PC Debate: Your preferred term?

[RSLancastr]

Back to the poll question:

I am white, and usually use the term "black", although I find myself occasionally using the PC term "African American."

I came of age in the 1960's and 1970's, when "black" was the preferred term, replacing "negro". The term "black" had a very positive vibe back then. They were the times when phrases like "black power", "black pride", "black is beautiful", "black panthers", and "say it loud, I'm black and I'm proud" were all around us.

For that reason, if none other, I've always thought of the term as a positive one, and have trouble understanding why some appear to think it is offensive.

Also, as has been said before, not all blacks are "African-American." Insisting on using that term is like insisting that all athletes be called hockey players because some athletes are hockey players...

 

[Rob Lister]

There is ample evidence that untill a few centuries ago, races among humans were a fact. It is also reasonable to claim that due to the much higher availability of fast transport of individuals from different races to other races, the intermingling of racial characteristics will blur the racial line.

DD -- I know NOTHING of this subject and I'm just 'musing'. That said, it seems to me that your assertion does not hold water. If 'races' existed then, then 'races' exist now. They might be harder to distingish given the interbreeding but they would still exist. A couple of hundred years is not enough to erase the distinction.

 

[Tony]

Oh, really? Off the top of my head, there are:

• Hispanic
• Hispanic-American
• American of Hispanic descent
• Latino
• Latino-American
• Latino-Americano
• American of Latino descent
• Chicano
• *Mexican
• *Mexicano
• *Mexican-American
• *Mexicano-Americano
• *American of Mexican descent
• * - (Repeat these for all predominantly Spanish-speaking countries)

I grew up in a suburb of Los Angeles which, at the time, was about 50% latino/hispanic/whatever, and at one time or another heard people referring to themselves as each of the above (and more).

Don't forget "Texican". A word I have heard used to describe Hispanics before.

 

[DanishDynamite]

DD -- I know NOTHING of this subject and I'm just 'musing'. That said, it seems to me that your assertion does not hold water. If 'races' existed then, then 'races' exist now. They might be harder to distingish given the interbreeding but they would still exist. A couple of hundred years is not enough to erase the distinction.

My assertion is based on what the Wikipedia link provided of information. Please, go read it yourself.

 

[RSLancastr]

I seem to recall some talk show host (Larry Elder?) quoting a poll in which black people were asked which of the several terms they preferred, and more than 90% preferred "black."

 

[Rob Lister]

For that reason, if none other, I've always thought of the term as a positive one, and have trouble understanding why some appear to think it is offensive.

Politics. Rebels WITHOUT a cause can't get elected, supported, funded, or otherwise listened to. That too was the issue that drove the change from negro/colored to black.


P.S. Even today, to me, negro has no negative connotations but 'colored' somehow does. I don't know why. It might be a white thing.

 

[varwoche]

Oh, really? Off the top of my head, there are:

• Hispanic
• Hispanic-American
• American of Hispanic descent
• Latino
• Latino-American
• Latino-Americano
• American of Latino descent
• Chicano
• *Mexican
• *Mexicano
• *Mexican-American
• *Mexicano-Americano
• *American of Mexican descent
• * - (Repeat these for all predominantly Spanish-speaking countries)

Don't forget people who are mostly/entirely Indian. For instance, categorizing an immigrant of Mayan descent as a Mexican-American is about as outrageous as it gets, to the extent it matters.

 

[Rob Lister]

My assertion is based on what the Wikipedia link provided of information. Please, go read it yourself.

Nothing in Wikipedia refutes my assertion that your assertion (their assertion?) does not hold water. I'm really not that smart, and today I'm kind of lazy, so maybe I just missed it.

I assert: if (IF) race existed then then race exists now. Not enough time has elaspsed for the distinction to have evaporated.

Sure, I know I am probably wrong. I understand race as a political/cultural issue but I'm unsure of the biological distinctions, even though I know that some exist (Sickle Cell Anemia, Tay Sachs, etc.) in my mind, I may be wrong as to their racial propensities.

 

[varwoche]

My assertion is based on what the Wikipedia link provided of information. Please, go read it yourself.

Off-topic: Rarely will I read Wikipedia because anyone can publish anything. In any given instance I don't know if I'm reading total BS or not.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Nothing in Wikipedia refutes my assertion that your assertion (their assertion?) does not hold water. I'm really not that smart, and today I'm kind of lazy, so maybe I just missed it.

I assert: if (IF) race existed then then race exists now. Not enough time has elaspsed for the distinction to have evaporated.

Sure, I know I am probably wrong. I understand race as a political/cultural issue but I'm unsure of the biological distinctions, even though I know that some exist (Sickle Cell Anemia, Tay Sachs, etc.) in my mind, I may be wrong as to their racial propensities.

From the link:

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.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Off-topic: Rarely will I read Wikipedia because anyone can publish anything. In any given instance I don't know if I'm reading total BS or not.

Quite possible. If you can refute something stated in the link, feel free.

 

[RandFan]

RandFan, for Ed's sake! If a population only interbreeds among itself, why in the world would it take on some characteristics of a seperate sub-species, unless these characteristics were determined by Darwinian evolution? And if they are so determined, then hundreds or thousands of generation are generally required. This is commen knowledge.

First, I do not accept the notion of a sub-species. Second we are talking about a simple characteristic that routinely changes in a few generations. This has been documented in finches, moths and other species.

You claimed that differences would occur within 6 generations. Kindly show how this is probable given that the population interbreeds among itself.

I haven't had an opportunity but I will research it. However, their are given traits in population that are possible but not typical of that species. Humans do not need to mutate to generate more melanin in their skin. Then only need to breed. The propensity for increased melanin production already exists in all humans. Remember, humans only very at most by 6%.

There is ample evidence that untill a few centuries ago, races among humans were a fact.

You obviosly did not read my link. I will get more. No, this is not a fact. Unless of course you change the definition of race to suit your purpose which is ok but that is not what I am talking about.

It is also reasonable to claim that due to the much higher availability of fast transport of individuals from different races to other races, the intermingling of racial characteristics will blur the racial line.

It has not significantly changed the variation of humans.

Fact:

• Humans varied between groups and individuals as much as 6% before fast transport.
  
• Humans still vary by only 6% whether we are talking about groups or individuals. Nothing has changed except the flow of genes.

 

[DanishDynamite]

First, I do not accept the notion of a sub-species.

In which case you are not in line with the majority of biologists.

Second we are talking about a simple characteristic that routinely changes in a few generations. This has been documented in finches, moths and other species.

No understood. Kindly provide evidence that a population interbreeding among itself will take on characteristics of other sub-species in the same area within 6 generations.

I haven't had an opportunity but I will research it. However, their are given traits in population that are possible but not typical of that species. Humans do not need to mutate to generate more melanin in their skin. Then only need to breed. The propensity for increased melanin production already exists in all humans. Remember, humans only very at most by 6%.

Remember that your 6% is of no relevance. See link.

You obviosly did not read my link. I will get more. No, this is not a fact. Unless of course you change the definition of race to suit your purpose which is ok but that is not what I am talking about.

Which link might this be?

It has not significantly changed the variation of humans.

Fact:

• Humans varied between groups and individuals as much as 6% before fast transport.
  
• Humans still vary by only 6% whether we are talking about groups or individuals. Nothing has changed except the flow of genes.

Kindly read my link. It states why the above is irrelevant.

 

[Rob Lister]

From the link:

the second is the lack of significant gene flow between populations.

Ah! The crux of the matter. What is the biological definition of significant? I'm not trying to nit pick, i'm trying to learn something. I'm not sure your source is a worthy one but I have none better at hand.

Edit to ask: does this sub-debate have anything to do with the original poll/thread? I'm not sure that it does.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Ah! The crux of the matter. What is the biological definition of significant? I'm not trying to nit pick, i'm trying to learn something. I'm not sure your source is a worthy one but I have none better at hand.

I expect they mean significant as in "having a relevance".

Edit to ask: does this sub-debate have anything to do with the original poll/thread? I'm not sure that it does.

No, it has little to do with the original question. It just happens to be much more interesting!

 

[RandFan]

Ok, first the notion that it would take 1000s of generations for the necassary changes.

The human genome project

What DNA does tell us is that we are so much alike, that only our individuality separates us. For every group assumption there are several exceptions that can be shown. While we can identify your ancestry, DNA tell us that we share so much in common that any two individuals on earth can trace some common ancestry in six generations or less.

Mutation for redheads is of recent origin

There spawn after 6 generations without out another black parent had no tolerance of sunlight (freckles) and hair that was useless in light attraction (red hair). This explains inense redheads that inhabit Ireland.

The Genome Project and genetics

The human primate developed high melanin levels in the skin to prevent skin cancer while evolving in Africa. Moving to the Arctic changes the environment, but the genetic characteristic of a dark skin remains.

I've got more but I want to shift gears.

 

[Rob Lister]

I expect they mean significant as in "having a relevance".
No, it has little to do with the original question.

Who decides? Is there a 'board of relevance' that you can link to? Yea, that was a bit snide but you did just define a subjective with a subjective so I feel authorized. Seriously, I am just trying to get 'edjamacated'.

It just happens to be much more interesting!

Indeed. Still the original might be more so if ones such as yourself addressed it properly. I could do so also but I'm not feeling well today. I think I ate a bad balut (as if a good one existed).

 

[DanishDynamite]

Ok, first the notion that it would take 1000s of generations for the necassary changes.

I've got more but I want to shift gears.

Interesting links, RandFan. Unfortunately, they don't address my question.

The only one which comes even close is the one on redheads which says:

According to the most recent estimates, the first red hair sprouted just 20,000 years ago, long after the advent of modern homo sapiens.

20,000 years ago is equal to 1000 generations.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Who decides? Is there a 'board of relevance' that you can link to? Yea, that was a bit snide but you did just define a subjective with a subjective so I feel authorized. Seriously, I am just trying to get 'edjamacated'.

The biologists decide.

Indeed. Still the original might be more so if ones such as yourself addressed it properly. I could do so also but I'm not feeling well today. I think I ate a bad balut (as if a good one existed).

Yes, I suppose the original question was of some relevance, but it seems to me that it was only of interest to Americans. I'm not American, and the original question is of almost no relevance to me. Hence this interesting detour.

 

[RandFan]

In which case you are not in line with the majority of biologists.

Wrong!

RACE - The Power of an Illusion

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. Ancestry is difficult to trace; we all have two parents, four grandparents, etc. If you could trace your family back 30 generations, slightly more than 1,000 years, you'd find one billion ancestors.[/b]

Go ahead, read it again. This is not opinion. It is fact. There are no sub-species.

Which link might this be?

{sigh} I have posted it 4 times. Can't you have the decency to just look at the link?

The Biology of Race

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. King explains, the degree to which the genetic makeup between individuals in different racial categories varies is 6%. However, within any certain race there is the same degree of difference between individuals. The development of varying skin pigmentation is not an influential enough of a difference to divide the human species into races. 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 (Boyd 45).
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. Nature and its woes had an influence on the variations that were experienced by the people. But the amount of time that it takes for a new species to develop is immense. Human beings started to expand out into the world about 25,000 years ago. This leaves little space for the evolution of separate species. At this same time, the people were beginning to develop technology. It was rather primitive, but its purpose was to make survival easier. Humans are the only animals that do not adapt to the environment, but rather adapt the environment to fit their needs. So, with a brief period, being subject to nature, humans adapted to their environment physically, but with the quick advancement of technology the impact of nature became minimal (Dunn 48-51).[/b]

You know, I have posted this stuff before and you just ignore it. I thought better of this from your.

Kindly read my link. It states why the above is irrelevant.

I have read your link. And I have addressed it. Something you have not done with mine.

Your link simply states that there are different view points why there are different view points. Hardly difinitive. My links explain why the notion of race is wrong.

According to the following site there is no such thing as race beyond a societel construct.

PBS.org What is Race?

Race has no genetic basis.

The site tells why there is no genetic basis for race. I quoted one of the paragraphs from a PBS movie and web site above.