Israel's Plan for its Arab citizens

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Sorry for the newsflash, but race is a human intellectual construction. It doesn't have any scientific classification to back it up. There is more variation between individual humans than there is between specific "racial" groups. It's just culture and constructed identity. Heritage of our monkey past.

That's not exactly true, is it?

As the most obvious example, people in South Africa are much darker than people in Europe - there's no cross over between a Swede and a Zulu in terms of colouration, is there?

So, clearly, there's less variation between Zulus than there is between the Zulu and Swedish groups.

Whether these differences are more than superficial is another question.

[Montmorency]

He's talking about genetic variation, not pigmental variation.

[Beskar]

That's not exactly true, is it?

As the most obvious example, people in South Africa are much darker than people in Europe - there's no cross over between a Swede and a Zulu in terms of colouration, is there?

So, clearly, there's less variation between Zulus than there is between the Zulu and Swedish groups.

Whether these differences are more than superficial is another question.

You need to reframe your mind a little. I will put it this way.

Imagine a room full of people, you will end up with average size, colour, height, and all those factors. Now have one between your Zulu group and your Swedish group.

So now you got two groups of averages, there would be some variation (there always is, no matter grouping), but you would be looking at similar results, they would be around similar height, etc.

Now within those two groups, look at the extremes. So you have that thin tall lanky one who is really pale as he likes reading books, then on the otherside, you got the short fat, darker skinned one, who has genetical thyroid issues.

Now thing of these two extremes and the two averages. Which would be the most similar and which would be the most different?

You could argue some 'socio-genetical' factors (I might have invented that term), which people of certain areas tend to share some characteristic, this would be like how your family might have bigger noses than mine, but my family might be predispositioned to baldness, but this doesn't make us 'different races', as the variation is not significant enough compared to examples brought up such as 'dog breeds'. Pigment is basically "we are 'less brown' than those people over there who are 'more brown'" the categorisation is a little silly and completely out of date.

[Kadagar_AV]

Genealogy is important to them but its not race as you would think of it. As can be seen from the fact that people from white to brown to black are accepted in Israeli as Jews who inherit the 'promised land'.

If I understand it right, Israel really doesn't like their black community much, and even ran a secret program to sterilize black people...

I know quite a few Jews who most def don't see blacks as "real Jews".

[Hooahguy]

If I understand it right, Israel really doesn't like their black community much, and even ran a secret program to sterilize black people...

Absolutely true. Lots of racism when I was there. Even heard a special word for them which I shall not share.

Never heard the "not really Jews" thing though.

[Kadagar_AV]

Absolutely true. Lots of racism when I was there. Even heard a special word for them which I shall not share.

Never heard the "not really Jews" thing though.

Did you ask them?

From what I have experienced they see it as so natural that it doesn't need to be said.

[Rhyfelwyr]

If I understand it right, Israel really doesn't like their black community much, and even ran a secret program to sterilize black people...

I know quite a few Jews who most def don't see blacks as "real Jews".

I've heard of that but the attitudes of some Israelis don't change the fact that the Israeli state welcomes people from what we would consider to be different racial backgrounds.

Of course the Israeli state is hugely discriminatory, but I wouldn't call it racism in the way we understand it.

[Fragony]

Black jews are mostly from Ethiopia and they absolutily are discriminated, not proper jews.

[Viking]

He's talking about genetic variation, not pigmental variation.

The latter is a subgroup of the former.

Even when ignoring genes related to pigmentation, let me guess that geneticists could tell an ethnic Swede from an ethnic Zulu in > 95% of trials based on a handful of genes only.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You need to reframe your mind a little. I will put it this way.

Imagine a room full of people, you will end up with average size, colour, height, and all those factors. Now have one between your Zulu group and your Swedish group.

So now you got two groups of averages, there would be some variation (there always is, no matter grouping), but you would be looking at similar results, they would be around similar height, etc.

Now within those two groups, look at the extremes. So you have that thin tall lanky one who is really pale as he likes reading books, then on the otherside, you got the short fat, darker skinned one, who has genetical thyroid issues.

Now thing of these two extremes and the two averages. Which would be the most similar and which would be the most different?

You could argue some 'socio-genetical' factors (I might have invented that term), which people of certain areas tend to share some characteristic, this would be like how your family might have bigger noses than mine, but my family might be predispositioned to baldness, but this doesn't make us 'different races', as the variation is not significant enough compared to examples brought up such as 'dog breeds'. Pigment is basically "we are 'less brown' than those people over there who are 'more brown'" the categorisation is a little silly and completely out of date.

Let me put it this way -

If skin colour is rated 1-10 with 1 being pale and 10 being dark then the Swedes will average around a 3 while the Zulu's will average an 8. The darkest Swede will still be lighter than the lightest Zulu.

Or you could compare Irish and Border collies, both are breeds of collie working dogs but they're clearly differentiated and considered to be separate. Which is not to say they're all that different, but nobody would say that a pure-bred Irish and Border collie were the same breed.

I'm not arguing with the point, that all humans are one species, I'm saying that the argument doesn't really hold up.

[HoreTore]

I've heard of that but the attitudes of some Israelis don't change the fact that the Israeli state welcomes people from what we would consider to be different racial backgrounds.

Of course the Israeli state is hugely discriminatory, but I wouldn't call it racism in the way we understand it.

They have different policies for those they consider in-group and those they consider to be the other.

How is that not the definition of institutional racism? Do you have to go all Hitler to be worthy of the term?

[rvg]

How is that not the definition of institutional racism?

It's not racism because you can actually become a Jew. Don't get me wrong, it's a rotten system, but it's not racist.

[Kadagar_AV]

It's not racism because you can actually become a Jew. Don't get me wrong, it's a rotten system, but it's not racist.

Institutional racism isn't quite what you think it is...

See, these days extreme leftists LOVES to attach "racism" to stuff, even if it has nothing to do with races.



You don't like that Somali people cut off half the vagina and clitoris of girls? CULTURAL RACIST!!

You don't give immigrants the exact same rights as your own citizens? INSTITUTIONAL RACIST!!

You prefer to hire a guy who speak the language perfectly and are raised in your culture? SYSTEMATICAL RACIST!!

... The list goes on.

[Rhyfelwyr]

They have different policies for those they consider in-group and those they consider to be the other.

How is that not the definition of institutional racism? Do you have to go all Hitler to be worthy of the term?

The discrimination is based on ancient Jewish ideas about genealogy, not modern Western concepts of race.

From what I have gathered, the main hostility towards black Jewish groups is not based on the idea that blacks are inferior, but rather a suspicion that these black Jews are not really of Israelite descent.

I think this sort of discrimination based on complex and historical genealogy is a sort of grey area between racism and a basic acknowledgement of family realities. After all, even we in the enlightened West choose whether or not to give citizenship based on more direct genealogy - usually, a child is granted citizenship if one or more of his parents are already citizens, regardless of whether the child is resident in the country at the time. What the Israeli state does is closer to this than racism I would say.

[Kadagar_AV]

The discrimination is based on ancient Jewish ideas about genealogy, not modern Western concepts of race.

From what I have gathered, the main hostility towards black Jewish groups is not based on the idea that blacks are inferior, but rather a suspicion that these black Jews are not really of Israelite descent.

I think this sort of discrimination based on complex and historical genealogy is a sort of grey area between racism and a basic acknowledgement of family realities. After all, even we in the enlightened West choose whether or not to give citizenship based on more direct genealogy - usually, a child is granted citizenship if one or more of his parents are already citizens, regardless of whether the child is resident in the country at the time. What the Israeli state does is closer to this than racism I would say.

So... Historical genealogy - sure...

But not RACISM...


Heck, even I don't deem blacks as generally inferior (they do however seem to excel in some areas and lack in others, just like any other racial and/or cultural group).

I just suspect that blacks are not really of Swedish descent, see, this is where it gets quirky for me to accept them <- Oh come on, be serious. If Israel didn't play "The Jew Card" they would TOTALLY be racist.

[Fragony]

The discrimination is based on ancient Jewish ideas about genealogy, not modern Western concepts of race.

From what I have gathered, the main hostility towards black Jewish groups is not based on the idea that blacks are inferior, but rather a suspicion that these black Jews are not really of Israelite descent.

I think this sort of discrimination based on complex and historical genealogy is a sort of grey area between racism and a basic acknowledgement of family realities. After all, even we in the enlightened West choose whether or not to give citizenship based on more direct genealogy - usually, a child is granted citizenship if one or more of his parents are already citizens, regardless of whether the child is resident in the country at the time. What the Israeli state does is closer to this than racism I would say.

Is there a difference between what a state does and the actual reality for those who live in it. Black jews are absolutily not treated as equals, they may have the same rights in theory but that is not how they are treated.

[Rhyfelwyr]

So... Historical genealogy - sure...

But not RACISM...

So if Kadagar Jr. gets Swedish citizenship because Mr. & Mrs. Kadagar are Swedish citizens, does that make the Swedish state racist?

As you can see, the lines between family and race are blurred, since race (or at least some concepts of it) is essentially a sort of wider family.

Jewish ideas on genealogy are like I said in a sort of grey area between direct family ties and a wider racial aspect.

Heck, even I don't deem blacks as generally inferior (they do however seem to excel in some areas and lack in others, just like any other racial and/or cultural group).

I just suspect that blacks are not really of Swedish descent, see, this is where it gets quirky for me to accept them <- Oh come on, be serious. If Israel didn't play "The Jew Card" they would TOTALLY be racist.

Israel's has justified their policies on genealogy, not race. You can surmise all you want about their real motivations, but given the depth of their Jewish heritage I'm willing to take what they say at face value.

Is there a difference between what a state does and the actual reality for those who live in it.

Indeed there is, which is why I am talking specifically about the former.

[Idaho]

Let me put it this way -

If skin colour is rated 1-10 with 1 being pale and 10 being dark then the Swedes will average around a 3 while the Zulu's will average an 8. The darkest Swede will still be lighter than the lightest Zulu.

Or you could compare Irish and Border collies, both are breeds of collie working dogs but they're clearly differentiated and considered to be separate. Which is not to say they're all that different, but nobody would say that a pure-bred Irish and Border collie were the same breed.

I'm not arguing with the point, that all humans are one species, I'm saying that the argument doesn't really hold up.

You are just describing visible phenotype variation, not genetic homogeneity.

Dogs are a poor/unfortunate example when it comes to phenotypes and visible traits. They have a uniquely plastic quality as a species, due to factors that are largely unknown. Cats would be a better example if you really had to go down that route.

Lets go back to the room of Swedes and Zulus again. Lets dramatically oversimplify and imagine they have a list of 1000 traits and genetic variables that can either be a or b. Of those variables, only, say, 25 affect the visible features of skin tone, hair type, face shape and eye colour, etc.

We would expect *some* homogeneity on those 25 traits, but even there we may still get cross over between the groups. Especially as the sample of Zulus and Swedes grows. We may also get some homogeneity on another 25-50 traits, and have another dozen traits here or there where there are novel patterns within subgroups of those groups.

But on the other 900 traits, we probably see no correlation at all, and couldn't predict who was in either group from those differences.

We are human, and from our evolutionary heritage are programmed to see visible difference, to identify "others", and to create mental and cultural groupings. This instinct is just an instinct. A pattern of social and cultural behaviour. It isn't borne out by anything scientific.

[Kadagar_AV]

You are just describing visible phenotype variation, not genetic homogeneity.

Dogs are a poor/unfortunate example when it comes to phenotypes and visible traits. They have a uniquely plastic quality as a species, due to factors that are largely unknown. Cats would be a better example if you really had to go down that route.

Lets go back to the room of Swedes and Zulus again. Lets dramatically oversimplify and imagine they have a list of 1000 traits and genetic variables that can either be a or b. Of those variables, only, say, 25 affect the visible features of skin tone, hair type, face shape and eye colour, etc.

We would expect *some* homogeneity on those 25 traits, but even there we may still get cross over between the groups. Especially as the sample of Zulus and Swedes grows. We may also get some homogeneity on another 25-50 traits, and have another dozen traits here or there where there are novel patterns within subgroups of those groups.

But on the other 900 traits, we probably see no correlation at all, and couldn't predict who was in either group from those differences.

We are human, and from our evolutionary heritage are programmed to see visible difference, to identify "others", and to create mental and cultural groupings. This instinct is just an instinct. A pattern of social and cultural behaviour. It isn't borne out by anything scientific.

OH MY GOD THIS IS STUPID.

Geez, I don't even know where to begin... Also, saturday eve and i already had some, so wrong time to debate.

I'll just deal with the stupid STUPID end, and deal with the rest later when I'm more sober.

We are human, and from our evolutionary heritage are programmed to see visible difference, to identify "others", and to create mental and cultural groupings. This instinct is just an instinct.

We are, from our evolutionary heritage that has lead us to being top predators and rocket scientists exploring space - and who is the sole race in the known universe to have reached sentience enough to fight against its own destruction in case of natural disasters - programmed to identify "others" yes. Mainly because these "others" can hold our evolution back, and we want to kill them or make them submissive... Heck, at the very minimum just make others shut up and do as they are told until they have an intelligent comeback answer.

And yes, this instinct is just an instinct. But wait... "JUST" an instinct? Instincts are what ****ing DRIVES us. It is what has made humans be humans. It is what has caused us to reach this mayhaps previously never reached level of sentience.

ARE YOU ON DRUGS!? If so they must be great.... Don't hog them bro...

A pattern of social and cultural behaviour. It isn't borne out by anything scientific.

Uuuuh... I would call millions and millions and millions and millions of years of evolution "scientific".

Also, here is a side of me that I think few people here understand about me... I will put it in bigger letters to make it clear also for future discussions.

I BELIEVE IN DIVERSITY

Not the diversity where every culture get all jumbled up together in every nation and create one sole human race, all being more or less the same, with the same views, with the same solutions to problems.



My Utopia is a world with different nations, peacefully cooperating and sharing ideas, individually testing things to see if it's fruitful, learning from each others, respecting each others...

Which of these systems do you believe produce the steepest learning curve? Which of these systems do you really think is best on a evolutionary scale?



And as a Big thumbs up to my dear USAnian friends...

YES, I am basically saying I want the world to work like the US, or EU... Where we all agree on some basic moral principles: Let's not kill each other or go over moral and decent lines to mess with each other, and let's help each others when someone is in great need. However, let's try NOT to all be the same, as that has never been a really good solution for solving problems that might arise...


PHEW....

Hope some of you get me

[Montmorency]

I like how you didn't actually address any aspect of the post.

[Fragony]

I like how you didn't actually address any aspect of the post.

He did

[HoreTore]

And yes, this instinct is just an instinct. But wait... "JUST" an instinct? Instincts are what ****ing DRIVES us. It is what has made humans be humans. It is what has caused us to reach this mayhaps previously never reached level of sentience.

Instant fail:

Humans do not have instincts.

[Idaho]

And yes, this instinct is just an instinct. But wait... "JUST" an instinct? Instincts are what ****ing DRIVES us. It is what has made humans be humans. It is what has caused us to reach this mayhaps previously never reached level of sentience.

Completely incorrect. Base instincts are from the reptilian brain - the amygdala. The social and more complex behavioural instincts come from the limbic system - the mammalian brain.

The distinctly human part of the brain is the frontal cortex - the memory and reasoning centre. THIS is what defines us as humans.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You are just describing visible phenotype variation, not genetic homogeneity.

I'm pointing out that our concept of race is based on those specific phenotypes.

Dogs are a poor/unfortunate example when it comes to phenotypes and visible traits. They have a uniquely plastic quality as a species, due to factors that are largely unknown. Cats would be a better example if you really had to go down that route.

Dogs have been forcibly bred, but there's enough evidence to show that humans can be selectively bred in the same way - the Hapsburgs were essentially a "special breed" whose selective intermarriage left them all with very distinctive facial traits - much in the way Pug dogs have been bred.

Lets go back to the room of Swedes and Zulus again. Lets dramatically oversimplify and imagine they have a list of 1000 traits and genetic variables that can either be a or b. Of those variables, only, say, 25 affect the visible features of skin tone, hair type, face shape and eye colour, etc.

We would expect *some* homogeneity on those 25 traits, but even there we may still get cross over between the groups. Especially as the sample of Zulus and Swedes grows. We may also get some homogeneity on another 25-50 traits, and have another dozen traits here or there where there are novel patterns within subgroups of those groups.

None of which changes the fact that you will get no blond Zulus until they inter-marry - which is my soul point.

The fact that the vast majority of genetic traits are shares between all humans is not news, but it doesn't change the fact that we have been selectively bred by our ancestors for certain reasons from natural selection to simple aesthetics.

We are human, and from our evolutionary heritage are programmed to see visible difference, to identify "others", and to create mental and cultural groupings. This instinct is just an instinct. A pattern of social and cultural behaviour. It isn't borne out by anything scientific.

Racism is an instinct?

I find that hard to believe, frankly, because the radical physical differences are relatively recent in our evolution - so late that we are all Homo Sapiens Sapiens. Even so, there are substantial as well as cosmetic differences, the African sicle cell adaptation is one excellent example and irrc the Australian aborigines have working apendixes and can see into the ultra-violet spectrum.

At the other end of the scale Europeans have a genetic immunity to HIV due to the successive waves of plague Europe experienced (this immunity is Northern Europe, Med and even in Arabia but not Southern Africa afaik).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CCR5

[Kadagar_AV]

Wrote stuff

You know I always love you and will hold your back if ever in a real clinch... But there are those days I set my love aside and go into praising you instead...

[Viking]

You are just describing visible phenotype variation, not genetic homogeneity.

Dogs are a poor/unfortunate example when it comes to phenotypes and visible traits. They have a uniquely plastic quality as a species, due to factors that are largely unknown. Cats would be a better example if you really had to go down that route.

Lets go back to the room of Swedes and Zulus again. Lets dramatically oversimplify and imagine they have a list of 1000 traits and genetic variables that can either be a or b. Of those variables, only, say, 25 affect the visible features of skin tone, hair type, face shape and eye colour, etc.

We would expect *some* homogeneity on those 25 traits, but even there we may still get cross over between the groups. Especially as the sample of Zulus and Swedes grows. We may also get some homogeneity on another 25-50 traits, and have another dozen traits here or there where there are novel patterns within subgroups of those groups.

But on the other 900 traits, we probably see no correlation at all, and couldn't predict who was in either group from those differences.

Do you have any decent sources for this?

Or more precisely this:

There is more variation between individual humans than there is between specific "racial" groups.

It's not just pigmentation that varies between different populations, so if the distinguishing factors of populations were only external physical traits (like colours), then these traits must somehow follow evolutionary rules very distinct from the rest of the genome.

[Furunculus]

Institutional racism isn't quite what you think it is...

See, these days [...] leftists LOVES to attach "racism" to stuff, even if it has nothing to do with races.

You don't like that Somali people cut off half the vagina and clitoris of girls? CULTURAL RACIST!!

You don't give immigrants the exact same rights as your own citizens? INSTITUTIONAL RACIST!!

You prefer to hire a guy who speak the language perfectly and are raised in your culture? SYSTEMATICAL RACIST!!

... The list goes on.

i tend to agree.

the cult of narcissistic hypersensitivity; where you believe you are on a moral crusade to speak out against anything that might offend your favoured 'victim' group.

it starts with taking bad words like "racism" and interpreting them so loosely that dictionary definitions become meaningless in order that they can stamp sanctioned disapproval against people who offend that favoured victim group.

[Fragony]

Wow Tel Aviv, the response of Hamas, they kinda make it hard for themselves, I am kinda angry and I say stupid things when I am angry, and I am totally aware of that so I'll just say nothing at all.What I don't say is not what I don't think though.

[Hax]

Fragony, what are you talking about? Please don't leave us in the dark, I'm not good at hermeunitics.

[Hooahguy]

A bunch of Israelis (around 10 I think?) got stabbed today on a bus in Tel-Aviv.