What is racism?

Raskolnikov

Originally posted by dathi1
they apparently came from the caucus region of the Russian steppes but that's not even proven. what about the pre-Celts native to here before the euro Celt invasion? just a thought.

They'd be the Milesians, i don't know much about them other than the fact that they originated in North Africa apparently

DadaKopf

Originally posted by Raskolnikov
If you ask me Irish culture has already been almost totally eroded by American and British influence. The only culture we have left is commercialised bull**** like Guiness and lerperchuans.

I'm not sure this is entirely true. Irish culture has 'lost its way' insofar as the logic of the market (what bits of Irish culture can be marketed and profited from; eg. Temble Bar as 'cultural' quarter) has overtaken authentic authentic Irish culture which persists underneath all this commercial crap.

Irish culture has to be 'rescued' from commercialism. There are pockets of genuine creativity, culture and authenticity all over the place but we have to begin to see it as separate from the market. As something relevant to us all and self-sustaining. That means seeing Ireland in its past historical context and its present diversifying context, separate from its marketability. We should acknowledge the past but also embrace the present and visualise the future - where do we want to go as a society?

One example: some report or other emerged recently that said the Irish tourism industry may suffer due to immigration because tourists aren't seeing friendly Irish faces at hotel reception desks anymore. Instead they're seeing non-Irish migrants. The correct thing to do would be to ditch this Disneyworld image of Ireland and market Ireland for what it really is. We should concentrate on what's actually happening at the grassroots level.

Meh

Originally posted by dathi1
wrong again....black Americans, Hispanics etc would totally disagree with you.

Isn't there an entire black history month in the US? As well as Martin Luther King day being an official public holiday...

It already is: Our current Asylum Bill for 2002 will be in excess of Euro 450 million

Link to back this up please. In any case, you appear to be confusing asylum seekers with immigrants in general. The majority of immigrants into Ireland are not asylum seekers -- they are legal immigrants from countries like Brazil, or Eastern Europe and have been issued with work permits by the government. They outnumber asylum seekers two or three to one (source).

Soon to come: radio and Tv programming budgets for "special interest groups etc.i.e.: Islamic prayer before bedtime and the Islamic equivalent of the angelus//etc...Special "equality" laws (which are very discriminate against Irish citizens)...

Do you have anything to back this up, or are you pust pulling these statements out of thin air? Please link to an RTE statement that they are going to replace the Angelus with a Muslim call to prayer. Or a governemtn press release announcing new anti-Irish laws.

With a rate now of 8-10,000 illegal immigrants a year this bill will balloon in 2003.

As a matter of fact, asylum claims are on a downward trend -- they have fallen between 2000 and 2001 (the last years for which figures are available).

bonkey

OK - all of this legal/illegal immigrant thing has nothing to do with anything.

Any nation has a right to protect its well-being by placing a limit on the number of immigrants it allows into the country.

There are also practical reasons why limits must also be placed for asylum seekers.

However, once those limits are in place, deciding which immigrants or asylum seekers you will or will not accept based on their skin-colour is, quite honestly, racist.

Thus, the basic original premise of "keeping Ireland white" is racist.

Insisting the limit should be at 0 (i.e. a closed door policy) to protect our culture is nothing but rubbish. Ireland has never had a closed door policy, so there is no evidence whatsoever that our culture is under threat. As argued previously, our culture is already a hodge-podge of other people's cultures anyway. Also, as Raskolnikov alluded to, our culture is probably under more "attack" from international media then from immigration.

Finally, discussing illegal immigrants and/or illegal asylum seekers is a moot point. It has nothing to do with racism. These people are here illegally - they have broken the law, and this should not be tolerated.

Regardless of where our policy places limits (0 or 1,000,000 incoming per year), these people are still here illegally, and should still be held accountable for their illegal actions. Whether this means imprisonment, deportation, fines, or what, is a seperate issue, because again it has nothing to do with whether or not we legally allow people into the country, nor with what colour/race of people we allow in. An illegal entrant is an illegal entrant. This is non-discriminatory.

jc

p.s. dathi1.....

Switzerland:
works well under a democracy

Go figure - it can work.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Von

Originally posted by pro_gnostic_8
I am of the opinion that the achievements of Western European culture in Art, Literature, Science, etc., surpass those of Congolese or Romanian culture.

I ain't been to the Congo recently but I can tell you that Romania is steeped in history and cultural achievements. Are you some kind of authority on european art and literature? Or are you a shudderingly sub-literate ignoramous who's just using someone else's achievements to support a misguided belief in his own inherent superiority?

Irish art and culture has traditionally been about experimenting, sweeping away redundant conventions and creating new forms of expression in culture and in politics. It has nothing to do with rubbish like "racial allegiance" or infantile conservative nationalism.

Mr White

Posted by Dadakopf:

pride is not racism. Racism is more virulent and attempts to perpetuate that subjugation or, in other cases, reverse it.

Whether you're a racist depends on your race.Everyone is familiar with the dragging death of James Byrd in Texas some years ago,but has anyone heard about the Wichita Massacre,where 4 whites were sexually assaulted,robbed,and executed by 2 black brothers in 2000?Crimes like these are commonplace in America but because they don't fit the black victim dogma they are ignored by the liberal media.

According to crime statistics in the same country blacks are twice as likely as whites to commit 'hate' crimes.Again this isn't generally known because it contradicts orthodox political views.

Last week there was a story in the Irish Independent about a Nigerian in Limerick who was stopped for dangerous driving.Hardly a newsworthy event,you would think,but because his taxpayer-funded lawyer claimed he was stopped because of his race it made headlines.The implication is that blacks are to be treated with kid gloves,purely on the basis of their skin colour.This is a double standard familiar to anyone in a multiracial society.

Multicultural Ireland is a result of greater connectedness to other countries, cultures and economies because of modern technologies, telecommunications, economic globalisation, cheap and easy transport and the European Union.

If globalism leads to multiculturalism how do you explain Japan?Or any Asian country:they're all as globally oriented as Ireland,but don't go in for multicultural folly.That's something promoted by white elites,for some perverse reason.In 1930,30% of the world's population was of European ancestry,white.Today we are only 10%,and 10% can't assimilate 90%.

I agree that the EU is a factor.It has eroded our sense of sovereignty and conditioned us to believe it's normal to have large non-european enclaves in your country.At the same time,there are significant differences in asylum trends.Across Europe asylum seeker numbers have remained fairly constant since the early 1990s,indeed they've dropped sharply in Germany, France and Sweden.By contrast,applications in Ireland have risen steadily(2001 was slightly lower than 2000,but monthly figures released by the DOJ for this year show another increase).We had over 10,000 applications last year,compared to 200 for Portugal.Yes,200.Last year Ireland had more applications for asylum than Spain or Italy,countries with much larger populations.There must be limits to how many we accept.

If you take a look at UNHCR annual refugee statistics you'll notice a pattern:most people seek refuge in neighbouring countries.For instance,Afghanis go to Iran or Pakistan; Rwandans go to Tanzania or the former Zaire.You'll also see that host countries generally take refugees from compatible cultures.Saudi Arabia(rich North?) had 245,000 refugees in 2000,however 240,000 of these were Palestinians,ie,muslims.Can you imagine them taking 240,000 Hindus or Nigerian Christians?Of course not,because they care about compatibility,and Ireland should too.We should not accept refugees from Africa or Asia,and if the Geneva Convention says otherwise we should pull out of it(Article 44).

Respecting the rights of individuals and groups to enjoy their own culture is not just enshrined in the UN Convention on Human Rights, the UN Covenant of Civil and Political Rights and in European Law, it's enshrined in our own constitution. We all, as citizens have a duty to make welcome anyone who comes to this country to work, live or escape persecution. Added to that is the fact that cultures change, full stop.

Well the UN is a sham,given that the majority of it's members are dictatorships. As for the constitution,I'm not sure it says anything about foreign cultures being respected.The new Article 3 talks about uniting 'all the people who share the territory of the island..in all the diversity of their identities and traditions',but that is in the context of a united Ireland,and actually is an exaggerated way of saying 'both traditions'.

I don't welcome the 90%+ of asylum seekers who are frauds. Why should I?They're bleeding us dry.Also,as I've said,I think asylum should be conditional on compatibility.Race matters in this respect,whatever about PC dogma.It's just not meaningful to talk about assimilation of other races.

mike65

Read it and weep...the above is so partial and selective a view of planet Earth its not worth analysing.

Mike.

gandalf

Are you going to respond to this Mr.White or are you going to keep spouting propaganda.

Originally posted by gandalf
Ok Mr. White what exactly are you trying to protect here.

I want you to define what you mean by Irish Culture, what exactly are you trying to perserve. Go on then try and persued this liberal leftie why I should agree with your vision.

Define for me what a pure Irish person is ?

Define for me what Irish Culture is ?

Go on I challange you

Gandalf.

Personally I don't think you have a clue about this Irish Culture that your trying to protect. Prove me wrong.

Gandalf.

BuffyBot

Originally posted by mike65
Read it and weep...the above is so partial and selective a view of planet Earth its not worth analysing.

Mike.

Agreed - my god, talk about the selective picking of incidents out of a pool of interactions with a total number that boggles the mind.

Mr. White, your just posting a mish-mash collection of right-wing dogma no doubt collated from the wonderfully diverse offering that is the internet. There is nothing new here in what you say, nor anything of value.

pro_gnostic_8

Originally posted by Meh
There is no such thing as an Irish "race". You are claiming allegiance to something that doesn't exist -- a bit silly really...

If you could read the relevant sentence again, Meh, you will see that nowhere was the adjective "IRISH" associated with race. I assumed that by "my race" it would have been understood as "White Western European".

Yes, it does. Or, to be more accurate, it makes you a racial separatist

Maybe I should have used the word "socialise" rather than "associate". Whether or which....... do you associate with the wino's/down'n'outs sleeping in doorways? If not, does that make you a "Social Separatist"?

You're right, opposition to unrestricted immigration isn't racism. But scaremongering about a "black Ireland" is racism. There are plenty of black people in Ireland who aren't immigrants. Or would you like to see Paul McGrath, Phil Babb, Clinton Morrisson and Phil Lynott denied citizenship? Wow, the Justin Barrett brigade are really coming out of the woodwork in this thread...

Who said anything 'bout a "black Ireland"? And are you inferring that I want to see McGrath's, Babb's, et al citizenship revoked or summat?

pro_gnostic_8

Originally posted by Von
I ain't been to the Congo recently but I can tell you that Romania is steeped in history and cultural achievements. Are you some kind of authority on european art and literature?

No, I'm not, ............ but I'll bow to your self-proclaimed expertise on Romanian Art and history -- and furthermore , I'll say that Romanian culture is the epitome of cultural achievement if you want me to.

Point tho', since you appear to have missed it in my original post, is that I have f'all interest in Romanian, Albanian, Congolese or Yemeni culture, and I object to Government initiatives at taxpayers expense to interest me in this multiculturalism. I have no affinity for these people........... them and I share not any common language, history, heritage, or sense of place.

You can rubbish "infantile conservative nationalism" all you want but some of us do feel it a priority to assist our own disadvantaged people in the first instance.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Dear God, what tripe. Enough to bring me out of retirement for a bit I think. /Wave bonkey, gandalf, friends Now, to the codswallop I just read:

Originally posted by Mr White
Whether you're a racist depends on your race.Everyone is familiar with the dragging death of James Byrd in Texas some years ago,but has anyone heard about the Wichita Massacre,where 4 whites were sexually assaulted,robbed,and executed by 2 black brothers in 2000?Crimes like these are commonplace in America but because they don't fit the black victim dogma they are ignored by the liberal media.

Being both American, and a libretarian I can safely say you're full of sh1t. To the proverbial brim. The Wichita "massacre", if you read the god-damn case notes, was a retributive crime. In other words, an unlawful retaliation. Why is this worth mentioning you ask? Because my little gimpasaurus, 95% of all retributive crimes are committed by a white offender. Even with a 3% margin of error, that's pretty damning wouldn't you say? And puts the so-called massacre into perspective- as a freak occurence. As for the 'black victim dogma'- don't spout such gibberish k thx. Yes, blacks are more likely to commit crimes of passion, but they're also 13.5 times more likely to be randomly stopped and searched by police.

There's roughly a 580% greater chance of being assaulted by the police if you're black, roughly half that if you're Hispanic. There's an awfully ugly pattern here, and it points to police brutality driving a wedge of mistrust into minority communites. There's a historical precedent for this...think it was coincidence that Capone, Don Guissepe and Paul Castellano were of Italian descent? The Italian community from the early 20s onwards were horribly ostracized in the seaboard states. After a few decades of police oppression in many forms, they decided to go postal and take the crime world by storm. See a pattern here?

According to crime statistics in the same country blacks are twice as likely as whites to commit 'hate' crimes.Again this isn't generally known because it contradicts orthodox political views.

It's not generally known because that statistic in isolation means jack sh1t. It's like me saying that most shotgun deaths are caused by redneck hick farmers. There's probably a degree of truth to it, but the stat itself is bullcrap in isolation.

The implication is that blacks are to be treated with kid gloves,purely on the basis of their skin colour.This is a double standard familiar to anyone in a multiracial society.

Kid gloves? That's hilarious- most minorities are treated like sh1t and given a truckload of attitude by narrow-minded people much like yourself. Judging someone by the color of their skin is racist...is it really so hard to understand?

If globalism leads to multiculturalism how do you explain Japan?Or any Asian country:they're all as globally oriented as Ireland,but don't go in for multicultural folly.

Japan hasn't globalized dumbass, they've externalized. A fact they're dearly paying for now, their country's in a shambles both financially and economically. Their insular form of capitalism collapsed about 10 years ago- get with it.

As for other Asian countries...wtf are you talking about? I've traveled Asia extensively, outside 2-3 countries they're about as homogenous as the oatmeal I eat for breakfast. Most asian countries are a huge mish-mash of ethnic backgrounds, religions and cultures. To a far greater extent than most European countries, and that's to their advantage.

That's something promoted by white elites,for some perverse reason.In 1930,30% of the world's population was of European ancestry,white.Today we are only 10%,and 10% can't assimilate 90%.

Paranoid much? We're all human beings- if you can't abide someone because they look different from you or speak with a slightly odd accent, I suggest you return to your hick-populated neighborhood and stfu. The internet was supposed to globalize and integrate people who appreciated their differences, not fenced themselves in with them. If such things are so troublesome, the 21st century isn't for you.

We had over 10,000 applications last year,compared to 200 for Portugal.Yes,200.Last year Ireland had more applications for asylum than Spain or Italy,countries with much larger populations.There must be limits to how many we accept.

Immigration has limits, people who seek asylum should be treated on a bona fide basis. Some of the world's greatest and most influential minds were refugees. Think where we'd be if the US took your horribly narrow-minded approach towards Albert Einstein, Robert Oppenheimer, or if France did the same toward the Curies. Or is their immigration ok because they're white? I notice a horrible double-standard with your stance here. Racist is the only term I can find for it, suitably ironic since part of your goal was to try and define a racist stance. Take a good look in the mirror! Gimp.

If you take a look at UNHCR annual refugee statistics you'll notice a pattern:most people seek refuge in neighbouring countries.For instance,Afghanis go to Iran or Pakistan; Rwandans go to Tanzania or the former Zaire.You'll also see that host countries generally take refugees from compatible cultures.Saudi Arabia(rich North?) had 245,000 refugees in 2000,however 240,000 of these were Palestinians,ie,muslims.Can you imagine them taking 240,000 Hindus or Nigerian Christians?Of course not,because they care about compatibility,and Ireland should too.

Compatibility? No one's asking you to marry them assclown, just give them a fair hearing. When an entire region gets screwed over, many don't want to move from one sh1tstorm to another, they want security and a stable surrounding. If your government can provide that, then there's a moral call to do so within reason. Think of the humanitarian crises that would have hit Ireland if England or the US took that view after WWII when so many Irish refugees fled harsh economic conditions for greener pastures.

Well the UN is a sham,given that the majority of it's members are dictatorships. As for the constitution,I'm not sure it says anything about foreign cultures being respected.

More BS, perhaps a tenth of the UN are officially dictatorships or OPS's, and part of the purpose of the UN is to help engage these nations and encourage reform. And it's working- look at China for example.

I don't welcome the 90%+ of asylum seekers who are frauds. Why should I?They're bleeding us dry.Also,as I've said,I think asylum should be conditional on compatibility.Race matters in this respect,whatever about PC dogma.It's just not meaningful to talk about assimilation of other races.

Oh zip-a-dee-doo-dah, 90% of them frauds huh? Guess you've talked to a lot of asylum officers then...thought not. More than 70% of asylum seekers have a legitimate claim, less than 5% of those are given a fair hearing, and most are deported. Those that are left have to contend with bare-faced racism that you exhibit, or the insidious right-wing politik that preach unity of race/culture, when NO NATION on the planet has either. If race matters to you so much as I said, you're living in the wrong god-damn century. Go invent a time machine and park yourself in 19th century Europe with it's insular racist dogma, you'd fit in perfectly. "It's just not meaningful to talk about the assimilation of other races"-- if that statement isn't racist, I dunno wtf is. If these things dig as deep as seems the case, you're a lot more insecure than perhaps you realize. I hear electro-shock therapy works well. Fortunately, the prevalence of decent-minded human beings will eventually force such antiquated views quickly (and hopefully harmlessly) from the productive flow. Racism is as they say, a crime of ignorance- and it's a while since I've seen such an abundance of it on boards.ie.

I'm sure any response you'd care to scrape up will be equally racist, and any examples suitably shielded in a vacuum of precondition enough to cover your ass. So if you respond with more of the same I'm inclined to ignore you and do more useful things with my time, like bathing my goldfish or something.

Occy

Zombrex

Originally posted by pro_gnostic_8
If you could read the relevant sentence again, Meh, you will see that nowhere was the adjective "IRISH" associated with race. I assumed that by "my race" it would have been understood as "White Western European

For a start, there is no such thing as "race" ... modern biology has shown that there is not enought genetic difference between people around the world for the idea of race. We all originated from a hand full of people (1000 - 10,000) a few thousand years ago. So racism becomes even more of a stupid idea because the black man sitting beside you on the bus is built exactly the same as you and you are probably genetically related.

So we are left with culture. And last time I checked there wasn't really a unified "White Western European" culture. I have as much in common with a German as I do with a South African. So if you are saying you would rather sociallise with a French man than a Japanise man, could you please explain why?

Point tho', since you appear to have missed it in my original post, is that I have f'all interest in Romanian, Albanian, Congolese or Yemeni culture, and I object to Government initiatives at taxpayers expense to interest me in this multiculturalism. I have no affinity for these people........... them and I share not any common language, history, heritage, or sense of place.

You object to Government initiatives to interest you ... you mean like schools, the educational system, universitys? Sorry to burst your bubble, but no one cares if you are "interested" in Romanian history ... what, you think we should only let in people that interest you?? Does that work the same way round? Only Irish people with "interesting" lives will get J1 visas for the US, or be allowed move freely around Europe? You don't share a common language, history, heritage or sense of place (what?) with someone from Germany or Spain. But because they are the same "race" as you, you get on better with them?? Could you please explain what you are on about??

Von

Originally posted by pro_gnostic_8
...and furthermore , I'll say that Romanian culture is the epitome of cultural achievement if you want me to.

That won't be necessary but do at least look up the work of Eugen Ionescu. He should be right up your street.

bonkey

Originally posted by Mr White
Whether you're a racist depends on your race.

No, it doesnt. Regardless of how the popular media may treat issues, or the public in general, racism is not racially dependant.

If someone was spouting anti-white crap here, and was a self-admitted afro-American, I would give them no more and no less tolerance than I have given to anti-non-white advocates like you.

I dont care how the rest of the world treats racism. In here - in this forum - it is not the pervue of any given race, colour or creed. I, gandalf and Swiss will not accept any form of racism.

Also,as I've said,I think asylum should be conditional on compatibility.Race matters in this respect

Race matters in this respect.....to racists. To the rest of us, it is not an issue.

jc

p.s. Occy - great to see you back m8

bonkey

Originally posted by Wicknight
For a start, there is no such thing as "race" ... modern biology has shown that there is not enought genetic difference between people around the world for the idea of race.

Incorrect.

If you take the sporting world, you will find, for example, that there are very few, if any, successful black swimmers. Why? Simple - their physiology is sufficiently different to whites that their physique is simply not suited to the event. Their bone density differs in a small but significant way to whites.

While it is absolutely correct to claim that our genetic makeup is sufficiently identical to mean that we are a single species, this does not mean that there isnt sufficient differences for sub-genus differentiation. This, when applied to humans, is termed race. Whether you like it or not, or choose to agree with it or not, it exists.

However, unlike what supremacists and seperatists appear to believe, there is no distinguishable mental characteristics that I am aware of which have been attributed to racial traits. There are cultural and sociological differences, to be sure, but culture and race are very, very different things.

Mr. White wants Ireland kept White. Obviously he would have problems, therefore, with people like Paul McGrath, born and bred in Dublin, and about as non-white as you can get. However, culturally, Paul is as Irish as they come. Not only is he living proof that Mr White's distinction regarding colour or race is completely ridiculous, but he is also proof that race and culture are seperate entities.

We all originated from a hand full of people (1000 - 10,000) a few thousand years ago.

OK - you need to go and revise your history. Mankind has been around for a lot longer than "a few thousand years", and evolved from a previous species which didnt all happen at one instant, nor would that species have been entirely homogenised in the first place. Homo Sapiens has been around for about 400,000 years, but appears to have evolved from homo erectus, who in turn came from Homo habilis (we're about 2 million years back at this point) which is where it is believed that mankind's evolution "branched" from that of the apes.

2,000,000 years, in any evolutionary book, is more than enough time for genetic sub-species differentiation to occur. Its also a bit bigger than "a few thousand years ago". Of course youre a biblical fan and believe in Ussher's timescale, then yes, we are only a few thousand years old, but you have left your rational thought processes at the door and should go and retrieve them

So racism becomes even more of a stupid idea because the black man sitting beside you on the bus is built exactly the same as you and you are probably genetically related.

OK - no - he's not built the exact same as me. There are noticeable physical racial traits which distinguish us. Without wanting to point out the obvious...our skin colour for a start.

However, at a non-racial level, I am physically and intellectually different to every other human on the planet. So, while racial characteristics do serve to distinguish races, it has no bearing on the actual individual, because each individual is unique anyway.

These differences often allow us to visually seperate races, but this has no refelection on anything. You cant tell by looking at someone what their creed and culture is, what their intellectual beliefs are. Ultimately, to make a sociological distinction based on nothing more than physical traits is stupidity in the extreme.

Unless, of course, someone wants to claim that skin colour, bone density, average height, or anything else that is a racial characteristic is somehow important.

jc

Gordon

Originally posted by bonkey
Homo Sapiens have been around for about 400,000 years

Apparently, to be pedantic, we are actually "Homo Sapiens Sapiens". Anyway, carry on! (oh yea, good to see you again Bob!)

Zombrex

just to clear up a few things ....

1st - Race

From American Anthropological Association, 1998
"Human populations are not unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups. Evidence from the analysis of genetics (e.g., DNA) indicates that there is greater variation within racial groups than between them. These facts render any attempt to establish lines of division among biological populations both arbitrary and subjective."

From The Burke Museum
"Modern research has shown that human populations cannot be divided into clearly defined, biologically distinct groups. Skull measurements, for example, vary widely not only within communities but even during a person's lifetime."


Charles Keyes, Anthropologist, University of Washington, 1996
"Race does not exist. Racism does exist."

There is no such thing as "race" . A black man in Africa can be as genetically different to his neighbour as to an Irish person. People are different and adapt genetically to different environments, but races of people cannot be defined as once believed.


2nd - Common Ancestry

I am actually an atheist and have no "creationist" believes. I was referring to the study into common ancestry. It is believed that all humans living on earth descended from a handful (86,000) that lived about 100,000 years ago in Africa (sorry about the 10,000 years in my original post, that was a mistake).

Some believe that a catastrophic event (for example a super volcano) wiped out a large population of early man, leaving only the few thousand to re-populate the planet (though there is a lot less evidence for this catastrophic event).

It is also believed that all humans living on earth share a common ancestor, know as the Mitochondrial Eve, due to the process of tracing ancestry through the mitochondria DNA (different from normal DNA, changes less through generations).

Originally posted by bonkey
However, at a non-racial level, I am physically and intellectually different to every other human on the planet. So, while racial characteristics do serve to distinguish races, it has no bearing on the actual individual, because each individual is unique anyway.

You are half right. You are physically and intellectually different from everyone else. But so is everyone else. There is not enough common genetic make up between Africans and Europeans to classify them as races.

Basically what modern biology says is that a person is as different from everyone else as the next person, be they from Africa, Asia North America etc .

People such as Mr White, can define people on the grounds of skin colour, or other physical traits, but there is no scientific bases for grouping people into "races"

But unfortunately even though "race" does not exist, racism sure does, as Mr White has demonstrated. The point of my posts in this board is to show that distinguishing between people on the grounds of "race" is not only racist it is simply not based on fact. The only thing that exists is culture.

bonkey

Originally posted by Wicknight
People are different and adapt genetically to different environments, but races of people cannot be defined as once believed.

But the very definition of race is people from a common geographic location sharing common genetically-inherited traits.

In other words...when people adapt genetically to their environment enough to become in some way distinct from their "neighbours" in a different environment, you have race.

It matters not if their DNA is 99.999% common - the level of difference is only significant to claim seperate species or sub-species. By adapting genetically to their environment, they become a race.

It is also believed that all humans living on earth share a common ancestor, know as the Mitochondrial Eve, due to the process of tracing ancestry through the mitochondria DNA (different from normal DNA, changes less through generations).

Actually, thats not quite true.

Mitochondrial Eve does not show that we share a common ancsestor, but rather that of all of the women alive at that time, only one has successfully managed to maintain an unbroken line of mitochondrial descent.

How is this different. Because it is possible for a branch of maternal lineage to disappear if a generation does not generate any female offspring - they could be all male for example.

Thus, while it may be true to say that we can trace a single common ancestor from that time, the mathematics and logistics of it show that it is probable that we all share a common ancestry with many others who were alive at the time, but that their maternal mitochondrial lineages died out over time.

jc

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Originally posted by bonkey

It matters not if their DNA is 99.999% common - the level of difference is only significant to claim seperate species or sub-species. By adapting genetically to their environment, they become a race.

This statement is 150% accurate. Our DNA as it happens is 98.874% IDENTICAL to that of a chimpanzee. Perhaps moreso in the case of one particular poster on this thread, who shall remain nameless. How closely DNA structures resemble each other isn't the issue, how these genes are *expressed* and evolve in the context of different geographical environments is however. Jc is right, you won't see many black swimmers just like you won't see many white 100m runners. I think it was my dad, plain-spoken as he is who observed in a slightly ironic tone that the 100m race seems to be the American blacks vs. the British Blacks vs. the French blacks, vs. the Carribean blacks.

Thus, while it may be true to say that we can trace a single common ancestor from that time, the mathematics and logistics of it show that it is probable that we all share a common ancestry with many others who were alive at the time, but that their maternal mitochondrial lineages died out over time.

jc

Also 100% correct. Let's also not forget mutations, chromosome crossover, locus changes and helicase duplication errors, all of which lead to evolution of the human genome outside of environmental stimulus. How well those genes do is of course entirely dependent on the environment, and possibly on accessory gene expression. For example, a mutation that allows one to make insulin 400% more efficiently than anyone else will not be passed on if the accessory gene for pancreas embryology is critically flawed. The signal peptide might be incredibly efficient, but the actual production of insulin won't be possible(analogy would be a super efficient factory worker who has no factory to work in).

Gene diversity is nothing to be feared, but to be marveled at. I find it somewhat ironic that while there are over 50 sub-genus variations of field mice, they all seem to happily mate, play, and congregate together in relatively large communities. While human beings have obsessed over our differences for generations. It's this sort of attitude that in some ways, restricts our evolution as a species- opening and diversifying the gene pool without passion or prejudice is our best chance for survival, yet we blatantly don't pursue this course (except for an enlightened few). Food for thought certainly.

Occy

Zombrex

Okay, getting slightly off the topic of racism, but anyway ...

Originally posted by bonkey
But the very definition of race is people from a common geographic location sharing common genetically-inherited traits.

But "race" that definition is purely an unscientific observation of the most "obvious" (to us as people) physical traits of a person, and an assumption of where they are from. It is not scientific and ignores that fact that since the dawn of time there has been continual migration and cross breeding of people around the globe. By your definition of race, tall blond people living in Cork are a race apart from short blond people living in Spain.

Originally from the Guardian (extract from “Mapping Human History: Discovering the Past Through Our Genes” by Prof Steve Olson)
There are gene-frequency differences between populations in north and south Wales for instance, not generally regarded as separate "races", while we Ashekenazi Jews are genetically closer to our Polish Catholic neighbours than we are to Sephardi Jews

Would the people of North and South Wales be of different races?

Caucasoid, Mongoloid, and Negroid were the 3 races believed to exist on between the humans, in the 19th and early 20th century. People were put into these groups depending on skin colour, hair type and other traits. Basically in modern terms it is White, Asian (Yellow) and African (Black).

But there is no scientific basis for this idea of "race." The only possible scientific basis could be the genetic diversity of different people, and as my original post above stated, there is not enough diversity between what we would call the races, to define them scientifically. There is more genetic diversity with what you would call a race than between them.

Human have this need to group and classify everything they see, and so naturally we have applied the same to ourselves. I may be considered to belong to the "white race," but this is merely an observation of my skin colour. I could just as easily be considered part of the "black haired race" or the "tall people race". A dark skinned American is called "black" even if they have one white parent and one black parent. What race would they be classified as? Genetically he/she can't be classified as a race. There is no box they can be put into. By your definition of race are they belong to the North American, slightly dark skinned, race of people.

Originally posted by bonkey
By adapting genetically to their environment, they become a race

But everyone everywhere has adapted genetically to his or her environment. We choose the trait of black skin to define the black/African race. But that was just an observation of the most striking difference between the people of Middle and Southern Africa and Europeans. Within African there are many different environments which people have naturally adapted to, but we still consider them all to belong to the black race, because we chose skin colour as the definition of their race. The people of North Africa are not even that dark skinned. Are the people of North African and Southern African the same race or not? What race are they if they are not Black? The answer will not be found in there genes.

Originally posted by bonkey
If you take the sporting world, you will find, for example, that there are very few, if any, successful black swimmers. Why? Simple - their physiology is sufficiently different to whites that their physique is simply not suited to the event. Their bone density differs in a small but significant way to whites.

Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus
Jc is right, you won't see many black swimmers just like you won't see many white 100m runners.

Even if you ignore the social/economic reasons why this is the case (100 years ago you didn’t see many black 100m runners), it is irrelevant to the definition of a persons race. Black people are not good at running, some black people, from certain areas, are good at running. If you ignore the skin colour, it simply becomes “some people” from certain areas are good at running. People in certain areas of Africa may have adapted to fast running, and passed that on to the descendants. But this is an issue of a group of people adapting to their environment and passing on genetically traits to their descendants. People from some areas of Africa and their descendants, are good at running. It is not a trait that you can define a "black race" with. A white runner from England and a black runner from Nigeria probably have more genetic traits in common that the black runner would have with a slow small black man from South Africa.

To sum up once again (sigh) … there is no scientific or biological basis for the idea of “Race” … it is merely a (very flawed) system of classification people invented to put people in groups depending on a certain traits that are most noticeable to us as humans (mainly skin colour).

The Gopher

Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus



. There's a historical precedent for this...think it was coincidence that Capone, Don Guissepe and Paul Castellano were of Italian descent? The Italian community from the early 20s onwards were horribly ostracized in the seaboard states. After a few decades of police oppression in many forms, they decided to go postal and take the crime world by storm.

I agree with alot of what you said but contrary to your belief the Italians did not form the mafia because they were poor immigrants sick of having the hard time that greedy natives were giving them.The mafia was already around in Siciily and the rest of the south for hundreds of years before the large migrations began.Italians formed the first powerful mafia in New Orleans in the 1890s.It was made up of Italian immigrants who had been in it for the most part before leaving Italy.It was not something that was set up by the opressed sons of immigrants who wanted their slice of their native countrys wealth-it was formed by Italians and most of the lower soldiers were former teenage gang members and drug dealers-skangers in other words.The fact is it didnt take them a few decades to do this-they were doing it the second they arrived in the states.And if it is such a get out of the ghetto card for the poor how come there were a sizeable amount of members who were actually the types who grew up out in a mansion in Long Island,sons of mobsters from the hoods.Surely you cant say this about them can you?Castelenno and Gottis son ranked among these types.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Originally posted by Wicknight

Even if you ignore the social/economic reasons why this is the case (100 years ago you didn’t see many black 100m runners), it is irrelevant to the definition of a persons race. Black people are not good at running, some black people, from certain areas, are good at running. If you ignore the skin colour, it simply becomes “some people” from certain areas are good at running. People in certain areas of Africa may have adapted to fast running, and passed that on to the descendants. But this is an issue of a group of people adapting to their environment and passing on genetically traits to their descendants. People from some areas of Africa and their descendants, are good at running. It is not a trait that you can define a "black race" with. A white runner from England and a black runner from Nigeria probably have more genetic traits in common that the black runner would have with a slow small black man from South Africa.

First off, I'd dispute the assertion that there weren't many black 100m runners 100 years ago. Jesse Owens, Colin Farden, Marcus Deacon were all renowned atheletes in their day. I find it truly amazing they managed to overcome the stupendous boundaries of race in their times. If there wasn't a predominance of black sprinters back then it was due to political factors, institutionalized racism and nepotism that wracked sports that far back in the past. Medical studies have shown that sprinting potential is almost 90% genetically based. In other words, one's max threshold is very much based on how well quick-fire sarcoplasms metabolize sugars. And there is a far greater prevalence of this genetic makeup in black people, there's no denying that, it's in black and white and in more than one study. Also take a look at the other genetic factors concerned, such as height. Count all the centers in the NBA, I think you'll find the vast majority of them are black- that's for a reason. Height is strongly influenced by genetic factors, and the same comparison applies here.

To sum up once again (sigh) … there is no scientific or biological basis for the idea of “Race” … it is merely a (very flawed) system of classification people invented to put people in groups depending on a certain traits that are most noticeable to us as humans (mainly skin colour).

You couldn't be more wrong I'm afraid. There are very recognizable genetic boundaries that can be easily drawn between races. Observe how much more common sickle-cell anemia is in those of Afro-Carribean descent for example. This was an evolutionary trait that gained primacy because of its indisputable defence against malaria. Our genes define what we are, just as the breed of a dog is very much dictated by subtle gene expression. Facial bone structure, melanin content in dermal tissues, lung capacity, down to the efficiency of metabolism, a fundamental distinguishing factor BETWEEN species, never mind within a species. Granted on a *geological* scale only, these differences are probably insignificant. But then so would the existance of humanity itself. If you compressed the history of our planet into a single year, we as a defined modern species have existed for the last hour of December 31st. We're gnats on the dungheap geologically. Taking a reasonable historical scale there is no way of denying genetic boundaries that seperate races. I'm not saying believe the crap Charles Bell writes in The Bell Curve, but simply that as far as physical characteristics and potential goes, there's no doubt scientifically.



Gopher, perhaps I worded it poorly. I'm not suggesting these organizations FORMED via the route of poverty and oppression. I'm saying that's how they RECRUITED. The manner in which poor Italian immigrants were sucked into a life of crime by the dons strongly resembles the manner in which much of urban black youth in modern America takes the same route. Many of the areas in which crime is highest in New York for example (the Bronx, Harlem) are desperately poor and deprived areas, over a third of the people living in some districts sleep rough and go to bed hungry at night. Desperation sets in, backs to the wall, and crime will inevitably increase from these sources. The causes of crime are a lot harder to fight than the crime itself, a fact that keeps all our nations' penal systems waterlogged to this day.

bonkey

Originally posted by Wicknight
But "race" that definition is purely an unscientific observation of the most "obvious" (to us as people) physical traits of a person, and an assumption of where they are from. It is not scientific and ignores that fact that since the dawn of time there has been continual migration and cross breeding of people around the globe. By your definition of race, tall blond people living in Cork are a race apart from short blond people living in Spain.

Axtually, you're not only wrong, you're missing the point(s) I was making.

First of all, race is scientifically distinguishable. You yourself admitted that instead of "race", we had people genetically adapting to their immediate surroundings.

I argue that this exactly what defines race. Just as we have certain characteristics which are engendered from common environmental factors over large areas (most notably, skin colour), we also have more localised versions - such as Occy's example of sickle-cell anemia in malarial regions.

And yes, by my definition, the short blond Spanish and tall blond Corkonians would indeed be considered races, if it could be shown that their hair colour and/or height was a localised genetic adaption resulting in statistically common traits.

Its funny - the inescapable conclusion is that not only do disparate races exist, but they exist in such plentitude that the concept of racism is farcical.

Would the people of North and South Wales be of different races?

Again, if you can show genetic traits which are statistically common within each region, differing to those of their neighbours, then yes. However, I would be inclined to believe that you will not find such traits.

But there is no scientific basis for this idea of "race."

Yes there is. At the simplest reasoning, there is a scientific basis for explaining the skin-colour, which is a regionalised genetic trait. Note the words regionalised and genetic? That implies race, and no-one is going to tell me that skin-colour isnt genetic.

What is significant is that when we look more closely, we find that there are no clearly-defined "borders" between these three classical groups. There are races at the "intersections" which show that there is an impossible line to draw - when does black become white? However, this only shows that the broadest racial descriptions are incomplete, but this doesnt mean that such groups cannot be identified - just that these groups will not form 100% of the population.

I could just as easily be considered part of the "black haired race" or the "tall people race".

Of course you could...if you could show that these were regionalised genetic adaptions. In reality, they arent, which is why we dont have those races.

A dark skinned American is called "black" even if they have one white parent and one black parent. What race would they be classified as? Genetically he/she can't be classified as a race. There is no box they can be put into. By your definition of race are they belong to the North American, slightly dark skinned, race of people.

OK - you're still not listening, are you.

Race exists. This does not mean that everyone can be easily classified into a given set of races. No-one claimed that racial definitions were complete enough to classify everyone on the planet. No-one has ever claimed that.

No-one has ever claimed that the popular definition of race is correct - that the racist attitudes we encounter all too often are consistenly based on actual racial distinctions in the first place. They dont.

All we have claimed is that race exists.

Even if you ignore the social/economic reasons why this is the case (100 years ago you didn’t see many black 100m runners), it is irrelevant to the definition of a persons race.

Well, see, this is why I originally chose an example of swimming. Because it is scientifically proveable why blacks do not do well at swimming, and why it most categorically is a racially defineable trait, and not a socio-economic one.

The simple fact is that the physique of blacks is slightly but significantly different to whites. One of these areas is in bone density and distribution. Quite simply put, blacks do not make as good swimmers as whites because they are not structurally as suitable.

This has been modelled, explained, and accepted by the scientific community. You can choose to disregard it all you like, but it is a simple fact, which matches available evidence.

Now, this doesnt say that there cannot be a successful black swimmer. What is says is that statistically, there cannot and will not be as many successful black swimmers as whites.

A white runner from England and a black runner from Nigeria probably have more genetic traits in common that the black runner would have with a slow small black man from South Africa.

For the last time - IT IS NOT JUST ABOUT COMMONALITY.

Imagine that we had only one gene, which could have one of two values, dependant on temperature.

As man spread over the world, we would end up with groups in the North and South of the world having their gene with value A, and those closer to the equator having value B. At the intersections/borders, you would have a mix of both.

How many races do you have? I would say three. While those in the North and those in the South share a common genetic trait, they are regionally seperate.

Thus, even if the direct-descendant native of Britain and his counterpart in Nigeria share identical genes, they are still racially seperate, because you cannot define a single continuous racial territory linking them.

To sum up once again (sigh) … there is no scientific or biological basis for the idea of “Race” … it is merely a (very flawed) system of classification people invented to put people in groups depending on a certain traits that are most noticeable to us as humans (mainly skin colour).

Incorrect.

The "conventional" concepts of race are incorrect and incomplete in their definitions limits (white, black and asian or yellow), but this in no way means that race does not exist.

You can sigh all you like, but at the end of the day science is very much convinced in the existence of race.

What science disagrees with is the social horse manure which we get fed by some "enlightened" people as to what racial distinctiveness means or is about. You know - people who think that the existence of race means that racial purity must be maintained for some reason, or that differing races are not compatible. Rubbish like that.

jc

Zombrex

Okay, what is going on here is we have completely different ideas on what we each mean by the term "race"

You define "race" as any group of people who have genetical traits different than their neighbours. By this definition there are probably about ten thousand different "races" in the world, and probably about 10 or 20 different races in Ireland alone.

This is not what I mean when I say race, and I don't think it is what the wider population mean when they say race (especially when it comes to racism).

When I talk about race, I mean the idea that large groups of people (we are talking millions of people here, over large land masses) can be grouped together and call, for example, Caucasoid, or White.

As you would probably agree, it is not scientific to group people together like that. There is such a wide difference in genetic traits within these "races" that the picking the genetic traits to classify a race would be impossible.

bertiebowl

For me Racism is intolerance of others, principally based on perceived "differences" noted by the racist person themselves.

After the Nice referendum campaign and from what I've read here from some (a minority) of posters, I'm gonna join Amnesty International and campaign against racism.

My first target will be our so-called Minister for "Justice" who wants to throw out as many people as he can.

Regresive Democretin McDowell wants to start by ejecting some poor Kosovan family - not on says I - we have plenty of room in Ireland to help others in the world.

Meh

Originally posted by bertiebowl
My first target will be our so-called Minister for "Justice" who wants to throw out as many people as he can.

Regresive Democretin McDowell wants to start by ejecting some poor Kosovan family - not on says I - we have plenty of room in Ireland to help others in the world.

But McDowell isn't throwing people out based on skin colour. He's not deporting just Nigerians while allowing Eastern Europeans to stay. He's deporting everyone whose asylum application has failed. Hence, his policy isn't racist. In any case, allowing failed asylum seekers to stay in the country makes a mockery of the asylum system. It encourages economic migrants to falsely claim refugee status, and thus leads to real refugees being stigmatized as "fakers". Deportations are essential to the integrity of the asylum system.

I haven't heard of the case about the Kosovan family -- do you have a link to a news story?

Mr White

"Poles bomb Warsaw!";"Spielberg attacked by jew-eating octopus!";"They hate our freedom";"Bob the Unlucky Octopus is a reliable source of information":true of false?The last is definitely false judging by his mendacious post above.

The Wichita "massacre",if you read the god-damn case notes,was a retributive crime.In other words,an unlawful retaliation.

A specious argument,as anyone can see from the facts of the case.These were pre-meditated racist murders of unsuspecting strangers,which rightly led to guilty verdicts. Since their defence said nothing about 'retaliation' or 'retribution'(each brother blamed the other) your rationalization makes no sense.

Violent interracial crimes in America are committed almost exclusively by blacks,contrary to PC dogma which depicts them as victims in a 'racist' white society.The Wichita murders were not a 'freak occurence' as you claim,while the passive behaviour of the white victims shows how conditioned they were to their own demise.This is what one-sided diversity 'celebration' leads to.

When an entire region gets screwed over,many don't want to move from one sh1tstorm to another,they want security and a stable surrounding.

The fallacy here is that two countries-Nigeria and Romania-account for more than half of all asylum applications in Ireland.Yet neither is in a 'sh1tstorm',as you so gracelessly put it:both are democracies and Nigeria is an oil-exporter.In fact,so flimsy are their refugee credentials that the government is planning to exclude their nationals from consideration as asylum seekers.We have no moral obligation to frauds.

Oh zip-a-dee-doo-dah,90% of them frauds huh?Guess you've talked to a lot of asylum officers then...

A few,and they confirm official statistics.(How many have you talked to?)

thought not.More than 70% of asylum seekers have a legitimate claim,less than 5% of those are given a fair hearing,and most are deported

Wrong again,zippy.Less than 4% of applicants in 2001 qualified for asylum under Geneva Convention rules;58 sought judicial reviews of decisions,out of over 12,000 applications; while a grand total of 365 failed applicants were deported during the year,a fraction of those who should have been deported.You're clearly pulling figures from the air.

perhaps a tenth of the UN are officially dictatorships

Again,this is quite misleading.'Officially',China and N.Korea are people's democracies,but everyone knows they're communist dictatorships.Likewise,most of Sub-Saharan Africa is democratic in form only,and out of 60 muslim member states only 1,Turkey,is a democracy. As I said:"The UN is a sham,given that a majority of its members are dictator-ships".

Any more lies?

DiscoStu

the word facts used to link to a fox news story :rolleyes: