Home Politics & Debate
Come and join our Support Circle, every Tuesday, 8 - 9:30pm! Anyone is welcome to join. Sign up here
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

Define White

15791011

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    barkmoss wrote: »
    Blagsta,

    Well for one thing, I'd like you to answer the question already posed to you in post #138.

    "Meanings are not "just there". Meaning is something that is contingent on cultural, historical, social and economic context." ~Originally Posted by Blagsta

    "How do you know that?" ~Barkmoss

    Think about it. What is "meaning"? Everyone perceives the world in a different way, depending on their own experiences and temprement. How can anyone argue with that? Surely the fact that no one on this thread can actually agree what "race" means is fairly good proof of that. It has a different meaning to different people.

    I rolled my eyes when you first asked the question to indicate that I don't think its a question worth asking.

    Are you going to make a point now?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Interesting essay by Prof. JP Rushton -

    http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/TaxonomicConstruct.pdf
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Spliffie wrote: »


    Jesus, you don't believe that crap do you? Black people are better at sport due to genetics? Fuck sake spliffie, you rejoined the BNP?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Since 2002, Rushton has been the president of the Pioneer Fund, listed by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a hate group.[6] Tax records from 2000 show that his Charles Darwin Institute received $473,835 — 73% of that year's grants.[7] The Southern Poverty Law Center a civil rights organization critical of the research supported by the Pioneer Fund[8] writes that Rushton has spoken on eugenics several times at conferences of the American Renaissance magazine, in which he has also published a number of articles.[9] Anti-racist Searchlight Magazine described one these meetings as a "veritable 'who’s who' of American white supremacy" but also that Rushton's "imputation that on 'average' Asians might have a higher IQ than whites left more than one diner at our table with a bitter taste in the mouth after an otherwise pleasant meal."[10]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Philippe_Rushton
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote: »

    From the same page -
    Harvard biologist E.O. Wilson (one of the two co-founders of the r/K selection theory Rushton's cites) defends Rushton:

    I think Phil is an honest and capable researcher. The basic reasoning by Rushton is solid evolutionary reasoning; that is, it is logically sound. If he had seen some apparent geographic variation for a non-human species-a species of sparrow or sparrow hawk, for example-no one would have batted an eye.[4]

    Science journalist Peter Knudson stated:

    Despite the occasional media stereotype of Rushton as some sort of incompetent scientific adventurist, he has throughout most of his career as a psychologist been seen as a highly competent researcher. He has published more than 100 papers, most of them, particularly those dealing with altruism, in highly respectable journals.[5]

    Psychologist (and Pioneer Fund grantee) Hans Eysenck of the University of London said:

    Professor Rushton is widely known and respected for the unusual combination of rigour and originality in his work... (and commenting on Rushton's book Race, Evolution and Behavior) ... Few concerned with understanding the problems associated with race can afford to disregard this storehouse of well-integrated information which gives rise to a remarkable synthesis.[3]
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote: »
    Jesus, you don't believe that crap do you? Black people are better at sport due to genetics? Fuck sake spliffie, you rejoined the BNP?

    You don't think genetics play a part in black dominance of basketball, sprinting/running events etc?

    Whether or not Rushton's work is valid, I can't say, not being scientifically literate; so I suppose it's up to you to provide a critique.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Spliffie wrote: »
    You don't think genetics play a part in black dominance of basketball, sprinting/running events etc?

    No, I don't. No one takes that idea seriously, apart from racists.
    Spliffie wrote: »
    Whether or not Rushton's work is valid, I can't say, not being scientifically literate; so I suppose it's up to you to provide a critique.

    I think its enough to look at what his agenda is - it's a racist one.

    Joined the BNP again have you (or was it the NF you were in?)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote: »
    No, I don't. No one takes that idea seriously, apart from racists.



    I think its enough to look at what his agenda is - it's a racist one.

    Joined the BNP again have you (or was it the NF you were in?)

    Hardly surprising you resort to crying heresy instead of dismissing Rushton's work by means of reason.

    And no, I haven't joined the BNP, nor have I ever been a member of any political organisation.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Spliffie wrote: »
    Hardly surprising you resort to crying heresy instead of dismissing Rushton's work by means of reason.

    What are you talking about "heresy"? :confused: I have, however, pointed out his connections to racist hate groups.
    Spliffie wrote: »
    And no, I haven't joined the BNP, nor have I ever been a member of any political organisation.


    I'm sure you said a couple of years ago about your former involvement with the far right. Apologies if it wasn't you, but I'm 99% certain it was.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote: »
    What are you talking about "heresy"? :confused: I have, however, pointed out his connections to racist hate groups.

    What groups he associates with bears no reflection on the validity of his work. Considering you're a supporter of the IWCA, a group with connections to republican terrorism, that's somewhat hypocritical anyway.
    I'm sure you said a couple of years ago about your former involvement with the far right. Apologies if it wasn't you, but I'm 99% certain it was.

    I have never been involved with the far-right; I might have said my views were strongly right wing a few years back but that is all.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Spliffie wrote: »

    What groups he associates with bears no reflection on the validity of his work.

    You're having a laugh, right?

    Spliffie wrote: »
    Considering you're a supporter of the IWCA, a group with connections to republican terrorism, that's somewhat hypocritical anyway.

    Now I know you're having a laugh :D

    Spliffie wrote: »
    I have never been involved with the far-right; I might have said my views were strongly right wing a few years back but that is all.


    Your views appear to be strongly right wing now, too.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    What I am saying, is that what we commonly think of as "race" is a social construct. The concept of race has been around a lot longer than the concept of genes and DNA. What we mean by "race" is not the same as differences in DNA.
    Whoever this 'we' is, and whatever they think about race, is irrelevant to the question of whether we can do with mankind what we do with other species and assign the label 'race' to its subgroups.

    You keep on saying Blagsta that 'what we mean by race is not DNA', and I keep on having to point out that this is not really true. Practically everybody who uses the word 'race' positively is talking about the major subspecies of man - the big continental groupings. And their differences in DNA profiles and the range of ways we distinguished them before DNA testing became possible reach spectacularly congruent conclusions. We did not know 200 years ago that the source of the observable physical differences was written in code in strands of DNA, but it seems we didn't NEED to – DNA testing powerfully confirms the traditional groupings of secular and professional usage, and this falsifies your argument. Once again:
    http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1196372

    Genetic cluster analysis of the microsatellite markers produced four major clusters, which showed near-perfect correspondence with the four self-reported race/ethnicity categories. Of 3,636 subjects of varying race/ethnicity, only 5 (0.14%) showed genetic cluster membership different from their self-identified race/ethnicity.
    These 3000+ people were not chosen because they ''knew what race really means'' (unlike all the other idiots you think are walking around) - yet what they ''mean[t] by race'', to directly quote you, turned out to mean the very same thing as their ''differences in DNA''. Your confused 'we' is a very small portion of the population Blagsta. Just who are they?

    You are correct in saying the concept of race is more ancient than genetics – I have said so myself in this thread in referring to the ultimate authority for biological taxonomy:
    Carl Linnaeus is responsible for the way we organise nature's variety into classification groups, the 1758 edition of his System Naturae is the source of the system universally used, known as the Linnaean Hierarchy. In this Bible of taxonomy, Linnaeus himself classified Homo sapiens into four subspecies: europaeus, afer, asiaticus, and americanus. Was Linnaeus wrong not to treat his own species as exempt from the normal processes of evolution and classification? Generally only a subset of the religious right will answer yes!

    So Linnaeus is our rightful guide today - but recognising man's subspecies far predates the Enlightenment: Ancient Egyptian, Jewish, Christian and Islamic sources record what we would consider acknowledgment and discussion of racial differences.
    The question will always remain unanswered for it cannot be answered by the race-does-not-exist idealogues – why should we exclude modern man from the taxonomic system universally applied for all other species? Their agenda is political, not scientific, and having checked out Spliffie's claims about the biases of American Anthropological Association, I was staggered to find just how biased and political that organisation and its leading lights has been, and how frequently they have been found to have falsified the evidence of the research in their most famous books and studies. If I find the time I'll post some quotes from credible people like Daniel Dennett and Steven Pinker, who cannot be dismissed as opposition ideologues, describing the scientific frauds and abuses of Boas, Mead, Benedict and other prominent race-deniers such as Lewontin, Gould and Montagu that make the case conclusively. In fact, the accused don't even deny it.
    Blagsta wrote:
    When people talk about race, they are not talking about differences in DNA. People can't see differences in DNA. What people can see is visible differences. People then attach social, political, cultural and historical meanings to these visible differences. That is what's meant by race is socially constructed.
    I must say again – the 'race is a social construct' meme has been intended to convey and has been understood to assert that there is no valid biological basis for using the term race. I think we all know that, and I think you are being a little cute by pretending innocence that this is so. If, now that you know differently, you should wish to state your argument more honestly, you should phrase it: people have opinions of all kinds about different racial groups. - No shit!
    Blagsta wrote:
    Genetically I am mixed Celtic/Angle/Saxon… You seem rather confused. You're arguing here that race is a social construct ("to talk about the ?White race? is to use a political label").
    You may have been watching the C4 series 'Face of Britain' – the show's geneticist is able to tell the public participants just how Celtic as opposed to A/S they are. If agreement can made about who the Celts were - and who wasn't a Celt back in the day, so can it be for 'White' today, and just the same type of comparative analysis done to that end. Your apparent (or feigned) inability to understand that the various meanings of 'White' make the designation a political question today, but that it is perfectly possible to make it a purely scientific question tomorrow if the political answer was decided upon, is a problem for you, not for me. As I have said: Any taxonomy is ultimately a convenient but artificial way to parcel up the constantly evolving continuum of the genes of all life.
    Blagsta wrote:
    Do all scientists talk about race? Is there scientific consensus as to what race means?...
    Race has only ever had one scientific meaning, it has meant subspecies. Many scientists still use the specific term - race – others talk about 'population groups' and 'ethnic groups' to discuss the very same concepts which race has always stood for.

    It is a very curious position that you and others argue Blagsta - that because the word 'race' was adopted into broader non-scientific usage, and has been used to talk about families, or class groups, or cultures, sometimes for ill-conceived ends - then the scientific use of the word should be considered unsound and its usage withdrawn. I would think it more necessary to insist on a clear and scientific definition if I wanted to avoid undesirable socio-political outcomes, not to propose a strictly cultural view of the concept - UNLESS I was happy with the status quo and it was my faction, and my political agendas which dominated the contemporary discourse.... ahah!
    if there was a scientific thing for 'race' it'd be pointless as the variation of any given race would overlap almost entirely with other 'races' thus negating the point of the label its a social contruct
    Ask yourself how many families there are in London.

    The obvious problems - I'm sure you'll quickly notice them - are where to place the limits of each family; and of how many families is each Londoner a member; and where are the limits of London and London's families? And of course – most of the genes found in any one family are found in all families.

    Now tell me – are there valid reasons to conflate relatedness between parents and children, siblings, etc with the 'social construct' of family? If there are, your argument against race is shot to pieces.

    A confirmation of the aptness of the family/race association is the acknowledgement by the medical profession that because blood and tissue types tend to vary by race and transplants between people of the same race have better success rates, it is preferable to ensure donor and patient are the same race. It is also a fact that mixed-race children are often unable to receive donations from their own parents.

    I understand Rushton is married to an Asian woman, as is Chris Brand who was hounded out of Edinburgh for his IQ work. Some White supremacists they are!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Why do these people on post on threads relating to race or nationalism? Bit sus if you ask me.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yerascrote wrote: »
    Why do these people on post on threads relating to race or nationalism? Bit sus if you ask me.
    If people are doing what you suspect them of, presumably arguing for the interests of their own particular race or nation, why would that be wrong? Are you with JimV - identity and mobilisation is OK for some but not for others?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    XXXX wrote: »
    If people are doing what you suspect them of, presumably arguing for the interests of their own particular race or nation, why would that be wrong? Are you with JimV - identity and mobilisation is OK for some but not for others?

    I don't mind it, just curious as to why it's the only topic you lot seem to want to argue on.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Forgive me if I've misunderstood your point Blagsta, but I think I agree with you.

    Race is a biological fact (similar to the biological differences between sexes). But, I think the social construction factor comes into it with regards to the structural inequalities that are placed on top of race.

    For example, race was often cited by slave owners are fair justification for having slaves. Black men and women are often denied access to the upper echeleons of society due to race. Black children are often faced with massive educational inequalities because the school system is based on white education. I could go on.

    Essentially, while biologically (genetically) these races are different (as people have already pointed out), this should be no justification on how race works in the social world. The base genetic differences have no massive correlation with how someone should be perceived in the world. As someone has already said, that black men dominate the world of sport is (I believe) as much (if not more) to do with their upbringing and socialisation than it has to do with their genetics. In addition, if you look at this case, for black men in society sport is often one of the few ways they can progress socially due to the fact a bunch of doors are already closed to them (e.g. administrative posts) due to their race.

    I would say race is as much to do with society as it is with biology. To just focus on biology is just biological determinism.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    XXXX wrote: »
    arguing for the interests of their own particular race

    What an interesting turn of phrase.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote: »
    What is "meaning"? Everyone perceives the world in a different way...

    In other words, does objective reality exist or is reality ENTIRELY subjective?

    Obviously, reality is not ENTIRELY subjective. Thus, objective reality exists and therefore, objective meaning exists as well.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    "The moral of this little philosophical story, of course, is that one must beware of generalizations such as "Everything is relative", especially when they derive from a failure of comprehension. They can, and often do, lead to muddled thinking and even absurdity."

    ~Ray Bradley

    http://www.eequalsmcsquared.auckland.ac.nz/sites/emc2/tl/philosophy/is-everything-relative-including-truth.cfm
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Just for the record, how does this not make sense? It's almost like I'm reading the discussion I had on the social construction of gender in ShyBoy's thread a while ago....

    First, would you provide a link to ShyBoy's thread?

    Second, I do not understand your question; would you like to restate it?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Spliffie wrote: »

    It's a long essay, but there's a whole lot on the first page.

    Thanks for posting that informative link.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    As someone has already said, that black men dominate the world of sport is (I believe) as much (if not more) to do with their upbringing and socialisation than it has to do with their genetics. In addition, if you look at this case, for black men in society sport is often one of the few ways they can progress socially due to the fact a bunch of doors are already closed to them (e.g. administrative posts) due to their race.
    Exactly. You only have to look at the huge increase in non-black players from overseas in the NBA to know that the idea that it is genetically based (on a race-wide scale) is bullshit. In fact, since height is one of the most important factors in basketball, it would stand to reason that white Americans would have a slight advantage, since on average, they are 0.2 of an inch taller than black Americans. Basketball is dominated by black people for cultural reasons (in fact in recent years, the number of non-black people in the NBA seems to have gone up, yet they all happen to be foreign imports). In the same way, cricket in this country is dominated by white and asian players, despite the West Indies proving beyond doubt that black players have no "genetic disavantage" in producing world-class players. And black players make up 67% of the players in the NFL. Surely if this is based on a genetic advantage, we could expect to see similar figures in similar sports such as rugby? Yet we can probably count the number of famous black players on two hands. Entirely social reasons.

    Norwegians are good at skiing because they get a lot of snow. Australia are good at swimming because they spend a fortune on it. Romania are good at gymnastics, because they force their kids to practice over fire pits (so I hear). :p
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    barkmoss wrote: »
    First, would you provide a link to ShyBoy's thread?

    Second, I do not understand your question; would you like to restate it?

    No problem:link

    My question was that I don't understand how you can't get that race is a social construct as well.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    No problem:link

    My question was that I don't understand how you can can't get that race is a social construct as well.

    Where'd I say that?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think the problem with the term 'social construct' is misleading because it implies there is no scientific foundation for different races, it's merely a social thing invented in someones mind.

    Although to be controversial, it has been shown that during teenage years on average african / black males get more testosterone than caucasian / white males. Maybe that would contribute to sporting excellence. (saw a documentary about it, if people are unconvinced I can go hunting for smoe evidence, I'm sure I'll find some)

    Maybe it doesn't though. But why do men run consistently faster than women? Purely social? I admit in games / skill based sports like basketball where it is a lot about technique rather than natural talent and physical ability that theres no reason a white guy (or girl) if they practice enough can run rings around the other players.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    barkmoss wrote: »
    Where'd I say that?
    Barkmoss wrote:
    [Blagsta] said, "...the meanings people attach to the visible differences they perceive are socially constructed."

    How do you know they aren't just seeing what is there?

    And I also don't get why you can't see that meaning is socially constructed and heavily context dependant.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yeah, it's always the "nurture" side that argues "nature" is entirely meaningless; why the extreme position? It seems to be a pattern.

    Anyway, in an intelligent discussion, it's obvious that Northern Whites of English heritage are different from Southern Whites of English heritage. Still, that doesn't make being English meaningless, but that doesn't stop them from saying it, ad nauseam. :lol:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    My question was that I don't understand how you can can't get that race is a social construct as well.

    After re-reading this post there appears to be a fatal typo in it. Would you like to correct it and re-submit your question?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well, I would say I don't take an extreme position. Being an anthropologist of sorts, I would say both are important.

    And thanks for spotting that error. Fixed now :)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ...I would say both are important.

    I think that's what most people think.
Sign In or Register to comment.