actually a good thing.

I also believe that 'racial' traits have little impact save for personal preferences. While I see no harm in publically documenting 'racial' differences, I do not see any overwhelming need for it either. While a private person is entitled to their own preferences, publically 'race' should never be an issue.

 

[Whyte.Devyl]

OT -
Is there any way I could get a mod to kill the poll posted yesterday?

 

[Whyte.Devyl]

Bump

 

[Whyte.Devyl]

bump, bump

Just few more times.

 

[Ravi]

I'd pick B but I'm just not sure about the data collection bit. I can see benefits to keeping the data...but at the same time it makes me a bit uncomfortable, especially the law enforcement statistics....if only because people are always using that to prove a false, IMO, assumption.

 

[veritas]

Race is really nothing more than color breeds. Sickle cell disease for instance can be an African or a Mediterranean thing. We ALL contain the DNA that makes any of the colors and physical features possible of any race. Just like a TB bay mare can throw an overo if the right pairing happens, and it has happened. We all are all the same stuff.

 

[Oddball]

There is only one race: Human.

The distinctions we've referred to as "race" is really about ethnicity.

 

[William Joyce]

Interesting poll.

I went with "C". Not perfect, but closer than the others.

Race is a real, verifiable and quantifiable genetic quantity. You can see race on the street and in the microscope. It isn't any "social construct."

Races differ enough in their inherent capabilities that a multiracial society is bound to be distorted by the effects.

Each race should have the right to direct its own group destiny.

 

[ErikViking]

OT -
Is there any way I could get a mod to kill the poll posted yesterday?

Making a good poll isn't as easy as it may seem. Had one crashing recently too...!

I go with "A".
The only differance between people that can't be explaind by social factors are the genetics. Since the only obvious genetic differances we are used to observe are physical attributes we have classified people based on skin color.

By examining the DNA we now now that the highest (somewhere above 80%) diversity in DNA is found within local national or linguistic populations. Historically we have tried to define between 3 and 30 "races".

I my mind there would be no reason to take any general consideration based on the arbirtrary and fluctuating definition of "race" regarding humans.

 

[Whyte.Devyl]

Everyone,
Thank you for your input!

I'd pick B but I'm just not sure about the data collection bit. I can see benefits to keeping the data...but at the same time it makes me a bit uncomfortable, especially the law enforcement statistics....if only because people are always using that to prove a false, IMO, assumption.

Ravi,
While I too see no initial harm in collecting data, there are dangers present when manipulating such data as a basis for public policy...
Collecting Law Enforcement data is a dangerous pendulum that could swing either way depending on the agenda of who is examining the data.

We all are all the same stuff.

Veritas,
I sort of agree. After all, living things are made up of the same stuff, mostly hydrogen and carbon.

Race is a real, verifiable and quantifiable genetic quantity. You can see race on the street and in the microscope. It isn't any "social construct."

William Joyce,
100% agree.

Races differ enough in their inherent capabilities that a multiracial society is bound to be distorted by the effects.

100% disagree.

Each race should have the right to direct its own group destiny.

I agree & disagree,
Each individual has such a right.
From an individualist POV: If a group of individuals seek to commune along racial lines, they should be free to do so. They should not expect the general public to finance their enclave, especially those members of the public who are specifically excluded.

Since the only obvious genetic differances we are used to observe are physical attributes we have classified people based on skin color.

Erik Viking,
I disagree. IMHO, the most important factor, from an individualist POV, is self identification. Though skin color is a partial factor when determining 'race', other physical attributes are commonly used as well (face shape, prognathism, skull shape, epicanthic folds, hair type, etc.).

By examining the DNA we now now that the highest (somewhere above 80%) diversity in DNA is found within local national or linguistic populations.

While you are certainly entitled to your opinion, you are not stating a scientific fact.
What you are stating is the Lewontin Fallacy, original published in the early 1970's.
Lewontin, a "social commentator" and geneticist was indeed a marxist, so his findings were most likely only a "social construct".

Please note, I am not presenting this information to you as an effort to be personally combative. I too align strongly with the individualist standpoint, IMHO it is best to always have the facts straight.

"ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12879450"
In popular articles that play down the genetical differences among human populations, it is often stated that about 85% of the total genetical variation is due to individual differences within populations and only 15% to differences between populations or ethnic groups. It has therefore been proposed that the division of Homo sapiens into these groups is not justified by the genetic data. This conclusion, due to R.C. Lewontin in 1972, is unwarranted because the argument ignores the fact that most of the information that distinguishes populations is hidden in the correlation structure of the data and not simply in the variation of the individual factors. The underlying logic, which was discussed in the early years of the last century, is here discussed using a simple genetical example. Copyright 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Here are a more updated sources of information regarding the reality of 'race'.

"pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1196372"
We have analyzed genetic data for 326 microsatellite markers that were typed uniformly in a large multiethnic population-based sample of individuals as part of a study of the genetics of hypertension (Family Blood Pressure Program). Subjects identified themselves as belonging to one of four major racial/ethnic groups (white, African American, East Asian, and Hispanic) and were recruited from 15 different geographic locales within the United States and Taiwan. Genetic cluster analysis of the microsatellite markers produced four major clusters, which showed near-perfect correspondence with the four self-reported race/ethnicity categories. Of 3,636 subjects of varying race/ethnicity, only 5 (0.14%) showed genetic cluster membership different from their self-identified race/ethnicity.

"pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=139378"
Probably the best way to examine the issue of genetic subgrouping is through the lens of human evolution. If the human population mated at random, there would be no issue of genetic subgrouping because the chance of any individual carrying a specific gene variant would be evenly distributed around the world. For a variety of reasons, however, including geography, sociology and culture, humans have not and do not currently mate randomly, either on a global level or within countries such as the US...

The distinctions we've referred to as "race" is really about ethnicity.

Dude,
You are entitled to your opinion, however...

"pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=139378"
...The terms race, ethnicity and ancestry are often used interchangeably, but some have also drawn distinctions. For the purpose of this article, we define racial groups on the basis of the primary continent of origin, as discussed above (with some modifications described below). Ethnicity is a self-defined construct that may be based on geographic, social, cultural and religious grounds. It has potential meaning from the genetic perspective, provided it defines an endogamous group that can be differentiated from other such groups. Ancestry refers to the race/ethnicity of an individual's ancestors, whatever the individual's current affiliation. From the genetic perspective, the important concept is mating patterns, and the degree to which racially or ethnically defined groups remain endogamous...

 

[GHook93]

Interesting poll.

I went with "C". Not perfect, but closer than the others.

Race is a real, verifiable and quantifiable genetic quantity. You can see race on the street and in the microscope. It isn't any "social construct."

Races differ enough in their inherent capabilities that a multiracial society is bound to be distorted by the effects.

Each race should have the right to direct its own group destiny.

Damn WJ didn't knoiw you were a coward! You are definitely and E or F'er!

 

[Shogun]

...says the zionist, segregation loving jew.....

 

[RadiomanATL]

A+b

 

[ErikViking]

Everyone,
Thank you for your input!

.
.
.
Erik Viking,
I disagree...
.
.
.

Perfectly fine, maybe we can discuss this sometime? You made a great poll! Easy to understand, neat and clean and with a good number of well explained options!

 

[Whyte.Devyl]

You made a great poll! Easy to understand, neat and clean and with a good number of well explained options!

Thank you!