Is everyone racist?

[G L Wilson]

Just a question. I fight very hard against my racism, for instance. Thank you.

[The Atheist]

Just a question. I fight very hard against my racism, for instance. Thank you.

Good question, but I think you need to define racism first.

Wikipedia says (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism):
Racism is the belief that there are inherent differences in people's traits and capacities that are entirely due to their race, however defined, and that, as a consequence, justify the different treatment of those people, both socially and legally.

Vocabulary.com (http://www.vocabulary.com/definition/racism) says:


Racism is the practice of discriminating against people based on their race, national or ethnic background.

Merriam-Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism) says:


a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

So, if we go by those descriptions, which all contain an element of action - believing a race is superior - then no, everyone is not racist.

However, according to those criteria, if I dislike someone because of their race, as long as I don't think that person is inferior, then it isn't racism, while if I make a statement that "Maori have the highest rate of infanticide in the OECD", even though it's true, it's racist.

Not a straightforward subject.

[OrphanPip]

Race is a social construct anyway, there is no biological basis for dividing humans along the traditionally defined racial lines. Statistically there is a very good chance that you are genetically more similar to several people of a different racial group than your own. Visual markers are a superficial determinant of genetic difference that are only reliable for a select few phenotypes.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Wow, G.L., a question that actually seems to have the potential for interesting discussion. Good job!

I don't think everyone's "racist." Like Atheist said, when someone says a person is racist, that means that person will actually take actions to show that racism, whether it's burning a cross in someone's yard, or something as small as the guy working at the cash register not saying "Have a good day" to a certain person because that person's black/Muslim, etc. So, no, of course not everyone is racist.

I think prejudice may be a better word. Here's the definition (at least what my Mac's dictionary gives me):


1. preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience

I'm willing to bet almost anybody has prejudicial thoughts. I do. I hate to say it, but when I see a group of black guys dressed like rappers walking down the street, I think, "There's trouble." Now, I know that thought is without merit, but it's there. Growing up in the town I've grown up in makes it nearly impossible for it not to be there.

[The Atheist]

Race is a social construct anyway, there is no biological basis for dividing humans along the traditionally defined racial lines. Statistically there is a very good chance that you are genetically more similar to several people of a different racial group than your own. Visual markers are a superficial determinant of genetic difference that are only reliable for a select few phenotypes.

I think that idea is over-simplistic, and practical examples can show how.

While there is no part of DNA we can look at and say, "Oh, that person is a ........" there are unquestionably genetic characteristics that very much conform to being racial characteristics.

West Africans are my favourite example, because they are faster than white men. No white man has yet been able to run 100m in under 10 seconds, while hundreds of men of West African extraction have blitzed it. Their genes create a different type of muscle mass, with more fast-twitch fibre than others. That is a racial characteristic.

Another one, and much closer to my home, is Pacifika People. They have a specific set of health needs, which our medical scientists acknowledge as being due to them being Pacific Islanders and their unique set of genes.

If race is nothing more than social construct, those things would not be true.


I'm willing to bet almost anybody has prejudicial thoughts. I do. I hate to say it, but when I see a group of black guys dressed like rappers walking down the street, I think, "There's trouble." Now, I know that thought is without merit, but it's there. Growing up in the town I've grown up in makes it nearly impossible for it not to be there.

Much better idea and example.

I had much the same thing recently - one of my kids was out playing in the street and a large group of exuberant youths were headed his way. Once I noticed it was a group of Asian teenagers, I automatically assumed they'd be friendly.

:D

That must be prejudice as well!

[OrphanPip]

I think that idea is over-simplistic, and practical examples can show how.

While there is no part of DNA we can look at and say, "Oh, that person is a ........" there are unquestionably genetic characteristics that very much conform to being racial characteristics.

West Africans are my favourite example, because they are faster than white men. No white man has yet been able to run 100m in under 10 seconds, while hundreds of men of West African extraction have blitzed it. Their genes create a different type of muscle mass, with more fast-twitch fibre than others. That is a racial characteristic.

Another one, and much closer to my home, is Pacifika People. They have a specific set of health needs, which our medical scientists acknowledge as being due to them being Pacific Islanders and their unique set of genes.

If race is nothing more than social construct, those things would not be true.

Meh, if you actually look at the genetics the variance within a population accounts for 98% of differences that occur between human beings. There is only a likelyhood of a small set of genes being present in one population that are not in another. Moreover, delineating between interbreeding populations becomes a process of arbitrary line marking. All you are doing is locating a group of people, who may be better suited to running, and then drawing a line around them and calling them a race off the basis of a small number of genes. If we chose a different gene and level of prevalence of such gene to delineate a race we would get a totally different line. Race is entirely meaningless as a scientific classification. It tells us next to nothing. And though racial indexes are used in medicine, they are recognized as only moderately useful and only for a select few traits.

Also, there have been white men who have done the 100m under ten seconds. If we wanted to use sprinting ability as a racial marker apparently Christophe Lemaire would be West African. The fact of the matter is that prevalence of a few traits in any population does not a race make beyond arbitrary classification.

Clearly different frequencies of genes occur between populations, but that doesn't mean anything meaningful at all.

If you use enough genetic markers you can differentiate any population, down to the family unit. The point becomes that where we decide to draw a line is socially motivated rather than meaningful in any scientific way.

[G L Wilson]

Meh, if you actually look at the genetics the variance within a population accounts for 98% of differences that occur between human beings. There is only a likelyhood of a small set of genes being present in one population that are not in another. Moreover, delineating between interbreeding populations becomes a process of arbitrary line marking. All you are doing is locating a group of people, who may be better suited to running, and then drawing a line around them and calling them a race off the basis of a small number of genes. If we chose a different gene and level of prevalence of such gene to delineate a race we would get a totally different line. Race is entirely meaningless as a scientific classification. It tells us next to nothing. And though racial indexes are used in medicine, they are recognized as only moderately useful and only for a select few traits.

Also, there have been white men who have done the 100m under ten seconds. If we wanted to use sprinting ability as a racial marker apparently Christophe Lemaire would be West African. The fact of the matter is that prevalence of a few traits in any population does not a race make beyond arbitrary classification.

Clearly different frequencies of genes occur between populations, but that doesn't mean anything meaningful at all.

If you use enough genetic markers you can differentiate any population, down to the family unit. The point becomes that where we decide to draw a line is socially motivated rather than meaningful in any scientific way.

I may be stupid but I'm not blind.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I'm not debating Pip on this one, lol. Genetics is his thing. Though, I do think that just because their is little genetic difference in races is a poor argument for saying there aren't different races. There are obvious cultural differences between people with different colored skin--cultures I find it a crime not to pay attention to just because we want to avoid racism (i.e., the whole "ignore it and it will go away" argument). As per usual, the problem arises as a semantical one--"race" is probably the wrong word.

[The Atheist]

Meh, if you actually look at the genetics the variance within a population accounts for 98% of differences that occur between human beings. There is only a likelyhood of a small set of genes being present in one population that are not in another.

No, there isn't a small likelihood at all - I gave two specific examples, and I can add East Africans and distance running/stamina and many well-documented medical problems that beset people of a specific race more frequently than other races.

This is science, not fantasy.

Jordanians twice as likely as Palestinians to develop multiple sclerosis. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8867073)

Ashkenazi Jews are predisposed to several genetic abnormalities. (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Health/genetics.html)

Asian and Pacific Islanders' predisposition to kidney diseases. (http://geriatrics.stanford.edu/ethnomed/hawaiian_pacific_islander/patterns/morbidity/kidney_disease.html)

Also, I think your "98%" is a lot higher than genetic studies show, but I'm open to correction. I understood the variance in a population was around 85%.


Moreover, delineating between interbreeding populations becomes a process of arbitrary line marking. All you are doing is locating a group of people, who may be better suited to running, and then drawing a line around them and calling them a race off the basis of a small number of genes. If we chose a different gene and level of prevalence of such gene to delineate a race we would get a totally different line.

That's not right either. We know for certain that West African people have more fast-twitch fibre mass than people who don't come from that region.


Race is entirely meaningless as a scientific classification. It tells us next to nothing. And though racial indexes are used in medicine, they are recognized as only moderately useful and only for a select few traits.

I'm not arguing it's only minor differences, but you contradict yourself. Unless medical science doesn't count as science?


Also, there have been white men who have done the 100m under ten seconds.

Sorry, you are correct - the first one was last month - by Lemaitre.

He is still half a second behind the West African runners and is now running times that would have had him competitive with Africans in 1963.


The point becomes that where we decide to draw a line is socially motivated rather than meaningful in any scientific way.

Sure it is, but almost everything we do is socially constructed.

I'm most amused by the fact that arguing against race is actually becomes racist itself, because it clearly disadvantages races with known medical issues.

[Delta40]

sociologically, discrimination to racism assists to not only know who to group with most alike but also who not to group with.

[OrphanPip]

No, there isn't a small likelihood at all - I gave two specific examples, and I can add East Africans and distance running/stamina and many well-documented medical problems that beset people of a specific race more frequently than other races.

This is science, not fantasy.

Jordanians twice as likely as Palestinians to develop multiple sclerosis. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8867073)

Ashkenazi Jews are predisposed to several genetic abnormalities. (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Health/genetics.html)

Asian and Pacific Islanders' predisposition to kidney diseases. (http://geriatrics.stanford.edu/ethnomed/hawaiian_pacific_islander/patterns/morbidity/kidney_disease.html)

Also, I think your "98%" is a lot higher than genetic studies show, but I'm open to correction. I understood the variance in a population was around 85%.

The 85% figure comes from the famous comparison of 16 genes across racial groups. That was looking at 16 genes which are typically associated with racial classification, rather than at the overall genome.

Onto your examples, I don't dispute that certain genes correlate with breeding populations, what I dispute is that this means absolutely anything meaningful in the grander scheme of things. Moreover, it obscures the fact that isolated breeding populations are practically non-existant amongst humans. These groupings break down when we start to actually look at the genetics involved. There are very few genes that exist only in some populations and not in others.



That's not right either. We know for certain that West African people have more fast-twitch fibre mass than people who don't come from that region.

No, this is wrong. There are simply a greater frequency of people with such genetic traits within those populations. It is just mere line marking and arbitrary picking of whatever genes one feels are important that is being used to reinforce the notion of race. It doesn't matter because we can break down breeding populations and find difference at any level, it doesn't make race a meaningful concept in any way.



I'm not arguing it's only minor differences, but you contradict yourself. Unless medical science doesn't count as science?

Racial classification in medicine is done as an expedient indicator of frequency of certain traits. It does not mean those racial classifications actually mean anything in a larger scale of things. Moreover, it is generally recognized in the medical field that these indicators are not highly reliable.



He is still half a second behind the West African runners and is now running times that would have had him competitive with Africans in 1963.

There are less than a 100 people ever who have broken the 10 second mark, you are exaggerating the difference.



I'm most amused by the fact that arguing against race is actually becomes racist itself, because it clearly disadvantages races with known medical issues.

Nonsense, I'm merely pointing out that different frequencies of genes amongst different populations are a given under any population set one examines. Which means you can construct a race out of any group of people you want. Meaning that our conventional notions of racial categories are largely arbitrary reflections of our superficial overemphasis of visible phenotypes.

[The Atheist]

...I don't dispute that certain genes correlate with breeding populations, what I dispute is that this means absolutely anything meaningful in the grander scheme of things...

Yes, we agreed that it's a social construct, and while I agree with with what you say from a personal perspective, I think the concept of race has moved on to embrace culture to an extent that if we try to suppress the very notion, we run the risk of inadvertent racism anyway.

The health examples I gave provide evidence for that. There is no question that if medical science didn't indulge in racial typing, it would cost lives.

NZ Maori are an excellent example from the socio-political perspective - removal of race as an indicator would cost them 8 seats in Parliament and billions of dollars in assets. Their entire race has invested in the concept of race to the extent that they would be destroying their own culture if they went along with the notion.

/Tangent/ I'm going to keep on this African runner stuff as well. Yes, there have only been ~70 runners to have beaten 10 seconds, but take a look at sprinting races worldwide, and you will find that there are no white men in the contest from the semifinal onwards. Even though the numbers are small, 70:1 is pretty good odds, and even better when you look at the number of participants, the disadvantages Africans have had on both sides of the Atlantic and the mega-funding white men have had to try to go faster.

:D

[Panglossian]

I'm willing to bet almost anybody has prejudicial thoughts. I do. I hate to say it, but when I see a group of black guys dressed like rappers walking down the street, I think, "There's trouble." Now, I know that thought is without merit, but it's there. Growing up in the town I've grown up in makes it nearly impossible for it not to be there.

Surely seeing a group of white guys dressed like rappers walking down the street would make you think "trouble" (potential trouble) - or Asian guys, or a mixed group? A gang of any kind makes me "wary".

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Surely seeing a group of white guys dressed like rappers walking down the street would make you think "trouble" (potential trouble) - or Asian guys, or a mixed group? A gang of any kind makes me "wary".
If I see a group of white guys dressed like rappers, I think, "What a bunch of douchebags." Normal white kids, I see mischief. A group of Asian kids . . . well, I haven't seen that yet. I'd probably just be puzzled.

[tonywalt]

I think the question is why is political correctness so pervasive?

I have little time for self-flagellation on racism. It's gotten tiresome to see blasted down our throats by most of the mainstream media, in most western countries.

[The Atheist]

I think the question is why is political correctness so pervasive?

That's pretty simple - the squeakiest wheel got its way.

Their idea is that by using PC-style speak, it will help stop negative attitudes growing.

It may even be true. I'd certainly say we've gone too far, though.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I have little time for self-flagellation on racism.
Yeah, because endeavoring not to irrationally stereoype people based on race is such a chore.

[tonywalt]

Yeah, because endeavoring not to irrationally stereoype people based on race is such a chore.

I think a chore becomes tiresome if you constantly get harassed about doing it.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I can't recall ever being "harassed" to not be racist, unless people saying we shouldn't treat others different based on skin color is harassment. Who, exactly, is harassing you?

Still, let me try and better understand you mindset. Are you saying you veer towards being racist just to give a symbolic middle-finger to those you perceive as harassing you?

[tonywalt]

No, I'm not saying that. I am talking of political correctness as a whole. There are certain rules set down by the media of 'do's and don'ts' and I give a middle finger to the notion that I have to follow anything that laid out by them.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I see what you're saying. I generally don't let that bother me, though, and just make up my own mind. Just because the media proclaims something to not be PC, and therefore bad, I will make my own judgement--their's has no impact. It gives them too much power.

[tonywalt]

Agreed:)

[chacotaco91]

I hear often that race is a "social" construct....which may be true. However, I think we're genetically pre-determined to create these constructs; no matter how little our genetic variance actually is. Evolution may have made it advantageous for groups/individuals to prefer companionship and mating with those who look similar to themselves. This would in turn mean that aggression against those who appear different would be advantageous in an evolutionary manor.

In my opinion the current academic/media/political establishment's strategy of outright denial of race is hardly helpful when the average person can so clearly see the evidence: significantly uneven distributions of Asians in the math and sciences, blacks in athletics and prison, etc etc. By no means could any of these things be explained in a purely biological-racial view(except maybe blacks and athletics), but their existence is undeniable.

I don't really believe our modern multicultural society has done a very good job as dismantling racism. On the contrary, I think its done a very good job of creating droves of closet racists. What happens when you try and discuss race? An immediate reaction of fierce skepticism followed by the accusation of racism.

I'm currently waiting for my copy of Race: The Reality of Human Differences, by Vincet Sarich. It will likely be a tough read but a buddy of mine said it drastically changed his views on humanity.

[G L Wilson]

Racists find proof for their beliefs in science and holy texts and whereever they can, the irrational finds a way where the rational found none.

[Junglord]

I don't understand how someone of intelligence and knowledge of other cultures and race can be racist. If one is to be living among other races different to their own, they will observe that there is no difference in behavoir of individuals in different races. Thus would conclude that there is no superior race, nor is there any need to discriminate others based on their race or background.

I don't think that political correctness has gone mad at all. Infact it is the racists that spread that crap around as well as the media. "ba ba rainbow sheep" and all that is complete rubish. The government has not legislated nor encouraged any changes of nursary rhymes, niether have they banned the use of the terms "black board" or "white board" in schools. This is the kind of stuff which increases race hate which the media spew out for the gullables to gobble up.

[Darcy88]

I remember seeing a report recently which said that looking at someone of a different race from your own activates fewer mirror neurons, which, if I'm not mistaken, translates into less empathy.

I can't find it now, so maybe I imagined it.

I suppose it might makes sense from an evolutionary stand-point - heightened aggression towards those outside of your tribe/group.

But let's be honest, PC or not - racism is ridiculous. My advice to any racist would be to get to know people of a different race. Spend enough time with them and the truth that they're little different from you becomes overwhelming and undeniable. Even if racism is partly innate, the truth of the matter, the essential commonality which bonds man with man, soul with soul, skin colour be damned, renders any such primitive impulse easily rubbed out and forgotten.

[cl154576]

My advice to any racist would be to get to know people of a different race. Spend enough time with them and the truth that they're little different from you becomes overwhelming and undeniable. Even if racism is partly innate, the truth of the matter, the essential commonality which bonds man with man, soul with soul, skin colour be damned, renders any such primitive impulse easily rubbed out and forgotten.

I don't see myself as racist. I don't look down on people from other races, and I am on agreeable terms with them just as often as I am on agreeable terms with people of my own race. But people from different races are immensely, immensely different.

I live in a community with a lot of first-generation immigrants from all over the world, mixed with some families that have been living in the country for generations. Even if there's still a "commonality which bonds man with man, soul with soul," the different cultural values, styles of interaction, etc., are extremely noticeable, and at school groups of friends tend to be of the same race, with very limited mixing – not because of any hostility toward other races but simply because they have similar values instilled in them by their heritage.

Also, when my parents go back to their native country, although they dress, look, and talk like natives, even strangers are able to tell by some subtle nuance in their bearing that they've been away. Many people I know have had similar experiences.

[Alexander III]

@ Orphan Pip, I tend to agree with you in many things, but in this I cannot - GL Wilson said it best I may be stupid, but I am not blind. From the way your wrote your post, it seems to say that any random African man is just as likely to be as fast as any random white man. Or any random man is just as likely to have almond shaped eyes as any chinese/japanese Korean man. I know you didn't mean this, but it sure sounded like that.

There are many rather indisputable differences between races. For instance, the majority of Caucasian men are able to grow full beard, while it is only a minority of chinese/japanese/korean men who are able to grow a full beard. A lot of things such as height or size can be ascribed to cultural reasons (e.g abundance of food or lack) but the beard thing is purely a genetic racial trait.

Also, Indian men have a weaker metabolism than caucasian men. For instance an What would be enough calories to feed 3 indian men, is enough for one caucasian man. This is the reason there are huge problems with diabetes and heart disease amongst indian expatriates who adopt wester diets. What is fine for a caucasians body, is to much for an indians and thus adopting a western diet leads to huge % of diabetes and heart issues.

It seems to me only a politically correct, indoctrinated scientist would dispute facts like these for the sake of his ideology. Much like doctors of the past ignored facts to propagate racists sentiment and express the idea that the "white race" was superior.




I don't understand how someone of intelligence and knowledge of other cultures and race can be racist. If one is to be living among other races different to their own, they will observe that there is no difference in behavoir of individuals in different races. Thus would conclude that there is no superior race, nor is there any need to discriminate others based on their race or background.

I don't think that political correctness has gone mad at all. Infact it is the racists that spread that crap around as well as the media. "ba ba rainbow sheep" and all that is complete rubish. The government has not legislated nor encouraged any changes of nursary rhymes, niether have they banned the use of the terms "black board" or "white board" in schools. This is the kind of stuff which increases race hate which the media spew out for the gullables to gobble up.


On first thought it may seem so, but even staying within the field of literature I could give you a list of a dozen and more writers who we deem to have possessed genius, who had racist views

-Ezra Pound
-T.S Elliot
-Earnest Hemingway
-Scott Fitzgerald
-Edmund Spencer
-Dante Alligehri
-Gabriele D'Annunzio
-Maurice Barrès
- Joseph Conrad
- Gertrude Stein
- Arthur Rimbaud
- Dostoyevsky

So, Racism isn't something depending on Intelligence - Mussolini and Hitler were two of the XX's centuries greatest racists and while they were very much twisted men, you cannot denny that form a purely intelligence related point of view, both men were very very clever.




Also in a more general sense, I do not think I am racist, but like every other human being, first impressions will be how I define a person. To be honest I know if I will be friends with someone or like a girl, within the first 10 seconds of seeing them - appearances are everything.

For instance If I was walking alone in a small street in london, and behind me was a black man walking with his head held high and confidently, dressed in a nice sport coat and nice trousers, and with a well groomed face - I would feel safe.

If the same man was ungroomed and walking hunched and awkwardly with hi head bent down and dressed with lots of "bling" and with baddy clothes and a hoodie - my guard would be up I would be and ready for any possible action.

Had he been white and the former I would have felt equally safe, had he been white and the latter I would have felt equally alert.

In all honesty I judge people a lot by the way they are dressed and how they carry themselves. A man who is well groomed and finely dressed, who walks spritley and with confidence I will give him my full admiration and time.

A man who looks like his mother dressed him, and has no social grace - I will almost always think him an idiot and will not sympathize with him. But it has nothing to do with race, just general appearance.

Although If I ever say or do a racist thing to a minority, I make sure to do an equally and possibly worse racists act to every other race/culture. That way I can adhere to political correctness and admit that I am not racist, and that I hate everyone with equality.
;)

[Ecurb]

@ Orphan Pip, I tend to agree with you in many things, but in this I cannot - GL Wilson said it best I may be stupid, but I am not blind. From the way your wrote your post, it seems to say that any random African man is just as likely to be as fast as any random white man. Or any random man is just as likely to have almond shaped eyes as any chinese/japanese Korean man. I know you didn't mean this, but it sure sounded like that.

There are many rather indisputable differences between races. For instance, the majority of Caucasian men are able to grow full beard, while it is only a minority of chinese/japanese/korean men who are able to grow a full beard. A lot of things such as height or size can be ascribed to cultural reasons (e.g abundance of food or lack) but the beard thing is purely a genetic racial trait.

Also, Indian men have a weaker metabolism than caucasian men. For instance an What would be enough calories to feed 3 indian men, is enough for one caucasian man. This is the reason there are huge problems with diabetes and heart disease amongst indian expatriates who adopt wester diets. What is fine for a caucasians body, is to much for an indians and thus adopting a western diet leads to huge % of diabetes and heart issues.

It seems to me only a politically correct, indoctrinated scientist would dispute facts like these for the sake of his ideology. Much like doctors of the past ignored facts to propagate racists sentiment and express the idea that the "white race" was superior.

;)

Until the last 50 years or so, the standard anthopological wisdom was that "race" was a reasonable way of thinking about human genetic diversity. However, since then -- and in particular since DNA testing became possible -- the notion has been discredited. The four so-called "races" (caucasoid, negroid, mongoloid, and aboriginal) have been clearly demonstrated to be a very lousy description of human genetic diversity.

In fact, a great many "caucasoids" are gentically more similar to some "negroids" than many other "negroids" are (my apologies for the old-fashioned racial terms). Phenotype (and anthropologists used to measure skull shapes and phenotypic characteristics other than skin color) just turned out to be a lousy predictor of genotyple.

Now (or back 25 years ago, when I was in grad school in anthropology) gene clines are used, because they are more accurate descriptions of human genetic diversity than the old racial designations. "Clines" are overlapping circles. Supposed "caucasoids" from Northern Africa, for example, are more similar to 'negroids" from Northern Africa than those same negroids are to negroids from southern Africa, when one looks at their actual genetic make-up.

Of course human genetic diversity does exist -- and genetic tenedencies vary from place to place. It's just that the old racial categories are a very inaccurate way of describing them.

[Delta40]

If one is to be living among other races different to their own, they will observe that there is no difference in behavoir of individuals in different races. Thus would conclude that there is no superior race, nor is there any need to discriminate others based on their race or background.

I disagree. Family structures are different and certain structures predominate which impairs them socially, emotionally, healthwise and economically. I'm less likely to point the finger at individuals but more at structure they live in. While I know I'm not superior to Indigenous Australians, I do know that their sense of widespread family means many homes are ridiculously overcrowded with 'relatives'. This causes deterioration structurally and healthwise as well as high eviction rates and greater strain in relocating. Due to racism and stereotyping by non-indigenous, many Indigenous folk are unemployed and displaced so create tight, loyal bonds to family. I can't blame them because I haven't been excluded from this society.

They share everything, including their social security so materially they cannot move on. If one family member lands a job, they are expected to hand over their pay packet and share the riches which means the person has little incentive to work 40 hours a week for virutally nothing and this again reinforces the cycle of high unemployment and high prison numbers among Indigenous folk. Because the bonds of 'family' are an integral part of Indigenous culture, western society is a real challenge and because the family structure is different, people discriminate to reinforce what they are not a part of and what they are. The line where such discrimination spills into racism or prejudice becomes blurred and then socially injected into the next generation.

[Alexander III]

Until the last 50 years or so, the standard anthopological wisdom was that "race" was a reasonable way of thinking about human genetic diversity. However, since then -- and in particular since DNA testing became possible -- the notion has been discredited. The four so-called "races" (caucasoid, negroid, mongoloid, and aboriginal) have been clearly demonstrated to be a very lousy description of human genetic diversity.

In fact, a great many "caucasoids" are gentically more similar to some "negroids" than many other "negroids" are (my apologies for the old-fashioned racial terms). Phenotype (and anthropologists used to measure skull shapes and phenotypic characteristics other than skin color) just turned out to be a lousy predictor of genotyple.

Now (or back 25 years ago, when I was in grad school in anthropology) gene clines are used, because they are more accurate descriptions of human genetic diversity than the old racial designations. "Clines" are overlapping circles. Supposed "caucasoids" from Northern Africa, for example, are more similar to 'negroids" from Northern Africa than those same negroids are to negroids from southern Africa, when one looks at their actual genetic make-up.

Of course human genetic diversity does exist -- and genetic tenedencies vary from place to place. It's just that the old racial categories are a very inaccurate way of describing them.

But, this is a case were scientific evidence shall not influence the way we think as it goes against every impulse of human nature.

Ok so some whites are genetically more similar to some blacks than those blacks are similar to other blacks. So instead of judging by phenotype we should judge by genotype. Makes perfect sense, but completely awkward on a human nature level.

The only people we judge from the inside out are those within our close circle of friends and family, everyone else is always judged from the outside in - and I don't see that changing as it is the way human are. I mean everyone knows and it has been undoubtedly scientifically proven that war is detrimental to societies, yet we continue to have them, because it is such an integral part of human nature.

Facts don't change the way we think, humans are a lot less rational in behavior than that - personally I am glad for it, if we were all guided by reason and not passion, sure the world would have less suffering, but it would be also a lot duller and lifless, think 1984 or Brave New World.

[Ecurb]

I never suggested we "should" judge by either phenotype or genotype. I'm just pointing out why race is not longer considered a reasonable or effective way of thinking about human genetic diversity. Also, to the extent that people think "race" is a reasonable way of thinking about human genetic diversity, they are wrong.

Of course that does not suggest that "race" doesn't "exist". It exists as a cultural phenomenon. In the past, Europeans would talk about "race" as a linguistic or political grouping ("as a race, the French are noted for their...."). Many Native American groups (the "Apache" or the "Sioux") were not political groups, but were lumped together on the basis of their language. Obviously, genetics is one of many possible ways of talking about human diversity.

[Big Dante]

First of all is setting the scene. I'm coloured as seen in my avatar and a swimmer.

Okay now I went to the hospital one time and three different nurses throughout the day said, "you're athletic, do you play basketball?" It's not racist but it suggests that they were inclined to think due to my skin colour, basketball is the more likely sport I play.

[tonywalt]

True, you have to roll with it.

I'm from the West Indies and I was buying fish at the market and the fellow selling said "are you in the tennis club?" I said, "yea, I am". He was predisposed to think that I was a member of the club. He was so right!

I love tennis, and I love that club.

[Scheherazade]

I'm a black swimmer as seen in my avatar.Was that photo taken in the pool?

[Big Dante]

Was that photo taken in the pool?

Indeed. Underwater cameras give such a clear photo these days.

Now let me go reword that.... :gnorsi:

[hoope]

Racism existed ever humans were ! And when a person says the word " Racism or Racist " it always comes in mind .. Hatred, terrorism , slavery , separations ,,, whatsoever..

Differences exists between the people .. no one denies it ! Rich , poor , white , black , smart , genius.. .. this is nature and God created us that way .. to learn from eachother and appreciate what we have ..
But when humans take those difference in the wrong way .. and they see themselves above the others.. dicriminations .. and when we fight and kill each others for such things.. HERE racism becomes wrong.. and is not a belief then !

[leemadison11]

Racism is not always bad, its the negative racism which should be promoted. Dave Chappelle is one of my favorite stand up comedians and he puts up this point amazingly in his own way. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCbD9o948ec