Did the human race split?

[SKIRRID5]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7358868.stm

This story is interesting, but a little worrying. It's one of those bits of scientific research which one can see being quoted for the wrong reasons. If there was a fairly long lasting split in the human race, with two different populations living separately in Africa, the racists will seize on this and claim that the black races stem from the one stock and we from the other, and hence we really aren't both the same race. Needless to say our lot will be deemed superior!

[SKIRRID5]

After I wrote the above it struck me that I was saying "we" as if on the unwarranted assumption that everyone on this forum is white. Apologies. It's so damned easy to do something like that.

[ForAllOfThis]

There is no doubt that white and black people are the same species (race). In biology a species is defined by the ability to breed between two parents and produce fertile offspring. As this is clearly the case with black and white humans then there is no scientific evidence that can suggest otherwise.

[SKIRRID5]

Certainly, but that wouldn't stop some people from trying to make the claim.
A little matter like proper scientific evidence wouldn't give them pause.

[brodski]

There is no doubt that white and black people are the same species (race). In biology a species is defined by the ability to breed between two parents and produce fertile offspring. As this is clearly the case with black and white humans then there is no scientific evidence that can suggest otherwise.

The dividing line between species isn't as clear as we may like, with things like ring species (a can breed with b, b with c, c with d, but d can't breed with a).
Like the difference between living and non living things, or plants and animals, the lines are fuzzy- reality is under no obligation to fit into our neat categories, and so biologists draw some arbitrary lines.

That said, all humans have as good a claim to being a single species as any other breeding population, and better than some.

race, OTOH, is largely a political construct.

[VoodooJoe]

race, OTOH, is largely a political construct.

This is very true, someone who is black in stockholm might be considered white in contonou.

I also have issue with terms like "black" in a genetic context, the term black (or indeed white), can mean any number of ethnic groups.

Having said all that I am not going to go down the hippy liberal route of "we are all one blood/family", yes we may all deserve equal rights and freedoms, however ethnic groups of human beings are clearly not the same and anyone who tries to deny that is deluding themselves, i really dont see why different humans shouldnt carry large differences in their DNA, check out these two mugs:

http://static.twoday.net/webloft/images/elliot_hair.jpg

http://www.motherlandnigeria.com/pictures/northern_nigerian_girl.jpg

People have this wierd idea race is about skin colour, it isnt, its also about bone structure, differences in blood, neural networks, the lot,
which is great because it makes us all different and interesting, its just a shame scientist cant explore the diversity of the human race in an adult way without everyone getting hot under the collar.

[brodski]

Having said all that I am not going to go down the hippy liberal route of "we are all one blood/family", yes we may all deserve equal rights and freedoms, however ethnic groups of human beings are clearly not the same and anyone who tries to deny that is deluding themselves, i really dont see why different humans shouldnt carry large differences in their DNA, check out these two mugs:

http://static.twoday.net/webloft/images/elliot_hair.jpg

http://www.motherlandnigeria.com/pic...erian_girl.jpg

People have this wierd idea race is about skin colour, it isnt, its also about bone structure, differences in blood, neural networks, the lot,
which is great because it makes us all different and interesting, its just a shame scientist cant explore the diversity of the human race in an adult way without everyone getting hot under the collar.

You’ve fallen into your own trap, ethnicity has virtually nothing to do with genetics, ethnicity is even more of a political construct than “race”. The concept of “race” attempts to make biological distinctions between people, however ethnicity is also about cultural differences and self identification.

Yes there are fuzzy sets of individuals who share certain biological traits, BUT, and this is a very big but, those groups are ill-defined and bare little or no meaningful relationship to the social and political language of either race or ethnicity.

It is often said that there are greater differences within “races” than between them, this is true but misleading, it is in fact an artefact of how we have defined race culturally and politically- by necessity we define it in broad terms, grouping together geographically, and even (but not necessarily) culturally, close people into hand shorthand categories, however when analysed at that level most of the potentially meaningful differences are lost in the noise. You can analyse small relatively distinct genetic groups for differences, but at that point “race” become ineffective as shorthand.

[bobdezon]

I prefer to think of it as diversity, rather than race. I utterly loathe how some will judge a person based on skin colour as being less worthy, noble or able than a person of a lighter skin colour. Not only is it repugnant, but idiotic.

[SKIRRID5]

Insofar as racism is a political construct, I wonder to what extent, in Europe and America, this was fuelled by the need to find a justification for slavery?
And of course the justification was found, much of it in the good old Bible. Having said that, it must be said that the churches, in their vigorous attempts to convert various "savages" were at least treating them as beings with souls to be saved.

[ForAllOfThis]

I prefer to think of it as diversity, rather than race. I utterly loathe how some will judge a person based on skin colour as being less worthy, noble or able than a person of a lighter skin colour. Not only is it repugnant, but idiotic.

Agreed. My point was that there is only one race (biologically), and that is human =).

[VoodooJoe]

You’ve fallen into your own trap, ethnicity has virtually nothing to do with genetics, ethnicity is even more of a political construct than “race”. The concept of “race” attempts to make biological distinctions between people, however ethnicity is also about cultural differences and self identification..

Id say it was the other way around, ethnicity is about genetics and race is more a socio-political thing.

Yes there are fuzzy sets of individuals who share certain biological traits, ..

No, there are distinct groups of people who share sets of distinct features which are passed from generation to generation.

BUT, and this is a very big but, those groups are ill-defined and bare little or no meaningful relationship to the social and political language of either race or ethnicity. .

Says who?

It is often said that there are greater differences within “races” than between them, this is true but misleading, it is in fact an artefact of how we have defined race culturally and politically- by necessity we define it in broad terms, grouping together geographically, and even (but not necessarily) culturally, close people into hand shorthand categories, however when analysed at that level most of the potentially meaningful differences are lost in the noise. You can analyse small relatively distinct genetic groups for differences, but at that point “race” become ineffective as shorthand.

Just because something cant be caught in a test tube doesnt make it real, race is a very real thing, even if it cant be pinned down 100% to genetics.

[VoodooJoe]

Insofar as racism is a political construct, I wonder to what extent, in Europe and America, this was fuelled by the need to find a justification for slavery?
And of course the justification was found, much of it in the good old Bible. Having said that, it must be said that the churches, in their vigorous attempts to convert various "savages" were at least treating them as beings with souls to be saved.

at least the americans and europeans eventually bothered to get rid of slavery, which is more than can be said for the people who they bought the slaves from....

Also i dont really see what the history of slavery has to do with this discussion? like i said, its a shame scientists cant explore the diversity without people bringing politics into the equation.

[DrS]

BUT, and this is a very big but, those groups are ill-defined and bare little or no meaningful relationship to the social and political language of either race or ethnicity. .
Says who?
Surely logical. The quote you used says that biological similarities have little to do with the social and political language of either race or ethnicity. One is biological/genetic ... physical; the other is a construct ... ideological.

[VoodooJoe]

Surely logical. The quote you used says that biological similarities have little to do with the social and political language of either race or ethnicity. One is biological/genetic ... physical; the other is a construct ... ideological.

Yes, but who says the biological factors dont impact on the social ones.

Sickle cell aneamia mainly effects people of west african origin, this is because people of west african origin have a certain biological feature, the impact of this disease has social implications.

People of european extraction are more likely to suffer from skin cancer than what an australian aboriginal is, what implications does this hold for the australian healthcare service?

Though to give a really stark example of when genes and social implications collide, look what happened when alcohol was introduced to people of native american extraction.

[VoodooJoe]

My point is this, people are different, yes, we should strive for equal freedoms.
BUT we are deluded if we think arctic eskimos are the same as congo pygmies, they are not, in the same way people with big feet are different from people with little feet, the way women are not the same as men, the way gays are not the same as straights, the way some people can get coldsores and some cant, the way people who like anchovies are different from people who dont like anchovies etc, etc, etc we all have differences and these differences can indeed put us into groups, be they genetic, social, whatever.

It staggers me the knee jerk reaction people have to any discussion about ethnicity.

The original article had nothing to do about "whites" and "blacks", but within the space of a few posts there were screams of racism and mentions of the slave trade, how evil whites have been in the past and how some evil whites might use this to prove white superiorty.
(i also found it interesting that some of the forummers seem to think only white people are capable of racism ::) , but thats by the by)

I dont find the article disturbing at all, in fact much of it makes sense, humans have been divided geographically for aeons and sure, why shouldnt difference have evolved in that time so those peoples could adapt to their surroundings.

That means we have diversity, but we knew that anyway (if we are honest with ourselves), it doesnt mean anyone is superior to anyone and doesnt even hint at that.

Is it possible those who view this study as being potentially racist have had their view tainted slighted by their own slight unconcious prejudices?
(especially when taking into account the racist comments in the original post :-[, though granted that person has apologised for them O0.)

[DrS]

Yes, but who says the biological factors dont impact on the social ones.

Sickle cell aneamia mainly effects people of west african origin, this is because people of west african origin have a certain biological feature, the impact of this disease has social implications.

People of european extraction are more likely to suffer from skin cancer than what an australian aboriginal is, what implications does this hold for the australian healthcare service?

Though to give a really stark example of when genes and social implications collide, look what happened when alcohol was introduced to people of native american extraction.Yes, I agree, of course biological factors impact on social ones. This is not the same, however, as saying that biological factors have an impact upon the language of race.

[VoodooJoe]

^^ i dont understand, surely the features that define us make us who we are?

[dalriada]

^^ i dont understand, surely the features that define us make us who we are?

Who decides what those "defining features are"? Race is socially contructed along configurations of skin colour, eye colour, hair texture etc as things that define "race". It's biologically and genetically no more meaningful than deciding that race is arranged along categories of blood type*, size of earlobe, handedness or length of the middle toe.


* incidentally, as well as being unevenly distributed across the globe, blood type also has an impact on how likely you are to die of smallpox, cholera or develop peptic ulcers (amongst other things), so you might like to consider that alongside the race-and-sickle-cell argument.

[SKIRRID5]

Voodoo - I've only just read your comment. I wasn't "bringing politics into" anything. I was making a perfectly reasonable suggestion about a possible reason for the development of pseudo-scientific racism, in other words the idea that certain races are not really human. And, yes, I know perfectly well that slaves were not captured by armed expeditions into Africa, but were bought from fellow Africans. So what? I wasn't indulging in any fashionable breast-beating over what white races have done to blacks.

[VoodooJoe]

Who decides what those "defining features are"? Race is socially contructed along configurations of skin colour, eye colour, hair texture etc as things that define "race". It's biologically and genetically no more meaningful than deciding that race is arranged along categories of blood type*, size of earlobe, handedness or length of the middle toe..

Indeed, race is a social construct, but that doesnt mean it isnt real, and the observed biological differences that helped shape that social construct are also very real both in terms of biology and sociology.


* incidentally, as well as being unevenly distributed across the globe, blood type also has an impact on how likely you are to die of smallpox, cholera or develop peptic ulcers (amongst other things), so you might like to consider that alongside the race-and-sickle-cell argument.

Yes, and blood type can go towards defining a race or ethnic group.

[VoodooJoe]

Voodoo - I've only just read your comment. I wasn't "bringing politics into" anything. I was making a perfectly reasonable suggestion about a possible reason for the development of pseudo-scientific racism,in other words the idea that certain races are not really human..

I understand, but nobody has, and i just cant understand why you would think of something like that :undecided:, if i had read the article that would have been the furthest thing from my mind.

Im even more puzzled why you would assume it would be specifically white supremecists who would twist it to their agenda.

And, yes, I know perfectly well that slaves were not captured by armed expeditions into Africa, but were bought from fellow Africans. So what? I wasn't indulging in any fashionable breast-beating over what white races have done to blacks.

Really? then why did you feel the need to bring it up when it has as much to do with the price cheese as anything else.

No offence SKIRRID but experience has taught me those who are the quickest to condemn others are usually the ones trying to draw attention away from themselves.

[dalriada]

Indeed, race is a social construct, but that doesnt mean it isnt real, .

Define "real"? The ancient Romans and Greeks had different concepts of race than those which operate in the Uk today or indeed those which operated in Rwanda during the genocide. What makes the concept of "race" "REAL"? Location? Timing? Fashion? Politics??

Sheer bad luck?

And the observed biological differences that helped shape that social construct are also very real both in terms of biology and sociology.


What are these "observed biological differences"? Skin colour? yes I grant you its more "observable" than length of your toes or blood type , but its no more biologically significant. You may observe Europeans, spanish, or portugese with darker skins and curlier hair than many Africans, Somalians, or Egyptians or Ethiopians. You may see that little Icelandic singer Bjork has darker hair and more slanted eyes than many Asians. How would you categorise Naomi Campbell, dark skinned, supposedly with a Chinese father, mixed race mother and cosmetically enhanced long straight hair?

Yes, and blood type can go towards defining a race or ethnic group.

Can it? By your own definition that's not an obviously "observed biological deifference". It seems very, very crude in these days of easily available mitochondrial dna analysis. I'm blood type B, found more prevalently in Asians and American Indians than in white people in Uk, what does that mean for me, an extremely pale-skinned, green eyed blonde with mitochondrial Dna definitively marking me out as an archetypal celt? What does it mean for my cousin, equally pale-skinned and green eyed but with a Japanese Mother?

"Race" only means what people want it to mean, and that's usually a thing which tends to serve to further their own ends and make themselves feel better. It's not been useful to humanity.

[VoodooJoe]

^^ i do actually agree with much of what you say in terms of social context, but im not going to sit here and pretend i believe that two seperate groups of people who have been seperated geographically for aeons havnt evolved different attributes over generations.

Wether we like it or not, it can and has happened, why do people find it so offensive?

In regards to your comments to skin colour, you say it is most prominent indicator of race, maybe then you would like check these guys out

http://eatliver.com/i.php?n=1297

All these guys have blonde hair and white skin, yet they all still look "black" dont they?

We are all different, sometimes our differences can and will divide us into groups, wether it should or shouldnt is a matter of debate.

Just my opinion.

[VoodooJoe]

repeat post

[Cuddles]

^^ i do actually agree with much of what you say in terms of social context, but im not going to sit here and pretend i believe that two seperate groups of people who have been seperated geographically for aeons havnt evolved different attributes over generations.

Which groups have been seperated for aeons? The vast majority of humanity has been involved in constant migration, trade and interbreeding, even after they spread out across the world. And even that spreading only happened a couple of tens of thousands of years ago at most. There are a few groups, such as Australian aborigines, who have been more isolated than most, but even they have had very little time to evolve differently.

Just think about the article that started this thread. Humanity may have been split into two isolated groups for around 100,000 years, yet the differences that accumulated are barely observable now. Given that, do you really think that any significant differences will turn up in 10,000 years of constant mixing?

Wether we like it or not, it can and has happened, why do people find it so offensive?

The point is that it probably hasn't happened. Many people find it offensive because of those who like to insist that certain groups are different despite having no evidence that they actually are. However, as far as I can tell no-one here has mentioned being offended, so I don't know who you keep bringing it up.

In regards to your comments to skin colour, you say it is most prominent indicator of race, maybe then you would like check these guys out

http://eatliver.com/i.php?n=1297

All these guys have blonde hair and white skin, yet they all still look "black" dont they?

No.

We are all different, sometimes our differences can and will divide us into groups, wether it should or shouldnt is a matter of debate.

Just my opinion.

The point is that the groups that we divide ourselves into have very little, if anything, to do with genetic differences. Self-identified race is almost completely useless as an indicator of genetics. Race can be used to look at cultural and social grouping, but as a measure of relatedness is meaningless since someone who calls themselves "black African-American" could easily be more closely related to the Irish than most Africans.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg14719844.600-genes-race-and-history.html

No-one is arguing that people aren't all different. The point is that humans simply can't be divided into neat little groups based on genetics, and the groups which have traditionally been used are at best meaningless and at worst an excuse for racism.

[tolman]

BUT we are deluded if we think arctic eskimos are the same as congo pygmies, they are not, in the same way people with big feet are different from people with little feet, the way women are not the same as men, the way gays are not the same as straights, the way some people can get coldsores and some cant, the way people who like anchovies are different from people who dont like anchovies etc, etc, etc we all have differences and these differences can indeed put us into groups, be they genetic, social, whatever.
I suppose it depends how people interpret 'same' and 'different'.
There may be people who (for often ideological reasons) assume or claim that beyond surface differences, individuals are fundamentally identical blank slates, and that the only difference in outcome is down to environment (which is , of course nonsense).

However, at the other extreme can be a tendency, maybe even a desire, to divide people into groups and then project average (even very slight) differences between groups onto members of those groups as if vague average differences were some kind of defining characteristic.

Personally, though slightly interesting, I don't see how the subject of the original article is really of great significance.
I'm not sure how many racists actually feel the need for scientific justification for their views. Even among those who did, they'd probably manage just as well with something invented rather than based on actual science.

[VoodooJoe]

The point is that it probably hasn't happened. Many people find it offensive because of those who like to insist that certain groups are different despite having no evidence that they actually are. .

Of course, the high incidence of white skin in europe is purely accidental and nothing to do with people evolving a skin that more easily absorbs crappy summer weather into vitamin D.

If your statement is correct, then you would not be able to point out the black kid from the white kid in this following picture:

http://www.miamibuenavistalions.com/images/KidsColour.jpg

We all really need to get over all this PC bullcrap, its ok, its not the 90s anymore, nobody is going to lynch you for saying black people look different from white people.

[SKIRRID5]

Voodoo - I'm not "condemning" anyone, you turnip! Will you feel better if I suggest that a possible factor in the development of pseudo-scientific racism was a perceived need on the part of whites to find a rationale for slavery rather than an excuse? When we discuss, on this forum, why people are gullible, for instance, and someone suggests a reason, do you pounce on them and say they are "condemning" the gullible?
As for this being exclusively a white phenomenon, I don't say it is, but the people who tried to put racism on a "scientific" basis, like Gobineau and Houston Stewart Chamberlain, were white, and it was their writings that influenced people like Hitler. There may well be similar writings in Arabic and Japanese, seeking to elevate the respective races to the top of the hierarchy.

[SKIRRID5]

One strong indication of a more relaxed attitude to colour can be found in the cinema. If it had been suggested in, say, 1950, that before too long black actors would be starring in a high proportion of Hollywood big-budget films, it would have been greeted with incredulity.
Now, for whatever reasons, the balance has tipped almost beyond reality. How often in American films now, is a judge or senior policeman black, if not female too? A bit more often, I suspect, than is the case in real life. Popular entertainment tends to project a society's idea of how it would like to be seen by the world.

[tolman]

Popular entertainment tends to project a society's idea of how it would like to be seen by the world.
Well, that's one explanation.
Another could be that in a film/series with X main characters, even if the number cast as group X was over-representative compared to reality, and even if the filmmakers didn't give a hoot about how society could/might/should be, they could still have an eye to the potential audience for the film.

[SKIRRID5]

I should say the two things would be about the same. Popular art is popular precisely because it flatters the prejudices of its audience. This may not be a deliberate, carefully planned process. Film makers aren/t usually ivory tower intellectuals, and probably share the mindset of their audience a lot of the time. Over a hundred years ago, the editor of a popular English magazine (I forget who) said: "I know what the average man wants - I am the average man."

[DrS]

We all really need to get over all this PC bullcrap, its ok, its not the 90s anymore, nobody is going to lynch you for saying black people look different from white people.Why do you assume that what we are saying is connected with political correctness?

I myself think that there is a very obvious and visible difference between black and white people, and black and yellow people, and pink and brown people ... whatever colours. I think this is because of a range of genetic and environmental reasons: I am no biologist, but even I can see that white people have white skin and black people have black skin because of different pigmentation requirements.

I also think that humans are programmed to notice difference, and moreover, that noticing difference is not racist, and that trying to avoid noticing difference is one of the worst forms of political correctness. This is just my opinion, of course.

The real problem, for me, with visibility of difference is the possibility of making moral judgements on the basis of that difference. I do not see anything in these posts that indicates that this is what is happening here, nor that it is being avoided!

This does not alter the fact, however, that biology and the language of race are different, have little if no connection with each other, and that one is purely physical and the other purely ideological.

[VoodooJoe]

Voodoo - I'm not "condemning" anyone, you turnip! Will you feel better if I suggest that a possible factor in the development of pseudo-scientific racism was a perceived need on the part of whites to find a rationale for slavery rather than an excuse? When we discuss, on this forum, why people are gullible, for instance, and someone suggests a reason, do you pounce on them and say they are "condemning" the gullible?
As for this being exclusively a white phenomenon, I don't say it is, but the people who tried to put racism on a "scientific" basis, like Gobineau and Houston Stewart Chamberlain, were white, and it was their writings that influenced people like Hitler. There may well be similar writings in Arabic and Japanese, seeking to elevate the respective races to the top of the hierarchy.

Ok, i believe you, though just be aware racist black folk are capable of utilising psuedo science as much as any other racist group, check out these fruity loop ideas:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_supremacy#Melanin_Theory

[VoodooJoe]

Why do you assume that what we are saying is connected with political correctness? .

Wasnt directed at you DrS, apologies if it came accross that way, in fact i agree with much of your post.

It was more directed at Cuddles who expected me to believe he thought these guys were indistinguishable from caucasians:
http://eatliver.com/i.php?n=1297 (http://eatliver.com/i.php?n=1297)

[bobdezon]

Melanin theory? I havent hard of that crap in a long time. Incidentally that eatliver link is frequently touted on white supremacist forums as proof that black people, even with white skin still retain "animal/subhuman qualities". I believe Orac on respectful insolence featured it a while back.

[VoodooJoe]

Yeah, mental innit, i like the idea about "black protons" being invaded and knocked out by "white protons" in the brain :cheesy: the first time i heard of this i actually thought it was a joke.
There is another black supremecist group that believe whites are a sub species of humans, ie humans evolved in africa and whites are a mutation of this original species whereas black africans are the purest for of human, i would google it but i cant be bothered.

In regards to the eatliver thing i think its a shame people have viewed it as a negative thing and tried to twist it to ridiculous ends saying west africans are sub-human.
I think its a great link, it does starkly illustrates physical ethnic differences, but i dont think thats a bad thing, in that life would be excrutiatingly boring if we all looked the same, variety is the spice of life as they say.

[Cuddles]

Of course, the high incidence of white skin in europe is purely accidental and nothing to do with people evolving a skin that more easily absorbs crappy summer weather into vitamin D.

If your statement is correct, then you would not be able to point out the black kid from the white kid in this following picture:

http://www.miamibuenavistalions.com/images/KidsColour.jpg

We all really need to get over all this PC bullcrap, its ok, its not the 90s anymore, nobody is going to lynch you for saying black people look different from white people.

I do love the way you have completly ignored all the posts, including mine, that explained this to you. Once again, the point you are missing is that all black people are not the same, and all white people are not the same. Being able to notice that two people have different colour skin is meaningless, since a black person is likely to be more closely related to a white person than another black person.

This isn't PC bullcrap, it's simple fact. To be honest, I don't see why anyone would deliberately ignore this unless they genuinely were racist and looking for an excuse to seperate black people from white. The fact is, black and white are social distinctions based on an easily identified trait, and have no more meaning than seperating people based on blood type.

[Cuddles]

Wasnt directed at you DrS, apologies if it came accross that way, in fact i agree with much of your post.

It was more directed at Cuddles who expected me to believe he thought these guys were indistinguishable from caucasians:
http://eatliver.com/i.php?n=1297 (http://eatliver.com/i.php?n=1297)

Now you're just lying. You never asked if they looked Caucasian, you asked if they looked black. Clearly, they don't. The fact that you appear to think that there are only two groups of people, white and black, says an awful lot about you. There are far more groups of white people than just Caucasian, and there far more groups of black people than there are of any other. As has been repeatedly explained to you, skin colour is an almost utterly meaningless measure of genetics. Even before globalisation some groups in Africa were more closely related to Europeans, or other groups around the world, than to other Africans. Now that people are free to travel and live pretty much anywhere they like, it makes even less sense to try to classify people down to just a few groups.

Obviously you ignored my last post where I clearly explained that someone described as "black African-American" is likely much more closely related to Europeans than Africans. Unfortunately for you, no matter how much you ignore this point, it isn't going to go away.

[VoodooJoe]

^^
I desperately want to believe that, but i dont.

If that were true, racism simply wouldnt exist, i have and always will face prejudice and stereotyping for my ethnic origin...as will you, and everyone else on this forum (and everyone else in the the world.)
If you have yet to experience it, all i can say is that you havent lived, worked, loved and had family amongst people who are ethnically different from you.

Race and all the ugly baggage that comes along with it be it racism, prejudice, segregation, whatever, have and always will exist, not a nice fact of life but one we are all going to have to face up to.

I believe we all need to recognise and respect our diversity and work to overcome it.
Pretending we are all the same is patronising, ignorant and simply not true, if that makes me a racist, then maybe i am, quick, tie me to a stake and burn me alive for forming an opinion based on experience living in the real world.

End of my contribution to the discussion.

[ForAllOfThis]

I disagree I think we are moving into an 'age' where racism is becoming more and more less common. Much like sexism and other types of stereotyping. Compare the racist behaviour to even 30 years ago and you can see a huge difference between then and now.

Partly this is because of a greater understanding of genes, partly because we are taught from a young age not to stereotype.

In response to your whole point voodoo. Classify a child whos mother is spanish (latina) and father is british (white). Of course this child is neither white or latin by skin colour or genes.

I'll do you a favor and tell you the answer. That answer is human.

[tolman]

Compare the racist behaviour to even 30 years ago and you can see a huge difference between then and now.

Partly this is because of a greater understanding of genes, partly because we are taught from a young age not to stereotype.
Surely a lot is down to generally greater exposure to basically normal 'other' people, either in real life or in the media. You could count that as the environment teaching people not to stereotype (or not making it as easy for stereotypes to stick), but much of the real-life part isn't actively intentional.

Still, a lot depends where people are.
Someone who grows up in a rural area with very few different people around might well have a different set of attitudes to someone who grows up in a fairly multiracial city, or someone who grows up in a largely segregated two-race town

[Cuddles]

^^
I desperately want to believe that, but i dont.

If that were true, racism simply wouldnt exist,

This makes no sense at all. Why wouldn't racism exist? The whole point of racism is that people look different. No-one is denying this is not the case. What we are saying is that there is no scientific basis for racism, since the actual genetic differences are so mixed up that the social construct we have of race is utterly meaningless.

For that matter, racism rarely even makes sense from a social point of view either, since very few people even have a consistent definition of race. Is it based on skin colour? Geographical location or origin? The length of time you've lived here? Language? For example, a black person may well be genetically closer to caucasian stock than the person abusing them, may have lived in the country for longe and speak the language better, yet the racism will still exist. I'm afraid if you think racism would disappear if there were no logical reason for it, you must be incredibly naive.

i have and always will face prejudice and stereotyping for my ethnic origin...as will you, and everyone else on this forum (and everyone else in the the world.)

I won't. I'm Welsh. We're prefect and everyone knows it.

If you have yet to experience it, all i can say is that you havent lived, worked, loved and had family amongst people who are ethnically different from you.[quote]

Well, just in my small group at work there are English, Welsh, American, Indian, Italian and Korean people. And there are only six of us. Out of the people I work closely with there are a few more Indians, German, Norwegian, Swiss, French, Irish and Scottish, and probably several I've forgotten. There are Christians, Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs, at the least. There are only a couple of black people that I've noticed, and I think they're British. We also regularly vist and have vists from pretty much everywhere, especially America, China and Australia, and including places like Jordan. I used to live in Birmingham where I was constantly surrounded by Indians, Pakistanis, Chinese and Koreans.

I have never actually seen a single instance of racism.

However, this is all utterly irrelevant to the thread, since no-one has ever pretended racism doesn't exist.

[quote]Pretending we are all the same is patronising, ignorant and simply not true,

You keep throwing this straw man out. Please actually read what other people are saying. No-one has pretended we are all the same. In fact, what we are actually saying is the exact opposite. People are far more different that you seem to believe, and trying to classify them as just a few races is simply not possible.

if that makes me a racist, then maybe i am, quick, tie me to a stake and burn me alive for forming an opinion based on experience living in the real world.

Your opinion is not based on the real world. We have explained how the real world works, but you refuse to acknowledge this. If you can find a word other than racist to define someone who tries to divide people into meaningless groups based on nothing more than their skin colour, I'm all ears. The fact is, those groups exist nowhere other than in some people's minds, and even in there they're usually badly defined and constantly changing.

End of my contribution to the discussion.

As far as I can tell you haven't really contributed anything. You have ignored pretty much everything we've said and persist in brining up straw men, non sequiturs and emotional arugments without ever actually addressing the points made.

[bobdezon]

I won't. I'm Welsh. We're prefect and everyone knows it.

Your druids and wizards were very effective at stopping the roman invasion O0

[ZERO]

Your druids and wizards were very effective at stopping the roman invasion O0
Wesh place names must of slowed them down. ;)

"We will attack Penrhy...Penryndeu....draeth...Coventry!"

>:D

[bobdezon]

Touché, I suppose the roman invasion was over by the time they had correctly pronounced Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysilio gogogoch O0

[brianp]

Your druids and wizards were very effective at stopping the roman invasion O0

It was nothing to do with druids and wizards - it just took a verse or two of "Men of Harlech" from the Welsh Male Voice Choir and those pesky Romans ran screaming over the border, never to return.

[brianp]

Obviously you ignored my last post where I clearly explained that someone described as "black African-American" is likely much more closely related to Europeans than Africans. Unfortunately for you, no matter how much you ignore this point, it isn't going to go away.

I don't think he'll ever get it. Because we know a little about the social history of North America and about the inheritance of skin-colour, you and I can see no problem in the statement that someone described as 'black African American' is likely more closely related to Europeans than Africans.

But to him, it seems, skin colour defines a person's 'race' and entire ancestry rather than being just one trait which might well have reached him through a single ancestral line among many. Indeed, to him, it appears that skin colour, above all else, defines the entire person rather than just being one trivial trait among many. Classifying humanity by skin-colour makes as little sense as classifying it by hair-colour or inside-leg-length - and it tells us no more about a person, his ancestry. or his culture than do those traits.

[SKIRRID5]

I think some of you guys are a bit optimistic about the decline of racism, judging by some of the stuff I've seen online. But I suppose things have moved on since Little Rock, which so disgusted a completely apolitical black man like dear old Louis Armstrong that he spoke out (to be repudiated promptly by several other black celebrities, by the way).
There is one point I think escapes those Americans who still despise blacks:
How long ago was the last african slave taken to the USA? Since most Afro Americans are presumably descended from slaves, they can trace their American ancestry back some way further than all the vast number of whites whose forbears arrived during the great waves of immigration at the turn of the 19th/20th centuries. Of course it doesn't matter a toss, but it would be something to present to the still existing white supremacists.

[tolman]

Presumably, outside relatively insular subcommunities, many Americans of various skin tones alive today have ancestors who arrived both recently and rather further back in history.

With ancestry, I dare say many people only end up following one or two lines back, possibly to the point where their 'ancestor' may be so distant that quite possibly little or even no DNA from them actually ended up in the current descendant.