Documentary: A Conversation About Race

Killer Wench · 06-08-2010 04:10PM

Leucifer wrote: »

Hmmm, this is interesting. Perhaps it explains some the answers of the interviewees? Forgive me, but I can't really think of a better way to phrase this, but perhaps a lot of the people that reply on Craiglist mightn't usually be the brightest?

CL serves its purpose. It is a good way to find out about garage sales or to post ads. I know people who have found boyfriends, friends, roommmates, etc. off of CL but CL is also known for having a lot of fakers, flakes, and crazies that hang out on it. There were a string of murders associated with CL last summer; it is definitely a good tool but one must use it wisely.

EDIT: I watched the entire thing. I personally wouldn't class the actual film as propaganda, but given the below links by Popup on remarks the filmmaker has made in other places, I can see your unease.

This was propaganda but hidden behind a message that appeared to be reasoned and based upon personal interaction with the subject. In essence, the filmmakers are attempting to reach a new demographic; this demographic would be the lower middle class White folk who may find themselves without a job or who may have been turned in by a co-worker for saying something offensive. The intent is to draw in people on the border line.

Ah, ok. Sorry, but when I saw you going on about it being biased, I incorrectly assumed you meant it was done in favor of whites, as in touting whites are better at this that and the other aka supreme over other "races" That's why I was explaining the questions, not defending them. I happen to agree with you on the questions not reflecting accurate answers, I just misinterpreted what you were saying.

I do believe it was biased and I do believe the intent was to paint White folk as the victim. Essentially, his message was to say: "see, we are okay with finding the positive for the minority but we aren't comfortable associating the positive with the majority." However, he based his assertion on an inappropriate comparison; thus, the bias was created as he manipulated the responses to fit his agenda.

Actually it's not that off-topic, at least it falls into the topic I thought I started. What he said is exactly the kind of stupid claims I'm talking about. The trouble is there are plenty more imbeciles who will claim racism in ridiculous scenarios like that.

Watch to at least the interviewees giving their own "personal experiences of racism" you'll see what I'm talking about and why I started this thread.

Again and for the last time as I'm getting sick of repeating myself. I didn't post the link to be a end all and be all discussion about racism and I will not claim the documentary has no flaws, because it does.

As I previously said, what fascinated me is how the term racism has come to be used and claimed in places where it clearly isn't. I'm specifically referring to the personal examples of racism given by some of those interviewees.

One black woman claimed an experience of racism was staff being overfriendly :rolleyes: A white woman said she became aware of "how racist" she is because she thought to herself 'theres a black person'

I find stuff like the above offensive to people who suffer real acts of racism, all it does is lighten the severity of the word and take away from where the real thing happens.

I have been in a position when people have been overly friendly to the point of being condescending and I know it is because of my ethnicity. Although their act may not be due to their belief that their race is superior to mine, our personal interaction was tainted because of their presumption about people who are of my racial background. That can be viewed as racist. This is one thing that the video got right; defining racism is very difficult and it should not be limited to instances of extremists and supremacists.

When I was a kid, I remember tap dancing in the middle of a grocery store aisle. I was just a happy kid and I liked to dance. An elderly white lady approached me, started clapping to my rhythm and then patted me on the bottom. She turned to her friend and said, "colored people are just so talented. They are the best dancers". Well, there is a history of Black folks who tap dance; they would travel across the nation entertaining White folk (Black folk were not permitted in the theaters) and she was pulling from this personal experience.

Did she have malice behind her comment? No. Do I believe that she was a racist? Probably not. But do I believe that this was an act of racism? Yes.

Killer Wench · 06-08-2010 04:20PM

Leucifer wrote: »

I'm still sticking by my points that the examples of racism that some of those people gave were not racism at all and that there are lots of people who see racism where it isn't. As said originally that why I posted. Because I think being labelled a racist in the modern day and age can be a very serious mark to have to over someones head, especially when said label is given incorrectly.

But given those links by Popup my opinion on this filmmaker has changed, Mods I'd appreciate this thread being locked at you leisure after some of the remarks he has made a thread with a film by him will only serve to cause offence.

My biggest apologies to those of you who think I was trying to stir up hatred by this thread, I wasn't, I was trying to get a simple discussion going.

Since the documentary is from the US, and it pertains to an American population, do you mind if I ask if you have ever lived here?

Leucifer · 06-08-2010 04:24PM

Killer Wench wrote: »

Since the documentary is from the US, and it pertains to an American population, do you mind if I ask if you have ever lived here?

No, I don't mind and I haven't. Let me be clear in saying I'm not looking to comment on the issue of racism in the US though, as I've earlier said. I just think some of those answers apply to more than just US society.

Killer Wench · 06-08-2010 04:42PM

Leucifer wrote: »

No, I don't mind and I haven't. Let me be clear in saying I'm not looking to comment on the issue of racism in the US though, as I've earlier said. I just think some of those answers apply to more than just US society.

The problem as I see it is that this video is geared towards an American demographic about American people and our American issues. It just seems a bit of a stretch to attempt to use this video as an example of a global issue when we have a special and complicated history that should be analyzed in a very limited context.

So I concur that the general discussion of applying "racism" in situations that aren't about race should be its own thread; this video probably isn't the best starting point for a global discussion.

LilMsss · 07-08-2010 10:07PM

PopUp wrote: »

I think you are wrong about that, to be honest. The Southern Poverty Law Centre (an anti-racist group) has a couple of blog posts which make it pretty clear where Craig Bodeker (the filmmaker)'s sympathies lie. This post outlines his links to white supremacist groups and how he's regularly described President Obama as a "monkey". This one goes into more detail on specific shortcomings of the documentary.

I see your point. I hadn't actually looked into his background, so he most likely had a very specific agenda in producing this documentary.

raah! · 08-08-2010 06:06PM

Wicknight wrote: »

Racism is not purely saying that some race is better than another race. A naked black person is better at hiding in a dark place than a white person would be. That is not a racist statement, it is a fact based on the properties of the black person's skin. Equally it is not racist to say that black men are, on average, better at basketball because men of African decent are more likely to be tall than Europeans and being tall is a factor that will increase your skill at a game that favors tall people.

Could we not make cases for several negative racial remarks based on this logic? There is a hypothesis about why people further south in africa didn't tend to create as large cities or farm as much as people in more northern africa or europe did. That the animals around them knew to be careful of humans, and ran away, whereas in europe all the big game animals were quickly extinct because they didn't see humans as a threat. So following on from this, people in europe/northern africa had to make farms and larger civilisations, necessitating the use of skills other than hunting ones, which would make them better at such things. (I've only heard this in conversation and don't know where it originated, but it isn't a ridiculous string of reasoning, as far as I know)

It is quite clear the negative statements that could be extrapolated from this. Why are these statements more racist (based on the post) than the ones about being good at basketball? They are less nice, yes, but can you so easily dismiss them as untrue?

Elle Collins · 11-08-2010 11:09AM

Killer Wench wrote: »

When I was a kid, I remember tap dancing in the middle of a grocery store aisle. I was just a happy kid and I liked to dance. An elderly white lady approached me, started clapping to my rhythm and then patted me on the bottom. She turned to her friend and said, "colored people are just so talented. They are the best dancers". Well, there is a history of Black folks who tap dance; they would travel across the nation entertaining White folk (Black folk were not permitted in the theaters) and she was pulling from this personal experience.

Did she have malice behind her comment? No. Do I believe that she was a racist? Probably not. But do I believe that this was an act of racism? Yes.

Do you mean Killer Wench that her comment imbued a sense of 'otherness' in you right then, as a young kid? What I'm taking out of this story is that she identified and enforced a sense of seperateness with the nature of her remark - am I right in thinking that? I wonder because that is what I would see as wrong and inappropriate here. (I'm assuming that as a child you wouldn't have understood her reference to black dancers)

Killer Wench · 11-08-2010 05:07PM

I understood that "colored" was not a term that was considered acceptable. I felt wrong that she patted me as if I was an animal. Although I was a child, I knew that something was not right about the encounter and immediately after she began clapping, I stopped dancing. I remember my mother walking over and grabbing my hand as she walked by. I remember feeling uncomfortable because I knew that my mother was deeply annoyed if not angered by the encounter.

Nodin · 12-08-2010 05:50PM

Leucifer wrote: »

There's no one complaining about serious terms such as the above, the documentary doesn't criticize any serious stuff like that. It's slating the habits of some people who see racism in cases where there is none at all. Did you even watch the clip?

A carefully selected series of vox pops and nonsense.

It goes into exam result differences between white, asian and 'black' Americans.....

Theres been a few programmes on Ch4 that address many of the same issues, but with a bit of research and reference to studies etc...I'd suggest time would be better spent tracking them down than wasted on this guff.

Denerick · 12-08-2010 06:21PM

raah! wrote: »

Could we not make cases for several negative racial remarks based on this logic? There is a hypothesis about why people further south in africa didn't tend to create as large cities or farm as much as people in more northern africa or europe did. That the animals around them knew to be careful of humans, and ran away, whereas in europe all the big game animals were quickly extinct because they didn't see humans as a threat. So following on from this, people in europe/northern africa had to make farms and larger civilisations, necessitating the use of skills other than hunting ones, which would make them better at such things. (I've only heard this in conversation and don't know where it originated, but it isn't a ridiculous string of reasoning, as far as I know)

It is quite clear the negative statements that could be extrapolated from this. Why are these statements more racist (based on the post) than the ones about being good at basketball? They are less nice, yes, but can you so easily dismiss them as untrue?

Differing patterns of development are not an adequate basis for racial differentiation (Sorry to retreat into jargon, but I couldn't think of a different way of saying that)

The problem in Africa is that it is a notoriously tough climate and landscape in which to forge an Empire in. The basic anthropological explanation for this is that more of the communities labour is required for basic sustenance - such as farming - while in Europe, enhanced methods and the benefits of more fertile lands, increased trading (This was due to maritime trade, not land based trade, which is why the ancient European Empires were based along the Mediterranean) enabled an essentially 'unproductive class' to emerge. These people usually became aristocrats, and in turn devoted their leisure time to learning, philosophy, writing etc. etc. (Or if you like, adultury, war and ceaseless masturbation - judging by the Greeks at any rate) They passed on the wisdom accumulated in their generation to their descendants. This act of retained learning and wisdom is the foundational building block of western civilisation, and it enabled ever greater technological progress, enabling less and less people to devote their efforts to the bottom of the pyramid.

In short, enough basic stuff was produced for sustenance to enable people to think.

Wibbs · 12-08-2010 07:32PM

Denerick wrote: »

Differing patterns of development are not an adequate basis for racial differentiation (Sorry to retreat into jargon, but I couldn't think of a different way of saying that)

I would agree.

The problem in Africa is that it is a notoriously tough climate and landscape in which to forge an Empire in.

The problem with that theory is that south america can be an equally tough climate yet large civilisations sprung up there. Ditto with the jungles of SE Asian. Egypt was a tough climate. The only saving grace being the nile. Though rivers like the Gongo are just as if not more fertile. The congo jungle as we know it today is pretty recent. Its not an ancient jungle as once thought. Indeed a lot of it was cleared back in colonial times and has now been utterly consumed by the jungle again.

The basic anthropological explanation for this is that more of the communities labour is required for basic sustenance - such as farming - while in Europe, enhanced methods and the benefits of more fertile lands,

Again African lands can be more fertile and with regularity of seasons not found to the same degree in temperate latitudes. The wet and dry season in the indian sub continent can be more vigourous and large early civilisations sprung uo there. Then we get to Europe. The greek areas were(and are) hot and dusty. The land was middling as far as fertility goes and needed serious effort to tend it. They did have the advantage of expertise in seafaring technology though.

While climate is one factor certainly other factors must have had an influence.

Though sub saharan Africa did have sophisticated civilisations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Benin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Zimbabwe

Denerick · 12-08-2010 08:16PM

Wibbs wrote: »

I would agree.
The problem with that theory is that south america can be an equally tough climate yet large civilisations sprung up there. Ditto with the jungles of SE Asian. Egypt was a tough climate. The only saving grace being the nile. Though rivers like the Gongo are just as if not more fertile. The congo jungle as we know it today is pretty recent. Its not an ancient jungle as once thought. Indeed a lot of it was cleared back in colonial times and has now been utterly consumed by the jungle again. Again African lands can be more fertile and with regularity of seasons not found to the same degree in temperate latitudes. The wet and dry season in the indian sub continent can be more vigourous and large early civilisations sprung uo there. Then we get to Europe. The greek areas were(and are) hot and dusty. The land was middling as far as fertility goes and needed serious effort to tend it. They did have the advantage of expertise in seafaring technology though.

While climate is one factor certainly other factors must have had an influence.

Though sub saharan Africa did have sophisticated civilisations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Benin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Zimbabwe

The broader stroke of my reasoning does take that into account; but generally access to the sea and trade were of paramount importance. The Mediterranean in particular - without Egypt Rome would not have been able to function, because she imported much of her grain from there. I was referring to sub saharan Africa, mostly.

And there are some differences between South America and Africa. I agree that climate is an issue and that Africa has fertile farmland, but this didn't necessarily translate into civilisations that could sustain an urban, non farming community. Why they failed at this and why others did not (In Europe, Asia, the Americas) does require analysis and debate. I don't know why the Inca's, the Mayans and the Aztecs built such Empires, which in many ways were more sophisticated than the European realms of the time, but I'd love to know!

There were some examples in Africa as you point out, but if we're been completely honest, they are rather tame.

apsalar · 12-08-2010 08:51PM

Denerick wrote: »

The broader stroke of my reasoning does take that into account; but generally access to the sea and trade were of paramount importance. The Mediterranean in particular - without Egypt Rome would not have been able to function, because she imported much of her grain from there. I was referring to sub saharan Africa, mostly.

And there are some differences between South America and Africa. I agree that climate is an issue and that Africa has fertile farmland, but this didn't necessarily translate into civilisations that could sustain an urban, non farming community. Why they failed at this and why others did not (In Europe, Asia, the Americas) does require analysis and debate. I don't know why the Inca's, the Mayans and the Aztecs built such Empires, which in many ways were more sophisticated than the European realms of the time, but I'd love to know!

There were some examples in Africa as you point out, but if we're been completely honest, they are rather tame.

I was enjoying this discussion until it got onto civilisations in Africa. My own thoughts are that there is very little information or emphasis on the cultural history of sub-saharan Africa. It would be true to say that little industrialisation or agricultural innovation happened, however it never fails to amaze me that people actually remain in ignorance of the vast kingdoms that existed pre-colonial times. The baKongo, the absolutely wonderful history of Ethiopia(the most fascinating empire I have read on to date), the Zulu kingdom, Barotseland, the kingdom of Buganda....the list goes on. These were all complex societies and it's a damn shame that little attention is paid to them.

As for the original question in the OP...I haven't watched the documentary. But I can say that it's really difficult to define racism. Is something racist because the "victim" is offended? Or because the action was intended as racist? What happens when a person deliberately uses racially offensive actions/language but the receiver is oblivious to the message? Is that still racism?

Denerick · 12-08-2010 09:12PM

apsalar wrote: »

I was enjoying this discussion until it got onto civilisations in Africa. My own thoughts are that there is very little information or emphasis on the cultural history of sub-saharan Africa. It would be true to say that little industrialisation or agricultural innovation happened, however it never fails to amaze me that people actually remain in ignorance of the vast kingdoms that existed pre-colonial times. The baKongo, the absolutely wonderful history of Ethiopia(the most fascinating empire I have read on to date), the Zulu kingdom, Barotseland, the kingdom of Buganda....the list goes on. These were all complex societies and it's a damn shame that little attention is paid to them.

This is the modern equivilent of the Noble savage. Exaggerating the impacts of primitive civilisations for some strange self re-assurance. I stress there were some exceptions, but you cannot compare anything Africa produced to the Imperial majesty of Rome, the grandeur of Greece, The civilisation of Byzantium, The Shahs of Persia, the Lords of China and Japan. There is no comparison to be made; while taking into account what you say, I think more harm is done by patronising Africans about their supposed achievements.

Wibbs · 12-08-2010 09:14PM

Denerick wrote: »

The broader stroke of my reasoning does take that into account; but generally access to the sea and trade were of paramount importance. The Mediterranean in particular - without Egypt Rome would not have been able to function, because she imported much of her grain from there. I was referring to sub saharan Africa, mostly.

Oh yea the Med basin was as natural a cradle of civilisation as you could want. Lots of islands, short sea journeys, long growing season in areas that supported that, many different micro climates, a crossroads between Africa, ME, Asia and Europe. etc.

And there are some differences between South America and Africa. I agree that climate is an issue and that Africa has fertile farmland, but this didn't necessarily translate into civilisations that could sustain an urban, non farming community. Why they failed at this and why others did not (In Europe, Asia, the Americas) does require analysis and debate. I don't know why the Inca's, the Mayans and the Aztecs built such Empires, which in many ways were more sophisticated than the European realms of the time, but I'd love to know!

Even more fascinating as they were landlocked. Their ships were pretty crap. The jungle was a constant presence as was the lack of water in other areas. And they had not just one, but many. Olmecs, Aztecs, Incas, Maya, Toltecs, Moche. The list is a long one and like you say incredibly sophisticated. Even more unusual given North America which had an arguably better climate had far less. "Race" can't be an issue as they were the same.

There were some examples in Africa as you point out, but if we're been completely honest, they are rather tame.

Well, they were and they weren't. Plus look how easily the jungles in south america covered the evidence there. There may well be discoveries left in Africa. 40 years ago a lot of the congo basin was covered in the signs of modern life. Now all buried. If they were a mud brick or wooden culture you'd have nada left in pretty short order.

Wibbs · 12-08-2010 09:16PM

Denerick wrote: »

This is the modern equivilent of the Noble savage. Exaggerating the impacts of primitive civilisations for some strange self re-assurance. I stress there were some exceptions, but you cannot compare anything Africa produced to the Imperial majesty of Rome, the grandeur of Greece, The civilisation of Byzantium, The Shahs of Persia, the Lords of China and Japan. There is no comparison to be made; while taking into account what you say, I think more harm is done by patronising Africans about their supposed achievements.

There is something to that alright.

Nodin · 12-08-2010 09:25PM

This is what I referred to earlier....Theres always the possibility it might be lying round the internet somewhere, for those interested in seeing it.
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/race-and-intelligence-sciences-last-taboo/episode-guide/series-1/episode-1

raah! · 12-08-2010 09:44PM

Denerick wrote: »

Differing patterns of development are not an adequate basis for racial differentiation (Sorry to retreat into jargon, but I couldn't think of a different way of saying that)

Well again it depends on what you mean by race. If we take a dictionary definition of simply a major division of people then your statement requires some defence. An obvious example is "black people developed in hot regions, where white people did not". Differing patterns of development cause racial differentiation, just as it does in any other species.

This isn't really a contradiction to what I said though, my post had assumed pre-existing racial differences (based on what was quoted), and asks why it is irrational to assume that racial differences don't extend to things like aptitudes for certain mental tasks.

So my post never suggested that any two peoples who developed differently can be considered different races, but that different races have probably developed differently.

I am saying that if you look at one characteristic and choose to describe it in terms of a certain race's ancient origins, then why is it all of a sudden wrong to look at another characteristic and attribute this to genetic variations inherited due to the nature of the environment of their geographical origin.

The problem in Africa is that it is a notoriously tough climate and landscape in which to forge an Empire in. The basic anthropological explanation for this is that more of the communities labour is required for basic sustenance - such as farming - while in Europe, enhanced methods and the benefits of more fertile lands, increased trading (This was due to maritime trade, not land based trade, which is why the ancient European Empires were based along the Mediterranean) enabled an essentially 'unproductive class' to emerge. These people usually became aristocrats, and in turn devoted their leisure time to learning, philosophy, writing etc. etc. (Or if you like, adultury, war and ceaseless masturbation - judging by the Greeks at any rate) They passed on the wisdom accumulated in their generation to their descendants. This act of retained learning and wisdom is the foundational building block of western civilisation, and it enabled ever greater technological progress, enabling less and less people to devote their efforts to the bottom of the pyramid.

In short, enough basic stuff was produced for sustenance to enable people to think.

I don't think that this is entirely inconsistent with what I said either. We are both attributing certain characterisitics of a certain group of people to be due to their environment. While I am saying that this may have led them to be genetically pre-disposed to certain qualities (this is how natural selection works is it not?), you are stopping at the fact that certain behaviours would not be beneficial to them.

It's really a matter of whether one thinks that the cause of certain characteristics is external (and thus pertaining to sociology) or inherent (and thus pertaining to genetics). Of course it's nicer to think that everything is short term and everyone is equally good as everyone else at everything, but is it intellectually honest? But I guess if it can be described equally well in two ways , then we may as well pick the nice one, they do seem to be equally robust in exlaining racial differences. But if we use the term "race" automatically this speaks of differences inherent in people. I don't see why we would say that these differences are only skin deep (unless this is simply what we want to say).

Denerick · 12-08-2010 10:18PM

raah! wrote: »

Well again it depends on what you mean by race. If we take a dictionary definition of simply a major division of people then your statement requires some defence. An obvious example is "black people developed in hot regions, where white people did not". Differing patterns of development cause racial differentiation, just as it does in any other species.

Is it not to do with Melanin content? People from Sri Lanka and the South of India are 'black' but not African... I don't know how this works to be honest.

I don't think that this is entirely inconsistent with what I said either. We are both attributing certain characterisitics of a certain group of people to be due to their environment. While I am saying that this may have led them to be genetically pre-disposed to certain qualities (this is how natural selection works is it not?), you are stopping at the fact that certain behaviours would not be beneficial to them.

It's really a matter of whether one thinks that the cause of certain characteristics is external (and thus pertaining to sociology) or inherent (and thus pertaining to genetics). Of course it's nicer to think that everything is short term and everyone is equally good as everyone else at everything, but is it intellectually honest? But I guess if it can be described equally well in two ways , then we may as well pick the nice one, they do seem to be equally robust in exlaining racial differences. But if we use the term "race" automatically this speaks of differences inherent in people. I don't see why we would say that these differences are only skin deep (unless this is simply what we want to say).

My point was that the lack of development doesn't spawn from any inherent genetic or racial deficiencies but by climactic (IE, prevalance of disease, temperature, wind and rain patterns, global positioning etc. etc.) In other words the African continent was by and large excluded from inter cultural trade - the primary motor of the spread of ideas, which in turn hindered their development as a culture. Furthermore their inability to move beyond subsistence agriculture - again, climactic in origin, meant they were unable to sustain an unproductive non food producing population capable of devoting time to ideas and the retention of such ideas.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, by the way, we just have a different perspective.

raah! · 12-08-2010 10:47PM

Denerick wrote: »

Is it not to do with Melanin content? People from Sri Lanka and the South of India are 'black' but not African... I don't know how this works to be honest.

My point was that the melanin content is itself evironmentally determined. Those places are hot, melanin prevents skin cancer, but also production of vitamin D by the skin.

My point was that the lack of development doesn't spawn from any inherent genetic or racial deficiencies but by climactic (IE, prevalance of disease, temperature, wind and rain patterns, global positioning etc. etc.) In other words the African continent was by and large excluded from inter cultural trade - the primary motor of the spread of ideas, which in turn hindered their development as a culture. Furthermore their inability to move beyond subsistence agriculture - again, climactic in origin, meant they were unable to sustain an unproductive non food producing population capable of devoting time to ideas and the retention of such ideas.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, by the way, we just have a different perspective.

Yes It seems so. But there is one difference, you are saying that the differences spawn from climatic/cultural differences, full stop, whereas my original post was made in reference to someones argument from genetics.

Now with respect to the first post I quoted, if these are the reasons we cite for differences in modern africans (or whatevers) with respect to, say, white americans (the quoted post was about basketball) then it doesn't make a difference whether we are saying that they are genetically ingrained or some other way ( I don't think it really makes sense to attribute modern differences soley to past differences of climate without some mechanism for causing them to be carried on. I think that once you mention some instance in the biological past of a race, to describe something in the present, you're talking about genetics) , once we cite the geographical origins as an explanation for prevelance of certain traits, we are saying that these traits are ingrained, since those origins. Of course there are alternative explanations, that whatever attributes we are talking about can be described in terms of more contemporaneous causes, and I think this is the only way to move away from the positive/negative statements regarding the superiority of some race over the other.

I am of the opinion that once one accepts the existence of races on a biological basis, then one must necessarily accept racial differences. And if one accepts racial differences, whilst emphasising the general importance of some traits over others. Then one is automatically a racist, by that traditional definition of "one race superior to another".

Personally I would refrain from placing such general importance on any such characteristics.

metrovelvet · 12-08-2010 11:51PM

Denerick wrote: »

This is the modern equivilent of the Noble savage. Exaggerating the impacts of primitive civilisations for some strange self re-assurance. I stress there were some exceptions, but you cannot compare anything Africa produced to the Imperial majesty of Rome, the grandeur of Greece, The civilisation of Byzantium, The Shahs of Persia, the Lords of China and Japan. There is no comparison to be made; while taking into account what you say, I think more harm is done by patronising Africans about their supposed achievements.

What about Egypt?

Also you are comparing a continent to several nations, and one city state.

On another point 'Africa' is a European concept, its really a collective of tribes.

Its been a long time since I studied environmental history, but I recall the horse being mentioned as the center of European advancement.

Denerick · 12-08-2010 11:58PM

metrovelvet wrote: »

What about Egypt?

Also you are comparing a continent to several nations, and small ones at that.

On another point 'Africa' is a European concept, its really a collective of tribes.

Its been a long time since I studied environmental history, but I recall the horse being mentioned as the center of European advancement.

I was referring mainly to sub saharan Africa; Egypt was gifted with an excellent strategic position; at the heart of European trade; also blessed with some of the most fertile land in the world.

And by the way, 'Europe' is a European concept, its really a collective of tribes and cultures. Why should we analyse the rise or lack thereof of cultures so differently?

metrovelvet · 13-08-2010 12:02AM

Denerick wrote: »

I was referring mainly to sub saharan Africa; Egypt was gifted with an excellent strategic position; at the heart of European trade; also blessed with some of the most fertile land in the world.

And by the way, 'Europe' is a European concept, its really a collective of tribes and cultures. Why should we analyse the rise or lack thereof of cultures so differently?

Isnt it right to look at europe through its own paradigms?

Dont you think the term african american is a bit ridiculous for that reason? Wanting to mark yourself as something other than western yet appropriating a western framework to do that when africans themselves don't see themselves that way but according to tribe?

Denerick · 13-08-2010 09:10AM

metrovelvet wrote: »

Isnt it right to look at europe through its own paradigms?

Dont you think the term african american is a bit ridiculous for that reason? Wanting to mark yourself as something other than western yet appropriating a western framework to do that when africans themselves don't see themselves that way but according to tribe?

Nah, I don't think that matters in any way at all. I don't like artificial 21st century distinctions and I'm certainly not a cultural relativist. Far too much intellectual time and energy is wasted arguing over pedantry and polite ways of saying the same thing, in my opinion.

Wibbs · 13-08-2010 10:08AM

Nodin wrote: »

This is what I referred to earlier....Theres always the possibility it might be lying round the internet somewhere, for those interested in seeing it.
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/race-and-intelligence-sciences-last-taboo/episode-guide/series-1/episode-1

I remember that one alright. Good programme. IIRC I saw parts of it on youtube. I also recall James Watson coming across as a right unscientific type of the lets prove a prejudice not a theory..

raah! wrote: »

Well again it depends on what you mean by race. If we take a dictionary definition of simply a major division of people then your statement requires some defence. An obvious example is "black people developed in hot regions, where white people did not". Differing patterns of development cause racial differentiation, just as it does in any other species.

I agree, but the divisions are anything but major. They're quite subtle if externally obvious. They've also got very blurry edges. Skin colour is not a great yardstick at all. Like Denerick said you do get black skin outside Africa, in (recently)unrelated populations. EG Native Australians are technically more caucasian than african. Even there it seems there were multiple migrations over the last 60,000 years. Its very messy. Europeans may have even gotten white skin from Neanderthals. Recent research shows at least 4% genetic heritage from them in European populations(it may be more). Africans don't have those genes.

This isn't really a contradiction to what I said though, my post had assumed pre-existing racial differences (based on what was quoted), and asks why it is irrational to assume that racial differences don't extend to things like aptitudes for certain mental tasks.

So my post never suggested that any two peoples who developed differently can be considered different races, but that different races have probably developed differently.

Possibly. There will be an element of feedback loop going on with the culture/environment too.

I am saying that if you look at one characteristic and choose to describe it in terms of a certain race's ancient origins, then why is it all of a sudden wrong to look at another characteristic and attribute this to genetic variations inherited due to the nature of the environment of their geographical origin.

Again its messy. Like I said earlier the meso American cultures had a very similar environment to sub saharan Africa(the jungle based ones. They didnt have a seafaring culture either. On the basis of environment alone, you would have predicted that the north american cultures would have been the ones ahead. They're all the same population group. The same race. They would be more the same race than a Swede and a Spaniard for example. I dislike race as a term, not because of its history, but because of its inaccuracy.

It's really a matter of whether one thinks that the cause of certain characteristics is external (and thus pertaining to sociology) or inherent (and thus pertaining to genetics).

I would say its both and one feeds the other. With environmental pressures thrown in.

One interesting one is ADHD as a condition. One of the genes associated with it, is found more and more the further you get from the original African population. People with ADHD are restless and seek novelty. A PITA in modern society, but quite the advantage in a migrating population. The novelty seeker is the one who will go "I wonder whats over that mountain".

metrovelvet wrote: »

What about Egypt?

Regardless of the oft daft debate(usually in US universities) over what colour were the ancient Egyptians, they were a "european" culture, more accurately a mediterranean one. While Greeks were building temples and the like, the northern parts of europe were still mostly a neolithic culture. Again the "race" part was trumped by the location part.

On another point 'Africa' is a European concept, its really a collective of tribes.

True, but objectively you could split Africa by the Sahara. In a vaguely similar way that you can split Europe at the time of the greeks with the alps. It was a barrier, where the mediterranean was a conduit.

Its been a long time since I studied environmental history, but I recall the horse being mentioned as the center of European advancement.

Certainly a factor alright. The meso americans didnt have the horse. They did have alpacas though. The people of the steppes had horses as much as or more than say the Greeks, but didnt come up to them in culture. It's not ever going to be one factor of course. What is surprising is the lack of domestication of animals other than the dog and cattle in sub saharan africa. Actually it might have been an African innovation that may have held them back in other ways. Recent gene studies seem to show that cattle were domesticated in Africa just before the middle east. The major difference being that in the ME cattle domestication went hand in hand with agriculture. In Africa it didnt. There are many groups in Africa that only herded cattle, but never planted crops. The Maasai a good(if relatively late) example. Slight difference, big change in outcome.

Dont you think the term african american is a bit ridiculous for that reason? Wanting to mark yourself as something other than western yet appropriating a western framework to do that when africans themselves don't see themselves that way but according to tribe?

Yes and no. I'm sure if African Americans could trace their tribal ancestry more accurately they may well identify more with that. European americans can do that far more easily. Unless you're spanish, in which case you're stuck between "white" and "hispanic". Americas notion of "race" is a dubious one anyway.

looksee · 13-08-2010 11:46AM

One black woman claimed an experience of racism was staff being overfriendly :rolleyes:

I can empathise with this form of 'reverse racism'.

We recently got a medical card because my husband is over 70. Prior to this we had always just paid for anything in the medical line. I went into an office where I had been many times before and the clerk was dealing with me in a normal, reasonable, efficient manner. Then she said ' do you have a medical card', just as a routine question, and when I answered yes, her manner changed subtly. She became more smiley and patient sounding, started speaking to me slightly more slowly and clearly, and explained things in more detail. I was amused but a little irritated, but she wasn't doing anything I could actually object to!

The whole business earlier in the thread of 'Americans being more concerned about racism' is a kind of racism, but no-one would be overly concerned about it unless you were saying 'black people in America are...' There is a sense that 'Americans' can look after themselves, but 'black people' need to be protected.

The Corinthian · 13-08-2010 11:52AM

metrovelvet wrote: »

Its been a long time since I studied environmental history, but I recall the horse being mentioned as the center of European advancement.

While I don't think there is any one reason, and the horse undoubtedly had a strong influence, I remember reading that agriculture was the principle determinant.

You have to remember that the Neolithic Revolution that spawned farming, only took place around 12,000 years ago. That is 12,000 years out of 200,000 of Homo sapiens being around.

The effect of this was tremendous, as the increase in food supply in a static location resulted in an explosion in population, the first urban centers, the rise of fixed hierarchical structures and organized religion and freed up a large part of the population towards the task of invention and abstract thinking. Prior to that, you were nomadic, in small groups, hunting and gathering to survive.

If you think of our species' existence as an hour long, we effectively remained static on a developmental plateau for the first 56 minutes 24 seconds. Everything from agriculture through to writing, philosophy, metal working, industry, nuclear physics and Facebook happened in the last three and a half minutes.

Meanwhile while agriculture also developed in south and central America, the Asiatic groups that migrated there did not arrive until around that time and, combined with the lack of the horse, were at a disadvantage and so started later, between 8,000 and 4,000 BC.

Africa, on the other hand, was slow to develop the same crops as the Middle East, Europe, Asia and even South and Central America. There is evidence of farming as early as 5,000 BC is sub-Saharan north east Africa (Ethiopia, etc) but most of the continent retained the hunter gatherer lifestyle, with a few temporary exceptions, until the Arabs and later the Europeans arrived.

As to why this is the case is difficult to say. Climate and other environmental reasons have been often cited, in sub-Saharan Africa is apparently not good for the growing of crops without modern methods.

Others have suggested that the difference is racially genetic, that our propensity towards invention and agriculture is something that we all got somewhere along the line - perhaps through crossbreeding with Homo Neanderthalensis. Of course, I should mention that, pre-Colombian north America also never adopted agriculture either and was almost entirely hunter gatherer too, even though they would genetically be pretty close to identical to the population in south and central America, where agriculture was adopted.

And finally others again has suggested it came down to luck - agriculture flourished long just enough in some places to reach critical mass and thus become widely adopted.

Whatever the reason, I do think the widespread adoption of agriculture probably had the single largest effect that differentiates sub-Saharan Africa with the rest of the World.

Wibbs · 13-08-2010 01:51PM

Following from that advent of agriculture and the impact it had on our species. By far the biggest genetic changes in us have happened in the last 40,000 years. Contrary to popular belief we didnt stop evolving or slowed down, we've sped up. Those changes really ramped up in the last 10,000 years. The ability to metabolise gluten and lactose(the latter mostly in Europe) being the more obvious ones. Even the ability to handle acohol, again more common in europe as unlike in Asia where the boiled water to make tea to render it safe, we brewed beer and wine.

There have been other genetic changes too. Sperm production increased, possibly down to living in larger groups where sexual competition was higher. Maybe the evolution of more and more patriarchal societies was a cultural response to that? Changes in gene's related to neurotransmitters also occurred. Reducing our arousal responses, aggression and the like, while others increased to increase our attention levels. I would defo agree with TC that agriculture was one of the major innovations of our species.

Actually you can trace damn near all of our leaps forward to food production. The earliest hominids who used stone tools to render carcasses and allowed our previously herbivorous ancestors access to animal foods which are far higher in calories. Then fire and cooking was another huge leap forward which again released way more nutrients than raw foods in general provide. Our ability to seek out and consume novel foods another leap. Neanderthals may have had an extra pressure when climates changed and their primary large animal food sources moved or died out. We would just switch to another food source. We'll basically eat anything, from insects to elephant.

The expression "you are what you eat", pretty much sums up humanity too. How this would impact different populations may be an interesting one to study. Could there be a two way street and could the particular diet of an area and population cause physical and mental changes however subtle? Might hunter gatherers be slightly less inventive because of a lack of starch in their diet?

The one issue I have with one theory why agriculture changed us is this. The notion that it gave some of us or all of us free time. Studies of modern hunter gatherers show us that they have more free time and spend less time food gathering than small farming communities. They also have a more nutritionally varied diet too. Something else is going on in farming communities. Staying in one place for longer? Not really. While some hunter gatherers roam following the food, many others stay in one place for generations. Sometimes many generations. Some cave sites were in use by the same groups for many 1000's of years.

It could be down to the old notion of a stressful environment? In a land/jungle of plenty, where a society can stay in one place and have enough food, generation after generation, forward planning is not required to nearly the same extent as in in changing environments where hunting and gathering is perilous. Too stressful an environment such as the high arctic drives initial innovation but gets stuck. Too easy an environment like a rain forest, again gets stuck. temporate regions that vary a lot but not too much drive innovation. The goldilocks areas.

Denerick · 13-08-2010 02:17PM

@Wibbs,

The notion of free time is seperate, I think, for a society capable of sustaining a non food producing population. Say for example a hunter gatherer only spends 3 hours per day at work; whereas a settled farmer will spend 6 hours per day at work. However the hunter gatherer will only collect enough food as needed while the farmer is producing food for himself, his community, and his surplus will be traded with others. This surplus production enabled the rise of service industries; writers, philosophers, mathematicians, merchants etc. etc. Thus the material progress of a culture requires some sort of systematic agricultural economy.

I would consider the rise of aristocracy to be relatively important, as this presupposes the lack of a free farming class (As I may have alluded to above with the farmer trading his surplus stock) Instead an entire caste of society devoted to leisure and living off the toil of their serfs/slaves; now that is a hell of a lot of free time, and all of the ancient thinkers and shakers were of the bourgeois background.

raah! · 13-08-2010 05:17PM

Wibbs wrote: »

I agree, but the divisions are anything but major. They're quite subtle if externally obvious. They've also got very blurry edges. Skin colour is not a great yardstick at all. Like Denerick said you do get black skin outside Africa, in (recently)unrelated populations. EG Native Australians are technically more caucasian than african. Even there it seems there were multiple migrations over the last 60,000 years. Its very messy. Europeans may have even gotten white skin from Neanderthals. Recent research shows at least 4% genetic heritage from them in European populations(it may be more). Africans don't have those genes.

Yes, I do think that the term "Race" was much more applicable in past times, even to the point of using it to describe different european tribes. Then again, I don't know much of this, I just mean that it wouldn't be difficult to identify the tribe of someone from their physiognomy

Yes skin colour is one, but it's not difficult to differentiate a black african from a dark skinned middle eastern person. I'm saying when there are so many obvious traits in different races which evolved differently on the surface, is it logical to accept these whilst completely shutting out any discussion of cognitive differences? (I know this is an are of discussion which should be kept away from certain people, but I'm just pointing out what I see as an inconsistency in certain positions. Although, it seems likely that some people only say things like this lest they give ammunition to the likes of "white nationalist tube")

Possibly. There will be an element of feedback loop going on with the culture/environment too.

I agree, but I think that once we start talking about environment, unless we want to just ignore certain things, it can lead to certain unpleasant conclusions. I was saying that, to avoid these unpleasant conclusions (which it seems people want to do), they should also avoid the pleasant ones. (one's like: black people are good at basket ball because of their genes)

I dislike race as a term, not because of its history, but because of its inaccuracy.

As do I, but I do not think ti as inaccurate as this. It is more the implications of differentiating classes of people and what this can lead to that I find disquieting. The reason I dislike the term racism (here is my grand conclusion on this) is that when one uses it descriptively in cases like someone not liking black people, you are appealing to the idea of race. It makes sense that if you don't like a certain idea then it would be better to not incorporate this idea implicitly in your language. The word prejudiced seems more appropriate for such purposes to me.

Documentary: A Conversation About Race

Comments