PC Debate: Your preferred term?

[Virgil]

I think these are valuble threads.

I want to know what I should refer to this group of people. I'm a white person and I want to know what is the proper way to refer to this group.


btw when I have to give that info I check "other" and write in Human because we are all human, but people call me a trouble maker.


Virgil

 

[Ladewig]

Q-Source
This silly desire to classify people according to their skin colour just shows how people still refuse to recognise that human beings are worth for what they are not because of a physical characteristic.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

toddjh
There are lots of legitimate reasons to classify people by their skin color, in certain contexts. Identification is the biggest one, obviously. Also for medical purposes. And it's not a bad idea to keep track of demographics, for lots of reasons.

To me, trying to pretend that there are no differences between people with different skin colors isn't much better than assigning differences to them that aren't really there.

Jeremy

While immediately judging people based on skin color is, as you put it, silly; enough people do it that nothing is gained by avoiding terminology related to it. A term for each perceived race is needed when discussing particular aspects of history, crime, entertainment, proposed legislation, religion, and discrimination.

 

[Ladewig]

[snip] In other words, if natives of Scandinavia were moved to certain parts of Africa and reproduced and their offspring in turn reproduced they would eventully take on the characteristics of native Africans. I think 6 generations is necessary.

And this mixing is significant when it comes to determining whether or not humans can truly be subdivided by race.

If you would clarify. Are we talking about one person from a foreign environment mating with a local and then all subsequent pairings are done with locals (great-great-great-great grandparents with 1 Scandinavian and 63 Africans) or 64 different Scandinavians moving to Africa and letting their offspring mate with other Scandinavian offspring for 6 generations.

 

[RandFan]

If you would clarify. Are we talking about one person from a foreign environment mating with a local and then all subsequent pairings are done with locals (great-great-great-great grandparents with 1 Scandinavian and 63 Africans) or 64 different Scandinavians moving to Africa and letting their offspring mate with other Scandinavian offspring for 6 generations.

Hi Ladewig,

As far as I understand no locals need to be involved but I can't say that difinitively. There is so much on the web about this but it is hard to find such difinitive answers. Most of the papers I read assumes a certain knowledge about these facts.

 

[Suddenly]

Is gratuitous s**te like this necessary?

It amazes me that a person who would never say, for example, "It's like having sex with a ni**er" think that it is perfectly acceptable (and funny) to say crap like this.

I agree. He should have said "horizontally challenged females."



(I rarely break this out, but equating "fat chick" with "ni**er" leaves me with no choice... this is undoubtedly more offensive IMHO than the original claimed slur... "fat chick" may be less than completely civil, but good grief...)

 

[varwoche]

The Dutch have been in South Africa since the 1700's. If they have adopted physical characteristics of the local population, it is not apparent to me. They certainly didn't become black people.

 

[RandFan]

The Dutch have been in South Africa since the 1700's. If they have adopted physical characteristics of the local population, it is not apparent to me. They certainly didn't become black people.

Hi varwoche,

I assumed everyone realized we were talking about heritable variation through natural selection. The process can only work when humans do not significantly change their environment to suit themselves.

It works like this:

• Offspring are born with different variations.
  
• Those whose variations are favored by the environment would survive.
  
• Those whose variations are not favored by the environment do not survive.

Since people in civilizations tend to live in dwellings and protect themselves from the elements and are less likely to survive or perish based on heritable variations it would stand to reason that this would have little or no bearing in ancient to modern civilizations. Depending of course on the traits mentioned and the advancement of the society.

In other words, natural selection is over as far as civilized humans are concerned. At least for the time being.

 

[varwoche]

RF... 1) Hello and 2) Huh?
Let me see if I understand...

1) Humans have evolved differently in Sweden versus Africa
2) Swedes move to Africa, leaving behind clothing and sunscreen, where they will work and live outside
3) They do not intermix
4) They die off within 6 generations
5) This is evidence there is no such thing as race

??

(Note, I'm not taking a position.)

 

[RandFan]

1) Humans have evolved differently in Sweden versus Africa

No, not quite.

Humans from Africa evolved the ability to produce melanin. That ability included many variations of melanin production. Some offspring did not produce as much melanin as their siblings. They were less likely to survive and pass on their genetic traits while those who produced more melanin were more likely to survive and pass on their genetic traits.

Some humans left Africa and moved to Scandinavia. Because Vitamin E is essential to survival and sunlight is essential in the production of Vitamin E the offspring who produced less melanin could absorb more sunlight and produce more Vitamin E and were more likely to survive and pass on their traits.

2) Swedes move to Africa, leaving behind clothing and sunscreen, where they will work and live outside
3) They do not intermix

Ok, I'm with you so far.

4) They die off within 6 generations

No. People from the arctic are not significantly different from peoples of Sub-Saharan Africa. They just have different predominant heritable variations.

Heritable variation dictates that some of the offspring will produce more melanin. Those who do are more likely to survive the dangerous effects of the sun and therefore pass this variation on to their offspring. Mutation is but one aspect of change. Humans have a wide variety of potential variations that will manifest depending on environment. Mutation is not required. It is already wired in.

5) This is evidence there is no such thing as race.

No, what is evidence that there is no such thing as race is that we all have the same genetic ability to produce melanin. We just do so in different quantities or types. We all have the capacity to produce offspring with different heritable variations and that some will produce more than others including different amounts of melanin.

DARWINIAN NATURAL SELECTION
3.1 NATURAL SELECTION: DARWIN'S FOUR POSTULATES

• Some of these variations are passed on to offspring.
  
• More offspring are produced than can survive.
  
• Individuals with the most favorable adaptations are more likely to survive and reproduce.

Please note that skin color can be one variation. Now we are not talking about a large change in melanin production between a single generation. It can be incramental.

Also consider the genetic breeding of things like Dogs and Flowers. How did we get such disparate breeds as the Russian Wolf Hound and the Schitzu (sp)? The answer is heritable Variation. These dogs did not mutate. Look at the thousands of variations in roses that did not exist a hundered years ago. Incrementally a species can be taken from one exteme to another. We could breed humans so that a white person could eventually spawn decendents with Black features but we would have to do so in an unethical fashion. Selectively breeding humans and searching for the traits we were interested in.

 

[RandFan]

Look, I'm really not presenting something radical. Some of you folks really need a refresher course in Biology. Please see:

Mendelian Genetics

Example: skin color. There are at least 3 genes responsible for melanin formation in the skin, which makes skin dark. Each gene has 2 alleles: one for making more melanin and one for making less melanin, signified by A or a. Therefore, people can range from AAAAAA (darkest) to aaaaaa (lightest). Intermediate skin tones result from having some A alleles and some a alleles.

Genetics - Patterns of Inheritance

Blending theory In ~1850, scientists thought that some fluid substance in the blood of animals or in the sap of plants was the hereditary material. The combination of the parent's characteristics in the offspring was thought to occur by a "blending" of this fluid.

* If so, a white dog that mated with a brown dog should produce only tan puppies;

* A tall person who had a child with a short person should produce all "medium-size" children, etc...clearly not the case!

* Even though people recognized problems with this theory, it was the top theory of the day!

* Keep in mind, though, that in the mid-1800s, very little was known about cell structure, let alone the concepts of genes and DNA...!

A different theory was put forth by Gregor Mendel in 1850. Mendel was an Austrian monk who was interested in plant breeding. He performed careful experiments with the garden pea, Pisum sativum, collected large amounts of data, and in doing so, was able to uncover the basic principles of genetic inheritance that still hold true today!

 

[gnome]

I wonder if it's necessary to have all these biological arguments...

The fact of the matter is that there are cultural and political differences involved -- and while those differences exist, reasonable terminology is needed in order to discuss them.

Even if it's a good idea to eventually abandon such distinctions, it's not going to happen by removing the words needed to discuss the problem.

 

[RandFan]

I wonder if it's necessary to have all these biological arguments...

The fact of the matter is that there are cultural and political differences involved -- and while those differences exist, reasonable terminology is needed in order to discuss them.

Even if it's a good idea to eventually abandon such distinctions, it's not going to happen by removing the words needed to discuss the problem.

Hey gnome,

How about ethnicity, culture and country of origin? But then that would be PC.

Acutally I agree with you. I said as much earlier. And I certainly don't want to pressure anyone to stop using the word race. I just want people to understand that the word does not mean what we used to think it meant.

You are right and this is a derailment. My appology.

RandFan

 

[RSLancastr]

(I rarely break this out, but equating "fat chick" with "ni**er" leaves me with no choice... this is undoubtedly more offensive IMHO than the original claimed slur... "fat chick" may be less than completely civil, but good grief...)

If you'd care to make a point, feel free.

Edited to add:

If your piont is that "ni**er" is more offensive, no argument. My point still stands.

 

[BillyTK]

How would someone not joining an organization cause conflict? Why such a choice be characterized as a refusal? Was someone implying joing such organizations was mandatory? This soundss like an urban myth.

In retrospect, controversy would be a more appropriate word, which arises from assumptions about the significance of skin-colour as an over-arching component of identity that would lead black students (regardless of origin) to join black student groups. The implication is that this sensitisation to skin colour/race is more of a specifically US concern. I carnt find the specific article I read, but I've find one which discusses the general issue:

Black Identity on Campus

Harvard University sophomores Chartey Quarcoo and Harrel Conner share the same taste in music, have the same friends and even live in the same residential suite. But the roommates remain miles apart when it comes to the notions they hold about black identity in America.
[...]
Quarcoo also feels that Africans should not be expected to share American conceptions of race. "At Harvard there are a lot of black students with roots outside the country where the notions of race are different." He said many of them come from predominantly black countries where people generally relate their identity to their tribes or nationalities. As co-president of HASA, which mainly comprises African students who were born in Africa or spent a portion of their lives on the continent, he has met many Africans who were not used to thinking in American racial terms when they arrived at Harvard.

"I am more Taita than I am Kenyan, and more Kenyan than I am black," said Mwashuma Nyatta, a sophomore from Kenya, referring to his tribal identity. He said until he came to the United States, "black" was not a way he normally identified himself. He is also reluctant to portray HASA as a "black" group because not all Harvard undergraduates from Africa are black."Africans are not prepared for this notion of race as it exists here," said Quarcoo. "Economic and political struggles are more central in Africa, but here race is more central to the struggle." He feels that American society defines people too narrowly by race: in the United States, he said, "black" is an "all-encompassing" ethnic group.

 

[crimresearch]

"...He feels that American society defines people too narrowly by race: in the United States, he said, "black" is an "all-encompassing" ethnic group."

A good observation.
By painting everything and everyone in the US as only either black or white, the ends of racism are neatly served, forcing those who see themselves as red or brown or yellow, but more importantly, those who are currently bearing the onus of discrimination, to check a box referring to themselves as 'white'.

This creates the incredibly ironic situation where an Hispanic farmworker or an Asian sweatshop worker locked into slave quarters tonight are labellled as greedy and racist beneficiaries of 'white privilege', while Michael Jackson and O.J. are downtrodden and oppressed because of their 'blackness'.

 

[Rob Lister]

Is gratuitous s**te like this necessary?

What have you got against fat chicks? As a well renowned philosopher once said, 'fat girls need lovin', too'.

 

[Rat]

But I can think of very few situations where I need to indicate someone's race. On those very few occasions where I do, 'Black' will do the job for me, because, being a white person from England, I can't tell a Kenyan from a Nigerian. At least not without a fair few cues. I can, however, tell a Geordie from a Scouser after a remarkably short amount of time of speaking to them.

I'm well aware that American Indians generally have no objection to the term Indian, but would prefer to be known by their tribal name. I will certainly do so where possible, but I'm very unlikely to know that.

Cheers,
Rat.

 

[Suddenly]

If you'd care to make a point, feel free.

Edited to add:

If your piont is that "ni**er" is more offensive, no argument. My point still stands.

What point is it that stands?

All we have is some whinging over someone's claim to enjoy the physical affections of women of substance, a claim used as a colorful analogy to his adaptation of another culture's dietary practice even though even he finds it somewhat eccentric and unusual when he views it in an objective manner.

What is the problem?

 

[Suddenly]

What have you got against fat chicks? As a well renowned philosopher once said, 'fat girls need lovin', too'.

Let us also not forget "Queen's" important and profound dictum re: "Fat Bottomed Girls."

They "make the rocking world go round."

 

[Rob Lister]

What point is it that stands?

All we have is some whinging over someone's claim to enjoy the physical affections of women of substance, a claim used as a colorful analogy to his adaptation of another culture's dietary practice even though even he finds it somewhat eccentric and unusual when he views it in an objective manner.

What is the problem?

You're just too cool for this forum. I'm nominating you for August Language Award.