Racism and dogs...

[Fragony]

I kinda dislike what I seem to be getting here. I don't even vote.

[Fragony]

Huh? No, nobody thinks your a Nazi. I do think that you remind me of some people I have known here in the states that like to flirt with racist ideas, but I don't think anyone thinks you actually are.

That would be nice

[HoreTore]

Racists and Nazis are precisely why this field of study needs expanding, IMO. They happen for a reason.

*Or perhaps not so much expanding, as a focus of attention. Its that time of day where my semantics get blurry...

If those people were the kind of people who cared about facts and science, they wouldn't be nazis in the first place.

They believe the holocaust did not occur. Will even more WW2 research help them realize how stupid that notion is?

Force is the way to deal with fascism. Always have been, always will be.

[HoreTore]

Not quite what I meant.

What I mean is that there's a fine line between political science and cultural anthropology. There's a point where the politics of culture becomes more of a cultural issue than a political one. I think Nazis and Racists are an unavoidable fact of life, caused by the never-ending friction between cultures that we barely understand because of political correctness. That is, of course, just speculation.

"Politically correct" is a term almost exclusively used by people who are upset that other people call them on their racist and/or hateful opinions. I don't see how it's a major problem in anthropological research.

Nazis may be unavoidable, but put them in the intense spotlight of the community and law enforcement and they'll disappear as soon as they came. You'll always have one or two loners, but I don't see why we should care about them. Organized nazis are surprisingly easy to dismantle.

I'm clueless about your southern KKK'ers though.

[HoreTore]

I'm using politically correct in its intended fashion. It doesn't matter if you don't like the phrase, or who traditionally uses it, because I'm using it correctly.

You use it in its intended fashion? You believe research is limited and guided by the political program of the communist international?

The biggest reason I think the cultural triggers for Nazism should be studied more is because I see a high potential for it here in our own political landscape. I still can't get over how eerily similar the Tea Party is to early Nazis, both in message and method. And the NeoCons before them. It is only a matter of time before one of these groups gets the "right" mix of nationalism and racism for it to "work." Nazism is seductive not because of political reasons, but because of cultural reasons. In my opinion.

Now that I can agree with.

[Fragony]

"Politically correct" is a term almost exclusively used by people who are upset that other people call them on their racist and/or hateful opinions. I don't see how it's a major problem in anthropological research.

Nazis may be unavoidable, but put them in the intense spotlight of the community and law enforcement and they'll disappear as soon as they came. You'll always have one or two loners, but I don't see why we should care about them. Organized nazis are surprisingly easy to dismantle.

I'm clueless about your southern KKK'ers though.

Can't you see that that loner could be you. Don't mind me saying it but you might want to talk to someone. I say this with all the best of intentions, I got a third eye for that stuff. There is something not quite right.

[HoreTore]

Can't you see that that loner could be you. Don't mind me saying it but you might want to talk to someone. I say this with all the best of intentions, I got a third eye for that stuff. There is something not quite right.

Are you asking whether I'm a social loner? If so, then no.

Or are you asking if I'm a political loner? Both yes and no. I'm a pretty standard Norwegian social democrat, like most norwegians are(only weirdos think they're special), but the most common trait of the socialist is that we rarely agree with others on political issues. We rarely agree with conservatives, but we never agree with fellow socialists.

[Kadagar_AV]

Are you asking whether I'm a social loner? If so, then no.

Or are you asking if I'm a political loner? Both yes and no. I'm a pretty standard Norwegian social democrat, like most norwegians are(only weirdos think they're special), but the most common trait of the socialist is that we rarely agree with others on political issues. We rarely agree with conservatives, but we never agree with fellow socialists.

The most common trait among Norwegian socialists is that they fail to understand why a post like:

Also, a job that does not enable you to live a good, healthy life is an irrelevant job and should be cut.

... would be offensive for the very vast majority of the world. I think that what you have yet to understand is - "when" the workers of the world unite, as you long for, you would be one of the first against the wall.

[Ironside]

What I wanted to point out, was that outcries and emotional responses such as yours is just why it's SO DAMN HARD to do something constructive in this field of research.

Fact is that different human populations quite often have a very hard time co-existing peacefully. Having people screaming "BLOODY MURDER" when someone wants to be constructive and research into it, isn't necessarily the best idea.

Horetore named the actual research done on this, namely social anthropology and it's running fine. Trying to focus purely on the genetical implies that the differences are irrevocable, while cultural differences does seem to have a much larger influence according to studies.

Second, the in population spread is huge compared to the general cultural differences. Take IQ for example. 99,7% of the population are within the 100±45 range, or 55-145. Unless you're really close to the edges, a 5+ bonus won't matter much, in particular since most people aren't min-maxing.

If we found some DNA strings that control behavioristics, and can tell that it differs between racial groups... Should that not mean that special consideration must be shown when these two groups of people must co-exist?

Larger factors are cultural ones (cultural anthropology) and induvidual ones (psychology). There's really no trait that needs to be considered outside this. Say that there's more common with the "might is right" types in Somalia than in Sweden. The way to deal with that type is still very similar, with some cultural adaptions (and research is certainly done on that), so on induvidual level it's already covered by research.

As a sidenote, is it possible that behavioristics that one group feel as "natural" could cause a feeling of "ill at ease" in the other group, and that it's actually solely DNA that dictates this?

No. That would mean a people that can never comprehend you. Such a people has never been met (they wouldn't be able to work with you in any way). Sweden is possibly the most crazy left wing country in the world (we're talking about much more things than taxes and communism), but somehow Swedes understands other countries and haven't hold the title for that long (we weren't a left country say 100 years ago). There's a small version of it, in the way that some traits are heavily influenced by genetics. So say someone with an aetheist brain (extremely low response to "faith") would not not feel at home in a very religious community, even if they grew up there. But there haven't been a large scale systematic slaughter towards such a specific trait long term in history.

Not quite what I meant.

What I mean is that there's a fine line between political science and cultural anthropology. There's a point where the politics of culture becomes more of a cultural issue than a political one. I think Nazis and Racists are an unavoidable fact of life, caused by the never-ending friction between cultures that we barely understand because of political correctness. That is, of course, just speculation.

You're falling into at least two traps: The "understanding equals tolerating" and that racists wants to educate themselves. You can perfectly understand the reasons behind say "honour murders" while vehemently opposing its practice. And racists are usually either in no or fairly low contact with the culture they oppose. It's quite rare at the point where you're constantly seeing the induviduals rather than the group and they prefer to keep it that way because the group they oppose are baad. Are the West less racist than they used to be? Yes. Are we more political correct? Yes.

[HoreTore]

Yes, the world is indeed mostly against the concept of a living wage. The majority of the world long for a 15-hour day which doesn't pay enough to feed their families.

I am of course assuming that you're living on Mars, and that Mars is the world you are speaking of.

[Hax]

Does anyone here consider Arab to be a race? Just asking.

[Kadagar_AV]

Ironside, I would respond... But I am not sure you know what you are talking about?

When you write stuff like:

"Larger factors are cultural ones (cultural anthropology) and induvidual ones (psychology). There's really no trait that needs to be considered outside this."

... I don't know. It sounds like you have been brainwashed.

You actually, REALLY, think nurture has EVERYTHING on nature?

Would you go with the same logic on dogs? Do you see anthropological and psychological factors in, say, what dog is more likely to kill a human? Or do you accept that some breeds of dogs are more likely to attack?

[Kadagar_AV]

Yes, the world is indeed mostly against the concept of a living wage. The majority of the world long for a 15-hour day which doesn't pay enough to feed their families.

I am of course assuming that you're living on Mars, and that Mars is the world you are speaking of.

What are you responding to, and if it was me, how would that make sense compared to what I wrote?

[Montmorency]

Much like a white guy would make a rather safe bet if he bet his DNA would more resemble another white guy than a yellow guy.

Back in my high school genetics class, we took a field trip to the Cold Spring labs. There's this one gene (its name and functions being irrelevant for our purposes), for which East Asians generally have two alleles, and Europeans generally have no alleles.

I have two. Suffice to say that my father is from Belarus and my mother from Georgia.

Interestingly, one of the Chinese students and the one Vietnamese student had no alleles. The only Angloid in the class had one.

Furthermore, it turns out that American "whites" resemble American "Negroids" more closely (genetically) than the latter do East-African "Negroids". Also, there is more genetic variation within that continent than anywhere else in the world. But you've heard all that before, and small-time data for a single gene alone can't serve as the basis for accepting or discarding a category...

The point is, it's a fine thing to investigate potential "racial" categories for its own sake, but on the other hand it's incredibly counterproductive to start by begging the question and stating things like, 'Clearly whites/Asians/Negroids/etc. are such...'

There is likely no such thing as a Negroid, just as there is likely no such thing as a Klaxbagorgan. "Asian" is as useful a racial category as "American" is. "White", then, is just another useless knee-jerk category, and at worst an active attempt to appropriate the prestige associated with the label.

Just because categories of a certain scope are more manageable or useful for governmental demographers than others might be doesn't mean these should automatically be premised in all cases and used as a basis for doing serious racial analytics.

I'd like to hijack Horetore's sig because then I can more or less say it snappily:

The most important white spot now is to deconstruct the minorities, and do it properly, so that they can never be called minorities again.

Also, I notice that many here are revisiting the nature/nurture fallacy. Look, guys, if anything epigenetics should have made clear by now that they both have 100% influence because attempting to differentiate causal force between two aspects of an inherently continuous process is surely futile. When examining the water cycle, would anyone here seriously ask something like, 'Which has more influence on the evaporation of water on Earth: The existence of bodies of water, or the existence of heat sources? Which has more influence on the quantity of H20 present on Earth: Water vapor, or rainfall?' It just doesn't make sense as a question.

Nature vs. nurture per se really needs a reformulation, just as the race debate does...

[HoreTore]

What are you responding to, and if it was me, how would that make sense compared to what I wrote?

You quoted me arguing in favour of living wages, saying that it is not what the majority of the world wants. I replied by calling your assertion BS. The workers of the world do in fact long for a living wage.

[HoreTore]

like to hijack Horetore's sig because then I can more or less say it snappily:

My sig is actually a follow-up to what you changed it to. It was answer to a "now what?" question after presenting results from a major study on minorities, so your change is likely what they had in mind before they started the study.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I think it is fair to say that there is a very real social stigma attached to advocating racial theories, which is somewhat understandable given the history of the last few centuries. From a scientists point of view, it is always unhealthy to feel political or social pressure when conducting research down particular avenues.

I also think this stigma is used to stifle political debate. Given Marx's comments on racism as a means of justifying class distinctions, it is somewhat ironic to see modern lefties rally behind the current capitalist establishment and use anti-racism to demonize working-class/underclass people who see immigrants taking their jobs and houses and voice their grievances accordingly. When real concerns are ignored, demonized and exluded from political engagement, they tend to get more militant and extreme, and in this case turn to Nazism and the like out of frustration.

In the past this is why I've taken it upon myself to defend some BNP etc types. And I guess sometimes sympathy can turn into support, it's a human reaction. But for all that I don't think race means much. At the end of the day blacks can go to Uni and get top degrees and hold down top jobs, and they shouldn't be managing to do this is their race was half as dumb as racists tend to say they are. It seems to me that social, political, cultural, and economic factors offer the best explanations for any supposed racial differences. I used to live in a 100% white area that would put the Bronx to shame in terms of brutal violence, gangs and general social breakdown.

I think there might be some rare exceptions to this rule in cases where a population group has been genetically isolated for long periods of time. For example, this may explain the spectacularly low IQ scores of Australian Aborignes, which I find hard to explain in relation to equally poor and educationally-deprived countries. It is also possible that the brutality of the slave trade and the labour they endured may have made African Americans slightly better than others at very physical sports - but this is not true of all blacks.

All in all, there is no reason to believe in any non-negligble intelligence differences between humans from whatever background, and certainly skin colour would be a poor indication of them.

[HoreTore]

I also think this stigma is used to stifle political debate. Given Marx's comments on racism as a means of justifying class distinctions, it is somewhat ironic to see modern lefties rally behind the current capitalist establishment and use anti-racism to demonize working-class/underclass people who see immigrants taking their jobs and houses and voice their grievances accordingly. When real concerns are ignored, demonized and exluded from political engagement, they tend to get more militant and extreme, and in this case turn to Nazism and the like out of frustration.

The attitude you describe amongst the working class is an attitude Lenin would have classed as chauvinism, and I honestly can't see how you could possibly tie that in with Marxism without throwing away the majority of marxist theory.

Marxism is, and has always been, international.

[Rhyfelwyr]

The attitude you describe amongst the working class is an attitude Lenin would have classed as chauvinism, and I honestly can't see how you could possibly tie that in with Marxism without throwing away the majority of marxist theory.

Marxism is, and has always been, international.

I am not a Marxist, and was simply pointing out the irony that anti-racism should become a means for the estabishment to suppress the working-classes.

[Strike For The South]

Eugenics. Purview of the 17 year old with his subscription to Scientific American

[HoreTore]

I am not a Marxist, and was simply pointing out the irony that anti-racism should become a means for the estabishment to suppress the working-classes.

It is a means to suppress chauvinism, and that is perfectly in line with Marxism.

Marx was fully aware of the reactionary nature of large segments of the working class. I can't remember what Marx had in mind to solve it, but Engels' plan was genocide.

You should be happy we've switched to name-calling.

[Rhyfelwyr]

It is a means to suppress chauvinism, and that is perfectly in line with Marxism.

Marx was fully aware of the reactionary nature of large segments of the working class. I can't remember what Marx had in mind to solve it, but Engels' plan was genocide.

You should be happy we've switched to name-calling.

Right, turning to Nazism and racism is reactionary, but pointing out that big-businesses lobby to ensure a supply of cheap foreign labour at the expense of the ordinary worker (and indeed the solidarity of their movement) is not. This has been the traditional stance of many communist parties, has it not? Certainly, the French Communist Party springs to mind.

[HoreTore]

Right, turning to Nazism and racism is reactionary, but pointing out that big-businesses lobby to ensure a supply of cheap foreign labour at the expense of the ordinary worker (and indeed the solidarity of their movement) is not. This has been the traditional stance of many communist parties, has it not? Certainly, the French Communist Party springs to mind.

The Marxist response is to integrate those workers into the unions and demand equal pay, not throw them out or demand they keep out. We point the finger at the bourgiouse for trying to play divide and conquer, sure, but all efforts must be directed at them, and so every insult thrown at immigrant workers by the working class must be fought.

The immigrant worker is an ally and a comrade, not an enemy.

[Rhyfelwyr]

The Marxist response is to integrate those workers into the unions and demand equal pay, not throw them out or demand they keep out. We point the finger at the bourgiouse for trying to play divide and conquer, sure, but all efforts must be directed at them, and so every insult thrown at immigrant workers by the working class must be fought.

The immigrant worker is an ally and a comrade, not an enemy.

I am not suggesting blaming or villifying foreign workers, I am simply stating that Marxists ought to oppose the process that brings them here, since it is fundamentally damaging to the working-classes and their condition.

Importing what are usually young men over on a temporary basis to fill jobs needed by the natives, purely because those natives might demand half-decent conditions and pay, is a classic example of the excesses of the labour market, and I find it odd that you would support it. Alas, integration and the like sound great as buzz words, but I doubt the young guys coming over for such work in what they see as a land of opportunity would care much for the conditions of the developed world's working-classes. They are there to get their pay check and get out.

Hence, you support both capitalist excesses, and weaken the solidarity of the working-classes.

[Papewaio]

What I wanted to point out, was that outcries and emotional responses such as yours is just why it's SO DAMN HARD to do something constructive in this field of research.

Fact is that different human populations quite often have a very hard time co-existing peacefully. Having people screaming "BLOODY MURDER" when someone wants to be constructive and research into it, isn't necessarily the best idea.

Very correct.

US Civil War
World War II or as GC would name it EU Civil War
Syrian Civil War
Australian Coffee Festival

Pick the odd one out. Oh look three very blood thirsty wars fought by very similar genetic and cultural populations. The fourth a multicultural festival. Your thesis is gaining ground with speed.

[HoreTore]

I am not suggesting blaming or villifying foreign workers, I am simply stating that Marxists ought to oppose the process that brings them here, since it is fundamentally damaging to the working-classes and their condition.

Importing what are usually young men over on a temporary basis to fill jobs needed by the natives, purely because those natives might demand half-decent conditions and pay, is a classic example of the excesses of the labour market, and I find it odd that you would support it. Alas, integration and the like sound great as buzz words, but I doubt the young guys coming over for such work in what they see as a land of opportunity would care much for the conditions of the developed world's working-classes. They are there to get their pay check and get out.

Hence, you support both capitalist excesses, and weaken the solidarity of the working-classes.

.....And that is why the unions demanded that foreign workers(ie. Poles) must be paid the exact same wages as Norwegian workers.

They get paid the same, they take no jobs from anyone since we have negative unemployment and they unionize. What's not to like?

Also the concept that employment should favour natives on the grounds that they are natives is an inherently un-marxist idea. It's chauvinism, in marxist terms.

The Norwegian unions do fight the attempted unsettling of working conditions, but they don't do it by denying anyone the right to work. It is done by demanding Norwegian pay for Norwegian jobs and fighting temp work. The nationality of those who gets the pay is utterly irrelevant, the important bit is the number on it.

[HoreTore]

I think the fundamental difference between your two viewpoints is that Rhyf is looking at this from the practical POV of a worker who has to compete with foreigners. That has to do with more than wages--a foreign worker almost always works harder, because he has more to lose. From Rhyf's point of view this means not only is the little guy getting boned, but the ideals of tolerance are getting abused to the benefit of the big guy, and as a weapon against the little guy.

Whereas HoreTore, on the other hand, is arguing for your traditional marxist socialism without borders, which aspires to ideals lofty enough to remove them from the practical reality of their abuse. As I understand it.

The union answer to a globalized market and multinational cannot be to close the borders and protect our own, the answer must be globalized unions. I read an interview with an american union leader who followed this idea. His union not only recruited members on US soil, but they also opened up union affiliates and recruitment in the foreign branches of every involved company. So, if the workers were treated badly in one place, the workers went on strike in every country that company operated in. That kind of thinking is the way forward. Despite the international agenda of the workers movement, there's surprisingly little international collaboration. There's some propaganda exchange, but extremely little coordinated solidarity action.

That must change, or else globalization will be the death of Marxism. A solidarity which ends at the border is a dead solidarity.

[Kadagar_AV]

Very correct.

US Civil War
World War II or as GC would name it EU Civil War
Syrian Civil War
Australian Coffee Festival

Pick the odd one out. Oh look three very blood thirsty wars fought by very similar genetic and cultural populations. The fourth a multicultural festival. Your thesis is gaining ground with speed.

I'd go with:

US civil war - You brought this up as a positive example? Why not view it as an example of problems that have existed historically, and still influence us today? Can you REALLY claim that USA has overcome its racial differences, and is now a smooth working machine where racial integrity isn't still a factor?



Let's face it. People vote by moving.

What I am saying is, anywhere you go in the world, cultural groups will click together. We can either accept it and base our society on it, or we can pretend that any such tendency is evil nazism.

However, still doesn't explain how you can see "problem solved" when racial maps of the USA clearly shows VERY clear racial borders.

EDIT: Only went through your first example. As I pretty damn clearly proved your point wrong, I'll bother with the rest of your examples once we've covered this.

[HoreTore]

I'll buy that for a dollar. Its a good answer at least.

All I know is that the entire global economy is absurd, and surely not sustainable. Beyond that, I cannot say.

I have a hefty dislike of step-by-step plans resulting in an idealized society(that line of thought is way more profound in kadagar's posts than yours though), as I cannot see how it can avoid turning totalitarian. Thus, I am not in the business of proposing any "final solutions"(marxism does, but I'm not a marxist).

I do observe a rising gap between the haves and the have nots though, and if it continues to rise to even more absurd levels I cannot see how it can avoid ending in bloodshed of some kind, as all historical evidence points to as the end result of massive inequality. I can't see any wonder fixes either(and such fixes are usually totalitarian as well), so I am left to applaud every measure which may contribute to lessen the gap, and boo every measure that will increase the gap.

The problem is unfortunately within the capitalist system itself. It's easier to make even more money if you have money than it is to make money if you have none, and that dynamic will ensure an ever widening gap. It will also ensure that the money a person ever smaller correlation with the work and effort that person put in, and more and more to do with luck(as in privilege).

The younger generations always get smarter and wiser than the older generations though, hopefully the toddlers of today will find the answer in 40 years.

[Strike For The South]

Self segregation and chattel slavery are two distinct issues.

On the whole the US has done extremely well assimilating migrant groups.

In fact the biggest "ethnic problem" in the US has to do with the two groups that have been here the longest. I fail to see your point, just more of your petite bourgeois bigotry.