Your Version Of Race

[EvMetro]

Oh, I’m on topic honey. You‘re just trying to control the answers.

Where is your on-topic reply that demonstrates that you read and understood the opening post?

 

[EvMetro]

All people are different. A person's character does not depend on his/her race.

Has anybody alleged that the character of people depends upon their race?

 

[Coyote]

How?

Does it wipe away the achievements of the Chinese to not lump all in as Asians? How about India, also lumped as Asian I think.

 

[Man of Ethics]

Has anybody alleged that the character of people depends upon their race?

In many places it was/is claimed. I am not sure about this thread.

 

[Circe]

There are indiginous people who live in the Andes and have a unique mutations that allow them to survive at high altitudes. Why aren’t they a “race”?

Are Australian aborigines a race?

Exactly how many “races” are there and what makes them a race?

Interesting post. I'd say the high-mountain people ARE a race, but there are so few and they are so localized and not moving, that no one calls them anything.

Of course Australian aborigines are a race! They have the lowest IQ on Earth as a group (56), and the Australian government basically provides housing and cradle-to-grave care for them, as they can't survive in a modern world. And apparently not well in any world: genetically, they show a number of near-fatal pinch-points when they almost died out since they migrated to Australia, evidently with not enough females to protect their genetics.

As to how many races there are, I have studied WWI for years and so I am much indoctrinated with the concept of the German and French and British and Italian "races," as people used to be much more interested in than anybody of strange colors, with whom of course they almost never interacted. Except for the British, with the tea and indigo and opium and cotton farming and so on. So I sort of like the idea of a loose concept of "race," as with your Andean indians, for whom you make a good case.

 

[Coyote]

Please substantiate what you believe about me, or stop your racist allegations about me and stop trying to marginalize my race. My race exists, it is one of many, it has lots of culture and history associated with it, and it is mine.

How strange….

I never once walked down the street thinking about all the “culture and history” associated with my “race”. With my ethnic heritage, maybe…but race? That means I would have to own the Hitler’s and the Stalin’s as part of my race.

 

[EvMetro]

How strange….

I never once walked down the street thinking about all the “culture and history” associated with my “race”. With my ethnic heritage, maybe…but race? That means I would have to own the Hitler’s and the Stalin’s as part of my race.

The history associated with our race isn't always good or pleasant. Black oppression happened, and it still has an impact on black culture today. Blacks can live without being oppressed now. You don't need to feel the shame or take responsibility for what Hitler did, but yes, he is part of your racial history. Take the good with the bad, since you cannot change your race.

Where is your on-topic reply that demonstrates that you read and understood the opening post?

 

[ClaireH]

Racism really does happen, and it has been happening for centuries. Those who are oppressed because of their race would not be able to describe how they are being oppressed without a word that describes how exactly they are being targeted. Humans have advanced as language has advanced. We can differentiate bull dogs from German shepherds, red pepper from white or black pepper, and we can differentiate American Indians from blacks, whites, and Asians.

With the way that follows then, we should be more accurate and less general in our descriptions of the world and of people. Race was the worst selection possible; that should have been clear even in the 70’s.

My whole point is that the word race should never have been coined a phrase for skin tones. The word itself has underlying meanings that has nothing to do with various ethnic groups or skin tones. It primarily means a race where there are usually 3 winners who receive winners. It also means to compete with others. Those are just a couple of basic, straightforward reasons why the word “race” should’ve never been coined and used on generic paperwork, widely distributed and copycatted by others, when required to to identify one’s ethnicity or skin tone. Serious goof by somebody.

I am going to search for when “race” was first used to depict humans. Maybe as far back to the Greeks of ancient times used to describe physical traits, or maybe much later during the late 17th Century enlightenment? That idea doesn’t sound very enlightened however lol

 

[Coyote]

The history associated with our race isn't always good or pleasant. Black oppression happened, and it still has an impact on black culture today. Blacks can live without being oppressed now. You don't need to feel the shame or take responsibility for what Hitler did, but yes, he is part of your racial history. Take the good with the bad, since you cannot change your race.

Where is your on-topic reply that demonstrates that you read and understood the opening post?

And despite an intelligent start….you fall back to trolling.

 

[ClaireH]

All people are different. A person's character does not depend on his/her race.

Chromatic dragons in Runescape have characteristics completely determined by their color. Metal dragons characteristic is determined by metal they are composed of. Adamant>Mithril>Steel>Iron>Bronze

Well said RE! “All people are different. A person's character does not depend on his/her race.” Exactly.

 

[EvMetro]

With the way that follows then, we should be more accurate and less general in our descriptions of the world and of people. Race was the worst selection possible; that should have been clear even in the 70’s.

My whole point is that the word race should never have been coined a phrase for skin tones. The word itself has underlying meanings that has nothing to do with various ethnic groups or skin tones. It primarily means a race where there are usually 3 winners who receive winners. It also means to compete with others. Those are just a couple of basic, straightforward reasons why the word “race” should’ve never been coined and used on generic paperwork, widely distributed and copycatted by others, when required to to identify one’s ethnicity or skin tone. Serious goof by somebody.

I am going to search for when “race” was first used to depict humans. Maybe as far back to the Greeks of ancient times used to describe physical traits, or maybe much later during the late 17th Century enlightenment? That idea doesn’t sound very enlightened however lol

I would imagine that people have had conflict with people who don't look like what they are used to seeing since the beginning, and I would bet that people have been articulating the differences in appearance and behavior since humans got language. I happen to be part of a multi racial family, and I can assure you that we are all very aware that we are from different races. My first marriage was racially diverse as well, so a complicated mix of races. None of us have much conflict with each other, but we are all VERY aware of our racial differences. I can't imagine not having the 5 races recognized by the US Census as a language that can be used to differentiate and sort people.

 

[EvMetro]

And despite an intelligent start….you fall back to trolling.

Where is your on-topic reply that demonstrates that you read and understood the opening post?

 

[EvMetro]

In many places it was/is claimed. I am not sure about this thread.

Why did you introduce it to this thread?

 

[flacaltenn]

Good point on medicine, it is important to know a person’s racial heritage, but this is really a no win situation. If we discuss things in terms of race, the right starts screaming that we are being divisive

Left, Right, doesn't matter. What matters is what we know thru science. And folks CAN discuss race for purposes other than being divisive. ANY culture, race has things to be proud of and identify by. And maybe some things in their history they are NOT so proud of.

The re-naming of mothers to "birthing persons" is now in full gear at NIH. A place that CERTAINLY should KNOW BETTER than to think by re-naming something, all the science there is somehow more inclusive or honorable. And it's the same with scientists that KNOW with individually targeted genetic therapies that are being developed telling the PUBLIC that cures or therapies are available to "people who have genetic roots in sub-Saharan Africa" is FAR LESS effective than just saying "black people"..

 

[Man of Ethics]

Strengths and weaknesses of MegaGlest characters are determined by their races. Strengths and weaknesses of humans are determined by their experience and individuality.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Told you so.

You aren’t interested in actual discussion, or answering any one else’s questions. Maybe it is too much effort for a troll.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

And that is exactly where that word race should be used- for running and competing.

I would like to know which idiot came up with the word “race” as a social construct to be used for people? A reader might not think that there is a strong mental connection, but a lot of people think of competition when they here the word race. Alas, too late for long-term definitional changes, but wait! Perhaps dictionary companies will soon alter more definitions. Not really sure if that’s a win or a loss for society and it would be term/meaning dependent.

Taxonomy gets rather vague when you get below species. Species is defined by the ability to freely interbreed. All extant human beings are considered to be the same species, Sapiens, below the genus Homo.

I once heard it claimed that black people were a “subspecies” of humans, the statement being made in an ignorant manner that suggested that “subspecies” meant that they were inferior to the main species. By a correct use of the term subspecies, I thought that it would be correct to say that black people were subspecies, but that white people are another subspecies, Asians yet another, and so on.

Subspecies doesn't mean anything more or less than different classifications within a species, with no implication of any being any superior or inferior to any other.

On some more recent study, I learned that I was actually incorrect with regard to ho we are taxonomically classified. As it turns out, all extant human beings are considered to be not only the same species, but the same subspecies as well. There are several others forms of primitive humans that are the subject of debate as to whether they were subspecies of Homo Sapiens or separate species. I guess that would be very difficult to reliably determine without being able to observe which of them were freely able to interbreed with Homo Sapiens or with each other.

With humans, race is a taxon below subspecies. It's recognized that even within what is recognized as a single subspecies within a species, that there are further distinct divisions within that.

I'm not really sure how that works. It seems to me that once you get below species, that it doesn't make much sense to try to create more than one taxonomic level below that. Clearly, within the species that is Homo Sapiens, there are subsets of us with distinctively different traits, that make sense to distinguish as different taxa below the species. But at this point, all are able to freely interbreed, and the only way we get such divisions is by having had large groups within the species isolated far enough and long enough from other groups to evolve in different directions. I'm not sure how it makes sense to say that all are the same subspecies, and then try to create categories below that to distinguish the different varieties of us.

 

[EvMetro]

Strengths and weaknesses of MegaGlest characters are determined by their races. Strengths and weaknesses of humans are determined by their experience and individuality.

Chickens breathe through their feet.

 

[IM2]

No black race means no black oppression and no black history month.

Wrong. But this is the only reason you're starting these threads.

 

[IM2]

I'd love to see your version of race. I'll list a few of the ones I have seen people present on this site, so you can pick one of those or present a new one.

1. The US Census recognizes 5 races: black, white, pacific islander, American Indian, and Asian.

2. People of color, where there are two races. Whites, and then everybody else. The only people who can be discriminated against are whites.

3. The "human race". This involves stripping us all of our racial identities, along with any cultural history and achievements associated with them, and assigning us to a single convenient race.

4. There is no race, race is not a thing. This means that black oppression never happened, since there is no black race.

Please pick a number from above, or present yet another version of race.

Whites are not being discriminated against. Your post is pure idiocy.