Thoughts on race/racism

[Sisifo]

Yes, well I'm not racist in the classic sense. I hold that intelligent people are better than stupid people, (and while there may be a few different types of intelligence, I'm referring to the capacity for rational thought and deductive reasoning.) I believe that taller more muscular men are superior to shorter effeminate men. And to be frank, I laugh at modern society's infatuation with skinny twig women. I'll freely admit that because vitamin supplements are easier to take than to continuously apply sunscreen, that darker skin is superior to light skin. I hold that because lighter colored eyes are semi-translucent and allow for better night vision (and sunglasses are easier to wear effectively than night vision goggles) that blue and green eyes are superior to black or brown eyes. I recognize that classical racial boundaries are arbitrary and outdated, but I completely don't buy the view that all people are equal.

Your post has left me open mouthed. So you are not a racist "in the classic way", but are claiming superiority of racial traits. And I thought that we were rationalist and evolutionist here. There are no "superior" treats; The fittest it's not the most intelligent. It is not the stronger. It is the better adapted. You talk about "superiority", with wrong criteria, and yet I ask "superior for what??".

taller more muscular men are superior to shorter effeminate men

Pity the Neardenthals didn't know it...
Superior to do what? weight lifts? I had to lose recently 10 Kg of muscle to be able to run and do stunts that where impossible otherwise. Who is better? the strongest of the fastest? The fastest or the most agile? The strongest or the best coordinated? Look to olympic gymnastics; each exercise has an optimum body type. Talking about body superiority... is just... uncouth According to you an heterosexual individual is "superior" to an homosexual one?

I'll freely admit that because vitamin supplements are easier to take than to continuously apply sunscreen, that darker skin is superior to light skin.

It's a pity that WalMart wasn't so well stablished the past 15.000 years. Silly people... get their gene pool wiped out if they couldn't get vitamin D through fish, when it was so easy to take a lemon flavored multivitamin... But don't worry, that next time I go to the central highlands of Vietnam, or to the Laos Border, I'll recommend centrum performance to those children that are developping rickets.

I hold that because lighter colored eyes are semi-translucent and allow for better night vision (and sunglasses are easier to wear effectively than night vision goggles) that blue and green eyes are superior to black or brown eyes

This one is priceless. So first it is inferior to use sunscreen, and now it is superior to wear shades? One would think that where you can buy sunglasses, you would have lights...
Some facts: Eye color is unrelated to night vision. Night vision, if you can call it that in humans, is related to eye size and pupil dilatation, and changes from human to human without relation to the eye color. Experiments done with people with heterochromia has shown no correlation, whatsoever. I have heterochromia, I have participated in those experiments.

And about intelligence... That one has been too chewed. We can start to argue about the definition of intelligence, etc. But in the end... in the normal distribution of IQ, both the lower IQ, and the higher IQ have shown inferior offspring number compared to the average, . And in the end, passing the genes is the only thing that evolution is about. As a former member, I recall the Mensa meetings as get togethers of maladapted, frustrated people. And I underline the "not adapted" part.

It took you two posts to go from "I'm not a racist" to claim "superiority". And that's exactly what I meant when I talked about the fallacy of the race idea. Because there are no races; just local adaptations. If you catalog people according to visible treats, you get a fake idea of "us, them". You want to pick skin color? Why don't you pick hand size or navel shape? You can start a trend: handism... Write a whole theory of why long slender fingers are superior to thick hands, and the need to reserve the higher positions in society to those who are obviously by the hand size and shape, better adapted to the delicate works.

If you want to catalog humans, you can go either by "Me and Everyone Else" or "Us". But there is no "We and They".

[Animavore]

Happily I was brought up in a house were race was never talked about. This may have been because there were virtually no other races in Ireland in the 80s. I grew up watching different races portrayed as equals on Sesame Street and other kids programs. We had movies like Beverly Hills Cop and Lethal Weapon. My parents listened to Shirley Bassey, Louis Armstrong and more. I remember one day when I was a child this black guy (I actually hate saying 'African' because you can be African and white. Which is why I think 'African-American' is misguided) was walking down the road and me and my friends ran up to him asking him a million questions about where he was from etc... none of us cared he was black.
That's not to say there weren't racists in Ireland. Once the guy around the corner from me, an older kid, told me a "nigger" joke. I didn't get the joke because I didn't even know that word. Then when he explained it to me I just didn't find it funny. I thought it was stupid to be honest.
Later in the late 90s we had a black family from Kenya beside us and the parents used to go off and leave the kids there on their own. They also used to party all the time. It was only then, when I was 19 years old, that I realised my parents were racist after all. I heard them one day talking to a neighbour about them. Calling them "nig-nogs" and "Jungle Bunnies" etc.. That really made my blood boil. I had always assumed they weren't racist. I then realised they weren't as long as they lived in their little isolated bubble. I would find out over the next few months that they hated just about every other race also except for Western Europeans, Americans and Canadians who they saw as "civilized".

[maiforpeace]

Yes, well I'm not racist in the classic sense. I hold that intelligent people are better than stupid people, (and while there may be a few different types of intelligence, I'm referring to the capacity for rational thought and deductive reasoning.) I believe that taller more muscular men are superior to shorter effeminate men. And to be frank, I laugh at modern society's infatuation with skinny twig women. I'll freely admit that because vitamin supplements are easier to take than to continuously apply sunscreen, that darker skin is superior to light skin. I hold that because lighter colored eyes are semi-translucent and allow for better night vision (and sunglasses are easier to wear effectively than night vision goggles) that blue and green eyes are superior to black or brown eyes. I recognize that classical racial boundaries are arbitrary and outdated, but I completely don't buy the view that all people are equal.

Your post has left me open mouthed. So you are not a racist "in the classic way", but are claiming superiority of racial traits. And I thought that we were rationalist and evolutionist here. There are no "superior" treats; The fittest it's not the most intelligent. It is not the stronger. It is the better adapted. You talk about "superiority", with wrong criteria, and yet I ask "superior for what??".

taller more muscular men are superior to shorter effeminate men

Pity the Neardenthals didn't know it...
Superior to do what? weight lifts? I had to lose recently 10 Kg of muscle to be able to run and do stunts that where impossible otherwise. Who is better? the strongest of the fastest? The fastest or the most agile? The strongest or the best coordinated? Look to olympic gymnastics; each exercise has an optimum body type. Talking about body superiority... is just... uncouth According to you an heterosexual individual is "superior" to an homosexual one?

I'll freely admit that because vitamin supplements are easier to take than to continuously apply sunscreen, that darker skin is superior to light skin.

It's a pity that WalMart wasn't so well stablished the past 15.000 years. Silly people... get their gene pool wiped out if they couldn't get vitamin D through fish, when it was so easy to take a lemon flavored multivitamin... But don't worry, that next time I go to the central highlands of Vietnam, or to the Laos Border, I'll recommend centrum performance to those children that are developping rickets.

I hold that because lighter colored eyes are semi-translucent and allow for better night vision (and sunglasses are easier to wear effectively than night vision goggles) that blue and green eyes are superior to black or brown eyes

This one is priceless. So first it is inferior to use sunscreen, and now it is superior to wear shades? One would think that where you can buy sunglasses, you would have lights...
Some facts: Eye color is unrelated to night vision. Night vision, if you can call it that in humans, is related to eye size and pupil dilatation, and changes from human to human without relation to the eye color. Experiments done with people with heterochromia has shown no correlation, whatsoever. I have heterochromia, I have participated in those experiments.

And about intelligence... That one has been too chewed. We can start to argue about the definition of intelligence, etc. But in the end... in the normal distribution of IQ, both the lower IQ, and the higher IQ have shown inferior offspring number compared to the average, . And in the end, passing the genes is the only thing that evolution is about. As a former member, I recall the Mensa meetings as get togethers of maladapted, frustrated people. And I underline the "not adapted" part.

It took you two posts to go from "I'm not a racist" to claim "superiority". And that's exactly what I meant when I talked about the fallacy of the race idea. Because there are no races; just local adaptations. If you catalog people according to visible treats, you get a fake idea of "us, them". You want to pick skin color? Why don't you pick hand size or navel shape? You can start a trend: handism... Write a whole theory of why long slender fingers are superior to thick hands, and the need to reserve the higher positions in society to those who are obviously by the hand size and shape, better adapted to the delicate works.

If you want to catalog humans, you can go either by "Me and Everyone Else" or "Us". But there is no "We and They".

+1

A well written reply. I must admit I too was rather taken aback at what Andrew wrote.

[Drewish]

Your post has left me open mouthed. So you are not a racist "in the classic way", but are claiming superiority of racial traits. And I thought that we were rationalist and evolutionist here. There are no "superior" treats; The fittest it's not the most intelligent. It is not the stronger. It is the better adapted. You talk about "superiority", with wrong criteria, and yet I ask "superior for what??".

To clarify, I'm referring to 'superiority' in the sense of being better adapted to survival in modern society. Clearly this does not apply to individuals who live in non-industrialized nations as they constitute completely different environments.

taller more muscular men are superior to shorter effeminate men

Pity the Neardenthals didn't know it...
Superior to do what? weight lifts? I had to lose recently 10 Kg of muscle to be able to run and do stunts that where impossible otherwise. Who is better? the strongest of the fastest? The fastest or the most agile? The strongest or the best coordinated? Look to olympic gymnastics; each exercise has an optimum body type. Talking about body superiority... is just... uncouth According to you an heterosexual individual is "superior" to an homosexual one?

Sports are a novelty here. What matters is how individuals can make their livelihood, and for almost all manual labor jobs, physical strength is superior to running speed. And from a strictly Darwinian perspective being homosexual is detrimental. I can recognize that its more difficult for a gay man to pass on his genes than a straight man without that making me 'uncouth.' That's honesty not bigotry. Just like how saying that it's a handicap to be missing a leg doesn't mean that I must hate all people missing a leg.

Some facts: Eye color is unrelated to night vision. Night vision, if you can call it that in humans, is related to eye size and pupil dilatation, and changes from human to human without relation to the eye color. Experiments done with people with heterochromia has shown no correlation, whatsoever. I have heterochromia, I have participated in those experiments.

I have central heterochromia, and I would disagree based on my own personal experience. Though I would be interested to see those studies if you have a link.
Also to note, the points about eye color and skin color were more to illustrate how if one were selecting for simply optimal survival traits, then traits originating in various 'traditional' racial groups would need to be included. Clearly sexual selection is a much larger factor than sun burn or night vision when it comes to coloration.

And about intelligence... That one has been too chewed. We can start to argue about the definition of intelligence, etc. But in the end... in the normal distribution of IQ, both the lower IQ, and the higher IQ have shown inferior offspring number compared to the average, . And in the end, passing the genes is the only thing that evolution is about. As a former member, I recall the Mensa meetings as get togethers of maladapted, frustrated people. And I underline the "not adapted" part.

That's selection bias. There are plenty of intelligent people who are perfectly social adjusted. Are you really insinuating that if you're smart then you're more likely to be a social outcast?

It took you two posts to go from "I'm not a racist" to claim "superiority".
And that's exactly what I meant when I talked about the fallacy of the race idea. Because there are no races; just local adaptations. If you catalog people according to visible treats, you get a fake idea of "us, them". You want to pick skin color? Why don't you pick hand size or navel shape? You can start a trend: handism... Write a whole theory of why long slender fingers are superior to thick hands, and the need to reserve the higher positions in society to those who are obviously by the hand size and shape, better adapted to the delicate works.

If you want to catalog humans, you can go either by "Me and Everyone Else" or "Us". But there is no "We and They".

Bah, I never claimed my own superiority in anything. Why is it that simply stating that I admit to making judgments about which traits I believe to be 'better' make me racist or blinded by some group thought ideology? We ALL do it (when you decide if you think someone is attractive or not.) For some reason saying that it's good to be smart is a no-brainer, but start saying that intelligence might have something to do with heredity and watch out, because every self-rightious twit will come out of the woodwork to call you a bigot. Insisting that "genetic superiority" is relative? Of course, and of course my opinions are relative because they're my fucking opinions. You disagree and want to discuss if a trait might not be better suited to an environment or that there might be trade offs I'm not seeing? That's fine. But leave the moral indignation out of this.

[Rum]

Andrew, there is no denying racial differences and of course some of those differences offer advantages in certain circumstances or environments - they are adaptations after all, however you can't suggest you are just making dispassionate objective points when you say something like 'To be frankly honest, I do feel the pull of racial pride every now and then' This suggests a sense of superiority on your part, which is where I would part company with you. There is clearly no inherently or objectively superior race.

[Drewish]

Andrew, there is no denying racial differences and of course some of those differences offer advantages in certain circumstances or environments - they are adaptations after all, however you can't suggest you are just making dispassionate objective points when you say something like 'To be frankly honest, I do feel the pull of racial pride every now and then' This suggests a sense of superiority on your part, which is where I would part company with you. There is clearly no inherently or objectively superior race.

Which is why I went on to clarify what I meant in the rest of the paragraph. Where I defined racism as seeing your genetic material as being in some ways akin to a 'soul' in the sense of it being your heritage and seeing your progeny as lasting remnants of yourself (to the extent of one's 'legacy' or something akin to that.) If you disagree that's fine. But the negative reactions here seem to have more to do with the words I used than anything I actually said.

[Rum]

Andrew, there is no denying racial differences and of course some of those differences offer advantages in certain circumstances or environments - they are adaptations after all, however you can't suggest you are just making dispassionate objective points when you say something like 'To be frankly honest, I do feel the pull of racial pride every now and then' This suggests a sense of superiority on your part, which is where I would part company with you. There is clearly no inherently or objectively superior race.

Which is why I went on to clarify what I meant in the rest of the paragraph. Where I defined racism as seeing your genetic material as being in some ways akin to a 'soul' in the sense of it being your heritage and seeing your progeny as lasting remnants of yourself (to the extent of one's 'legacy' or something akin to that.) If you disagree that's fine. But the negative reactions here seem to have more to do with the words I used than anything I actually said.

Its a touchy subject and difficult to be totally rational about! Perhaps we are so sensitive about racism and the uses it has been put to not to mention the PC framework that has built up around it that we all attack rather to readily. I once recall on my social work course (and you can't get any more PC than that) someone from an ethnic minority here in the UK telling me that because I am white and middle class I was automatically a racist. It infuriated the hell out of me because there was no way to defend that prejudice and assumption.

[charlou]

But the negative reactions here seem to have more to do with the words I used than anything I actually said.

Well, I'm glad you took the opportunity to explain what you did mean to say a little better. If you want to be understood the words you use are pretty important, as I'm sure you know.

Where I defined racism as seeing your genetic material as being in some ways akin to a 'soul' in the sense of it being your heritage and seeing your progeny as lasting remnants of yourself (to the extent of one's 'legacy' or something akin to that.)

This is an interesting way to describe heritage ... I'd never considered it in 'spiritual' terms of race before and I can't really see where race comes into this without holding it as some sort of special distinction, a class that sets you (and your line) apart from others? Why would you want to?

Have you ever watched the French film Genesis, Andrew?

[Drewish]

This one http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0287457/ ?
No I haven't. Though I'm seeing if I can find it now.

EDIT -
Wow, this trailer makes me think that I should see it:
http://www.trailerfan.com/movie/genesis-2004/trailer

[charlou]

Yes, that's the one.

Some relevant comments from reviews posted on IMDB ...

Genesis asks that you leave aside everything you know about yourself, and think of your body as the substance that makes up the universe, your life as the energy that sparkled up the Big Bang, your projects as a shape, a limited space of organized chaos, resisting the deterioration of time.

I think it's not quite right to read Genesis strictly as a documentary. Nuridsany and Pérennou shoot for and achieve a film that very effectively conveys an intuitive understanding of holistic or panentheistic philosophical and spiritual views and shows how well they can mesh with current scientific understanding.

A couple of fascinating ideas discussed: We are all products of the cosmos - literally made from atoms that were once stars, nebulae, and then rivers, trees, volcanoes. Once we pass on, our atoms will once again become those wonderful works of nature.

We are not made of atoms. Atoms flow through us like water in a river, but our life is more like the river - directing the flow of matter. Defying the laws of entropy that pull us towards decay. This refers to the fact that much of the tissues in our body is replaced every few days/months/years. So we are in fact a different 'person' to ourselves even just a few years ago.

We science geeks know that the atoms in Hitler or Ghengis Khan could be floating around in our bodies right now, but anyone will enjoy seeing the story of life and death with all the drama and excitement that this film has.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Its a touchy subject and difficult to be totally rational about! Perhaps we are so sensitive about racism and the uses it has been put to not to mention the PC framework that has built up around it that we all attack rather to readily. I once recall on my social work course (and you can't get any more PC than that) someone from an ethnic minority here in the UK telling me that because I am white and middle class I was automatically a racist. It infuriated the hell out of me because there was no way to defend that prejudice and assumption.

You didn't think to point out that, since they were making such a sweeping, biased judgment based solely on the colour of your skin, they were automatically a racist?

[Sisifo]

But leave the moral indignation out of this

Indignation? Sure, because your arguments are indign. But not in a moral way; they are factually and argumentative indign.

To clarify, I'm referring to 'superiority' in the sense of being better adapted to survival in modern society. Clearly this does not apply to individuals who live in non-industrialized nations as they constitute completely different environments.

And now what you are saying is that being taller and stronger is being superior -sorry; better adapted- in modern society, but that it doesn't apply to non-industralized worlds... Are you aware of the lack of sense of that argument? I am also still waiting for the "tall" superiority argument.

Sports are a novelty here. What matters is how individuals can make their livelihood, and for almost all manual labor jobs, physical strength is superior to running speed

.
Now the manual labor is superior? Your argument is "being strong is superior, because is more suitable for manual labor". ?

And from a strictly Darwinian perspective being homosexual is detrimental. I can recognize that its more difficult for a gay man to pass on his genes than a straight man without that making me 'uncouth

It makes the comment uncouth, because you are using your common sense like a scientific fact. If homosexuality is detrimental, evolution is taking its time to erase that gene!
You are thinking in genes in an individual isolated cause-effect. You think that your genes are Your Genes. There are characteristics that although are beneficial for the global gene pool, not just for the individual, such as altruism, widely discussed here. Homosexuality seems to be similar. If you have no children because you are homosexual, your genes pass through your relatives to their offspring. In other words, families with gay members, would have an overall better life expectancy.

Just like how saying that it's a handicap to be missing a leg doesn't mean that I must hate all people missing a leg

.

That line misses me in the paralelism of being homosexual with missing one leg, and the idea of hating all (?? not even one!) people who have a physical characteristic...

I have central heterochromia, and I would disagree based on my own personal experience. Though I would be interested to see those studies if you have a link.

What experience?? If you have central heterochromia your eyes change color along the radius... What's your experience? That you see better through the center of the eye rather than by the peripheria? It is like your previous statement

lighter colored eyes are semi-translucent and allow for better night vision

What kind of comic-book are you taking that from? What's that semi-translucency in eyes, what has translucency anything to do with to night vision?
I will provide you the links soon. My heterochromia is a green eye, and a black eye . And both see exactly the same in dark conditions. Which is sometimes more than light blue eyes, sometimes less than black eyes. Because it is a no-brainer that we see through the pupil, which in dark conditions dilates and takes over the iris. So bigger eye or bigger pupil, better night vision.

That's selection bias. There are plenty of intelligent people who are perfectly social adjusted. Are you really insinuating that if you're smart then you're more likely to be a social outcast?

Yes. The incidency of depression and suicide is bigger in high IQ individuals. Happiness biggest foe is imagination, and imagination is a key in intelligence. Also we try to group among our similars. The further you are from the norm, the less individuals you can feel comfortable with.

Bah, I never claimed my own superiority in anything. Why is it that simply stating that I admit to making judgments about which traits I believe to be 'better' make me racist or blinded by some group thought ideology? We ALL do it (when you decide if you think someone is attractive or not.) For some reason saying that it's good to be smart is a no-brainer, but start saying that intelligence might have something to do with heredity and watch out, because every self-rightious twit will come out of the woodwork to call you a bigot. Insisting that "genetic superiority" is relative? Of course, and of course my opinions are relative because they're my fucking opinions. You disagree and want to discuss if a trait might not be better suited to an environment or that there might be trade offs I'm not seeing? That's fine. But leave the moral indignation out of this.

Disagreement is when you say "blondes are more beautiful than brunettes" and I say "no". What we have here is the assesment "tall muscular and straight light eyed men are superior than others" and try to present objective proof that results to be neither objective, nor proof. Then there is no disagreement. It is just a false statement. And one that has a very specific name. And as long as your arguments are based on your guts and common sense and opposed to scientific research, I hope that every self-righteous twit that comes out of the woodwork inflamated for the use of that kind of lines to defend creationism, will come out to point out the same flaws in racist comments. Not because is politically correct. Because it is right. Politically correct is hide or mask a fact. Point out a falsehood, is not PC. It is right.

[Drewish]

And now what you are saying is that being taller and stronger is being superior -sorry; better adapted- in modern society, but that it doesn't apply to non-industralized worlds... Are you aware of the lack of sense of that argument? I am also still waiting for the "tall" superiority argument...

Now the manual labor is superior? Your argument is "being strong is superior, because is more suitable for manual labor". ?

Being larger is better for doing manual labor. it has the trade off of requiring larger food stocks to sustain a larger body. This is an issue in undeveloped countries and places where hunting / gathering are still used for stock food sources. Not so in modern society. While being tall and muscular are not beneficial in desk jobs, it's not like they are a huge detriment, as ample food supply is still available, and the increased attractiveness of taller males to females has been shown numerous times, so sexual selection is working in that direction as well.

It makes the comment uncouth, because you are using your common sense like a scientific fact.

... If you have no children because you are homosexual, your genes pass through your relatives to their offspring. In other words, families with gay members, would have an overall better life expectancy.

... Happiness biggest foe is imagination, and imagination is a key in intelligence. Also we try to group among our similars. The further you are from the norm, the less individuals you can feel comfortable with.

Perhaps I should just dismiss both of these statements then? And regarding homosexuality, you brought that up not me, and you're attempting to twist what I'm saying to make me appear like I hate gays. Not cool, seriously not cool.

As to the talk of heterochromia, I'll wait to discuss that until I see the study you are talking about.

Disagreement is when you say "blondes are more beautiful than brunettes" and I say "no". What we have here is the assesment "tall muscular and straight light eyed men are superior than others" and try to present objective proof....

I see what you did there. you removed the part where I said that dark skin is probably superior to light skin so that you could make me appear like I was advocating some kind of narcissistic racial superiority. Too bad that kind of straw man argument only works when it isn't exposed.

[Rum]

Its a touchy subject and difficult to be totally rational about! Perhaps we are so sensitive about racism and the uses it has been put to not to mention the PC framework that has built up around it that we all attack rather to readily. I once recall on my social work course (and you can't get any more PC than that) someone from an ethnic minority here in the UK telling me that because I am white and middle class I was automatically a racist. It infuriated the hell out of me because there was no way to defend that prejudice and assumption.

You didn't think to point out that, since they were making such a sweeping, biased judgment based solely on the colour of your skin, they were automatically a racist?

This is another PC brigade wheeze. You can't (apparently) be a racist if you happen to be a member of an oppressed minority.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Its a touchy subject and difficult to be totally rational about! Perhaps we are so sensitive about racism and the uses it has been put to not to mention the PC framework that has built up around it that we all attack rather to readily. I once recall on my social work course (and you can't get any more PC than that) someone from an ethnic minority here in the UK telling me that because I am white and middle class I was automatically a racist. It infuriated the hell out of me because there was no way to defend that prejudice and assumption.

You didn't think to point out that, since they were making such a sweeping, biased judgment based solely on the colour of your skin, they were automatically a racist?

This is another PC brigade wheeze. You can't (apparently) be a racist if you happen to be a member of an oppressed minority.

I would have failed that course. Because it's bollocks.