News:

Welcome to our site!

Main Menu

So why can't she be black?

Started by aitm, June 16, 2015, 09:25:00 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

aitm

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/06/15/rachel-dolezal-naacp-race-column/71214732/

Interesting not in the actual case, which I find rather bemusing, but in the following science that completely dissuades race. Now I haven't followed up on genetic and race in a few years but the last I thought they had 4 or 5 distinct "races", but this says there is only one. Maybe I am misunderstanding the science on this.
A humans desire to live is exceeded only by their willingness to die for another. Even god cannot equal this magnificent sacrifice. No god has the right to judge them.-first tenant of the Panotheust

Hijiri Byakuren

I'm 5'7'', but I identify as 6'5''.

This case is ridiculous. She's white, her family is white, and any child she bears will always have lighter skin because her genetics say that she's white. God, this woman is like the anti-Michael Jackson, except that Michael Jackson was actually likable.
Speak when you have something to say, not when you have to say something.

Sargon The Grape - My Youtube Channel

SGOS

There are different races.  We all sprang from the same group of hominids somewhere in Africa, but over time as we spread over the globe, we became isolated and evolved into different races.  We can still interbreed because we are still the same species.  The term "human race" is playing a little fast and loose with the concept of species.

You can support that woman for being a little odd, and defend her actions as the writer feels he must, but you don't need to claim everyone is of the same race to do it.  Race is genetic.  There's no need to get all Kumbaya and claim, "We are all brothers and sisters so it doesn't make any difference."  Maybe it doesn't make any difference, but if you are going to get all sciencey, at least try to get the biology right. 

Hydra009

There is precedent for NAACP leaders to be white.  Also, some of its founders were white.



However, she lied about being black, and that sort of thing is generally frowned upon.

Mike Cl

Quote from: SGOS on June 16, 2015, 10:19:43 PM
There are different races.  We all sprang from the same group of hominids somewhere in Africa, but over time as we spread over the globe, we became isolated and evolved into different races.  We can still interbreed because we are still the same species.  The term "human race" is playing a little fast and loose with the concept of species.

You can support that woman for being a little odd, and defend her actions as the writer feels he must, but you don't need to claim everyone is of the same race to do it.  Race is genetic.  There's no need to get all Kumbaya and claim, "We are all brothers and sisters so it doesn't make any difference."  Maybe it doesn't make any difference, but if you are going to get all sciencey, at least try to get the biology right.
SGOS, I read each (well, most, anyway) of your posts and I respect what you say and how you say it.  But this post does surprise me.  For the last 10/15 yrs. I was teaching my students that there is only one human race and we all come from Africa.  I really have been under the impression that genetically we are of one race, not many. 

Anyway, I ripped a couple of paragraphs off the net to back my understanding of the subject.  I would appreciate any additional info you could supply me.  Anyway, here are the paragraphs:

The consensus among Western researchers today is that human races are sociocultural constructs. Still, the concept of human race as an objective biological reality persists in science and in society. It is high time that policy makers, educators and those in the medical-industrial complex rid themselves of the misconception of race as type or as genetic population. This is the message of two recent books: Race?: Debunking a Scientific Myth, by Ian Tattersall and Rob DeSalle, and Race and the Genetic Revolution: Science, Myth, and Culture, edited by Sheldon Krimsky and Kathleen Sloan. Both volumes are important and timely. Both put race in the context of the history of science and society, relating how the ill-defined word has been given different meanings by different people to refer to groups they deem to be inferior or superior in some way.

Although race is void of biological foundation, it has a profound social reality. All too apparent are disparities in health and welfare. Despite all the evidence indicating that “race” has no biological or evolutionary meaning, the biological-race concept continues to gain strength today in science and society, and it is reinforced by those who design and market DNA-based technologies. Race is used more and more in forensics, medicine and the genetic-ancestry business. Tattersall and DeSalle confront those industries head on and in no uncertain terms, arguing that “race-based medicine” and “raced-based genomics” are deeply flawed. Individuals fall ill, not populations. Belonging to any socioculturally defined race is a poor predictor of an individual’s genes, and one’s genes a poor predictor of one’s health.

There Is No Such Thing as Race
BY ROBERT WALD SUSSMAN 11/8/14 AT 3:01 PM
In my book, The Myth of Race: The Troubling Persistence of an Unscientific Idea, I have not dwelt upon all of the scientific information that has been gathered by anthropologists, biologists, geneticists, and other scientists concerning the fact that there are no such things as human biological races. This has been done by many people over the past fifty or so years.
What I do is describe the history of our myth of race and racism. As I describe this history, I think that you will be able to understand why many of our leaders and their followers have deluded us into believing these racist fallacies and how they have been perpetuated from the late Middle Ages to the present.


And I think the woman lied about what she was.  Other than that I don't have a problem with her--one does not need to be black to do the job she was doing.  But I have to admit that here behavior is a tad odd.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

SGOS

Quote from: Mike Cl on June 16, 2015, 11:22:17 PM
SGOS, I read each (well, most, anyway) of your posts and I respect what you say and how you say it.  But this post does surprise me.  For the last 10/15 yrs. I was teaching my students that there is only one human race and we all come from Africa.  I really have been under the impression that genetically we are of one race, not many. 

Your definition of race is not the one I was taught in anthropology.  But I will admit that a lot of concepts I was taught have changed since I was in college, especially the lineage of man.  I can adapt to your definition of race to facilitate the conversation, but if race is the same as species, is there another word that differentiates specific variations that are under discussion here?  Do you deny these specific variations exist?  I could agree that they may not matter, but I doubt that most people would say they don't exist.

Mike Cl

Quote from: SGOS on June 16, 2015, 11:41:05 PM
Your definition of race is not the one I was taught in anthropology.  But I will admit that a lot of concepts I was taught have changed since I was in college, especially the lineage of man.  I can adapt to your definition of race to facilitate the conversation, but if race is the same as species, is there another word that differentiates specific variations that are under discussion here?  Do you deny these specific variations exist?  I could agree that they may not matter, but I doubt that most people would say they don't exist.
No, I do not deny the specific variations you speak of.  I do not have a deep understanding of the biology so I have to rely on sources such as these to form opinions.  I mean it is easy to see that a person of Asian decent is different looking than a person from Africa--etc.  But I understand that the differences are only superficial.  I think the word 'race' itself is a charged one these days--and has been for quite awhile now.  In fact, I would not be opposed to doing away with it.  And so, when you ask "but if race is the same as species, is there another word that differentiates specific variations", I say, I don't know.  As I understand it, we--humans--have been traced back to Africa.  So, in essence we are all really African.  The differences grew as humans moved out of Africa to the rest of the world. And as the Finches of Darwin fame grew into different species to better eat the specific seeds they used for food, humans changed according to the different environments they moved into.  But as I understand it, those differences are only superficial.  Is that your understanding?  So, do 'species' and 'race' equate?  Or would another word work better?
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

Shiranu

Her art plagiarism is what annoys me the most about her.
"A little science distances you from God, but a lot of science brings you nearer to Him." - Louis Pasteur

SGOS

#8
I agree that racial differences are superficial.  And I agree that the word race has become charged.  Even though many biologists like to use the word race as equivalent of species, I see it as more politically correct than descriptive.  I tried to think of another word that describes physical variations common to subgroups, as minor as they may be (such as skin color), and ethnicity comes closest, but still misses, because it is heavily weighted by cultural differences, which are not physical and no genetic component has been identified. 

And even though skin color is physically superficial, it is still a genetic variation.  The word race in my mind is not charged, although I realize that it is in society, so I understand the desire to minimize racial differences by eliminating that usage, especially when it leads to erroneous ideas about variations in intelligence, propensity towards lazyiness, and other foolish sociological stereotypes.  But I don't consider such stereotypes as valid, so I'm fine with race as a word that can be used to describe genetic variations such as skin color or bone structures in subgroups.  I'm not fine with using race to describe imaginary differences or to create a false hierarchy of subgroups.

Yes, like you, I'd be OK with wiping the word race from the dictionary, but it's kind of awkward to talk about genetic differences under discussion in a case like this, without using the word race.  And it's even more awkward to pretend that genetic differences don't exist.  Furthermore, the controversy (which I think has been blown out of proportion) that has been generated by this woman's actions speaks directly to the issue of what everyone defines as an issue of race, and while it's probably more cultural than anything else, race is clearly a part of the cultures involved under the microscope.




PickelledEggs

#9
Bill Nye is on point with saying that we're all the same species and we aren't different races, just different tribes....

... although Queensryche would rebuttal with "We're the same tribe"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0eGdooqOEs

And shir, she plagerizes art? who the is this asswipe? I couldn't care less about what ethnicity she wants to identify as, but that stealing art is not something I like at all.

Edit: I looked up her art. I don't see anything stolen... None of the art is of my interest, but she's not necessarily "bad", but definitely not worth 10k a painting... like she priced this [spoiler][/spoiler]

Shiranu

"A little science distances you from God, but a lot of science brings you nearer to Him." - Louis Pasteur

PickelledEggs

Wow. What an lazy sack of scam-crap.

SGOS

Quote from: PickelledEggs on June 17, 2015, 02:32:09 AM
Bill Nye is on point with saying that we're all the same species and we aren't different races, just different tribes....
... although Queensryche would rebuttal with "We're the same tribe"
Also, there is no reason to claim we are all the same race, because first of all there is no category "race" in the Linnaean classification system of taxonomy, or in the modern variations of the Linnaean, as far as I know.  The correct term is species.  Second, if the word race is struck from usage as a descriptor of minor differences in species because it's trivial, then it doesn't make much sense to say we are all the same something or other of a thing that is too trivial to acknowledge.  We are still just all the same species.

But then "Tribe" is not a category in modern taxonomy either.  In this case, it introduces a new concept based on cultural differences, instead of physical attributes.  There are variations in tribes to be sure, but it doesn't negate race.




PickelledEggs

Eh tribe can easily be substituted from country, culture, family, nationality. It's just something you belong to and identify with or as...  But that's beside the point. People that divide others because of where they're from can suck it, because it doesn't matter. We're all on the same planet and need to work together.

Sent from your mom.