|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On December 06 2014 07:23 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2014 06:35 xM(Z wrote:On December 06 2014 04:03 Sub40APM wrote:On December 06 2014 00:06 xM(Z wrote:On December 05 2014 22:10 mdb wrote:On December 05 2014 22:00 xM(Z wrote:On December 05 2014 21:11 Silvanel wrote:On December 05 2014 20:45 zeo wrote:On December 05 2014 20:08 Silvanel wrote:On December 05 2014 18:43 Simberto wrote:
Well, they should also learn that Germans are the bad guys and killed their ancestors not even 80 years ago, and people seem to be able to get over that quite easily. No they are not. In Poland the sentiments towards the Russians and Germans are much stronger than towards Turks. And thats despite figthing numerous wars against Ottoman Empire, Golden Horde and various Khanates. Hell, Ottoman Empire was the only country strongly oposing partitioning of Poland and we havent forgot that. In short what polish right have against various people. Germans: wars, partitions. Russions: wars partitions, comunist times, current policy Turkish: religion Arab: religion, culture The sentiments towards the russians and germans are the strongest ones. I am not saying that Poland is welcoming to muslims, quite the oposite. But its not welcoming to russians or germans either. PS. Just for lulz i counted and Poland have fought 46 wars against Mongols, Golden Horde, Crimea Khanate and Ottomans. Not counting solo wars vs Principality of Moldavia which often included some muslim reinforcments. The Balkans were under Ottoman occupation for centuries. Literally all of our modern national identities were forged in the struggle to kick the Ottomans out. Poland was never under their occupation, you were occupied by Nazi Germany, then as an independent country under the Soviet sphere of influence for 50 years. Which block you 'hate' more really depends on what nationalist politicians and populists pick as the flavor of the election cycle. One cycle might be 'Oh, Germany is bad our people have been in a titanic struggle since ancient times bla bla, they are out to get us' and when that gets old it becomes 'forget Germany, its the Soviet Union's fault things aren't perfect 25 years after communism. There is no SU so just blame Russia'. And the circle goes round and round. I am not making claims about Serbia, so please dont make stupid claims about Poland. yea, it has nothing to do with politics. here, we have these jokes or sayings that are passed on from generation to generation and people are taught (by example or peer pressure mostly) to react to them in a specific (to that family, group, community) manner. Ex: - one is supposed to laugh at <X> anti-semite joke so he ends up not only laughing at it but also ends up passing on that stereotype; - or we have scare tactics some mothers use on their kids: "if you don't behave i'll give you to/sell you to the gypsies" like they're boogieman ...and so on. the perception of romanians, from my pov, are strongly anti-gypsies(and occasionally we blame bulgarians for them) and anti-hungarians, so-so anti-russians (depends on the region here, in some places you just don't mess with mother Russia!) and anti-jewish (but, BUT they took 'ur business and/or money related issues). vs germans we have nothing + Show Spoiler +minorities that suffered at the hands of nazis are excluded here (we even had a short lived dynasty of german kings/princes from the House of Hohenzollern). turks and tatars remain the greater evil but mostly for historical purposes. I wonder why would you blame Bulgarians for the gypsies? well, it has something to do with their migration route: south-east Asia, south Asia, middle east, then through Turkey into Bulgaria and from there into Romania. the general idea is that bulgarians let them through so the gypsies should just go back across the border. (in a way it's similar to how the west is sending their gypsies back to Romania). I also thought gypsies were just Romanians at some point, probably doesnt help that Romania has I think the highest concentration of them in Europe no? Plus, you look the most like them too. Bulgarians just look like Turks wrong on all counts random + Show Spoiler + http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romani_people I am genuinely surprised, Bulgaria does have more Roma. But that picture, yea...actually thats the imagine that comes up to mind when I think of Roma. Vaguely Indian-Italian kind of mix.
you're just talking shit at this point. if the subject would be about blacks or jews you'd be warned already.
we abolished gypsy slavery in 1856 and 150 yrs(3 generations at best) later we're all mixed and shit?.
US abolished its slavery in 1863. are they all an african kind of mix now?. Australia (withing the British Empire) in 1833. are they a mix of aborigines now?. are russians a mongol kind of mix?. Germany conquered the whole Europe. are we all a kind of german mix now?.
or you are one of those "all asians look alike" kind of blind; that would explain a lot.
also, you have no idea what turkish/tartar occupation was. you think the brown people would come, fuck the natives then spawn a race of ... more brown people?. is that what happened?; just like the few thousand indian gypsies that came in the 14th century in Europe made everyone look like an indian, right?. a higher gypsy concentration means more indian mixed people for you?.
(or just fuck it, you're not worth it)
Edit: even better, read
http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/25106-Genetic-make-up-of-Europe
|
obviously sub40apm is a troll who for some reason is tolerated by the mods.
|
On December 05 2014 20:44 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2014 01:46 Nyxisto wrote:Sorry. but "Asian people are so industrious and black people don't really like education" really is borderline racist no matter how hard you try to veil it. It's a terrible stereotype. Traditionally, education plays a very important part in their lives, so learning the language of the country to reside in is a de facto requirement. This for example, is just wrong. I live near the biggest Japanese community in Germany and virtually no one of them speaks a single word of German. They have their own Japanese kindergartens, schools and stores. No one actually cares because when they immigrated here they were already pretty wealthy and the aforementioned stereotype helps. But if you hear one person speak Turkish on the subway every white person has the "what has this country come to" look on their faces. North Africans are not black, they are white in fact (brown in actual color, but as far as races go, they are white).
What's that supposed to mean? There are no biological "races" among the human species. Races are social constructs.
|
On December 06 2014 19:06 silynxer wrote:
The development of Die Grüne as a whole is strikingly mirrored in the deleopment of Joschka Fischer. In fact, their change from radical to establishment was directly proportonial to the value of his suits.
I have said it for a couple of years now, Die Grünen are the angry children of the FDP voters that wanted to rebel against their parents. Now that they get older the more it shows that they are FDP 2.0 and if tehy ever make a coalition with the CDU on a federal level they will die off like the FDP, at least that's what I hope will happen
|
Russia targeting Transnistria (with humanitarian aid)
I asked here on the last page what elections voting results meant as far as coalitions made and it seems that the three-party pro-EU coalition government is being made with the Liberal Democratic Party, Liberal Party and the Democratic Party (the names, oh the names...).
Russia's not too happy about this as the Socialists did get the highest amount of votes (it was only by a little though) and before the election, a party with ~13% of votes in polls was banned for foreign funding.
That said, given their supporters would have to vote for another party, likely favouring the other Customs Union supporting parties, it probably doesn't make much difference to the EU vs non-EU, pro-CU debate.
Moscow has sent a convoy of 60 trucks carrying humanitarian aid to Transnistria pro-European forces would have lost if Patria, a pro-Russian party, hadn’t been excluded on the eve of elections. A court barred the party, which had been polling at around 13%, on the grounds that it had illegally received funding from abroad.
Source 1
Source 2
Other related information links:
Some analysis
on the Economist
|
On December 06 2014 22:14 Skilledblob wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2014 19:06 silynxer wrote:
The development of Die Grüne as a whole is strikingly mirrored in the deleopment of Joschka Fischer. In fact, their change from radical to establishment was directly proportonial to the value of his suits. I have said it for a couple of years now, Die Grünen are the angry children of the FDP voters that wanted to rebel against their parents. Now that they get older the more it shows that they are FDP 2.0 and if tehy ever make a coalition with the CDU on a federal level they will die off like the FDP, at least that's what I hope will happen
Unrealistic. There will be always a rich people party. FDP just made the mistake to do politics against their voters. Die Grünen did not made the mistake and if they don't do it they will stay. And they are a war party too. So they have a interesting mix of Voters: nature "lovers", rich people, industry and people that miss the time when germany was a force in the world
|
On December 06 2014 23:41 tadL wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2014 22:14 Skilledblob wrote:On December 06 2014 19:06 silynxer wrote:
The development of Die Grüne as a whole is strikingly mirrored in the deleopment of Joschka Fischer. In fact, their change from radical to establishment was directly proportonial to the value of his suits. I have said it for a couple of years now, Die Grünen are the angry children of the FDP voters that wanted to rebel against their parents. Now that they get older the more it shows that they are FDP 2.0 and if tehy ever make a coalition with the CDU on a federal level they will die off like the FDP, at least that's what I hope will happen Unrealistic. There will be always a rich people party. FDP just made the mistake to do politics against their voters. Die Grünen did not made the mistake and if they don't do it they will stay. And they are a war party too. So they have a interesting mix of Voters: nature "lovers", rich people, industry and people that miss the time when germany was a force in the world
I also don't think the green party will vanish (completely). somehow the environmental protection part really got the germans going. if the greens show their regulatory side more ("veggie day") they lose voters, but otherwise they have a core fellowship that is hard to turn away if they just do what they do now.
I think what could have killed them is "energiewende" since it just sets the german energy market for a crash. but since almost 15 years have passed since they passed that law it's hard to point at them. no other party changed the laws, either.
|
On December 06 2014 20:11 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2014 20:44 mcc wrote:On December 05 2014 01:46 Nyxisto wrote:Sorry. but "Asian people are so industrious and black people don't really like education" really is borderline racist no matter how hard you try to veil it. It's a terrible stereotype. Traditionally, education plays a very important part in their lives, so learning the language of the country to reside in is a de facto requirement. This for example, is just wrong. I live near the biggest Japanese community in Germany and virtually no one of them speaks a single word of German. They have their own Japanese kindergartens, schools and stores. No one actually cares because when they immigrated here they were already pretty wealthy and the aforementioned stereotype helps. But if you hear one person speak Turkish on the subway every white person has the "what has this country come to" look on their faces. North Africans are not black, they are white in fact (brown in actual color, but as far as races go, they are white). What's that supposed to mean? There are no biological "races" among the human species. Races are social constructs.
Read the context. I was not discussing whether races do or do not exist as commonly defined. But I was reacting to someone accusing the original poster of racism against blacks even though he was talking about North Africans, and they are not black and according to the common definition of races are counted as white. Thus person that comments on some issues with North African culture (whether valid or not) can hardly be accused of racism against blacks based on that, no ?
Anyway races do not necessarily have to be social constructs as color of the skin is not a social construct, but that is really quite irrelevant as mostly they are.
EDIT: You can also group humans into "races" based on common genetics and that can have some reasonable applications.
|
On December 07 2014 02:36 mcc wrote:
Read the context. I was not discussing whether races do or do not exist as commonly defined. But I was reacting to someone accusing the original poster of racism against blacks even though he was talking about North Africans, and they are not black and according to the common definition of races are counted as white.
This is completely irrelevant. People with darker skin colour face a lot of racism in the Western World, I don't really know why they would be considered Caucasian, as they're clearly easily distinguishable. Most native Western Europeans can't even tell the difference between Arabs and Persians, do you think someone will refrain to make racist comments because North-Africans are 'technically white'?
|
On December 06 2014 20:11 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2014 20:44 mcc wrote:On December 05 2014 01:46 Nyxisto wrote:Sorry. but "Asian people are so industrious and black people don't really like education" really is borderline racist no matter how hard you try to veil it. It's a terrible stereotype. Traditionally, education plays a very important part in their lives, so learning the language of the country to reside in is a de facto requirement. This for example, is just wrong. I live near the biggest Japanese community in Germany and virtually no one of them speaks a single word of German. They have their own Japanese kindergartens, schools and stores. No one actually cares because when they immigrated here they were already pretty wealthy and the aforementioned stereotype helps. But if you hear one person speak Turkish on the subway every white person has the "what has this country come to" look on their faces. North Africans are not black, they are white in fact (brown in actual color, but as far as races go, they are white). What's that supposed to mean? There are no biological "races" among the human species. Races are social constructs.
No. Human races are not a social construct. Splitting us into races doesn't mean that we're not related, it just means that our relation is so distant that you couldn't mistake one group with another. A german shepherd is the same species as a dalmatian, but different races.
Since the human population have constantly become more heterogenous throughout history, you can't really split us into races based on regions anymore, unless you draw with very broad strokes. Most likely if you went back very long in time, then there would be around 10 distinguable subraces in Europe. Nowadays, you can see these subgroups only if you look at the general population.
But, it's still viable to divide us into atleast 4 groups, and that's what we typically talk about when we say the word race. Sub saharan africans is one group. American Indians is another. East Asians is another, and Europe, Northern Africa, the Middle East and all the way to India is the last group. The central eurasian ppl are a mix of the latter two.
So, the guy is right in placing Northern Africa under the white race.
|
On December 07 2014 02:58 L1ghtning wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2014 20:11 kwizach wrote:On December 05 2014 20:44 mcc wrote:On December 05 2014 01:46 Nyxisto wrote:Sorry. but "Asian people are so industrious and black people don't really like education" really is borderline racist no matter how hard you try to veil it. It's a terrible stereotype. Traditionally, education plays a very important part in their lives, so learning the language of the country to reside in is a de facto requirement. This for example, is just wrong. I live near the biggest Japanese community in Germany and virtually no one of them speaks a single word of German. They have their own Japanese kindergartens, schools and stores. No one actually cares because when they immigrated here they were already pretty wealthy and the aforementioned stereotype helps. But if you hear one person speak Turkish on the subway every white person has the "what has this country come to" look on their faces. North Africans are not black, they are white in fact (brown in actual color, but as far as races go, they are white). What's that supposed to mean? There are no biological "races" among the human species. Races are social constructs. No. Human races are not a social construct. Splitting us into races doesn't mean that we're not related, it just means that our relation is so distant that you couldn't mistake one group with another. A german shepherd is the same species as a dalmatian, but different races. Since the human population have constantly become more heterogenous throughout history, you can't really split us into races based on regions anymore, unless you draw with very broad strokes. Most likely if you went back very long in time, then there would be around 10 distinguable subraces in Europe. Nowadays, you can see these subgroups only if you look at the general population. But, it's still viable to divide us into atleast 4 groups, and that's what we typically talk about when we say the word race. Sub saharan africans is one group. American Indians is another. East Asians is another, and Europe, Northern Africa, the Middle East and all the way to India is the last group. The central eurasian ppl are a mix of the latter two. So, the guy is right in placing Northern Africa under the white race.
Do you have any scientific sources to quote, or is this just the same bullshit as race-theories have been in the past.
|
On December 07 2014 03:05 Paljas wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2014 02:58 L1ghtning wrote:On December 06 2014 20:11 kwizach wrote:On December 05 2014 20:44 mcc wrote:On December 05 2014 01:46 Nyxisto wrote:Sorry. but "Asian people are so industrious and black people don't really like education" really is borderline racist no matter how hard you try to veil it. It's a terrible stereotype. Traditionally, education plays a very important part in their lives, so learning the language of the country to reside in is a de facto requirement. This for example, is just wrong. I live near the biggest Japanese community in Germany and virtually no one of them speaks a single word of German. They have their own Japanese kindergartens, schools and stores. No one actually cares because when they immigrated here they were already pretty wealthy and the aforementioned stereotype helps. But if you hear one person speak Turkish on the subway every white person has the "what has this country come to" look on their faces. North Africans are not black, they are white in fact (brown in actual color, but as far as races go, they are white). What's that supposed to mean? There are no biological "races" among the human species. Races are social constructs. No. Human races are not a social construct. Splitting us into races doesn't mean that we're not related, it just means that our relation is so distant that you couldn't mistake one group with another. A german shepherd is the same species as a dalmatian, but different races. Since the human population have constantly become more heterogenous throughout history, you can't really split us into races based on regions anymore, unless you draw with very broad strokes. Most likely if you went back very long in time, then there would be around 10 distinguable subraces in Europe. Nowadays, you can see these subgroups only if you look at the general population. But, it's still viable to divide us into atleast 4 groups, and that's what we typically talk about when we say the word race. Sub saharan africans is one group. American Indians is another. East Asians is another, and Europe, Northern Africa, the Middle East and all the way to India is the last group. The central eurasian ppl are a mix of the latter two. So, the guy is right in placing Northern Africa under the white race. Do you have any scientific sources to quote, or is this just the same bullshit as race-theories have been in the past.
All of it is basic anthropology. Why do you find it to be so offensive?
|
On December 07 2014 02:58 L1ghtning wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2014 20:11 kwizach wrote:On December 05 2014 20:44 mcc wrote:On December 05 2014 01:46 Nyxisto wrote:Sorry. but "Asian people are so industrious and black people don't really like education" really is borderline racist no matter how hard you try to veil it. It's a terrible stereotype. Traditionally, education plays a very important part in their lives, so learning the language of the country to reside in is a de facto requirement. This for example, is just wrong. I live near the biggest Japanese community in Germany and virtually no one of them speaks a single word of German. They have their own Japanese kindergartens, schools and stores. No one actually cares because when they immigrated here they were already pretty wealthy and the aforementioned stereotype helps. But if you hear one person speak Turkish on the subway every white person has the "what has this country come to" look on their faces. North Africans are not black, they are white in fact (brown in actual color, but as far as races go, they are white). What's that supposed to mean? There are no biological "races" among the human species. Races are social constructs. No. Human races are not a social construct. Splitting us into races doesn't mean that we're not related, it just means that our relation is so distant that you couldn't mistake one group with another. A german shepherd is the same species as a dalmatian, but different races. Since the human population have constantly become more heterogenous throughout history, you can't really split us into races based on regions anymore, unless you draw with very broad strokes. Most likely if you went back very long in time, then there would be around 10 distinguable subraces in Europe. Nowadays, you can see these subgroups only if you look at the general population. But, it's still viable to divide us into atleast 4 groups, and that's what we typically talk about when we say the word race. Sub saharan africans is one group. American Indians is another. East Asians is another, and Europe, Northern Africa, the Middle East and all the way to India is the last group. The central eurasian ppl are a mix of the latter two. So, the guy is right in placing Northern Africa under the white race.
Let's make one thing clear. Human races are social constructs. Genetic research has shown that there is no scientific basis whatsoever for determining where to objectively place limits that would distinguish different human "races". Sorry, but your pseudoscientific claims about groups completely ignores the reality of our genetic makeup, which is almost entirely the same and for which the little differences that remain can be just as big, or even bigger, between the members of the same group among those you mention than between members of different groups. To quote Dr. Venter and the scientists who worked on the sequencing of the human genome (source):
''Race is a social concept, not a scientific one,'' said Dr. J. Craig Venter, head of the Celera Genomics Corporation in Rockville, Md. ''We all evolved in the last 100,000 years from the same small number of tribes that migrated out of Africa and colonized the world.''
Dr. Venter and scientists at the National Institutes of Health recently announced that they had put together a draft of the entire sequence of the human genome, and the researchers had unanimously declared, there is only one race -- the human race.
Dr. Venter and other researchers say that those traits most commonly used to distinguish one race from another, like skin and eye color, or the width of the nose, are traits controlled by a relatively few number of genes, and thus have been able to change rapidly in response to extreme environmental pressures during the short course of Homo sapiens history.
And so equatorial populations evolved dark skin, presumably to protect against ultraviolet radiation, while people in northern latitudes evolved pale skin, the better to produce vitamin D from pale sunlight.
''If you ask what percentage of your genes is reflected in your external appearance, the basis by which we talk about race, the answer seems to be in the range of .01 percent,'' said Dr. Harold P. Freeman, the chief executive, president and director of surgery at North General Hospital in Manhattan, who has studied the issue of biology and race. ''This is a very, very minimal reflection of your genetic makeup.''
Unfortunately for social harmony, the human brain is exquisitely attuned to differences in packaging details, prompting people to exaggerate the significance of what has come to be called race, said Dr. Douglas C. Wallace, a professor of molecular genetics at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta.
''The criteria that people use for race are based entirely on external features that we are programmed to recognize,'' he said. ''And the reason we're programmed to recognize them is that it's vitally important to our species that each of us be able to distinguish one individual from the next. Our whole social structure is based on visual cues, and we've been programmed to recognize them, and to recognize individuals.''
By contrast with the tiny number of genes that make some people dark-skinned and doe-eyed, and others as pale as napkins, scientists say that traits like intelligence, artistic talent and social skills are likely to be shaped by thousands, if not tens of thousands, of the 80,000 or so genes in the human genome, all working in complex combinatorial fashion.
The possibility of such gene networks shifting their interrelationships wholesale in the course of humanity's brief foray across the globe, and being skewed in significant ways according to ''race'' is ''a bogus idea,'' said Dr. Aravinda Chakravarti, a geneticist at Case Western University in Cleveland. ''The differences that we see in skin color do not translate into widespread biological differences that are unique to groups.''
Dr. Jurgen K. Naggert, a geneticist at the Jackson Laboratory in Bar Harbor, Me., said: ''These big groups that we characterize as races are too heterogeneous to lump together in a scientific way. If you're doing a DNA study to look for markers for a particular disease, you can't use 'Caucasians' as a group. They're too diverse. No journal would accept it.''
On December 07 2014 02:36 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2014 20:11 kwizach wrote:On December 05 2014 20:44 mcc wrote:On December 05 2014 01:46 Nyxisto wrote:Sorry. but "Asian people are so industrious and black people don't really like education" really is borderline racist no matter how hard you try to veil it. It's a terrible stereotype. Traditionally, education plays a very important part in their lives, so learning the language of the country to reside in is a de facto requirement. This for example, is just wrong. I live near the biggest Japanese community in Germany and virtually no one of them speaks a single word of German. They have their own Japanese kindergartens, schools and stores. No one actually cares because when they immigrated here they were already pretty wealthy and the aforementioned stereotype helps. But if you hear one person speak Turkish on the subway every white person has the "what has this country come to" look on their faces. North Africans are not black, they are white in fact (brown in actual color, but as far as races go, they are white). What's that supposed to mean? There are no biological "races" among the human species. Races are social constructs. Read the context. I was not discussing whether races do or do not exist as commonly defined. But I was reacting to someone accusing the original poster of racism against blacks even though he was talking about North Africans, and they are not black and according to the common definition of races are counted as white. Thus person that comments on some issues with North African culture (whether valid or not) can hardly be accused of racism against blacks based on that, no ? Anyway races do not necessarily have to be social constructs as color of the skin is not a social construct, but that is really quite irrelevant as mostly they are. EDIT: You can also group humans into "races" based on common genetics and that can have some reasonable applications.
From what I understand, Nyxisto was pretty clearly talking about racism against "the other", the non-white, for which he used the term "black people" to refer to how racists think about those "others".
Color of the skin is not a social construct per se (although you can argue that how color is perceived is), but races, as the arbitrary delimitations of groups based on skin color, still are. The fact that you consider North Africans to be "white" doesn't mean that others can't see them as "black" or "brown" or "mixed" or whatever because there's nothing objective about where to place those limits (or about placing them at all).
|
On December 07 2014 04:12 L1ghtning wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2014 03:05 Paljas wrote:On December 07 2014 02:58 L1ghtning wrote:On December 06 2014 20:11 kwizach wrote:On December 05 2014 20:44 mcc wrote:On December 05 2014 01:46 Nyxisto wrote:Sorry. but "Asian people are so industrious and black people don't really like education" really is borderline racist no matter how hard you try to veil it. It's a terrible stereotype. Traditionally, education plays a very important part in their lives, so learning the language of the country to reside in is a de facto requirement. This for example, is just wrong. I live near the biggest Japanese community in Germany and virtually no one of them speaks a single word of German. They have their own Japanese kindergartens, schools and stores. No one actually cares because when they immigrated here they were already pretty wealthy and the aforementioned stereotype helps. But if you hear one person speak Turkish on the subway every white person has the "what has this country come to" look on their faces. North Africans are not black, they are white in fact (brown in actual color, but as far as races go, they are white). What's that supposed to mean? There are no biological "races" among the human species. Races are social constructs. No. Human races are not a social construct. Splitting us into races doesn't mean that we're not related, it just means that our relation is so distant that you couldn't mistake one group with another. A german shepherd is the same species as a dalmatian, but different races. Since the human population have constantly become more heterogenous throughout history, you can't really split us into races based on regions anymore, unless you draw with very broad strokes. Most likely if you went back very long in time, then there would be around 10 distinguable subraces in Europe. Nowadays, you can see these subgroups only if you look at the general population. But, it's still viable to divide us into atleast 4 groups, and that's what we typically talk about when we say the word race. Sub saharan africans is one group. American Indians is another. East Asians is another, and Europe, Northern Africa, the Middle East and all the way to India is the last group. The central eurasian ppl are a mix of the latter two. So, the guy is right in placing Northern Africa under the white race. Do you have any scientific sources to quote, or is this just the same bullshit as race-theories have been in the past. All of it is basic anthropology. Why do you find it to be so offensive?
It dont think its offensive, just bullshit. Put source on your claims to convince me.
All this race stuff is considered nonsense in modern science, and has been replaced with other terms, which have vastly different meanings
|
On December 07 2014 04:28 Paljas wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2014 04:12 L1ghtning wrote:On December 07 2014 03:05 Paljas wrote:On December 07 2014 02:58 L1ghtning wrote:On December 06 2014 20:11 kwizach wrote:On December 05 2014 20:44 mcc wrote:On December 05 2014 01:46 Nyxisto wrote:Sorry. but "Asian people are so industrious and black people don't really like education" really is borderline racist no matter how hard you try to veil it. It's a terrible stereotype. Traditionally, education plays a very important part in their lives, so learning the language of the country to reside in is a de facto requirement. This for example, is just wrong. I live near the biggest Japanese community in Germany and virtually no one of them speaks a single word of German. They have their own Japanese kindergartens, schools and stores. No one actually cares because when they immigrated here they were already pretty wealthy and the aforementioned stereotype helps. But if you hear one person speak Turkish on the subway every white person has the "what has this country come to" look on their faces. North Africans are not black, they are white in fact (brown in actual color, but as far as races go, they are white). What's that supposed to mean? There are no biological "races" among the human species. Races are social constructs. No. Human races are not a social construct. Splitting us into races doesn't mean that we're not related, it just means that our relation is so distant that you couldn't mistake one group with another. A german shepherd is the same species as a dalmatian, but different races. Since the human population have constantly become more heterogenous throughout history, you can't really split us into races based on regions anymore, unless you draw with very broad strokes. Most likely if you went back very long in time, then there would be around 10 distinguable subraces in Europe. Nowadays, you can see these subgroups only if you look at the general population. But, it's still viable to divide us into atleast 4 groups, and that's what we typically talk about when we say the word race. Sub saharan africans is one group. American Indians is another. East Asians is another, and Europe, Northern Africa, the Middle East and all the way to India is the last group. The central eurasian ppl are a mix of the latter two. So, the guy is right in placing Northern Africa under the white race. Do you have any scientific sources to quote, or is this just the same bullshit as race-theories have been in the past. All of it is basic anthropology. Why do you find it to be so offensive? It dont think its offensive, just bullshit. Put source on your claims to convince me. All this race stuff is considered nonsense in modern science, and has been replaced with other terms, which have vastly different meanings
On the other hand, while the concept of race is considered nonsense in modern science, it is still very much a relevant concept in societies around the world. Whether you call it race or skin colour, you cannot deny that people base their identities and stereotypes they have about others around skin colour more often than not.
As happens a lot in the scientific community, their definitions of certain words differ from the definitions used by the rest of the world.
The concept of racial discrimination or discrimination on skin colour (and subsequently region of origin), however, is very much a social construct. The Romans, for instance, did not discriminate on skin colour. In fact, some emperors may well have been black people. What mattered to them more was how civilised you were, i.e to what extent you would take up Roman values and act like a Roman.
|
Interesting but not important.
How about we divide the races in a way that is now real. USA is the orchid of humanity. Afghan Men 80 kilo is worth 250$, that we know thx to USA. How much do you need to pay for black Afghan on the black market? ...
I am interested how much tax money we have to pay because merkel shut down nuclear power plants with out the right to do so. Just because she did not want to loose the vote...it will cost us millions of euros and no one is able to put this woman in jail :S
There I think Egypt is far ahead in democratic understanding. I whish we could call the Army to get rid of her because she broke the law and had no legal right to do this.
|
The term "race" is subjective and that is why the term is largely not used anymore in science and has been replaced by the more clearly defined term "subspecies".
However if we look at the way race was used for different flora and fauna it becomes clear that it very well may be used for humans as well. Most often race was defined by a different phenotype. Phenotype can be seen as the result of genotype + environment. That the genotype differs only by .01 percent as mentioned in the article above is irrelevant because as said above the term race is subjective, there is no rule that says genotype needs to differ by 0.5% for it to be considered a different race(we had no way to find these things out in the past anyway).
So in essence saying "sub-saharan, caucasian, east asian and american indian are different races" is not incorrect usage of the word, it is just a subjective statement and not a scientific one.
|
On December 07 2014 05:24 tadL wrote:
Interesting but not important.
How about we divide the races in a way that is now real. USA is the orchid of humanity. Afghan Men 80 kilo is worth 350$, that we know thx to USA. How much do you need to pay for black Afghan on the black market? ...
I am interested how much tax money we have to pay because merkel shut down nuclear power plants with out the right to do so. Just because she did not want to loose the vote...it will cost us millions of euros and no one is able to put this woman in jail :S
There I think Egypt is far ahead in democratic understanding. I whish we could call the Army to get rid of her
That sounds awfully inflated, you could get four 20-30yo women for that money in the arab spring controlled part of Syria.
|
Now you are silly ^^
But I remember the Arabic Spring and our Media. Muslim vote for Muslims. They went crazy, we brought them democracy why they do not vote what we want ^^
|
Both sides are right, in a sense. You'll have to forgive my elementary understanding of the topic, but I feel that there are two worlds here. Race is a social construct but there is also a genetic basis there, for example, black people often have thicker lips. So there is a genetic basis there in that people generally look & act like their ancestors, wherever they're from. So my parents/great-grandparents are of Saami heritage so I sort of look Scandinavian (pretty pale) & believe & sympathize as they do. But I went to high school & college with a heterogeneous mix of people so I dress, act & like to make a face as they do . Sort of like in Rovio's Angry Birds app there are big birds, small ones, tiny ones, bomb ones, etc, or in MicroCenter they advertise big motherboards, small laptops, & tiny cameras.
[rest of post redacted due to threats]
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c0/Protest_15_septembrie_Pia%C8%9Ba_Universit%C4%83%C8%9Bii_bgiu.jpg)
