Who Is White?

[Strike For The South]

Who is White? (http://www.understandingrace.org/lived/who_is/index.html)

Pretty interesting test of perception. I want to see if I can prove my hypothesis.

My Results. (http://www.understandingrace.org/lived/who_is/index.html)

[Lemur]

I don't think you can link to results; your linky just points to the quiz itself. It's gonna be screenshots if we want to compare notes.

[Strike For The South]

I don't think you can link to results; your linky just points to the quiz itself. It's gonna be screenshots if we want to compare notes.

How do I take a screenshot?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

No preaching there at all, eh?

I really was hoping for a "D" = doesn't matter ****

[Lemur]

Most keyboards have a "Print Screen" button, that will do the trick. That puts an image of the screen in memory. Then pop open something like GIMP (http://www.gimp.org/) and edit the image down to just show the bits you care about.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Hmm, I had 11 white, 15 non-white, and 1 unsure.

[Strike For The South]

No preaching there at all, eh?

I really was hoping for a "D" = doesn't matter ****

My whole point is that race is a false construct.


Most keyboards have a "Print Screen" button, that will do the trick. That puts an image of the screen in memory. Then pop open something like GIMP (http://www.gimp.org/) and edit the image down to just show the bits you care about.

On macs?

[ICantSpellDawg]

My whole point is that race is a false construct.



On macs?


Race is not a false construct. It only seems like that because of our profound inter-relationship over the past few thousand years (most notably the last few hundred). Humans used to have a much more distinct seperation than we do now and it shows in our vast physical differences. Fortunately as populations get bigger to the extent that the human race has, villages begin to push into one another, and another, and another, etc.

I maintain that if we were any other species with a more natural growth pattern that we would have seperated into different species over the next few thousand or million years with clinal differences similar to the wolf/dog-coyote-fox split.

Anyway, I have everyone as white EXCEPT

Unsure - cubans, puerto ricans (simply becasue of the split demographic and mixed pop)

Not-white - congolese, japanese, kenyans, nigerians, vietnamese

From what I understand, all of the other countries have majority white populations. Perceptions such as "only northern europeans are white" are incorrect.

[seireikhaan]

https://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x246/greaterkhaan/racequestions.jpg

[Strike For The South]

Race is not a false construct. It only seems like that because of our profound inter-relationship over the past few thousand years (most notably the last few hundred). Humans used to have a much more distinct seperation than we do now and it shows in our vast physical differences. Fortunately as populations get bigger to the extent that the human race has, villages begin to push into one another, and another, and another, etc.

I maintain that if we were any other species with a more natural growth pattern that we would have seperated into different species over the next few thousand or million years with clinal differences similar to the wolf/dog-coyote-fox split.

Anyway, I have everyone as white EXCEPT

Unsure - cubans, puerto ricans (simply becasue of the split demographic and mixed pop)

Not-white - congolese, japanese, kenyans, nigerians, vietnamese

From what I understand, all of the other countries have majority white populations. Perceptions such as "only northern europeans are white" are incorrect.

Prove to me that Israelis are white other than some arbitrary definition? I consider jewish to be a separate race category from white. Much more akin to arab than say German.

[ICantSpellDawg]

pic


You take afro-asiatic to mean not-white. I view the Sahara seperation as the fundamental divide between white and black (with coastal exceptions). I view the eastern turkic peoples and the traditionally northern indians (since india and pakistan split there has been a more major ethnic mix) as hybrids between white-east asian and white-south asian respectively.

I beleive that mediteranean peoples have been too closely related for too long to not be considered white. Blacks are largely distinct in africa except on the Northeastern coast.

Strike - 50-50 is an even split - Modern Israelis have been so totally mixed into European populations over the past 1000 years that I think the split goes way further than 50-50 in favor of northern european. Most Israelis are from Ashkenazi backgrounds, right? I don't see how they are any less white than Greeks and southern Italians.

North Africans are White. Arabs swept in and mixed with Berber (white) populations. Since arabs have always been iffy, mixing with berbers just made it glaringly obvious that they are white.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Unsure - cubans, puerto ricans (simply becasue of the split demographic and mixed pop)


For this reason I also went "unsure" on Albanians and Israelis. Other than that I essentially took the obvious answers. The statistics of how people chose "white" were interesting. How on earth do so many people think Belgians aren't white? Or that Congolese are?

Does it really matter anyway?

[Lemur]

On macs?
Oh, Macs are different. There are a bunch of ways to grab screenies in OS X, here's a menu (http://guides.macrumors.com/Taking_Screenshots_in_Mac_OS_X).

[ICantSpellDawg]

For this reason I also went "unsure" on Albanians and Israelis. Other than that I essentially took the obvious answers. The statistics of how people chose "white" were interesting. How on earth do so many people think Belgians aren't white? Or that Congolese are?

Does it really matter anyway?

I take western turks as white. They are a mixed indo-european/central asian people with the scale tipping heavily towards white. Maybe the Seljuk turks were more central asian, but since central asian itself is a mix between east asian and indo-aryan, moving into an obviously indo european region with no sign of white exodus leads me to beleive that they didn't leave, but were taken into turkish culture. Turks think that they are all central asian, but evidence points away from that.

Albanians are a blatantly European ethnic group that has been on the dalmatian coast for a very long time. The islamic beliefs are largely due to conversion rather than turkish replacement.

[HoreTore]

Are we going to have a discussion on racial theory? Seriously?

Anyway, for the answer to this discussion, take a quick walk over to the stormfront forums. If you can weed out the jew-hating, they've got some solid, well-thought out theories about who are white and who are less worthy.

If only anyone with half a brain cared about such things....

[Samurai Waki]

Besides it wasn't like the Turks just swept into Anatolia and pushed out/killed everyone. The Conquest of Anatolia took three hundred years, because they would occupy a city/province and then assimilate and convert the people.

Actually the Janissary Corps (I think most of us know this) were composed of men from predominately "white byzantine" families that were converted and pressed into service.

Whereas the Sipahi were the more classic Turkic Nobility with less intermixing. Obviously the distinction becomes less clear as time went on.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Are we going to have a discussion on racial theory? Seriously?

Anyway, for the answer to this discussion, take a quick walk over to the stormfront forums. If you can weed out the jew-hating, they've got some solid, well-thought out theories about who are white and who are less worthy.

If only anyone with half a brain cared about such things....


Way to de-elevate the discussion. Who is jew-baiting here? I'm sayign that they are white in every way. Racial theory is more legitimate than people make it seem today and WAY less legitimate than people have made it seem in the past.

[HoreTore]

Who is jew-baiting here?

The nice folks over at the stormfront forums. Which is what I said; if you want the answer for "who is white", take a walk over to their forum, ignore the jew-hating posts, and you'll find your answer.

I could post links, but that would likely get me banned. A good thing too, IMO...

[ICantSpellDawg]

The nice folks over at the stormfront forums. Which is what I said; if you want the answer for "who is white", take a walk over to their forum, ignore the jew-hating posts, and you'll find your answer.

I could post links, but that would likely get me banned. A good thing too, IMO...

But I said "who is doing it here?"

If you talk about ethnicity or race in any real way, somebody is bound to run around screaming "racist nazi" just because that is their cue. You could have posted why you beleive there is no such thing as race.

[HoreTore]

But I said "who is doing it here?"

No-one?


You could have posted why you beleive there is no such thing as race.

Should I post why I believe there are no purple dragons with giant toothpicks under my bed at the same time?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Are we going to have a discussion on racial theory? Seriously?

Anyway, for the answer to this discussion, take a quick walk over to the stormfront forums. If you can weed out the jew-hating, they've got some solid, well-thought out theories about who are white and who are less worthy.

I think people here would rather have a normal, rational discussion on the concept of race rather than viewing a disgusting orgy of supremacism and hatred. Stormfront makes me want to vomit.

[Strike For The South]

My whole point is race is just a set of lines that change over history to fit the time.

I am in no way advocating white supremacy or any sort of White is right mentality. The fact that I even have to say is kind of frustrating. I link to a site which is probably the bastion of "WE ARE ALL ONEEEEE" and we are talking about Stormfront. Frustrating.

My Pic (thanks Lemur)

[HoreTore]

I think people here would rather have a normal, rational discussion on the concept of race rather than viewing a disgusting orgy of supremacism and hatred. Stormfront makes me want to vomit.

Yeah, add "supremacism" and "hatred" to the list of things to weed out.

But why vomit? I find them rather adorable. They're so paranoid it makes them cute in my eyes. As an added bonus, that paranoia also makes them experts on racial theory, and they've got some rather long discussions on who is white and who is not. I doubt there are anyone here(I hope) who've given that subject more thought than them, so I would consider them quite the experts on this (non)issue.

And I'm still pretty sure there are no purple dragons with giant toothpicks under my bed. Going to check if there are any purple dragons with small toothpicks now...

EDIT: Sorry for spoiling your fun, SFTS, it's just that I hate this subject and I agree completely with you(which is why we use "ethnicity" on humans). And I do love stormfront(especially the dating forum)...

[Spino]

Prove to me that Israelis are white other than some arbitrary definition? I consider jewish to be a separate race category from white. Much more akin to arab than say German.

Well common genes is a good place to start. If Israelis are not white then neither are Greeks, Italians, Spaniards, Maltese, Romanians, etc. Technically many of the ethnic groups dominant in ancient Mediterranean cultures would not pass your white litmus test. If we go purely by the artwork left behind by the Minoans, Myceneans, native Iberians, native Sicilians, etc. then it's painfully obvious they were predominantly 'swarthy' folks like Jews & other Semitic people (i.e. Syrians, Phoenicians, etc.). As the Jewish people migrated throughout the Middle East and Europe they naturally intermarried with the locals. I've lost track of how many cute Jewish girls I've run into who could easily pass for Irish (Celto-Germanic features); fair complexions, red or ginger hair, green eyes, freckles. Then there are those Russian Jews who look more like your typical Russian with Rus & Slavic roots (blonde hair, blue eyes, pseudo-Nordic facial features) than Semitic ones.

I'm not sure if the various Berber people (Amazighen or Imazighen) of North Africa consider themselves to be white but rather their own distinct racial group, especially considering their ancestors were originally from the Middle East. The situation is further complicated by the varying degrees of intermarriage between them and other major ethnic groups that have called N. Africa home for the the last several thousand years. For example take the Kabyle people of Algeria (Zinedine Zidanedine being their most celebrated son), a group that has very little in the way of Sub-Saharan African genes. Now contrast the Kabyles to the Tuaregs, a Berber people who possess a considerable amount of Sub-Saharan genes. No surprise that these groups are distinct and unlike in appearance.

Then there's the sticky situation of historical perspective. Some ancient Arab historians considered Arabs (and similar ethnic groups) to be 'white' people with Indians and Sub-Saharan Africans as being 'black' people. I must assume their racial definition of 'white' quickly changed when they came into greater contact with northern Europeans.

Then there's the even stickier situation when nationalities of mixed population groups (i.e. Cubans, Puerto Ricans, Turks, etc.) are neatly lumped into ethnic or racial categories that don't fit. I'm friends with Cubans who look like they're right off the boat from Spain and consider themselves to be 'white', some of whom can trace their family lines back to the motherland with nary a genetic hiccup or ethnic detour.

I agree with some of the key points Tuff has written here. Race is not a false construct, but it is a crude one and should not be primarily associated with skin color.

Why invoke the Stormfront ninnies in this thread? Things are rolling along in a civil and well mannered fashion so far.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Yeah, add "supremacism" and "hatred" to the list of things to weed out.


My point is that we can have a discussion on race without racism. You never should have brought Stormfront into the conversation. They are not experts on race, they are individuals who twist race to fit their own delusions.

[HoreTore]

My point is that we can have a discussion on race without racism. You never should have brought Stormfront into the conversation. They are not experts on race, they are individuals who twist race to fit their own delusions.

The term race is redundant in this age. That's why we use the term "ethnicity" now. Get with the times, EMFM ~;)

To expand on that: The reason we don't use the term race isn't because it's not pc. It's simply because it's not a good term. It's too broad, largely undefined and not very specific, and to top it all, it's prone to change. Ethnicity is simply a superior term.

[Husar]

I didn't have the spanish as white but the japanese I did, on hindsight I chose the Italians as white even though they aren't IMO. Generally I'm probably a racist. :sweatdrop:

[Incongruous]

The term race is redundant in this age. That's why we use the term "ethnicity" now. Get with the times, EMFM ~;)

To expand on that: The reason we don't use the term race isn't because it's not pc. It's simply because it's not a good term. It's too broad, largely undefined and not very specific, and to top it all, it's prone to change. Ethnicity is simply a superior term.

:laugh4:

Oh really, we use the term ethnicity, funny then when we talk about discrimination of certain groups by other certain groups we all seem to call it racism:inquisitive:

Ethnicity is a superior term for you, except when a black man is Sweden is beaten up and you blame it on the inherent racism of that nations police force. Funny how my Tamil friend lost all his family land due to his "race", I think you need to accept that race is a still a big part of our lives HoreTore.

Anyway, it has been interesting reading this thread, I had actually just put the Europeans down as white, since I just thought that anyone beyond the straights of Gibralta, the Turkish border or the Urals was not white. Before this rather shambolic attempt at hijacking was made, I was having my views pleasingly changed:2thumbsup:

[HoreTore]

:laugh4:

Oh really, we use the term ethnicity, funny then when we talk about discrimination of certain groups by other certain groups we all seem to call it racism:inquisitive:

Ethnicity is a superior term for you, except when a black man is Sweden is beaten up and you blame it on the inherent racism of that nations police force. Funny how my Tamil friend lost all his family land due to his "race", I think you need to accept that race is a still a big part of our lives HoreTore.

Anyway, it has been interesting reading this thread, I had actually just put the Europeans down as white, since I just thought that anyone beyond the straights of Gibralta, the Turkish border or the Urals was not white. Before this rather shambolic attempt at hijacking was made, I was having my views pleasingly changed:2thumbsup:

When did "our lives" follow what is scientifically correct? For that matter, when did "our lives" follow what is correct at all?

Race is a broad, misleading and generally wrong term to use. Ethnicity is right to the point, and very specific. Hence a far superior term. You have to debate whether a turk is white. There's no debating whether a turk is an ethnic turk.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I didn't have the spanish as white but the japanese I did, on hindsight I chose the Italians as white even though they aren't IMO. Generally I'm probably a racist. :sweatdrop:


That was one of the most confused things I've seen you write so far in all of my years on these forums :dizzy2:

No disrespect, I've written a few doozies myself

[Incongruous]

When did "our lives" follow what is scientifically correct? For that matter, when did "our lives" follow what is correct at all?

Race is a broad, misleading and generally wrong term to use. Ethnicity is right to the point, and very specific. Hence a far superior term. You have to debate whether a turk is white. There's no debating whether a turk is an ethnic turk.

:inquisitive:

HoreTore, you know what I am talking about, since you yourself are partial to the term racism, that it is evident that race still plays a large part in modern society and that it would be good if we could all once again talk about the subject without a) sending people to gas chamber and b) yelling loudly at those whom talk about it.

People here are getting frustrated that you jumped at the chance to exhale a sermon about white supremecy and racism, I think the fact that you did so, is rather telling of your world view.

[HoreTore]

:inquisitive:

HoreTore, you know what I am talking about, since you yourself are partial to the term racism, that it is evident that race still plays a large part in modern society and that it would be good if we could all once again talk about the subject without a) sending people to gas chamber and b) yelling loudly at those whom talk about it.

Yes, I use the term "racism" bceuase the term "ethnicitism" isn't as catchy. Or invented. But I don't just cry racism when someone of another race is discriminated, I also cry racism when someone of another ethnicity is discriminated.


People here are getting frustrated that you jumped at the chance to exhale a sermon about white supremecy and racism, I think the fact that you did so, is rather telling of your world view.

I most certainly did no such thing.

My argument is that race is a redundant term now that we have ethnicity. The very fact that you have to argue who belongs to what race proves that quite well. You don't have to argue at all when it comes to ethnicity.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Human evolution is very interesting - especially given the recent development of recorded history. You can see it come to life and view the current results of millions of years of growth when we are forced to discuss things like this.

The really interesting thing would be to ask non-whites who they would consider to be white. I'd bet that largely black communities would lump Mediterranean people into the same boat that I just did - that's a speculation though.




My argument is that race is a redundant term now that we have ethnicity. The very fact that you have to argue who belongs to what race proves that quite well. You don't have to argue at all when it comes to ethnicity.

Are you serious? It is a micro version of the same issue.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I most certainly did no such thing.

Sorry, but you did. You automatically tied the term race to racists, specifically white supremacists. The point is that you can have a discussion about race without being racist. A battleship is a ship, but a ship is not necessarily a battleship.

[HoreTore]

Sorry, but you did. You automatically tied the term race to racists, specifically white supremacists. The point is that you can have a discussion about race without being racist. A battleship is a ship, but a ship is not necessarily a battleship.

Uhm.... No, I did not. Did I call you or TuffStuff racists? I can't seem to recall that...

As for the stormfront cuties, I didn't bring them up because they're white supremacists, I brought them up because they have a bunch of long and rather well-thought out discussion on race. Believe it or not. You do have to weed out the jew-hating to make sense of it all though.

[Rhyfelwyr]

https://img15.imageshack.us/img15/7463/testresults.jpg (https://img15.imageshack.us/my.php?image=testresults.jpg)

[Jolt]

You take afro-asiatic to mean not-white. I view the Sahara seperation as the fundamental divide between white and black (with coastal exceptions). I view the eastern turkic peoples and the traditionally northern indians (since india and pakistan split there has been a more major ethnic mix) as hybrids between white-east asian and white-south asian respectively.

I beleive that mediteranean peoples have been too closely related for too long to not be considered white. Blacks are largely distinct in africa except on the Northeastern coast.

Strike - 50-50 is an even split - Modern Israelis have been so totally mixed into European populations over the past 1000 years that I think the split goes way further than 50-50 in favor of northern european. Most Israelis are from Ashkenazi backgrounds, right? I don't see how they are any less white than Greeks and southern Italians.

North Africans are White. Arabs swept in and mixed with Berber (white) populations. Since arabs have always been iffy, mixing with berbers just made it glaringly obvious that they are white.

My thoughts exactly. With the exception that I did put North Africans as non-white.

[Husar]

That was one of the most confused things I've seen you write so far in all of my years on these forums :dizzy2:

No disrespect, I've written a few doozies myself

~D

I'm not confused though, there was some scheme to what I wrote, but generally the test is pretty useless and it only exists to prove that it's useless so I thought it would be useless to lay out my thoughts in detailed form.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Having scanned the thread in its entirety, I see no point at which any patron had directly insulted another patron. Some of you seem, almost, to be hoping for such -- but I hope that I am simply mistaken.

Keep this discussion on the straight and narrow friends. I thank you.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Uhm.... No, I did not. Did I call you or TuffStuff racists? I can't seem to recall that...

Does that matter to my point...at all?

[Megas Methuselah]

https://img15.imageshack.us/img15/7463/testresults.jpg (https://img15.imageshack.us/my.php?image=testresults.jpg)

Why did you term Canada as being white? I thought you knew better than this, Rhyfelwyr.

[||Lz3||]

Why did you term Canada as being white?

There are many whites... then again there are many non-whites... in fact I think there are more non whites than whites... am I right?.

When I went to Vancouver, nearly all I could see was Asians...

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

There are many whites... then again there are many non-whites... in fact I think there are more non whites than whites... am I right?.

No. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_canada#Ethnicity) Non-whites are 16.2% of the population - Rhyfelwyr was quite correct to classify how he did.

[Vuk]

Race isn't a false construct, it is a scientificly tracable gene set. The assumptions we make about a person due to their race is what is false. You know, an black guy has dark skin, and if him and a black woman marry, their kids will have dark skin. A white guy has light skin, and if him and a white woman marry, their kids will have light skin. You can look at that and see that it is real. Race has to do with physical appearance though, not personal character. The mistake is attibuting personality traits to skin colour and other outwards appearances. You can have people of different races living in the same country, so you cannot say any country is white or not-white (unless it is Russia :beam:). :P The only importance race should ever have is in a medical classification (as knowledge that some diseases affect only some races can help in combating those diseases) to help treat patients of certain illnesses, and maybe in some instances in mating (ex: I am not attracted to blonde hair, dark skin, or blue eyes, I am attracted to full lips, curly hair, and brown eyes, etc). In the case of mating though I am not sure it even is very usefull, as the attractiveness of the person is measured by certain aspects of their features you find attractive, and these are not universal across races (ex, not all blacks have dark eyes or full lips, not all white have blonde hair and blue eyes (only in Hitler's mind :P).
My point is that it is a valid classification with limited usefullness, and (due to the fact that genes can be mixed...like in mutts like me) poor accuracy. That does not mean though that it is a harmful or false classification. Only when we attach our false assumptions about personality to race is there something wrong. Telling someone what is isn't is not gonna help them stop being a racist (cause they know blacks tend to have dark skin, etc), they will just think you delusional. (and testing their poor knowledge of the racial breakup of countries does not help either) What you should be combating is fact that dark skin or blonde hair defines anything more than physical appearance, because that is what is false and that is what is harmful.

Do you see what I mean?

[Fragony]

I had them all correct!

[rory_20_uk]

The only ones who are white are Albinos. They have no melanin in their skin due to a genetic defect.

Everyone else - and I mean everyone is on a sliding scale.

[Excuse the broad brush for simplicity's sake]

All Europeans are "White". Yet there's a massive difference between the top and the bottom.
Or are we Caucasians? Muscovites would probably argue they're not white at all...
Are there better sorts of white? Aryans for example?

Approaching things from the other way is no better.

You've got Black (a term of pride for Africans especially) and then a load of other terms: Coloured, Cape Coloured, Mulletto, half caste... These terms are often used by Black Africans to describe Caribbeans as a racial slur.

Even better are "Coconuts" - dark on the outside and white in the middle or "Bananas" yellow on the outside and white at the core. Two slurs I learnt at uni from fellow students who'se relatives thought they were in essence betraying their heritage.

And yes those children from the union of well, anyone.

Personally I think it's down to one's own personal views - how you see yourself. Americans often like to either Irish or Scottish. That's fine. Equally if someone wishes to see themselves as black or asian or a mix or even describe themselves as a mongrel, that's fine too.

For example, I perceive myself as English. I do not know if I am from Celt stock, or Nordic, Norman, Roman, or whatever other load of invaders / fugitives have come to these shores. But I couldn't care less as I am White English.

~:smoking:

[Rhyfelwyr]

Why did you term Canada as being white? I thought you knew better than this, Rhyfelwyr.

Because lots of my fellow Scotsmen took all your land basically. In fairness to them, it was that or starvation after the Highland landlords plummeted themselves into debt and kicked all their clansmen off the land for cheviot sheep. Tragic for the native Canadians, tragic for the common Highlanders, as usual the landed interests win.

[Incongruous]

Does that matter to my point...at all?

Indeed, HoreTore, no one ever accused you of having made that accusation, it is just that it was all going so well until racism was brought up, though to be fair I took your talk of Stormfront to be in spite and it was not, so I apologise.

[HoreTore]

Indeed, HoreTore, no one ever accused you of having made that accusation, it is just that it was all going so well until racism was brought up, though to be fair I took your talk of Stormfront to be in spite and it was not, so I apologise.

Gah!

Even racists are capable of being more than racists, you know. So the thing is, when I talked about stormfront, you thought I was pointing to racists? Well, if so, you're wrong. I brought them up because, believe it or not, they do have a lot of knowledge on genetics and ethnicity(or race, if you prefer). And as I said, if you weed out the jew-hating(and racism), they have a lot of info. I did not point to them because they're racists, that had nothing to do with it.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Gah!

Even racists are capable of being more than racists, you know. So the thing is, when I talked about stormfront, you thought I was pointing to racists? Well, if so, you're wrong. I brought them up because, believe it or not, they do have a lot of knowledge on genetics and ethnicity(or race, if you prefer). And as I said, if you weed out the jew-hating(and racism), they have a lot of info. I did not point to them because they're racists, that had nothing to do with it.

They have alot of knowledge about something that you don't beleive exists and, further, beleive that it is your obligation to ridicule as fantasy without backing it up with anything other than vague opinion?

You were clearly calling us stupid for talking about "make-believe" ideas. To further your emotional arguement you put us on a paralell with white supremecists in order to beleittle our discussion. You are backpeddling now because you see how ludicrous your arguement has been but can't save face in any other way.

Your contribution to this thread can be summed up as:
-Only racists are dumb enough to believe in concepts such as race.
-Something about pc semantics without substance (use of the word ethnicity vs race)
-Everyone in the thread has misunderstood me.

Thank's for attempting to hijack the thread.

[HoreTore]

They have alot of knowledge about something that you don't beleive exists and, further, beleive that it is your obligation to ridicule as fantasy without backing it up with anything other than vague opinion?

You were clearly calling us stupid for talking about "make-believe" ideas. To further your emotional arguement you put us on a paralell with white supremecists in order to beleittle our discussion. You are backpeddling now because you see how ludicrous your arguement has been but can't save face in any other way.

Your contribution to this thread can be summed up as:
-Only racists are dumb enough to believe in concepts such as race.
-Something about pc semantics without substance (use of the word ethnicity vs race)
-Everyone in the thread has misunderstood me.

Thank's for attempting to hijack the thread.

Wrong on just about every level.

I'll leave most of it alone(answering everything is likely to make me insane), so I'll just clear up this one:

My argument is that "race" is a bad term, not because its "make-believe", but because it's an inacurate term.

[Vuk]

I really do not want to Google it, because it will then be in my history, so dare I ask what Stormfront is?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Wrong on just about every level.

My argument is that "race" is a bad term, not because its "make-believe", but because it's an inacurate term.


Refer:




Are we going to have a discussion on racial theory? Seriously?

Anyway, for the answer to this discussion, take a quick walk over to the stormfront forums. If you can weed out the jew-hating, they've got some solid, well-thought out theories about who are white and who are less worthy.

If only anyone with half a brain cared about such things....






And I'm still pretty sure there are no purple dragons with giant toothpicks under my bed. Going to check if there are any purple dragons with small toothpicks now...

EDIT: Sorry for spoiling your fun, SFTS, it's just that I hate this subject and I agree completely with you(which is why we use "ethnicity" on humans). And I do love stormfront(especially the dating forum)...



Any comments? Try keeping your arguements consistent.

My arguement with you has been that you believe racial theory is make-beleive and that only people with "half-a-brain" would be interested in it. You then used used the people at Stormfront as an example of the kind of people who discuss such things, thereby linking everyone in this discussion with people at Stormfront unless we stopped discussing it.

Rational people who read your own words would come to no other conclusion.


Pwned


*PS-You must recognize that you made an error in associating this discussion with racial extremism. You are a rational person with good ideas and recognize when someone makes a mistake. I do things liek this all the time. Just please, don't pull an "un-named Irish contrarian" on us and perpetuate the mistake for numerous pages.

[seireikhaan]

Tuff- Here (http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html) is a long, but good article explaining how race is pretty uninvolved in human genetics. Excerpt from the first section:

The average proportion of nucleotide differences between a randomly chosen pair of humans (i.e., average nucleotide diversity, or http://www.nature.com/__chars/pi/black/med/base/glyph.gif) is consistently estimated to lie between 1 in 1,000 and 1 in 1,500 (refs. 9 (http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html#B9),10 (http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html#B10)). This proportion is low compared with those of many other species, from fruit flies to chimpanzees11, (http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html#B11)12 (http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html#B12), reflecting the recent origin of our species from a small founding population13 (http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html#B13). The http://www.nature.com/__chars/pi/black/med/base/glyph.gif value for Homo sapiens can be put into perspective by considering that humans differ from chimpanzees at only 1 in 100 nucleotides, on average14, (http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html#B14)15 (http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html#B15). Because there are approximately three billion nucleotide base pairs in the haploid human genome, each pair of humans differs, on average, by two to three million base pairs.

Of the 0.1% of DNA that varies among individuals, what proportion varies among main populations? Consider an apportionment of Old World populations into three continents (Africa, Asia and Europe), a grouping that corresponds to a common view of three of the 'major races'16, (http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html#B16)17 (http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html#B17). Approximately 85−90% of genetic variation is found within these continental groups, and only an additional 10−15% of variation is found between them18, (http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html#B18)19, (http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html#B19)20 (http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html#B20) (Table 1 (http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html#t1)). In other words, http://www.nature.com/__chars/math/special/sim/black/med/base/glyph.gif90% of total genetic variation would be found in a collection of individuals from a single continent, and only http://www.nature.com/__chars/math/special/sim/black/med/base/glyph.gif10% more variation would be found if the collection consisted of Europeans, Asians and Africans. The proportion of total genetic variation ascribed to differences between continental populations, called FST, is consistent, regardless of the type of autosomal loci examined (Table 1 (http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html#t1)). FST varies, however, depending on how the human population is divided. If four Old World populations (European, African, East Asian and Indian subcontinent) are examined instead of three, FST (estimated for 100 Alu element insertion polymorphisms) decreases from 14% to 10% (ref. 21 (http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html#B21)). These estimates of FST and http://www.nature.com/__chars/pi/black/med/base/glyph.gif tell us that humans vary only slightly at the DNA level and that only a small proportion of this variation separates continental populations.

[HoreTore]

Refer:

Any comments? Try keeping your arguements consistent.

My arguement with you has been that you believe racial theory is make-beleive and that only people with "half-a-brain" would be interested in it. You then used used the people at Stormfront as an example of the kind of people who discuss such things, thereby linking everyone in this discussion with people at Stormfront unless we stopped discussing it.

Rational people who read your own words would come to no other conclusion.


Pwned


*PS-You must recognize that you made an error in associating this discussion with racial extremism. You are a rational person with good ideas and recognize when someone makes a mistake. I do things liek this all the time. Just please, don't pull an "un-named Irish contrarian" on us and perpetuate the mistake for numerous pages.

I...I... I need to lay off the booze.

And remember which threads I'm being sarcastic in, and which threads I'm being serious in. I had completely forgotten about my first posts in this thread :clown:

[ICantSpellDawg]

I...I... I need to lay off the booze.

And remember which threads I'm being sarcastic in, and which threads I'm being serious in. I had completely forgotten about my first posts in this thread :clown:

Thanks!

I agree, we are all part of the same species and our differences are not all that extreme. In fact, my point is that centers of distinction are much harder to pinpoint now, since we've become so widespread and started intermingling. Race has begun to become less divisive after a period in which we seemed to be beggining to diverge.

Natural geographical barriers and a few million years did, however creat major superficial distinctions between people, but not all that many core differences. We are in the early process of undoing those distinctions.

Eventully most people will look like Latin Americans; A mix of Asiatic, caucasian, sub-saharan and south asian.

Whites will be a bit tanner, eyes a bit more almond, hair a bit more coarse.

Blacks will be lighter, hair straighter, features thinner, etc

Seemingly major changes can undo themselves really quickly. If you were to mate a Bull Mastiff with a Chihuahua (the mother would be the mastif) You would get something that looks like a generic "dog".

[rory_20_uk]

Tuff- Here (http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html) is a long, but good article explaining how race is pretty uninvolved in human genetics. Excerpt from the first section:

Yeah, but so many bits of DNA are to do with key things such as metabolising carbohydrates to create ATP and using oxygen all the stop and start codons, and the vast amount of "scaffolding" DNA that is crucial.

A better comparison would be to review the difference in expression of key genes that differentiate the species or even the races.

Colour takes one. Levels of melanin in the skin.
Hair follicles is probably not that many
And possibly a handful more for other key features.

If one compares gene expression for melanin between the races there is a massive difference.

Personally I still don't see the utility of this information.

~:smoking:

[seireikhaan]

Yeah, but so many bits of DNA are to do with key things such as metabolising carbohydrates to create ATP and using oxygen all the stop and start codons, and the vast amount of "scaffolding" DNA that is crucial.

A better comparison would be to review the difference in expression of key genes that differentiate the species or even the races.

Colour takes one. Levels of melanin in the skin.
Hair follicles is probably not that many
And possibly a handful more for other key features.

If one compares gene expression for melanin between the races there is a massive difference.

Personally I still don't see the utility of this information.

~:smoking:
Oh, sure there are differences between people. My point was that, in the broad scope of the human genome, what we classify as "racial" characteristics are of little consequence. Does race exist? Only if you want it.

[Incongruous]

Oh, sure there are differences between people. My point was that, in the broad scope of the human genome, what we classify as "racial" characteristics are of little consequence. Does race exist? Only if you want it.

Clearly people do want it, otherwise we would not have closed communities or anti-discrimination laws which inflame the differences, would we?

It is foolishness to disregard race as something which may be thrown off, if only we all saw the light of "reason".

[KarlXII]

All Europeans and Japanese as white. Went all Africans and Middle Easterners as not white. Was unsure on Albanians (Having not met one nor seen one, surprisingly), Israelis (Mix of European Jews and Arabs), Vietnamese (I don't see them as white or non white, confusing) and Puerto Ricans.

This did get me wondering, there is no right answer because there is no exclusively white people.

I do agree, though, that "race" is a very broad term. "Ethnicity" is more specific. You can be white, but you can be Swedish, French, American, hell, I know white missionaries born in Nigeria.

[Samurai Waki]

I want a dark robust tan, a thick mustache, and an Ice Cream Suit. Because when it all comes down to it, the ladies really don't care about race, they want tanned guys with Mustaches who can sport an Ice Cream Suit and not look bad.

[ICantSpellDawg]

All Europeans and Japanese as white. Went all Africans and Middle Easterners as not white. Was unsure on Albanians (Having not met one nor seen one, surprisingly), Israelis (Mix of European Jews and Arabs), Vietnamese (I don't see them as white or non white, confusing) and Puerto Ricans.

This did get me wondering, there is no right answer because there is no exclusively white people.

I do agree, though, that "race" is a very broad term. "Ethnicity" is more specific. You can be white, but you can be Swedish, French, American, hell, I know white missionaries born in Nigeria.

Those things that you've listed are Nationalities.

Ethnic groups denote log standing insularity that breeds different personality and ritual traits from those around the ethnic group. Race is an archaic term that describes a more serious difference in DNA. Sub species denotes a difference that leads to a difficulty conceiving between two individuals, due to DNA divergence, but more that is common than uncommon ( we havn't gotten close to that). Discernment is a human trait where we are able to find subtle differences even in those who are so alike.

The point is that evolution and speciation is one big clinal continuum. We are in the early stages of heterogeneity returning to more homogeneity.

I'm just saying that "extreme" differences have little bottle-neck areas where historically human contact was more difficult. Again, "extreme" only refers to the supereficial. The other differences are subtle. All of the differences without a long time apart don't mean much, other than to allow us to have this conversation.

[rasoforos]

I would actually like to stand on the social and not biological part of 'race'

It seems to me that people have voted based on 'social' categories, ignoring biological ones. This slightly hints to me that maybe we indeed are made to ignore race, thus using barriers as 'colour' mainly because they make it easier to push a social agenda.

Firstly I assume that most people who voted are 'westerners': <-- Just an assumption.

My arguments:

i) People voted based on Culture/Social criteria

People have voted 'western cultures' as white even though some are pretty much multicultural (i.e UK, Canada, Holland etc). On the other hand, predominantly white countries (let's arbitrarily define this as countries where an overwhelming percentage of the population would consider themselves 'white') like Albania get a much smaller percentage due to them culturaly being perceived as 'non quite western'.

ii) People voted based on 'Politics'

We will perceive as 'white' (and let's again arbitrarily define 'white' as being close to 'European' stock ***not something i believe in or accept, so please do not flame me***) as something that is closer to an ally. For example the Israelis who are a Semitic people are perceived as 'white' at a much greater percentage than the Iranians who are in essense much closer linguistically/genetically to Europeans that the Israelis are. Similarly, many Afghanis/Usbeks etc are blonde and blue eyed and you cannot tell them apart from lets say a blonde German but

To emphasise this point. Many Central Asians, especially Afghanis are white, with blonde or brown hair and coloured eyes. I think that if you show people 100 pictures of Afghanis with western clothes and fully shaved (to simulate our biased perspective of 'normal') and do not give away the country of origin, many Europeans and Americans will vote that an overwhelming percentage of them are 'white'. However if you ask people to vote whether Afghanis are 'white' (without showing pictures) you will get a much lower percentage.

I theorise that if, let's say in 50 years Iranians are the good guys and the Israelis are a totalitarian theocracy to our eyes (role reversal from the current popular perception of your average Joe), then the same poll would show many more 'white' Iranians and much less 'white' Israelis.


So, maybe we do not really consider race in a biological sense (which is good), but as westerners we still (unfortunatelly and quite subconsiously) embrace the idea of a 'white race' (as a social criterion).


Not sure whether I am making any sense...

[Sigurd]

https://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y230/asleka/whites.jpg

I guess there are no truly white... we are more or less all a hue of slight pinkish/beige/brownish depending on the season.
Besides aren't we all ethnic Africans anyway?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

https://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y230/asleka/whites.jpg

I guess there are no truly white... we are more or less all a hue of slight pinkish/beige/brownish depending on the season.
Besides aren't we all ethnic Africans anyway?

Oldavai Gorge = home.

[Vuk]

Snow

[Sheogorath]

Snow

Don't forget albino people.

[Vuk]

Don't forget albino people.

Would it be in very bad taste to make a very funny joke about that? :P

[Incongruous]

I would actually like to stand on the social and not biological part of 'race'

It seems to me that people have voted based on 'social' categories, ignoring biological ones. This slightly hints to me that maybe we indeed are made to ignore race, thus using barriers as 'colour' mainly because they make it easier to push a social agenda.

Firstly I assume that most people who voted are 'westerners': <-- Just an assumption.

My arguments:

i) People voted based on Culture/Social criteria

People have voted 'western cultures' as white even though some are pretty much multicultural (i.e UK, Canada, Holland etc). On the other hand, predominantly white countries (let's arbitrarily define this as countries where an overwhelming percentage of the population would consider themselves 'white') like Albania get a much smaller percentage due to them culturaly being perceived as 'non quite western'.

ii) People voted based on 'Politics'

We will perceive as 'white' (and let's again arbitrarily define 'white' as being close to 'European' stock ***not something i believe in or accept, so please do not flame me***) as something that is closer to an ally. For example the Israelis who are a Semitic people are perceived as 'white' at a much greater percentage than the Iranians who are in essense much closer linguistically/genetically to Europeans that the Israelis are. Similarly, many Afghanis/Usbeks etc are blonde and blue eyed and you cannot tell them apart from lets say a blonde German but

To emphasise this point. Many Central Asians, especially Afghanis are white, with blonde or brown hair and coloured eyes. I think that if you show people 100 pictures of Afghanis with western clothes and fully shaved (to simulate our biased perspective of 'normal') and do not give away the country of origin, many Europeans and Americans will vote that an overwhelming percentage of them are 'white'. However if you ask people to vote whether Afghanis are 'white' (without showing pictures) you will get a much lower percentage.

I theorise that if, let's say in 50 years Iranians are the good guys and the Israelis are a totalitarian theocracy to our eyes (role reversal from the current popular perception of your average Joe), then the same poll would show many more 'white' Iranians and much less 'white' Israelis.


So, maybe we do not really consider race in a biological sense (which is good), but as westerners we still (unfortunatelly and quite subconsiously) embrace the idea of a 'white race' (as a social criterion).


Not sure whether I am making any sense...

White is ajust another racial term for European, nothing more than that though I did find your post interesting.

Oh and the percentage of non-Europeans living in the UK is miniscule, it can hardly be called anything other than a European country by standards of race/ethnicity/culture.

[Big_John]

you white devils all look alike to me!

https://img15.imageshack.us/img15/571/sdgfsdg.jpg


fight the power!

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c8/Carlos-Smith.jpg


:curtain: