• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Racism is baseless

The Sparrow

Graduate Poster
The Sparrow
Joined
Sep 21, 2015
Messages
1,658
Location
Central Canada
At breakfast Friday morning, a co-worker of mine made some 'joking' remark about how soon 1/3 of school children in Manitoba would be indigenous.
He said "we gotta find a way to thin that out". I called him a *********** racist. Then I asked him what part of my wife should be thinned out. He pulled a Trump-esque "just joking" but the damage was done.

So, to add a little context.

Manitoba Canada.

A large population of indigenous/aboriginal/first nations. I'm trying to use a non-offensive term. Basically Cree, Dene, Mowhawk, etc. What those in the states might call native-americans.

Those folks were hoarded into reservations by English and French colonists and generally treated rather poorly.
Add to that the mess of residential schools - basically we'll take your kids and "make them more white".

There is a disproportionate amount of crime, poverty and addiction among those of first nations descent, not too surprising when you consider their history.

My wife is part Cree, earning her a (apparently only Canadian term) designation of Metis. This only added to my outrage.

I've googled around without too much success, so I wanna explore the science behind why racism is based on false premises.

It is so easy for the uneducated to say, "you see so many drunk indians" "indians are all drunks".
I wanna be able to tell more of these folks to **** off, but in an intelligent well argued way. :)
 
Because there is one human race....period full stop. The last of the other human races died out.

There are lots of human sub-populations - they are different genetically and are subject to different disease propensity and also human cultures...some not so "nice".

Taking your example, Europeans have a much higher tolerance to alcohol than many indigenes and a number of subpopulations are prone to diabetes, Askenazi Jews for one - part of that is the shift in the diet ...their insulin response is very different.

Sickle cell anemia, no heart disease ( a very small population in Italy due to a single gene change ) , in medicine more and more what works for one sub-population may not for another.
It's starting to parse down to individual genetic propensity to disease and individual treatment via methods such as Crispr.

Metis is a cultural designation for a distinct group that grew up between the French Canadian fur trappers and the local indigenes...I was quite pleased to see the Metis recognised as a first nation.

Race in terms of humans is a construct to feed Victorian and other fantasies ....ie pygmies were not considered human and the Irish barely so.

Best stay far away from it.

Use the correct language and discuss subpopulations for genetic variance and culture for the differences that are not genetic but rather socialized results. Sometimes they coincide but as in the case of the Metis ....they do not.

You will not get much of an "intelligent" response ....

Here is some reading

http://www.livescience.com/53613-race-is-social-construct-not-scientific.html

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebat...ace-and-racial-identity-are-social-constructs

Bigotry however is very real and needs battling every day..... :(
 
Last edited:
fuelair said:
Start with the fact that we all are descendants of a single woman (mitochondrial DNA proves it) in central Africa and a single man (app 70000 years later) (other/somatic DNA).
Click to expand...
I wonder if the Indians would agree that that is their origin.
 
The Sparrow said:
At breakfast Friday morning, a co-worker of mine made some 'joking' remark about how soon 1/3 of school children in Manitoba would be indigenous.
He said "we gotta find a way to thin that out". I called him a *********** racist. Then I asked him what part of my wife should be thinned out. He pulled a Trump-esque "just joking" but the damage was done.

So, to add a little context.

Manitoba Canada.

A large population of indigenous/aboriginal/first nations. I'm trying to use a non-offensive term. Basically Cree, Dene, Mowhawk, etc. What those in the states might call native-americans.

Those folks were hoarded into reservations by English and French colonists and generally treated rather poorly.
Add to that the mess of residential schools - basically we'll take your kids and "make them more white".

There is a disproportionate amount of crime, poverty and addiction among those of first nations descent, not too surprising when you consider their history.

My wife is part Cree, earning her a (apparently only Canadian term) designation of Metis. This only added to my outrage.

I've googled around without too much success, so I wanna explore the science behind why racism is based on false premises.

It is so easy for the uneducated to say, "you see so many drunk indians" "indians are all drunks".
I wanna be able to tell more of these folks to **** off, but in an intelligent well argued way. :)
Click to expand...

sounds a lot like tha australian indigenous situation, A tragedy extended over generations
 
sounds a lot like tha australian indigenous situation, A tragedy extended over generations
Click to expand...

Even the Australian aborigines have a Torrey Strait subpopulation with very different medical needs as their genetics are different.

Many indigenous cultures have not been accepted by invading cultures and the "conquerors" have not gone out of their way to make for a comfortable co-existence.

40,000 year old cultures and languages are being lost ....the San in S Africa, the Aboriginals and the New Guinea Highlands....not to mention hundreds of South America tribes.

There is balance to be struck and we're nowhere near that even in Canada where mulit-culturalism is part of our identity....our treatment of first nations is nothing less than criminal.
 
@The Sparrow
There seems to me to be a bit of equivocating on the meaning of "race" in the thread. It's certainly the case that race in the context of racism isn't particularly well or uniquely defined... but we all know broadly what is normally meant, surely? At it's loosest, I'd go with something like, "a cluster of traits associated with some population with a common ancestry". By the sound of it, indigenous people would qualify.

The next thing is to unpack what you a specifically meaning by racism when you call him a racist. We need to be specific to know what we are attacking.

Is the accusation of racism, purely on the basis of him having made a joke observing that there is an increasing number of indigenous children in the class. I take it you don't actually think he was saying that you should actually find a way of "thinning them out"? Or do you?

I guess another way that the joke could imply that he is a racist is that, by making that joke, he is clearly not part of program with respect to not making such jokes. That would be kind of a "the personal is political" definition. Is this what you mean?

If the joke isn't important, and the assumption is that the racist in the OP must have some negative views about the indigenous population, then it seems to me important to know the details. You list a bunch of, presumably, socially carried traits that the you view as negative. To refute what ever it is that he believes, I think what you need to do is be very clear on what the difference is between believing that there are a bunch of negative characteristics that are associated with a particular race (what ever their cause), as you do, and being a racist, as he is. There isn't enough information in the OP to understand that difference.
 
Last edited:
Thanks all. I think what I specifically find most objectionable is the "idea" that having a darker skin, higher cheekbones, broader torso, somehow means you are of a defective character. That being first nations means there is a genetic (and therefore irreparable) trait that makes you behave badly or at least substandardy.
And yes, I think this person, and frankly many in my city, wish there were less or ideally no first nations folks around.

Interestingly, where I live, compared to many places in the states, there are very few people of African descent around. It is changing now with immigration, but I remember growing up in elementary school where there were maybe 3 black kids, 2 from the same family. I never saw or heard anything against blacks, it was all focused on the natives. It always puzzled me growing up because I just never saw racism against blacks, except on American TV/news.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Racism is a holdover from the evolutionarily beneficial distrust of strangers. 30,000 years ago, thinking very badly of other tribes was necessary for group survival. Territorialism was necessary when resources were scarce.

I doubt we'll ever be able to breed it out. We can overcome it with rational thought, but that takes effort.
 
The Sparrow said:
Thanks all. I think what I specifically find most objectionable is the "idea" that having a darker skin, higher cheekbones, broader torso, somehow means you are of a defective character. That being first nations means there is a genetic (and therefore irreparable) trait that makes you behave badly or at least substandardy.
And yes, I think this person, and frankly many in my city, wish there were less or ideally no first nations folks around.

Interestingly, where I live, compared to many places in the states, there are very few people of African descent around. It is changing now with immigration, but I remember growing up in elementary school where there were maybe 3 black kids, 2 from the same family. I never saw or heard anything against blacks, it was all focused on the natives. It always puzzled me growing up because I just never saw racism against blacks, except on American TV/news.
Click to expand...
Did these black immigrants when you were at school have disproportionate problems with crime, poverty and addiction?
 
Last edited:
<content deleted because I find my own post unpersuasive>
 
Last edited:
William Parcher said:
I wonder if the Indians would agree that that is their origin.
Click to expand...

What they believe does not matter (and I say that with no offense), since the science is very clear on it. Like Christians, they are free to have beliefs that say or imply otherwise, but that in no way changes or affects the science.
 
Racism is a holdover from the evolutionarily beneficial distrust of strangers. 30,000 years ago, thinking very badly of other tribes was necessary for group survival. Territorialism was necessary when resources were scarce.

I doubt we'll ever be able to breed it out. We can overcome it with rational thought, but that takes effort.
Click to expand...

Try bigotry instead....yes we are tribal ....even as kids the next block is the enemy. But it's learned and kids up to a certain age are colourblind ....then the issues begin and yes they are pervasive. Anti-semitism is alive and well in many areas and profiling on skin colour just a pestilence. :mad:
 
The Sparrow said:
Thanks all. I think what I specifically find most objectionable is the "idea" that having a darker skin, higher cheekbones, broader torso, somehow means you are of a defective character. That being first nations means there is a genetic (and therefore irreparable) trait that makes you behave badly or at least substandardy.
And yes, I think this person, and frankly many in my city, wish there were less or ideally no first nations folks around.

Interestingly, where I live, compared to many places in the states, there are very few people of African descent around. It is changing now with immigration, but I remember growing up in elementary school where there were maybe 3 black kids, 2 from the same family. I never saw or heard anything against blacks, it was all focused on the natives. It always puzzled me growing up because I just never saw racism against blacks, except on American TV/news.
Click to expand...

To clarify, I assume you mean people of recent times (25,000 years to 100,000 years ago or so. But, it is well scienced that ALL of us are descended from dark skinned people who lived in Africa. That is whether our skin is white, reddish, yellowish, olive, brown or black.

Basics the first: http://phys.org/news/2007-05-theory-modern-humans-descended-small.html
 
The Sparrow said:
Thanks all. I think what I specifically find most objectionable is the "idea" that having a darker skin, higher cheekbones, broader torso, somehow means you are of a defective character. That being first nations means there is a genetic (and therefore irreparable) trait that makes you behave badly or at least substandardy.
Click to expand...
Perhaps what you should be pointing out is that statistics only tells you about populations, it tells you nothing about individuals. Even if it's true that the average IQ, say, of one demographic group is higher than that of another, there will still be plenty of individuals in each group who are much smarter than plenty of individuals in the other group. So such differences do not justify making assumptions about, or discriminating against, individuals.
 
Last edited:
macdoc said:
Torrey Strait
Click to expand...

Torres Strait.

And to address only one minor point, in Australia the preferred term is "Indigenous Australians". This is not to say that other terms are wrong, or that you will upset people by using them (though I recommend against calling anyone Koori except for a Koori), but that in general, this term is preferred and appropriate in most situations, especially the formal and academic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom