PC Debate: Your preferred term?

[crimresearch]

More apropos to nominate for 'Best Derailment of Anything That Could Lead to Positive Discourse on Racial Issues'...that was the intention wasn't it?

 

[Suddenly]

More apropos to nominate for 'Best Derailment of Anything That Could Lead to Positive Discourse on Racial Issues'...that was the intention wasn't it?

Yes. It is a big conspiracy to prevent positive discourse by commenting on someone's absurd (but now somewhat withdrawn) implication that mentioning a affinity for "fat chicks" is a slur on par with use of the word "ni**er." Not that I would even call it a derailment. That people have different sensitivity to different terms is right at the heart of the matter, and this was somewhat illustrated by the response to the term "fat chick" in the context it was used.

Remember the saying, "if it's too loud, you're too old?"

How about, "if it's too tangential, you're too anal?"

 

[DanishDynamite]

{sigh} It is part of the PBS program to debunk the notion of race. The quote is also on the PBS site but I figured you wouldn't be able to find it. You proved me right when you asked me to tell you where it is.

I can't begin to express how disappointed I am. I really thought much more of this from you. Did you really read it? I'll bullet the points but I get a feeling that you are going to ignore them.

No need to be so pesimistic.

[*]The presumption that there are a number of different races within the human species implies that there is a different genetic code for these separate races.

I thought so too, but strictly speaking this apparently isn't the case. Sub-species can be categorized just by behavoural differences alone. For example, the sub species known as the northern White Rhino and the southern White Rhino have no genetic differences (sorry, can't find a link) but they do have a few behavoural differences and they have been geographically seperated for 100's of thousands of years.

Still, for the sake of argument, I'm willing to accept your proposition.

[*]The degree to which the genetic makeup between individuals in different racial categories varies is 6%.

OK.

[*]Within any certain race there is the same degree of difference between individuals.

OK

[*]The development of varying skin pigmentation is not an influential enough of a difference to divide the human species into races.

Why?

[*]Skin color is merely a reaction to a dangerous environment. The same instances have been documented in immunity to diseases. A people who are endangered by a virus develop a way to survive.

And? Why is it relevant why a sub-species attains the characteristics that set it appart?

[*]It can also be argued that the geographical factors stated above are the same factors that have been responsible for the evolution of all species.

And? If anything, this would seem to undermine your case.

[*]Human beings started to expand out into the world about 25,000 years ago. This leaves little space for the evolution of separate species.

My understanding is that this happened at least 50, 000 years ago, if I recall the book "Guns, Germs and Steel" correctly. But nevermind. Whether 50,000 or 25,000 years, we are not looking at the development of new species, but seperate races.

This is just gainsaying. You do not address my information you simply dismiss it.

Because it is irrelevant.

• There are no traits, no characteristics, not even one gene that is present in all members of one so-called race and absent in another.
  
• The A, B, and O blood groups can be found in all the world's peoples (the percentage of Estonians and Papua New Guineans with A, B, and O blood are almost exactly identical).
  
• Skin color tends to correlate with the earth's geographic latitude not race; sub-Saharan Africans, the Dravidians and Tamils of southern Asia, and Melanesians from the Pacific all have very dark skin.

Of what relevance is the above? I'll repost something I posted in my very first post:

Humans clearly vary considerably – enough to make early scientists accept the view of Carolus Linnaeus that humans should be divided into several sub-species. By far the greater part of human genetic variation, however, occurs within "racial" groups and the variation between racial groups accounts for less than 10% of the total.² Nevertheless, although the difference between "races" is less than 10% of the difference within any particular "race", this does not in itself invalidate the suggestion that there might be different races of Homo sapiens sapiens. The rules of biological classification do not set any 'smallest allowable difference' between taxa: any distinct difference is sufficient.

However, a distinct difference is only one of the two conditions that must be satisfied before a different form can be classified as a sub-species or even a race; the second is the lack of significant gene flow between populations. In the case of human "races", there historically has been little or no gene flow between, for example, aboriginal Australians and black Africans, between Asians and Caucasian Europeans, or between native American Indians and Hispanics. As such, interbreeding, although theoretically possible, was rare.

In recent centuries there has been a significant change in this situation. People from one continent began to travel to others on a regular basis; today such travel is widespread. As such, interbreeding is not only possible but widespread. Give this change, the lines between races are fading, and perhaps totally removed, in some regions.

Please read it.

What do you mean "reasonably divided into races"?

I don't think that those who did divide humans were unreasonable.

I think that the information they had was incomplete 2 centuries ago and they were simply wrong.

Could you explain what today's standards are? Do you reject the findings or methodology of the human genome project?

By "reasonable" I mean what I said: By today's standards. Once again, please read the link I provided.

I'm really busy Danish. If you are joking I ask you to please stop. It's not funny. If you are not joking could you offer something more than gainsaying? Stating that my links prove nothing is not a valid form of argument. I have presented facts, premise, inference and conclusion. Could you have the decency to address those please?

We are all busy, RandFan. If you had bothered to read my link, you would not be asking all these questions.

 

[DanishDynamite]

1. Go to the home page.
   
2. On the left is a menu. One of the choices is "what is race?" Click on it.
   
3. On the lower left, running along the bottom are 10 bullets numbered 1 - 10. Click on number 2.[/list=1]

1. Read the 10 points. Kindly point out a point which is of any relevance.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Nothing at all? Really? Do you find this funny?

Please look at the 4th word. It is "6".

Please look at the 5th word. It is generations.

Now, put the two together and what do you have? That's right "6 generations"

What is the paragraph about? The adaptation of melanin due to changes in environment.

And what does the article say about this particular issue? It took 6 generations and environmental factors for the melanin in the hair of those who setled in and around Ireland to change so that red was a prominant color.

But according to you it doesn't say ANYTHING about 6 generations.

The link you provided, RandFan, was a thread on a message board, as far as I can see. So, according to someone called "not red", you are right on the money.

Please!

No that is not what I said. Here we go.

[*]Humans migrated from Africa and eventually ended up in the arctic.

OK.

[*]At some point the skin of those living in the arctic produced less melanin and their skin appeared white.

OK.

[*]Why? Did they mutate? No, they simply adapted (see Charles Darwin). Those living in the arctic still had the ability to produce melanin they just stopped producing it or they produced very little of it.

Yes, they mutated. Good grief, RandFan, have you no understanding of evolutionary theory at all?

A single individual may "adapt" to the degree that his gentic makeup allows this, but new borns with different properties are the result of mutations.

[*]Their offspring could re-adapt in a short period of time if the environment changed.

No idea what this means.

And how long would it take for the decendants to adapt to changes in environment if say they moved to sub-Saharan Africa? Drum roll please, 6 generations!

RandFan, I like you. I don't want to make a fool of you. Please go study a bit on evolution.

Please provide even one example in the history of the Earth where a species in nature mutated to a new species or to a sub-species in just 6 generations.

If you can do this, I suspect it would be a world sensation.

 

[Tmy]

Any of the terms will do. People tend to use the one that they are comfortable with.

I tend to stay away from "African-American" cause its kinda wordy and a bit corny. Person of color is too broad, I take it to mean someone who is non-white.

Black seems to be easiest to use. Espiecally in everyday speech.


It's also comical when someone I dont know calls me "bro" or "brother". It's like being trapped in an episode of Good Times.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Any of the terms will do. People tend to use the one that they are comfortable with.

I tend to stay away from "African-American" cause its kinda wordy and a bit corny. Person of color is too broad, I take it to mean someone who is non-white.

Black seems to be easiest to use. Espiecally in everyday speech.

I suppose you are right, speaking as an American and assuming you were speaking at home. But tell me, if you were visiting Kenya, would you still refer to the local citizens as "African-Americans"?

 

[crimresearch]

Yes. It is a big conspiracy to prevent positive discourse by commenting on someone's absurd (but now somewhat withdrawn) implication that mentioning a affinity for "fat chicks" is a slur on par with use of the word "ni**er." Not that I would even call it a derailment. That people have different sensitivity to different terms is right at the heart of the matter, and this was somewhat illustrated by the response to the term "fat chick" in the context it was used.

Remember the saying, "if it's too loud, you're too old?"

How about, "if it's too tangential, you're too anal?"

Is that anything like "If you talk back one more time boy, you're too uppity"?

 

[Tmy]

I suppose you are right, speaking as an American and assuming you were speaking at home. But tell me, if you were visiting Kenya, would you still refer to the local citizens as "African-Americans"?

I would call them Kenyans.

The thing with "african americans" and black culture in general is that it uniquely developed in the US because the blacks ties to the old countries were severed by slavery. Basically the blacks had to create their own from scratch. In a sense a new ethnic group was formed. Most american blacks dont even look like most african blacks. (theres been alot of race intergration over the years.)

THere are many blacks who do have ties to African or Carribbean countries who do not like to be called African Americans. Theyd rather be known as Jamacian-american or whatever.

 

[DanishDynamite]

I would call them Kenyans.

The thing with "african americans" and black culture in general is that it uniquely developed in the US because the blacks ties to the old countries were severed by slavery. Basically the blacks had to create their own from scratch. In a sense a new ethnic group was formed. Most american blacks dont even look like most african blacks. (theres been alot of race intergration over the years.)

Irregardless of how much non-black blood the average "black" American has, if you would read the original question of this thread, it asks the following:

have myself struggled with the question of how to refer to blacks politely. I tend to try to use whatever term is preferred by the person I'm speaking to, but I admit in my head what I think is "black" and it carries no positive or negative baggage with it.

Is that actually considered objectionable by members of that race? The current discussion of PC led me to decide that speculation can't compare to just asking, so, this poll that everyone can participate in--to find out what people here prefer if they are black, and what they tend to say if they're not...

The question is thus not limited to how US citizens would refer to "blacks" in their community.

THere are many blacks who do have ties to African or Carribbean countries who do not like to be called African Americans. Theyd rather be known as Jamacian-american or whatever.

No doubt.

 

[Tmy]

To answer the Qustion. I say go with "black". If someone doesnt like it Im sure theyll request that you use another term.

Women are really big with that. Some women will freak if you use a gender term like "hun" or "darling".

 

[toddjh]

Women are really big with that. Some women will freak if you use a gender term like "hun" or "darling".

I don't think I'd really like to be called "hun," either. But I think "darling" and related terms are offensive because they presume intimacy, not because they're gender-specific.

Jeremy

 

[DanishDynamite]

To answer the Qustion. I say go with "black". If someone doesnt like it Im sure theyll request that you use another term.

Wise move.

Personally, I use the Danish term "neger" which isn't generally associated with prejudice, stems from the Spanish "negro" and thus basically just means "black".

 

[RSLancastr]

What point is it that stands?

What is the problem?

For you, evidently, none at all. Which speaks volumes about you, and not in a good way.

 

[Suddenly]

Is that anything like "If you talk back one more time boy, you're too uppity"?

No.

My examples dealt with a reaction of personal dislike w/r/t an outside stimulus, implying that the reaction has to do more with the nature of the person reacting than with the stimulus.

Your example deals with an actual act, not a sense of personal dislike.

Then there is the inherent racial tone of the comment, which someone who is of an ethnic group culturally and historically associated with slavery in the United States may well find offensive if it were directed at them. I have no idea what, if anything, you were intending to imply by this aspect of your question so I will reserve comment.

 

[Suddenly]

For you, evidently, none at all. Which speaks volumes about you, and not in a good way.

Please specify. Can you at least do that or is this just a typical vague accusation often used by those unable to specify what is wrong?

Once we get away from the absurd contention that "fat chick" is equal to "◊◊◊◊◊◊," what is left of your point that is worth consideration? I asked what the point is that still stands, also supplying a more neutral and less colorful recap of the comment that started the whole mess. In return nothing but a vague insult. No restatement of this "point," nor is there a critique of the restatement. Just that since I don't understand the "point" you have in mind from the data you supply that you feel comfortable making a negative moral judgment about my character. Talk about offensive behaviour...

 

[Suddenly]

To answer the Qustion. I say go with "black". If someone doesnt like it Im sure theyll request that you use another term.

Women are really big with that. Some women will freak if you use a gender term like "hun" or "darling".

The correct term is "womyn," you depraved misoginist freak.


(for those unable to sense sarcasm: )

 

[Tmy]

The correct term is "womyn," you depraved misoginist freak.


(for those unable to sense sarcasm: )

HOW DARE YOU!! If you were in front of me Id strangle the life out of you. But then Id be charged with personslaughter.

 

[RandFan]

Still, for the sake of argument, I'm willing to accept your proposition.

Thank you.

And? Why is it relevant why a sub-species attains the characteristics that set it appart?

From the very start Danish I have said that the word "race" has some value.

And? If anything, this would seem to undermine your case.

Not at all. Why do you say this?

we are not looking at the development of new species, but seperate races.

From the start I said that there was merit to the word "race". My only point has always been that it is important to determine what we mean by race. I even asked you to define "race".

Because it is irrelevant.

Not at all.

Of what relevance is the above? I'll repost something I posted in my very first post:

This is just an opinion based on ONE definition of race. Let me point out one more time that I have said from the start that the word "race" has some value. My only point is that the clasical notion of race is wrong.

Also, why does YOUR link trump mine?

Please read it.

I have, I quoted from it. I clearly understand it.

By "reasonable" I mean what I said: By today's standards.

And by todays standards the use of the word "race" is becoming anachronistic. Please read MY links.

Once again, please read the link I provided.

I HAVE!!!! That is not the problem. The problem is that you won't read my link. You assume that your single link which is just an opinion trumps ALL of my links. Why?

We are all busy, RandFan. If you had bothered to read my link, you would not be asking all these questions.

I DID read your link. If you had read mine and didn't arrogantly think that the onpinion from your link was the only important bit of data in this discussion we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

[RandFan]

Read the 10 points. Kindly point out a point which is of any relevance.

Please go back and READ my post.

#2.

And isn't it obvious? It's odd how an article from wikipedia is the end all of the discussion?

From your link that I referenced before:

Many biologists feel that in this usage we may justifiably speak of dividing Homo sapiens into races. Many others, however, assert that in humans there is in fact insufficient categorical variation to justify the classification of humans into multiple races in a strictly biological sense. Many social scientists therefore view race as a social construct, and have sought to understand it as such, as explained later in this article. Thus, race is increasingly regarded as a non-biological term that often could be exchanged by population.

I agree with your link and your link agrees WITH ME!