Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Documentary: A Conversation About Race
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,324 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 59251
Yes they do. Now you can look at both sides. There is some evidence in other species that certain behaviours do follow external characteristics. Researchers into the domestication of the dog noted something when they crossed wolves with domestic dogs. They found as a general rule that the more dog like an animal looked, the more dog like it acted. The more "wolfy" it looked the more wolfy it behaved. Regardless of socialisation with humans. Even so on the other side they still got quite a few wolfy looking pups that acted like domestic dogs and vice versa. Now these are purely instinctive behaviours. In the case of humans culture and environment play a much greater role in behaviour. The nature/nurture debate is for another thread and people have been arguing the toss on that one for a very long time, but I would contend in a very closely genetically related species such as ours, for the purposes of this argument, nurture is more important.The reason that babies of black children are born black , and the babies of white children are born white is genetics. Genes code for external appearance.
Yes the link between intellignece and genetics is pretty much a given. Certain even more closely related sub groups of populations show this is the case. EG anasazi Jews show a high proportion of high IQ individuals compared to the rest of the worlds population. This does not however mean all individuals from that population have high IQ's, just that the tendency is there that an individual might. And this is in a group that is very "inbred" over many many generations. Over a wider population, on the basis of "black" or "white" or "yellow" skin colour? Any differences, factoring for environment and culture, are gonna be statistical glitches.Yes it's hard to determine whether or not intelligence or some such other things are determined by genetics, but if one was to take a naturalistic approach it can't be ignored.
I would be an interesting experiement to see if the population as a whole retains this trait. You would have to find examples of Inuit who live the traditional lifestyle including diet, with other Inuit who live in towns and cities chucking back Maccy Dees. Then take a black african bloke and stick him on the ice living like a local for a year and see if his concentration levels go up(vit D tablets and one helluva insulated set of clothes required or volunteers will be fewAn obvious quick way to do this would be to take the inuit out of the ice and put him somewhere and see how he concentrates.
). Humans are very malleable. It's quite amazing what you can teach the "average" human.
Yes, but it's a very narrow genetic description. That's the point. Not unlike the anasazi jews, a group have been selected from a greater already very closely related group and made even more closely related. Even still not even close to all black Americans are good at baseball. Even though the sterotype exists and both white and black americans believe it and more black americans play it, believing it.Yes this can be used as an explanation, but this differs from the one originally quoted by me, and still amounts to a genetic description.
It's like the old saw of "ah sure the black lads have great rhythm". It's far far more cultural than genetic. Look at old Top of the pops footage and the like from the 60's or before. White members of the audience have zero rhythm(though go further back to the 30's and 40's and you see fantastically good white dancers). I mean they look like their spinal cords are disconnected.
Look at similar footage of today. The white members of the audience are far far better on that score. Then look at the older footage of the black members of the audience and they're not much better. The whites of today are better than they are. Why the change? Exposure and practice. No genetic change involved.
No because its a very bad one. You can have a visually "black" american with more white genes, than a visually "white" american down the road. In London in the 1700's there was quite a sizable black population. They died out, or more to the point interbred with the local white population and today you can still find "white" people with "black" genetic markers from that time.Well racial lines can still be drawn, the most obvious and easiest case is lines drawn along skin colour. This is not the only way to define race, but it is one,
Actually if anything they have become more numerous over time. Up to the advent of air travel. 80,000 years ago we were one "race".I agree that racial differences have become much less numerous over time.
Eh no you couldn't and yes it would. Even by the most quirky standards of "race". A set of genes coding for red hair does not any kind of racial delineation make. What about San Bushmen? Some of them have red hair and they're yellowy black. Some other black African populations throw that gene up too. Native Australians can sometimes have red hair. As can semite populations like Jews and Arabs. Neanderthals had red hair and you could argue them as a race, or better yet a sub spieces. Clearly weren't a different species or we wouldnt have gotten jiggy and ended up with 4% of our genes coming from them. And they were very different looking(though recent research narrows the gap on the cultural front). Whatabout epicanthic folds? Asian race right? Nope. Again San bushmen have them, as do some northern europeans. It's up there with skin colour as a way to distinguish populations.One could describe red-haired people as a race and this would not be inconsistent with a definition of race as a division of human kind having distinct physical characteristics.Many worry about Artificial Intelligence. I worry far more about Organic Idiocy.
0 -
Yes they do. Now you can look at both sides. There is some evidence in other species that certain behaviours do follow external characteristics. Researchers into the domestication of the dog noted something when they crossed wolves with domestic dogs. They found as a general rule that the more dog like an animal looked, the more dog like it acted. The more "wolfy" it looked the more wolfy it behaved. Regardless of socialisation with humans. Even so on the other side they still got quite a few wolfy looking pups that acted like domestic dogs and vice versa. Now these are purely instinctive behaviours. In the case of humans culture and environment play a much greater role in behaviour. The nature/nurture debate is for another thread and people have been arguing the toss on that one for a very long time, but I would contend in a very closely genetically related species such as ours, for the purposes of this argument, nurture is more important.
Yes the link between intellignece and genetics is pretty much a given. Certain even more closely related sub groups of populations show this is the case. EG anasazi Jews show a high proportion of high IQ individuals compared to the rest of the worlds population. This does not however mean all individuals from that population have high IQ's, just that the tendency is there that an individual might. And this is in a group that is very "inbred" over many many generations. Over a wider population, on the basis of "black" or "white" or "yellow" skin colour? Any differences, factoring for environment and culture, are gonna be statistical glitches.
I would be an interesting experiement to see if the population as a whole retains this trait. You would have to find examples of Inuit who live the traditional lifestyle including diet, with other Inuit who live in towns and cities chucking back Maccy Dees. Then take a black african bloke and stick him on the ice living like a local for a year and see if his concentration levels go up(vit D tablets and one helluva insulated set of clothes required or volunteers will be few). Humans are very malleable. It's quite amazing what you can teach the "average" human.
Yes, but it's a very narrow genetic description. That's the point. Not unlike the anasazi jews, a group have been selected from a greater already very closely related group and made even more closely related. Even still not even close to all black Americans are good at baseball. Even though the sterotype exists and both white and black americans believe it and more black americans play it, believing it.
It's like the old saw of "ah sure the black lads have great rhythm". It's far far more cultural than genetic. Look at old Top of the pops footage and the like from the 60's or before. White members of the audience have zero rhythm(though go further back to the 30's and 40's and you see fantastically good white dancers). I mean they look like their spinal cords are disconnected. Look at similar footage of today. The white members of the audience are far far better on that score. Then look at the older footage of the black members of the audience and they're not much better. The whites of today are better than they are. Why the change? Exposure and practice. No genetic change involved.
No because its a very bad one. You can have a visually "black" american with more white genes, than a visually "white" american down the road. In London in the 1700's there was quite a sizable black population. They died out, or more to the point interbred with the local white population and today you can still find "white" people with "black" genetic markers from that time. Actually if anything they have become more numerous over time. Up to the advent of air travel. 80,000 years ago we were one "race". Eh no you couldn't and yes it would. Even by the most quirky standards of "race". A set of genes coding for red hair does not any kind of racial delineation make. What about San Bushmen? Some of them have red hair and they're yellowy black. Some other black African populations throw that gene up too. Native Australians can sometimes have red hair. As can semite populations like Jews and Arabs. Neanderthals had red hair and you could argue them as a race, or better yet a sub spieces. Clearly weren't a different species or we wouldnt have gotten jiggy and ended up with 4% of our genes coming from them. And they were very different looking(though recent research narrows the gap on the cultural front). Whatabout epicanthic folds? Asian race right? Nope. Again San bushmen have them, as do some northern europeans. It's up there with skin colour as a way to distinguish populations.
Would your dog/wolf example suggest that a child who looks more like his mother than his father will also behave more like his mother than his father?
By the way, I saw a documentary years ago on PBS, in which a black historian said three quarters of black Americans have an Irish genetic component.
I was amused by the comment of a friend of mine who visited Dublin. He observed many similarities between the Irish and black Americans, notably drinking, partying, slagging, and musical talent.0 -
-
Well we've all heard stereotypes about chinese people being intelligent and black people being not intelligent. And here you have jews being intelligent. Those stereotypes exist for a reason, and whether they are socially or genetically caused, they exist. To call them statistical glitches is not really accurate.Yes the link between intellignece and genetics is pretty much a given. Certain even more closely related sub groups of populations show this is the case. EG anasazi Jews show a high proportion of high IQ individuals compared to the rest of the worlds population. This does not however mean all individuals from that population have high IQ's, just that the tendency is there that an individual might. And this is in a group that is very "inbred" over many many generations. Over a wider population, on the basis of "black" or "white" or "yellow" skin colour? Any differences, factoring for environment and culture, are gonna be statistical glitches.
Yes, People are reluctant to go into studies in this area because of the type of unsubstantiated but nice "everything is nurture" thinking prevelant in these kind of discussionsI would be an interesting experiement to see if the population as a whole retains this trait. You would have to find examples of Inuit who live the traditional lifestyle including diet, with other Inuit who live in towns and cities chucking back Maccy Dees. Then take a black african bloke and stick him on the ice living like a local for a year and see if his concentration levels go up(vit D tablets and one helluva insulated set of clothes required or volunteers will be few). Humans are very malleable. It's quite amazing what you can teach the "average" human.
I'm not really defending the proposition, my post was intended to highlight the implications of certain reasoning when combined with ideas of race. The post was based on the assumption that there were genetic differences, that is not what I am trying to argue really, though sometimes it's hard not to get pulled into that.Yes, but it's a very narrow genetic description. That's the point. Not unlike the anasazi jews, a group have been selected from a greater already very closely related group and made even more closely related. Even still not even close to all black Americans are good at baseball. Even though the sterotype exists and both white and black americans believe it and more black americans play it, believing it.
Yes it would seem a bit more natural to attribute some learned things like this to cultural effects. It is not the same with inherent physical characteristics, we can cite cultural effects, but we cannot just ignore genetic ones.It's like the old saw of "ah sure the black lads have great rhythm". It's far far more cultural than genetic. Look at old Top of the pops footage and the like from the 60's or before. White members of the audience have zero rhythm(though go further back to the 30's and 40's and you see fantastically good white dancers). I mean they look like their spinal cords are disconnected. Look at similar footage of today. The white members of the audience are far far better on that score. Then look at the older footage of the black members of the audience and they're not much better. The whites of today are better than they are. Why the change? Exposure and practice. No genetic change involved.
This doesn't matter. By the definition of race (which as far as I've seen in any dictionaries does not contain references to genes, it's been in use for millions of years) I cited, we could define a race of people who wore yellow hats for most of the time.No because its a very bad one. You can have a visually "black" american with more white genes, than a visually "white" american down the road.
I'm talking about the difference between modern society and when people were relatively isolated in their respective countries/islands. I'm saying there is less to deleate along racial lines now, as there was , say 500-1000 years ago.Actually if anything they have become more numerous over time. Up to the advent of air travel. 80,000 years ago we were one "race".
The only standard of race I have used here is that it is a means by which to differentiate large groups of the human species. I haven't included genetics in my definition of race. I could talk about a race of people who wear green hats. And if there were such a people living in a small area together for a long time, I would think it absurd to say that the only genetic variation between these people and everyone else were those that were immediately obvious.Eh no you couldn't and yes it would. Even by the most quirky standards of "race".
Depends on what you mean by racial delineationA set of genes coding for red hair does not any kind of racial delineation make.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,324 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 59251
Actually they are if you isolate across racial grounds. Stereotypes exist for all sorts of reasons. As science they're hardly to be relied upon.Well we've all heard stereotypes about chinese people being intelligent and black people being not intelligent. And here you have jews being intelligent. Those stereotypes exist for a reason, and whether they are socially or genetically caused, they exist. To call them statistical glitches is not really accurate.
Oh there is an element of that with regard to racial type studies. The problem is with the research that does exist is that it's decidely woolly.Yes, People are reluctant to go into studies in this area because of the type of unsubstantiated but nice "everything is nurture" thinking prevelant in these kind of discussions
One can only base any question of race along genetic grounds. Thats the only way to see the differences. You don't seem to understand that part.I'm not really defending the proposition, my post was intended to highlight the implications of certain reasoning when combined with ideas of race. The post was based on the assumption that there were genetic differences, that is not what I am trying to argue really, though sometimes it's hard not to get pulled into that.
You can have two black individuals from Africa who are less related to each other genetically than either are to a white spaniard. So breaking down populations by skin colour is simply not scientific.
One minute genetics are something we shouldnt get into but the next..Yes it would seem a bit more natural to attribute some learned things like this to cultural effects. It is not the same with inherent physical characteristics, we can cite cultural effects, but we cannot just ignore genetic ones.
Whats been in use for millions of years? A definition of race or genetics? So you're agreeing with me now that race is a construct that has little value with defining populations?This doesn't matter. By the definition of race (which as far as I've seen in any dictionaries does not contain references to genes, it's been in use for millions of years) I cited, we could define a race of people who wore yellow hats for most of the time.
Yes and no, there is more admixture with the advent of rapid global travel, but the majority still end up reproducing with those from a similar genetic background. Plus you forget that historically people have been migrating all over the place and remixing genes for a very long time. There are ancient European genes present in some east Asian populations. Only recently someone of east Asian origin was found in a 2nd century Roman graveyard. There were black Africans in England in Elisabethan times(and before). Shakespeares Othello didnt need any explanation for his largely uneducated audience. Further back there were contacts between Ireland and north Africa as in one 8th century manuscript speaks of the monks learning from Egyptians(probably fleeing Copts). The same monks on the edge of the known world were also able to lay their hands on Hebrew documents too. Like I say that's at the edge of the world, around the Mediterranean all bets were off.I'm talking about the difference between modern society and when people were relatively isolated in their respective countries/islands. I'm saying there is less to deleate along racial lines now, as there was , say 500-1000 years ago.
And like I said doing so is very unscientific and largely meaningless. If you could show Mongolians as a genetic population were lower in IQ, it would be scientific. If you were to state that all peoples who herd horses and lived in skin tents, you would not be. So if you were to state that the Maasai were not "naturally" gifted for farming it wouldn't follow that an African group in Ethiopia was the same. Yet they're both black skinned. Closer to home. While the Greeks were in the process of founding the basis of modern European civilsation, the people in Saxony were dirt farmers by comparison. Same "race" though. So is there something innate in the Greek populations? Clearly not as that was the height of their influence(not withstanding Byzantium). Arab populations. When the Mesopotamians were building Babylon and Uruk on the shores of the Tigris and Euphrates, the ancestors of the Anasazi Jews(the same race) were living in mud huts and ditches. Yet today people of Jewish origin are very well represented at the top of various scientific disciplines and Iraq is and has been fooked for a long time. How many Iraqi's are represented at the top of their fields by comparison?The only standard of race I have used here is that it is a means by which to differentiate large groups of the human species. I haven't included genetics in my definition of race.
But again you could be very wrong. Consider our neighbour, the UK. They've been invaded by Romans, Celts, Saxons, Vikings, Viking French. 50 years after such invasions they would all look and dress largely alike, but they would be from different populations with different susceptabilities to disease for example.I could talk about a race of people who wear green hats. And if there were such a people living in a small area together for a long time, I would think it absurd to say that the only genetic variation between these people and everyone else were those that were immediately obvious.
Well TBH you seem all over the place in your own definitions. One minute its an external phenotype, the next it's genotype, the next it's completely arbitrary.Depends on what you mean by racial delineation So how do you actually define race? Because if its down to hats and red hair any study of any differences on the basis of race is going to be loose at best. Many worry about Artificial Intelligence. I worry far more about Organic Idiocy.
0 -
-
This was never suggested, scientific method is, however, based on induction by enumeration, and so are stereotypes. Also note that there is a difference between the modern usage of the term race, and the original one, and that I actually specified what I meant when I said the word.Actually they are if you isolate across racial grounds. Stereotypes exist for all sorts of reasons. As science they're hardly to be relied upon.
Do you mean that if you isolate populations across genetic grounds there is a relatively average IQ?
I understand this, and all of this depends on your meaning of race before you even start to speak. When I said "if race is this - then" that showed you what I meant. What you don't seem to understand is the etymology of the word. Which is ridiculous, because I clearly, clearly stated that if we take race to mean things like "a division of the human race" then it can be people who wear hats.Oh there is an element of that with regard to racial type studies. The problem is with the research that does exist is that it's decidely woolly.
One can only base any question of race along genetic grounds. Thats the only way to see the differences. You don't seem to understand that part. You can have two black individuals from Africa who are less related to each other genetically than either are to a white spaniard. So breaking down populations by skin colour is simply not scientific.
It's quite obvious you are unable to read my posts in their proper context. One can follow a statement to it's logical conclusion without espousing this statement, that's what I'm doing here. Thats why I quoted a post.One minute genetics are something we shouldnt get into but the next..
Obviously millions of years was a misplaced figure of speach. I Don't agree with you. If we take a more anthropologically correct definition of race it becomes "people of common descent" it is obvious how this is related to genetics, but not explicitly. The definition I originally quoted was not.Whats been in use for millions of years? A definition of race or genetics? So you're agreeing with me now that race is a construct that has little value with defining populations?
And it would depend on the type of population you are describing, if it is a population of people of common descent, then yes, it's useful in that sense. It's a word for that. Just as if it's a more abstract word, it's still useful.
Are you saying that people interbred just as much in these times as they do now? We can just as easily go further back. It's not difficult to accept that communities tended to be more isolated if they didn't have access to modes of travel that are made available later.Yes and no, there is more admixture with the advent of rapid global travel, but the majority still end up reproducing with those from a similar genetic background. Plus you forget that historically people have been migrating all over the place and remixing genes for a very long time. There are ancient European genes present in some east Asian populations. Only recently someone of east Asian origin was found in a 2nd century Roman graveyard. There were black Africans in England in Elisabethan times(and before). Shakespeares Othello didnt need any explanation for his largely uneducated audience. Further back there were contacts between Ireland and north Africa as in one 8th century manuscript speaks of the monks learning from Egyptians(probably fleeing Copts). The same monks on the edge of the known world were also able to lay their hands on Hebrew documents too. Like I say that's at the edge of the world, around the Mediterranean all bets were off.
Yes, it's also not very much related to french cuisine, but since I never claimed that this was a "scientific description" or that it was in anyway related to french cuisine, pointing out as much is 'largely meaningless'And like I said doing so is very unscientific and largely meaningless.
That was largely my point, a definition of race which includes common genetic inheritance, if accepted, has certain implications. A definition of race as found in the dictionary is not useful in scientific context, and I'm glad you were able to see that grouping people together on the basis of whether or not the wear hats is not very useful to a study of anything.Well TBH you seem all over the place in your own definitions. One minute its an external phenotype, the next it's genotype, the next it's completely arbitrary. So how do you actually define race? Because if its down to hats and red hair any study of any differences on the basis of race is going to be loose at best.
I have summarised my position in earlier posts. If we take a solid definition of race to be "of common genetic descent" then lets look at how colour is related to race. I'm not saying colour immediately and on it's own defines a race, but it's a very good way of finding if people are part of a certain race. A white and black person are probably not of the same race, especially if we are talking about africans americans and european americans. Skin colour is itself a genetic distinction. The production of certain amounts of protein, if it's roughly similar, is a common genetic trait. If both of these people also come from africa in one tribe, then by any definition they are in the same race.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement