I agree with the idea that race has no scientific backing. There are gradual differences in appearance and other trivial genetic characteristics based on where one's ancestors were from, but that's about it. I once heard about a study that showed if you take two Europeans, they're as likely to have as much in common genetically with an African as they are with each other. Culture is the only true difference.

But I tried explaining it to these folks ( www.stormfront.org ) ... and they weren't havin it. Maybe someone else can explain better. But I think it's really a bad way to spend your time.

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
giving you true posts since 1999 - effa charter member

"I can assure you, we won't be putting money into a society which is not transparent and corrupt."
-George W Bush

any questions? Look at your ancestry, what "are" you?

German, Indonesian, and Watusi? Then your mixed, right?... but your Indonesian grandmother... she was pure Indonesian? where did indonesians come from? Malay? okay, now we're getting somewhere... so your g-ma is pure Malay? hmmmm... where did Malayans come from? All over? Thailand, China, India? ... maybe Africa? hmmm...

how about your German father... were his ancestors always in Germany? I kind of doubt it. Germany has been invaded and immigrated to for so long... so what is it, part Roman, part Goth, part Greek, part Serb? part Dutch? what about the Dutch? was there an Afrikaans expatriate in there somewhere?

and i'll leave the Watusi side for the rest of you to mess with. peace.

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
giving you true posts since 1999 - effa charter member

"I can assure you, we won't be putting money into a society which is not transparent and corrupt."
-George W Bush

This is a good point. I am mixed. My father is from Nigeria (west Africa), so I believe that most likely he is a pure African. But my mom is different. She is Jamaican and there is a lot more history than meets the eye. At first glance, she is a short light-skinned woman with black hair. But her last name is Phinn. It's supposed to be F-I-N-N, but it was changed by my grandfather. Finn is a notoriously IRISH name. So when people see the name Phinn and not my mother, they say, OH! white woman with red hair and blue eyes. It's not so. They don't know that she's black and her impeccable speech throws them off. People have actually been quite surprised to find out that my mom is black and some don't speak to her anymore. But let's remember, the British colonized Jamaica and even b4 that, slave trade was in full swing. So, with this in mind, I could have ancestors from Sudan, Congo, Liberia, and almost anywhere else in Africa. Also, I could be mixed with Scottish, British, Icelanic or any other type of people up there.

And what you where saying about the 2 Europeans and the African cannot be more true. For example, (bear with me, now) real, pure-blooded Jews. I am saying this in regard to people without extensive ancestry. There are in Jeruselum, right? Wrong. Stay with me on this, I'ma hit you with some serious history. Centuries ago, during the time of the real Jews (b4 invasion and dispersement) a high priest, scientists say, was said to have carried a particular gene. This gene identified a true Jew. The priest was called a kohenim, so the gene was called the kohenim gene. Anyway, this particular gene was passed on from father to son through many generations. But when the Jews were invaded by Assyrians and many other tribes, they were dispersed throughout the Middle East. Some Jews even ended up in Africa. The Jews intermarried and therefore were no longer pure.

Scientists were in search for the lost Jews and lost tribes. Now this is where the plot thickens. They found a particualr tribe of Africans that claimed to be the real Jews. They had either similar or the same practices as the Jews in Jerusalem. On one occasion, it was said that some Jews were in search of a particular city (I forgot the name) of religious importance and left the Middle East in search of it. They presumed that they Jews were "untampered" when they left and the African tribe could be the group they searched for. So the scientists thought, "Could these Africans be real Jews and possess the kohenim gene?" So they tested the Jews in both Africa and Jerusalem. Guess what?.......

Only an estimated 10% of the Jerusalem population was said to possess the kohenim gene and an astounding 90% of the African tribe had the gene. These people were the real Jews. So that meant that a white boy in Jerusalem had more in common with an African boy than with most of his neighbors.

So in conclusion, the continents are the only difference. They in fact are the same "race" of people. Their genotype is the same. Who knows, maybe I have the same genes as some Scottish girl. Phycical features mean nothing when you consider ancestry. Genetic makeup is what really makes you part of a "race".

~Dulce~

PS- This wasn't a waste of my time, I was glad to add to the discussion.

>My father is
>from Nigeria (west Africa)
Whaddaya know! So's mine. And moms, in fact, so that makes me mixed with Ikinwa Yoruba and Ilashe Yoruba!

, so
>I believe that most likely
>he is a pure African.
Don't be so certain! Where are his parents from? If they're from two different towns, then he is also...mixed!

>But my mom is different.
>She is Jamaican and there
>is a lot more history
>than meets the eye. At
>first glance, she is a
>short light-skinned woman with black
>hair. But her last name
>is Phinn. It's supposed to
>be F-I-N-N, but it was
>changed by my grandfather. Finn
>is a notoriously IRISH name.
>So when people see the
>name Phinn and not my
>mother, they say, OH! white
>woman with red hair and
>blue eyes.

I'm not sure why people would do this. For instance, the names Garrick, O'Reilly, Lipson or Walker aren't very racially specific, are they?
Most people whose ancestors were enslaved carry European--whether English, Spanish, French or whatever--surnames due to the naming convention of the time.

It's not so.
>They don't know that she's
>black and her impeccable speech
>throws them off.

Because Black people can't speak "impeccable" English?

>So, with this in
>mind, I could have ancestors
>from Sudan, Congo, Liberia, and
>almost anywhere else in Africa.

Actually, its fairly unlikely that your ancestry is Eastern or Central African. Many Jamaicans, as a matter of fact, can trace their ancestry to the Asante/Ashanti ethnic group in modern-day Ghana. By the way, if anybody's family has old-time roots in Virginia, it's very, very likely that your ancestors were Igbos.

>They found a
>particualr tribe of Africans that
>claimed to be the real
>Jews.

I try and advise people to avoid the use of the word "tribe." It has no anthropological meaning, and it only serves as a way for Europeans to classify other ethnicities as less civilized. I'm a person of Yoruba descent. My particular ethnic group formed their present city-states before England, France or Spain even existed. I am not a member of a "tribe", whatever the fuck that's supposed to mean.
>
>Only an estimated 10% of the
>Jerusalem population was said to
>possess the kohenim gene and
>an astounding 90% of the
>African tribe had the gene.
>These people were the real
>Jews. So that meant that
>a white boy in Jerusalem
>had more in common with
>an African boy than with
>most of his neighbors.

The gene you're talking about is found in the Jewish priesthood. Not carrying the gene does not mean that you're not a "real" Jew, though I agree with your central point. Most people who claim Jewish heritage and religion today are converts, and the vast majority are only slightly Jewish in genetic heritage; they are mostly European.


A-F-R-I-C-A! /Puerto Rico, Haiti and JA! /New York and Cali,/ F-L-A! Yo, it ain't bout where you stay/It's bout the motherland!

>I'm not sure why people would
>do this. For instance, the
>names Garrick, O'Reilly, Lipson or
>Walker aren't very racially specific,
>are they?

Yes, they scream, "Hey, I'm Irish!"

>Because Black people can't speak "impeccable"
>English?

No, of course they can. White people don't EXPECT a black woman to speak properly and use a wide range of vocab. My mom works in customer service, so a lot of the company's customers that speak to her only have heard her voice over the phone and assume that she is white. They match the name with the voice.

>The gene you're talking about is
>found in the Jewish priesthood.
>Not carrying the gene does
>not mean that you're not
>a "real" Jew, though I
>agree with your central point.

That is true, but let's forget the ancestry and political correctness for a minute. The gene was found among the priests of the Jews. When the Jews came to the Middle East (from wherever), they came as a group and had a specific genotype. That does not mean that the common people were not real Jews, but the difference btwm the common people and the priests is that the priests most likely did not intermarry with other groups of people. Therefore keeping the bloodline pure. For the gene to pass to the son, the wife has to have a specific genetic makeup in order for the gene to pass. By intermarriage, the common people slowly soiled the gene with the blood of others and the gene of the orignal people was lost. I do no have much info about the Jewish faith, but I think that the priests chose only to marry women from their original group. So in that way, the gene was passed on b/c the priests kept the traditions alive and did not stray to other groups.

These are just my assumptions, but I'm open to anyone who has more info.

~Dulce~

the difference btwm the
>common people and the priests
>is that the priests most
>likely did not intermarry with
>other groups of people. Therefore
>keeping the bloodline pure.

There is no such thing as keeping the bloodline pure. Everybody (unless they're identical twins) has a different genetic make-up. Anything short of incest can be considered intermarrying. There never were any "pure" blooded people. Everyone is pure-blooded human, but there have never been any groups isololated for a long enough time from the rest of our species and therefore genetically different enough from everyone else, to be able to call someone "pure" blooded.

To use your example, the original tribe of Jews came from somewhere else right? Did they all come from the same place? They married people and had kids with people they were not related to, right? I mean, there was a time, not long before the Jews and Syrians when Jews and Syrians had common ancestors. Hopefully, the "pure" Jew's ancestors didn't all descend from the same blood line. What I'm saying is that the members of the original tribe of Jews, were themselves mixed.

And your father, a "pure" African...? Well, Africa's a big continent, so it's possible that none of his ancestors strayed off of it, just like I can say, I'm pure Earthese. But go a little north from Nigeria. People slowly get lighter skinned and straighter haired. Does that mean they're mixed? Yes, but no more or less mixed than the Swedes to the north and Nigerians to the south (neither of which they resemble).

Racialists would have you believe that the "black" Algerian is necessarily more closely related to the "black" Ghanaian than he is to the "white" Italian. Not true.

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
giving you true posts since 1999 - effa charter member

"I can assure you, we won't be putting money into a society which is not transparent and corrupt."
-George W Bush

People wanna make it seem like a long time ago, there was a black tribe and a white tribe and anyone, say in North Africa or Arab peninsula is a result from mixing of the two. A blonde Austrian would be descended only from that white tribe, and a black Ethiopian only from the black tribe.

But let's face it. There's always been an in-between complection. There's always been that in-between wavy hair. Every person is genetically different from every other person. So maybe every person ought to have their own racial category. But then again, we're all related to each other, if you take it back far enough... so let's all be the same race. So many folks wanna find an in-between that separates "us" from "them", talks about "pure" and "mixed"... It's all ignorance... People talk about black and white like they really are any bigger of a difference than appearance.

Well, unfortunately around here, there is another difference. It's culture. People have been separatist to the point where "black" and "white" imply cultural and political differences and conflicts way way deeper than the trivial and scientifically unnoticable genetic differences.

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
giving you true posts since 1999 - effa charter member

"I can assure you, we won't be putting money into a society which is not transparent and corrupt."
-George W Bush

has also been found in either Indonesia or Malaysia as well. I vaguely remember watching something on the Discovery or Learning Channel about this.....good point to bring up.....

Thanks for reading. I love you.

In Rotation:
Tool - Aenema
Deftones - White Pony
A Perfect Circle - Mer De Noms
Down - Nola
Slum Village - Fantastic Vol II
Black Sabbath - Sabotage

don't be fkn evil.

I've said this time and time again-
we must not get culture and nationalities mixed up with race and skin color.
First and far most, understand that terms such as "Black" Afro-America" "Negro" and whatever else have no merit because they define a category of people that is too well-broadened than they would like to think. Some of those terms were coined by the Nicene Council in the 300s A.D.

Yo, have you ever read "Man Trapped Behind The Ice"?
It's a very informative and interesting book that takes an alternative look into the "race theory".
There are other books out in the market that discuss sinmilar points.
The important thing to keep in mind is that we are all linked in some way.
That's all I have to say about this.


"Maybe that's why I'm so exhausted
as a revolutionary
I realize I can't save everyone
I'm trying to save myself
and I'm afraid"- Pamela Sneed

The latest dispute Ive seen against my so-called "colorblind" theories is that they hope to suggest that we abandon any perception of racial differences that "cant be ignored."

Statements like this regard the matter of physical characteristics that supposedly comprise the "white" race.

What I want everyone to understand is that every physical characteristic that is attributed to race variance is not fostered by race ideology nor is it given rise to by any scientific or natural or biological demonstration of race in human kind- these are examples of ethnicity and culture and national origin.

While it would be easy and convienent to go along with the implications that coincide skin color with racial classification it is important to understand that skin color was never such much a premise of racial classification.

race classification was built to support premises of evolution and to demonstrate evolutionary development in humans- race ideology was provided as the demonstrative example of how humans had evolved claiming of course that whites had evolved farther as their appearance was less apelike, claiming that their pale skin was a further advancement on the dark thick skins of blacks and their primate antecedents.

Understand no that in claiming to be white you are upholding those views and none other; The only thing that bands "white" people together as a group is the presumption that they belong to one group and that presumption stems from the idea that they are more evolved than anyone else. If you have the audacity to consider such ideology a matter of pragmatism or realism or benign observation then you must be willing to admit that looking and being "white" also means that they look and act less like apes than we do- otherwise you have no choice but to see them as they are and not as they would propose to be.

Unless you are willing to accept the idea that non-whites are naturally inferior and less evolved then you have no redemptive grasp on white racial classification as ideas like this are all it has to offer.

K

Very well written post. I couldn't have said it better myself...really, you totally outdid everyone here.

would you give us the link again to the original race thread where you go into more detail?

Thanks.

~ ~ ~
All meetings end in separation
All acquisition ends in dispersion
All life ends in death
- The Buddha

|\_/|
='_'=

Every hundred years, all new people

K

shit... i been reading your posts here for... damn, i don't know how long... and your shit is on POINT! Partly due to race conversations on these boards, and talking scientifically and culturally about race all over the damn place... plus I saw a hella funny Springer episode... a while back I decided to look at some white pride sites on the web... and there's thousands of them... it blew my mind how many of them there are, and where they are. (You expect them to be in places like Idaho and North Carolina, but there were white supremacists in Spain, Mexico, Australia, Brazil and (yes) one who claimed to be in Haiti (I didn't believe him))

Anyways, after acquainting myself with some of these folks and telling them I was "white", and reading their very angry replies to my almost friendly posts.... I couldn't agree w/ u more, Koala...

They claim that they are superior on a purely racial (genetic) basis. They use crime statistics and test score data to back up their claims that non-whites are naturally less intelligent and more criminally violent than they are. I said poverty and shitty schools make for low scores and high crime rates. They mostly agreed with that, but they blame the poor state of black communities on... (yup.. u guessed it) black people. I was like... no, you don't get it... Black people usually don't have any say in their own school boards and with the poor education and poverty that many grow up in, compounded by prejudice, it's hard for a lot of people to get jobs, so crime rates rise. I tried to compare their theories to statements like English are superior to the Irish, which kind of got them into an internal argument, becuz some of them are Irish (by ancestry) and one dude agreed that the English are superior... funny shit... anyways, they said that it's all a bunch of excuses and that discrimination isn't a problem, but a myth propagated by the liberal Jew media. They love saying that: "Liberal Jew Media". They even call the media "Afrocentric"... I had me a hemroid laughin at that one. The funniest part of all is that they claim that "white" people are oppressed by Jews. Sounds a lot like some Nation of Islam cats talkin about "Whitey", i told them.

But anyways, i'm hella rambling. I had to stop going there becuz i just couldn't deal with the stubbornness. I can handle ignorance. We all a little ignorant. To some extent I can even handle hate (over the computer)... but the stubbornness, the one-sidedness ... that's what got me... actually, the hate did too... I had enough of being called nigger-lover... it was a really ugly way to spend time.

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
giving you true posts since 1999 - effa charter member

"I can assure you, we won't be putting money into a society which is not transparent and corrupt."
-George W Bush

There is no scientific basis for race and it merely a social construct, but I still believe that Race and Ethnicity are useful descriptive catergories. Less say race has too Components,

1. How you perceive yourself.
2. How others peceive you.

If you perceive yourself as Black, and others perceive you as Black, then its probably safe to say your Black.

The problem occurs when people don't meet this criteria of Race. and as the world gets more "intermingled" people ar going to meet this criteria less and less.

But for now if you were going to pick me up from the airport and you'd never seen me before. I'm going to be sure to mention that i'm Black, because I gaurantee you'll find that bit of info useful. And if I am going out to a club, I'm going to ask "is it a black club? Do they play Black Music" becuase its still useful to know.


I guess though when I bring up "Black Music" I'm preparing to start up a whole nother discussion.



********

"Lyrically Handsome"

>There is no scientific basis for
>race and it merely a
>social construct, but I still
>believe that Race and Ethnicity
>are useful descriptive catergories. Less
>say race has too Components,
>
>
>1. How you perceive yourself.
>
>2. How others peceive you.
>

That changes the meaning of "race" completely. You might want to choose a different word for that, becuase "race" already means something else. Like if I invent a beverage, I ain't gonna call it "rum" cuz that's already another thing. "Race" means the same thing as "breed" in dogs or "subspecies". It's a classification of genetic (not cultural) differences intrinsic to different people.

You agree that race has no scientific backing... it's a scientific word. Therefore it has no use as a word in our language or every day lives.

The definition you give suits the word "ethnicity" pretty well and "race" not at all.

>
>If you perceive yourself as Black,
>and others perceive you as
>Black, then its probably safe
>to say your Black.
>

Black is a color. It has become an ethnicity, because of it's use as the name for a race and the history that followed because of that, but (since we're all agreeing that "race" doesn't exist) black is not a race. It's confusing though, because in the US, when someone says "black", it's assumed to mean "African American", but black is a color. "Black" is used to describe people all over the world, with many different cultures.

>The problem occurs when people don't
>meet this criteria of Race.
> and as the world
>gets more "intermingled" people ar
>going to meet this criteria
>less and less.
>

Well, I thought we already determined that race doesn't exist. How then, can anyone meet the criteria of race? And if you saw the part above about "everyone is mixed", then you'd recognize that intermingling has always been. That's exactly the reason why race does not exist. In another 2000 years there will be whole new "races" of people, it's happened already... we got a race called Latino which is characterized by too things:

1. being "mixed"
and
2. speaking Spanish


>But for now if you were
>going to pick me up
>from the airport and you'd
>never seen me before.
>I'm going to be sure
>to mention that i'm Black,
>because I gaurantee you'll find
>that bit of info useful.
> And if I
>am going out to a
>club, I'm going to ask
>"is it a black club?
>Do they play Black Music"
> becuase its still useful
>to know.
>

To tell me you're black does tell me what color you are, and yes that would be useful for someone to know if they were picking u up at the airport. But it tells me nothing about who you are, unless I assume that "black" implies African American. I guess you're trying to say color + culture = race. But the difference is that color and culture exist. Race does not. Man i should just shut the eff up and tell you to read some KoalaLove posts. He does this much better than i do.

>
> I guess though when I
>bring up "Black Music" I'm
>preparing to start up a
>whole nother discussion.
>

been done.

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
giving you true posts since 1999 - effa charter member

"I can assure you, we won't be putting money into a society which is not transparent and corrupt."
-George W Bush

If you want to take it waaaaaaaaay back, all of us homo sapiens are from Africans anyway so maybe we should all just get along?



(that's my one positive statement for the day. back to cynicism and loathing)
----------------------------------------
Not every end is a goal. The end of a melody is not its goal; however, if the melody has not reached its end, it would also not have reached its goal. A parable.
--Nietzsche

How come Black People are more proned to have sickle cell Anemia? Not trying to argue, I really would like to hear a sound explaination of this fact.

********

"Lyrically Handsome"

velo: We're all descended from Africa, but we're not all the same. We're all different. Everyone's unique.

>
>How come Black People are more
>proned to have sickle cell
>Anemia? Not trying to
>argue, I really would like
>to hear a sound explaination
>of this fact.

That's because back in the day (shit, actuall as we speak) malaria killed many people in Africa and if you inherit the sickle-cell gene from one parent, you're immune to malaria. So even though it's a terrible disease, it propagated because it was advantageous to have one gene to protect you against malaria. You probably knew that already. Just an environmentally determined advantage in nature. Just like you don't want pinkish-white skin in Africa either.

Different environmental conditions will make certain genes more advantageous in certain environments.

But we're talking about individual genes here. The human genome has so many billions of genes that comparatively, the number of genes that adapt you to an environment of Europe as opposed to Africa, or Samoa or anywhere else, is so small that the actual difference is negligible.

The human species, scientifically speaking, is amazingly homogeneous compared to most species. We're all in the same size range, with rare exceptions. We all grow hair on the top of our heads, smile when we're happy. Every culture on Earth has had religion. We share a lot in common.

But two random Africans, even if they both have the sickle cell gene, probably share no more in common, genetically, than either shares with a random European. Europe and Africa are much closer than some folks would like to believe.

Just thought i'd like to mention that I know a little blonde girl with sickle cell anemia. Her mom is very light-skinned African American and her father is a "white" Brazilian... not that white i guess...

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
giving you true posts since 1999 - effa charter member

"I can assure you, we won't be putting money into a society which is not transparent and corrupt."
-George W Bush

Yep, the malaria/sickle celled anemia explanation is right on.

On a somewhat related tip, what do you guys think of Darwin's explanation of why different places have different colored folks? He said that it was sexual selection. Basically sexual selection means that in some cultures certain features where more attractive (darker or lighter skin, hair, etc) and over thousands of years those regonal preferences resulted in different colored people. I think that's how it goes anyway, I only read a little bit about it. Not saying that's what happened, just wondering if anyone knows more about that theory or other theories.

----------------------------------------
Not every end is a goal. The end of a melody is not its goal; however, if the melody has not reached its end, it would also not have reached its goal. A parable.
--Nietzsche

Thats all i can say- talking about that guy makes me mad so ill refrain.

Anything he ever stated is obviously obscured by his ill-advised views on race......

"I think the dude just needs to lighten
up. Skip through a meadow or something."
- Whanoon on Canibus

"I don't care if he's rhyming to a test signal or an effin relaxation tape...it's the LYRICS!"
- dafriquan on Ras Kass

"Scooby snack jurrasic plastic gats booby trapped"
See I flipped the -ic like that, nahwamean? I don't care if ya'll don't understand what I'm saying, I'm da only nigga dat can do dat shit.
- Ghost

http://www.blickees.com
Sports | Entertainment | Gadgets | Video Games | Music

care to elaborate on that a little bit?

I get the racist part, but I'm not following you on the idiot part.


----------------------------------------
Not every end is a goal. The end of a melody is not its goal; however, if the melody has not reached its end, it would also not have reached its goal. A parable.
--Nietzsche

and this will NOT be the start of another argument between you and me. i hate arguing with you, you're as stubborn as i am. (and if you say some shit about not being stubborn but being right, yo, i INVENTED that, sucka. ) anyway, i just wanted to state that while i agree, he was a racist, and he was FAR less than scientific in his approach to biology, his mistakes and presumptions actually laid the foundations for new ideas, ideas that have led to today's modern theory of evolution, one i strongly believe in. thank you very much.

http://www.greatergood.com (hit two in one now)

i held out, but i finally put an IM in my sig. me and steve talking isht about biz markie:
Gigfog: He scares me alot
Gigfog: he's like king kong
Xkrh1X: LOL
Xkrh1X: you're fucked up
Gigfog: I saw him at the hotel with a biz markie sweater on LOL
Gigfog: I was like "why wear a sweater with your name on it?"
Xkrh1X: in case he forgets
Xkrh1X: lol
Gigfog: HAHAHAHa
Gigfog: just in case he gets lost..the police can contact his owner
Xkrh1X: yeah, you didn't see, but it has his address and a contact number on the back
Gigfog: hAHAHA
Xkrh1X: "if found, please call..."
Gigfog: and his proof of rabies vaccination?
Xkrh1X: LOL
Gigfog: man I am mean
Gigfog: LOL
Xkrh1X: yeah, you also may have just made my signature
Xkrh1X: lol

Stevelover and the purple Tubber: confusing freestyle suckas into a three-count pin

"Where the F*CK is my purse icon??????"

:::::::::::::
"And I know what the fuck an option quarterback is. He's the black QB under six feet that ends up being converted to wide receiver once he's selected on day two of the NFL draft because he can't hit the ocean from the edge of a boat."

--

...apparently the discovery of soap was made at the banks of ancient alters were people had been sacrificed and murdered to delight the gods. The fat and blood of their bodies filtered down river to wash up as lye on the nearby banks- villagers soon found that this substance was effective in cleaning and would lay the foundations of contemporary customs of hygeine...

my point is...

soap is cool and all- but if the price for it is a great number of human lives- I dont want or need that soap.

likewise since the theory of evolution bred into the social order and brought havoc onto human kind I think its incredibly unfortunate that all it ever amounted to was theory- one thats full of holes and doesnt offer much evidence in its defense.

Why havent they found the missing link Tinky- you know exactly why - cuz that missing link is supposedly Black people and they know better than to say that shit, so they call themselves "white" cuz most of us dont know that there's no difference.

K

well, frankly, you make it sound as though i'm not aware or in control of what i believe, and that by believing in the basis for something i unwittingly accept as gospel anything that may have ever been attached to it. why haven't the found the missing link? because there is no missing link, koala. there aren't one or two species, there are dozens. i believe that man evolved from a lower primate. i also believe that biologically french canadians and central africans are essentially identical; neither is more "evolved" than the other. i can believe both, and i can also separate evolution from darwinism. why on earth can't you?

http://www.greatergood.com (hit two in one now)

i held out, but i finally put an IM in my sig. me and steve talking isht about biz markie:
Gigfog: He scares me alot
Gigfog: he's like king kong
Xkrh1X: LOL
Xkrh1X: you're fucked up
Gigfog: I saw him at the hotel with a biz markie sweater on LOL
Gigfog: I was like "why wear a sweater with your name on it?"
Xkrh1X: in case he forgets
Xkrh1X: lol
Gigfog: HAHAHAHa
Gigfog: just in case he gets lost..the police can contact his owner
Xkrh1X: yeah, you didn't see, but it has his address and a contact number on the back
Gigfog: hAHAHA
Xkrh1X: "if found, please call..."
Gigfog: and his proof of rabies vaccination?
Xkrh1X: LOL
Gigfog: man I am mean
Gigfog: LOL
Xkrh1X: yeah, you also may have just made my signature
Xkrh1X: lol

Stevelover and the purple Tubber: confusing freestyle suckas into a three-count pin

"Where the F*CK is my purse icon??????"

:::::::::::::
"And I know what the fuck an option quarterback is. He's the black QB under six feet that ends up being converted to wide receiver once he's selected on day two of the NFL draft because he can't hit the ocean from the edge of a boat."

--

I don't take Darwin's word as gospel, but I do realize and respect that his work laid the foundation for a scientific explanation of who we are as a species and how we came to be. His work was horribly flawed from an objective scientific point of view, but the importance and infuence of the basic idea that animals, including humans, evolved is huge. That's why I agreed that he was a racist, but I still don't see the idiot part.



----------------------------------------
Not every end is a goal. The end of a melody is not its goal; however, if the melody has not reached its end, it would also not have reached its goal. A parable.
--Nietzsche

I really don't want to get too involved in this discussion because I'm certainly not sufficiently well informed to be able to hold my own, but I do want to note that the idea of a missing link between apes & humans is a little goofy. Presumably both apes and humans have been evolving all this time. Right? So there should not be a link between the two -- they're separate species that have evolved along separate paths. It's not inconsistent to believe that (modern) human beings evolved from (ancient) primates and (modern) primates evolved from (ancient) primates. And that does not require that human beings and modern primates came from a common ancestor.

Peace.

~ ~ ~
All meetings end in separation
All acquisition ends in dispersion
All life ends in death
- The Buddha

|\_/|
='_'=

Every hundred years, all new people

"(modern) human beings evolved from (ancient) primates and (modern) primates evolved from (ancient) primates. And that does not require that human beings and modern primates came from a common ancestor. "

but doesnt that mean that (ancient) primates would be the common ancestor?

I mean, if you go back far enough we all probably originated from the same little piece of protein/carbon rich amoeba or space dust. But once we reach a greater level of specificity, do we need to assume that all mammals, for example, are linked by a common ancestor? Or do we look for the missing link between new world monkeys & old world monkeys, distinguished by one having a prehensile tail and the other not (I always forget which is which -- I think it's old world monkeys that use their tails)?

It makes more sense to me to believe that numerous different species evolved along similar lines, coming from different origins, and some worked and some didn't. The ones that didn't died out, the ones that did keep evolving. Presumably, new species should be coming along as well.

Besides, even if we were to decide that primates broke off from original life forms or from mammals as a separate branch in a single bunch, and then evolved from there to the large crowd of differentiated primates today, that still does not agree with the premise that any "race" (I use the word advisedly and only as a convenience) of humans is a missing link to apes.

Peace.

~ ~ ~
All meetings end in separation
All acquisition ends in dispersion
All life ends in death
- The Buddha

|\_/|
='_'=

Every hundred years, all new people

>well, frankly, you make it sound
>as though i'm not aware
>or in control of what
>i believe, and that by
>believing in the basis for
>something i unwittingly accept as
>gospel anything that may have
>ever been attached to it.

I dont think I made any such insuation. I only advocated that the basis of the things that you admit to believing are rooted in the flawed and demeaning science of charles darwin and charles lysle. Im not saying YOU arent in control of what you believe but Im reminding you that the root of those ideas that you believe has been out of control for a very long time and while it may bring great benefit to the further properties of evolutionary science they also undermine human integrity and the nature of our social order.

I understand your belief in evolution and science but you urge me to separate it from darwinism. Well if Im to do that then Darwin is only left with a few presumptions and theories that wouldnt be tested out for some time after his work (he was laughed at from the start) and one major theory that would breed racism and destruction throughout the world. He wasnt a scientist- and judged on the merit of his scientific claims velodragon said this... "His work was horribly flawed from an objective scientific point of view," Without the weight of further and contemporary evolutionary science (because you sugested I separate the two) to substantiate him Darwin's theory as it relates to race and this topic demonstrates his idea that the fittest of any environment survives and all others are rightfully dominated- I call him an idiot because he presumed that "caucasians" were somehow more fit and in many cases thats just not true.

> why haven't the found
>the missing link? because
>there is no missing link,
>koala. there aren't one
>or two species, there are
>dozens. i believe that
>man evolved from a lower
>primate. i also believe
>that biologically french canadians and
>central africans are essentially identical;
>neither is more "evolved" than
>the other. i can
>believe both, and i can
>also separate evolution from darwinism.
> why on earth can't
>you?

your boy answered this question best "His work was horribly flawed from an objective scientific point of view," but both of you admit that the same work was the foundation of evolutionary science. as such how CAN I separate evolution from darwinism- you guys just said it was the root. If I did separate it from evolutionary science then what is Darwin left with?

K

>I agree with the idea that
>race has no scientific backing.
> There are gradual differences
>in appearance and other trivial
>genetic characteristics based on where
>one's ancestors were from, but
>that's about it.

These differences have been scientifically noted and are the basis for racial classification. That means race *has* scientific backing.

> I
>once heard about a study
>that showed if you take
>two Europeans, they're as likely
>to have as much in
>common genetically with an African
>as they are with each
>other.

That's because they're all one species. There are some genetic differences, however, because if there weren't, we would all share a more uniform skin tone and hair texture, with MUCH less variation. The fact that two "black" parents are more likely to have a "black" child than two "white" parents is indicative of _some_ genetic difference, even if it is a small variation. Blondes and brunettes have genetic differences too (thus, two randomly chosen blonde parents are more likely to have a blond child than two randomly chosen brunette parents). This is basic genetics and I can't understand why so many people on this board are against this concept. Small differences ARE differences. Why people organize by skin tone and not hair color is historical and arguably illogical, but race *is* a classification based on genetic differences, however small.

> Culture is the
>only true difference.

Culturally, I have more in common with a white American than an African. And culturally a white American has more in common with me than a European. But when it comes time to organize financial resources, white Americans are more aligned with Europeans than black Americans. So, what do I do to combat this hoarding of resources when it is to my detriment economically? A Pan-Africanist would argue that I should unite with Africans to share resources with them.

Spread love,

Spirit
http://www.theamphibians.com

9 out of 10 people with two arms find something interesting about http://www.theamphibians.com
This summer: new audio, same odd sense of humor. Don't get "left" out, mossie your two-armed self on over and check it out.

Peace,

Spirit (Alan)
http://wutangbook.com

>>I agree with the idea that
>>race has no scientific backing.
>> There are gradual differences
>>in appearance and other trivial
>>genetic characteristics based on where
>>one's ancestors were from, but
>>that's about it.
>
>These differences have been scientifically noted
>and are the basis for
>racial classification. That means race
>*has* scientific backing.


THAT IS A LIE LADIES AND GENTLEMAN- racial differences must subsist on the theory of race that professes that racial classification is a means of categorizing the variant evolution of human kind.

since no variant evolution of human kind can be demonstrated genetically, scientifically, naturally, or biologicall there is not such scientific substantiation.

the fact that our skin color and physical features are varied is not enough- even among Blacks that variation exists and if it were to substantiate race claims it would still establish that there are further sub races among the races currently recognized. Are lightskinned Blacks of a different race? Nope.

>> I
>>once heard about a study
>>that showed if you take
>>two Europeans, they're as likely
>>to have as much in
>>common genetically with an African
>>as they are with each
>>other.
>
>That's because they're all one species.
>There are some genetic differences,

THAT IS ANOTHER LIE the most recent genetic science has determined positively that there is no racial variance in human genetics

>however, because if there weren't,
>we would all share a
>more uniform skin tone and
>hair texture, with MUCH less
>variation.

skin tone is mitigated by melanin- but all human bodies have melanin (with the exception of albinos) as such skin pigment is not demonstrative of variance since we all have it. The amount of melanin is provided for by your ethnic and natural origins- not those fostered by race ideology.

The fact that two
>"black" parents are more likely
>to have a "black" child
>than two "white" parents is
>indicative of _some_ genetic difference,

yuck- thats a horribly simplistic view of reproduction ethnicity and genetics.

>even if it is a
>small variation. Blondes and brunettes
>have genetic differences too (thus,
>two randomly chosen blonde parents
>are more likely to have
>a blond child than two
>randomly chosen brunette parents). This
>is basic genetics and I
>can't understand why so many
>people on this board are
>against this concept. Small differences
>ARE differences. Why people organize
>by skin tone and not
>hair color is historical and
>arguably illogical, but race *is*
>a classification based on genetic
>differences, however small.

BULLSHIT race ideology came into play several hundreds of years before genetic science- where do you come up with this stuff?

You can't counter what I said by making the conclusory statement "it's a lie". it's a simple genetic fact that "black" parents are more likely to produce a child with the physical characteristics associated with "blackness" (skin, hair texture, etc) than two "white" parents. You can't deny that and you never have. there have been scientific studies to classify races. Much of that research is tainted with racial bias, but the plain facts that "black" parents are more likely to produce children with "black" characteristics can't be denied. Can you find scientific proof that "black" parents are NOT more likely to produce "black" children than Asian or white parents? Of course you can't.

And, no, "light skinned black people" are not a seperate race, they are lighter skinned people with black features, which is how you can distinguish them from Asian people or white people. You call them "light skinned black people" yourself, so you are as intertwined in racial ideology as anyone else. You KNOW that you can identify "light skinned black people" by a set of characteristics as "black", be it the shade of their skin, their hair texture, or their facial features.

It's as plain as the nose on your face, chief.

Spread love,

Spirit
http://www.theamphibians.com

9 out of 10 people with two arms find something interesting about http://www.theamphibians.com
This summer: new audio, same odd sense of humor. Don't get "left" out, mossie your two-armed self on over and check it out.

Peace,

Spirit (Alan)
http://wutangbook.com

>You can't counter what I said
>by making the conclusory statement
>"it's a lie".

I agree that KoLo is simplifying the situation here, but he's right.

> it's a
>simple genetic fact that "black"
>parents are more likely to
>produce a child with the
>physical characteristics associated with "blackness"
>(skin, hair texture, etc) than
>two "white" parents. You can't
>deny that and you never
>have. there have been scientific
>studies to classify races.

And they have all been racist studies. I hope you try to prove me wrong here. I'm willing to admit it if you find one, but I don't think you can. (what i mean by 'racist' is that they wanted to show that race is somehow important - at least that's how i define racism)

> Much
>of that research is tainted
>with racial bias,

like i said...

> but the
>plain facts that "black" parents
>are more likely to produce
>children with "black" characteristics can't
>be denied. Can you find
>scientific proof that "black" parents
>are NOT more likely to
>produce "black" children than Asian
>or white parents? Of course
>you can't.

I can't find scientific proof, because in order to do that I would need a scientific definition of "black" and "white". There is a scientific definition of Asian... Just be from the continent of Asia (of course that doesn't mean your ancestry isn't South African).

What is black. try to define it. Is an Egyptian black? Only some Egyptians? Are those the ones who you would look at and say "They're black"? But not the other ones, the more Arab looking ones. You know they all have very similar ancestry right? as similar as two "blacks" from Nigeria. as similar as two "whites" from Sweden. So what is it? Yes? No? Maybe? Half and half? Saying an Egyptian is half black half white is like saying a Chinese person is half American Indian, half European. Or half Indian, half Russian.

Racial theories are their own evidence and their own consequence. Other than themselves, they have no backing or consequences.

>
>And, no, "light skinned black people"
>are not a seperate race,
>they are lighter skinned people
>with black features, which is
>how you can distinguish them
>from Asian people or white
>people.

Okay, let's for the sake of argument say that race has scientific backing. Then wouldn't a "light skinned black person" be as much of a "white person" as they are a "black person"?

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
giving you true posts since 1999 - effa charter member

"I can assure you, we won't be putting money into a society which is not transparent and corrupt."
-George W Bush

Racial theories are their own evidence and their own consequence. Other than themselves, they have no backing or consequences.

>And they have all been racist
>studies. I hope you
>try to prove me wrong
>here. I'm willing to
>admit it if you find
>one, but I don't think
>you can. (what i
>mean by 'racist' is that
>they wanted to show that
>race is somehow important -
>at least that's how i
>define racism)

So, by your definition, the NAACP is a racist organization. Al Sharpton, Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, anyone who fights against racial oppression to you is racist because they feel race is "somehow important". Well, sir or mam, I'm in total disagreement.

>> Much
>>of that research is tainted
>>with racial bias,
>
>like i said...

You don't believe in race, how can you believe in racial bias?

>I can't find scientific proof, because
>in order to do that
>I would need a scientific
>definition of "black" and "white".
> There is a scientific
>definition of Asian... Just be
>from the continent of Asia
>(of course that doesn't mean
>your ancestry isn't South African).

There's nothing scientific about that. What if you were born in a plane flying over Isreal. Are you "Asian" when your parents are both "European"? Borders are arbitrary, created by war and political compromise as often as by actual geography (i.e. some borders are natural, created by mountains and rivers). Besides that, no one considers Israelis to be Asian, although Isreal is on the continent of Asia, as is much of Russia. Asian is considered a racial group and usually refers to parties in Southeast Asia.

>What is black. try to
>define it. Is an
>Egyptian black? Only some
>Egyptians? Are those the
>ones who you would look
>at and say "They're black"?
> But not the other
>ones, the more Arab looking
>ones.

what is "arab looking"? you question what black is, but then you use the racial classification "arab" (which is NOT a nationality).

> You know they
>all have very similar ancestry
>right? as similar as
>two "blacks" from Nigeria.

Being that Nigeria has borders that were arbitrarily created by European colonialism, arguing about ancestry across African borders is ludicrous.

>as similar as two "whites"
>from Sweden. So what
>is it? Yes? No?
> Maybe? Half and
>half? Saying an Egyptian
>is half black half white
>is like saying a Chinese
>person is half American Indian,
>half European. Or half Indian,
>half Russian.

What is "half-Indian" or "half-Russian"? are there some biological means that you could utilize to determine if someone is Russian?

>Racial theories are their own evidence
>and their own consequence.
>Other than themselves, they have
>no backing or consequences.

Actually, all group classifications are arbitrary. National origin, ethnicity, all of them are based on the idea of seperating people by mild differences into groups that aren't even homogenous (for instance, is someone with American parents Russian if they were born there, but raised in Mongolia? it's all arbitrary).

>>
>>And, no, "light skinned black people"
>>are not a seperate race,
>>they are lighter skinned people
>>with black features, which is
>>how you can distinguish them
>>from Asian people or white
>>people.
>
>Okay, let's for the sake of
>argument say that race has
>scientific backing. Then wouldn't
>a "light skinned black person"
>be as much of a
>"white person" as they are
>a "black person"?

first, what is "light skinned"? there are "light skinned" people with two "black" parents, one "black" and one "white" parent, one "black" and one "Asian" parent and so on...the fact that you assume that it is a black/white issue shows how tainted this whole discussion is with white supremacy...most "light skinned black" people have
two "black" parents....

This whole thing is pretty much a pointless exercise, as neither you or Koala seem to have any serious plans to convince the masses of your ideology's correctness. This is the ACTIVIST board. What are you going to do about the issue? Pass out leaflets explaining your cause? Call representatives to pressure them to remove race from all government classifications? Urge the NAACP to change its name to the NAAP? I see talk, no action, so I'm outta here...

In any case, I'm politically opposed to your ideas, sorry....

Spread love,

Spirit
http://www.theamphibians.com

9 out of 10 people with two arms find something interesting about http://www.theamphibians.com
This summer: new audio, same odd sense of humor. Don't get "left" out, mossie your two-armed self on over and check it out.

Peace,

Spirit (Alan)
http://wutangbook.com

>This whole thing is pretty much
>a pointless exercise, as neither
>you or Koala seem to
>have any serious plans to
>convince the masses of your
>ideology's correctness. This is the
>ACTIVIST board. What are you
>going to do about the
>issue? Pass out leaflets explaining
>your cause? Call representatives to
>pressure them to remove race
>from all government classifications? Urge
>the NAACP to change its
>name to the NAAP? I
>see talk, no action, so
>I'm outta here...

You're doin haf of all the talkin chump- at least we have something intelligent to say...

"it refers to plants or animals, not people "
-spirit

that shit still makes me laugh

K

>
>So, by your definition, the NAACP
>is a racist organization. Al
>Sharpton, Martin Luther King, Malcolm
>X, anyone who fights against
>racial oppression to you is
>racist because they feel race
>is "somehow important". Well, sir
>or mam, I'm in total
>disagreement.
>
No, no no no no... King, the NAACP, and Malcolm (at least toward the end) all know/knew that "race" was unimportant. The idea that race is important is what they fought/fight against. You're not in total disagreement... just partial misunderstanding.

But for a big part of his career, Malcolm was a racist... he thought it was all about race, and no one "white" could have respect in his eyes. You can say he had an excuse because he was racist in response and retaliation to a far more evil racism. He was a victim of racism, and that at least makes it understandable, but not right. Malcolm figured it out eventually though.


>You don't believe in race, how
>can you believe in racial
>bias?

People who believe in "race" can be racially biased. Bias is real.


>There's nothing scientific about that. What
>if you were born in
>a plane flying over Isreal.
>Are you "Asian" when your
>parents are both "European"? Borders
>are arbitrary, created by war
>and political compromise as often
>as by actual geography (i.e.
>some borders are natural, created
>by mountains and rivers). Besides
>that, no one considers Israelis
>to be Asian, although Isreal
>is on the continent of
>Asia, as is much of
>Russia. Asian is considered a
>racial group and usually refers
>to parties in Southeast Asia.

That unanswerable question, "Are Israelis Asians?" is exactly the weird thing about "race" I was talking about earlier. Obviously no one will call Israelis "Asian", but how about Bangladeshis? Sort of? There are no clear racial lines you can draw between "Mongoloid", "Caucasoid" and "Negroid". There is gradual change in the gene pool between areas, but there is no solid racial categorization.

>
>what is "arab looking"? you question
>what black is, but then
>you use the racial classification
>"arab" (which is NOT a
>nationality).

Arab is neither a "race" nor a nationality. It's an ethnic group characterized by a certain geographic origin and cultural customs. Some Arabs are very dark. Some are green-eyed. I say "arab looking" acknowledging that there are certain facial features and characteristics typical to people from that part of the world. There are geographic variations. That's not the same as race.

>
>> You know they
>>all have very similar ancestry
>>right? as similar as
>>two "blacks" from Nigeria.
>
>Being that Nigeria has borders that
>were arbitrarily created by European
>colonialism, arguing about ancestry across
>African borders is ludicrous.

I'm talking about ancestry within borders.


>
>What is "half-Indian" or "half-Russian"? are
>there some biological means that
>you could utilize to determine
>if someone is Russian?

No. That's what I'm saying. Calling a light-skinned African American "half-black, half-white" (outside of what it means in our culture as a consequence of racial theories, and outside of what "black" and "white" mean as colors ) is like calling someone from India "half-Persian, half-Nepalese"

>
>>Racial theories are their own evidence
>>and their own consequence.
>>Other than themselves, they have
>>no backing or consequences.
>
>Actually, all group classifications are arbitrary.
>National origin, ethnicity, all of
>them are based on the
>idea of seperating people by
>mild differences into groups that
>aren't even homogenous (for instance,
>is someone with American parents
>Russian if they were born
>there, but raised in Mongolia?
>it's all arbitrary).

That's true. Cultural lines can be as impossible to draw as racial boundaries. The difference, as I see it, is that "race" is an idea that you can separate people into arbitrary groups, based on genetic differences (not based on lifestyle, culture, personality, where you're from, or how you were raised) and that those differences somehow tell you something (outside of the social consequences of that racial category) about someone of that "race".



>first, what is "light skinned"? there
>are "light skinned" people with
>two "black" parents, one "black"
>and one "white" parent, one
>"black" and one "Asian" parent
>and so on...the fact that
>you assume that it is
>a black/white issue shows how
>tainted this whole discussion is
>with white supremacy...most "light skinned
>black" people have
>two "black" parents....

You say "black" even when talking about someone who is light-skinned. That shows just how much of a social construct "race" really is. In the US, anyone with any noticeable African ancestry is considered black. "Black" in many places outside the US means only someone with very dark skin.

You're right in pointing out the complexities of light-skinnedness. Around here, most light-skinned blacks happen to be of mixed European and African ancestry. Still, they're called "black" and if two have a light-skinned child, that child is "black". Even if the kid looks like Prince. That's a cultural classification, because "mixed" folks have historically been not included by "whites" as a consequence of their assumed inferiority. So when you say, "Most light-skinned blacks have two black parents," realize why it is you call those parents "black". It ain't science. As far as "race" goes as a scientific means of classifying people, it doesn't make sense to call someone "black" who might even be mostly "white"... that is, outside of what it means in our society as a consequence of widespread racialism and racism.

...which reminds me of what you just said about this conversation being tainted with white supremacy. You're right. You know why? The racial classifications you are defending were created by white supremacists. Other than promoting ideas of racial separation, supremacy, or antagonism, racial classification has no use or value.

>
>This whole thing is pretty much
>a pointless exercise, as neither
>you or Koala seem to
>have any serious plans to
>convince the masses of your
>ideology's correctness.

Things are not always what they seem.

> This is the
>ACTIVIST board. What are you
>going to do about the
>issue? Pass out leaflets explaining
>your cause? Call representatives to
>pressure them to remove race
>from all government classifications?

I don't know. What are you going to do?

>Urge
>the NAACP to change its
>name to the NAAP?

The 'C' stands for "colored", and as far as I can tell, everyone is a color. The NAACP is an organization bent on UNdoing the harm that racialism has done. No one's trying to make them change their name. Realizing that race does not exist does not exempt me or anyone from acknowledging prejudice and racism as a powerful and evil force. It does not exempt "white" people from their accountability and (what should be an) obligation to realize the skin-privilege, and fix it. It is only a realization that all this is built on a foundation made of bull shit.

>I
>see talk, no action, so
>I'm outta here...

Remember what they say about people with glass houses? I ain't one who likes to point fingers, but you just left yourself too open ;-P

>
>In any case, I'm politically opposed
>to your ideas, sorry....
>

I can tell that you're opposed to what you think my ideas are. but that's because you don't understand it yet.

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
giving you true posts since 1999 - effa charter member

"I can assure you, we won't be putting money into a society which is not transparent and corrupt."
-George W Bush

>The amount of melanin is
>provided for by your ethnic
>and natural origins- not those
>fostered by race ideology.

Oh, the amount of melanin is provided by "natural origins", but according to you "race has no biological basis"? In that case, what do you call "natural origins"? And the amount of melanin a child will possess is determined by ethnicity not race? Where's your scientific backing on that one? Now you're really getting illogical.

ethnic - of or pertaining to a group of people recognized as a class on the basis of certain distinctive characteristics, such as religion, ancestry, culture, or national origin
(American Heritage Dictionary)

ethnicity - The condition of belonging to a particular ethnic group

No mention of melanin or any other physical traits in that definition, although I'll concede the point that "ethnic features" is a generally used term to refer to features associated with an ethnic group. However, the same people that talk about ethnic groups also believe in racial groups, of which ethnic groups are subsets, so that doesn't help your position much.

You really can't argue that ethnicity is more real than race as a dividing line and simultaneously argue that all humans are essentially genetically the same.

As far as your assertion that "all humans have melanin", that's a no brainer. Sure we all have melanin, but the racial background of your parentage determines _how much_ melanin you will possess, as a general rule. "Black" grandparents, "black" parents, you grow up with "Asian" features, as a general rule. Nothing in genetics is a sure thing (that's why there are mutations), but that's a pretty sure bet. And that, my friend, is the biological basis behind racial classification: physical features passed down as genetic traits.

>The fact that two
>>"black" parents are more likely
>>to have a "black" child
>>than two "white" parents is
>>indicative of _some_ genetic difference,
>
>yuck- thats a horribly simplistic view
>of reproduction ethnicity and genetics.

No matter how simplistic you claim it is, you can't refute it. And it's the biological basis for racial classifcation.

(back to your argument that people should be classified as national origin...since national origin is comprised of historical borders which are created through warfare and political compromise, I don't see how such an arbitrary distinction could be considered a more logical classification than race (which is equally arbitrary), when in certain countries, ethnic groups are divided by borders which were arbitrarily created during colonialism. European colonialism created most of the world's borders anyway, so national origin is a highly specious dividing line...what honestly seperates a Tutsi in Rwanda from a Tutsi in Burundi other than a border created by a European?)

Spread love,

Spirit
http://www.theamphibians.com

9 out of 10 people with two arms find something interesting about http://www.theamphibians.com
This summer: new audio, same odd sense of humor. Don't get "left" out, mossie your two-armed self on over and check it out.

Peace,

Spirit (Alan)
http://wutangbook.com

parting shot...

race - 1. a group of people distinguished by genetically transmitted physical characteristics.
2. a group of people united by a common history, nationality or tradition. 3. a subspecies, breed, or strain of plants or animals.
(american heritage dictionary)

if the language of 3 isn't clear enough, it refers to plants or animals, not people as humans are not divided into subspecies by any reputable modern geneticist, which is what i said to some earlier poster (bluetiger?) who stated that race was a synonym for "subspecies"...sorry, blue, that's only as concerns plants and animals.

Definition 1 is what I've been saying all along. "genetically transmitted physical characteristics". The odds of me having blue eyes with two black parents are ridiculously high, because that isn't part of the genetically transmitted physical characteristics I received from my parents...and aren't physical characteristics of "black people".

say what you will, racial classification is based on real difference.

Spread love,

Spirit
http://www.theamphibians.com

9 out of 10 people with two arms find something interesting about http://www.theamphibians.com
This summer: new audio, same odd sense of humor. Don't get "left" out, mossie your two-armed self on over and check it out.

Peace,

Spirit (Alan)
http://wutangbook.com

>parting shot...
>
>race - 1. a group of
>people distinguished by genetically transmitted
>physical characteristics.
>2. a group of people united
>by a common history, nationality
>or tradition. 3. a subspecies,
>breed, or strain of plants
>or animals.
>(american heritage dictionary)
>
>if the language of 3 isn't
>clear enough, it refers to
>plants or animals, not people
>as humans are not divided
>into subspecies by any reputable
>modern geneticist, which is what
>i said to some earlier
>poster (bluetiger?) who stated that
>race was a synonym for
>"subspecies"...sorry, blue, that's only as
>concerns plants and animals.

Humans ARE animals.....Maybe you think the human family belongs among single celled organisms.........that's definitely not your brightest showing of literacy......

>Definition 1 is what I've been
>saying all along. "genetically transmitted
>physical characteristics". The odds of
>me having blue eyes with
>two black parents are ridiculously
>high, because that isn't part
>of the genetically transmitted physical
>characteristics I received from my
>parents...and aren't physical characteristics of
>"black people".

A note to ponder: the Hausa tribe that reside mainly in Ghana (west Africa) are naturally very deep brown complected, dark blue eyed people. They are fairly exclusive as far as tribes go, and consider pale faces to be witches. Breeding with the pale face Europeans is considered a NO-NO. Blue eyes is a phenotypical trait that does not connote race. And what about Africans born with albinism? Are they suddenly not "black" according to you?

>say what you will, racial classification
>is based on real difference.

There is no such thing scientifically as race among the human family. You can argue against consistently proven facts all you want, but that makes what you are saying an opinion (and a false one at that) and not factual in any way, shape, or form. You might have a case for race as a social construct, but even that doesn't hold a lot of weight since the social construct that was supposed to be based on real science isn't based on any science at all. If you don't want to admit your wrong, fine. The facts are still presented (here and in other discussions) for you. I hope that you study some genetics and learn for yourself anyway. I'm done with this.

Thanks for reading. I love you.

don't be fkn evil.

Im going to chicago!!!!

peace y'all

spirit- the truth is out there

>Humans ARE animals...

Come on now, you think I don't know that? However, no one divides the human species into suubspecies in modern biology. When the term "animal" is used in general language, it's used to refer to mammals and reptiles that are non-human...when is the last time you heard of an "animal rights" organization fighting for the rights of humans?

Man, you cats kill me (oh, and I'm not literally calling you a feline, if you need me to clear that up).

>..Maybe you think the
>human family belongs among single
>celled organisms.........that's definitely not >your
>brightest showing of literacy......

Ah, the personal attack.

>>Definition 1 is what I've been
>>saying all along. "genetically transmitted
>>physical characteristics". The odds of
>>me having blue eyes with
>>two black parents are ridiculously
>>high, because that isn't part
>>of the genetically transmitted physical
>>characteristics I received from my
>>parents...and aren't physical characteristics of
>>"black people".
>
>A note to ponder: the Hausa
>tribe that reside mainly in
>Ghana (west Africa) are naturally
>very deep brown complected, dark
>blue eyed people. They are
>fairly exclusive as far as
>tribes go, and consider pale
>faces to be witches. Breeding
>with the pale face Europeans
>is considered a NO-NO. Blue
>eyes is a phenotypical trait
>that does not connote race.

Certainly there are exceptions to every general rule in racial classification (there are also black people with fine hair and white people with thick lips), but classications are based on generalities. Take ethnicity for example, based on language, nationality, and culture, but of course terms like "culture" are extremely vague and hard to use as a classification (after all, is every Russian an active participant in "Russian culture"? would being americanized make one not Russian? would being raised in one country for 10 years, another in 5, and another for 14, make you have no nationality?)

>And what about Africans born
>with albinism? Are they suddenly
>not "black" according to you?

They might have other features which would allow them to fall into the category 'black'. To flip your question, would a person born in America from African parents be African, if he were raised by New Zealanders? There are a million exceptions to any attempt to organize large numbers of people into categories: be it ethnicity, nationality, or race.

>>say what you will, racial classification
>>is based on real difference.
>
>There is no such thing scientifically
>as race among the human
>family.

You didn't refute what I said with this sentence. Actual differences exist which are the basis for broad categories. And by "no such thing scientifically as race" that's just wrong...there is scientific evidence regarding racial classification...it has been attacked violently, but the concept of race is still utilized by scientists even today...for example, researchers study the disproportionate sickle cell anemia rates amongst "blacks"...without accepting the premise that "blacks" are distinctive from "whites" or "Asians", such studies could not be conducted. they don't study "whites" who were born in Africa or the Caribbean to research sickle cell anemia, they study "blacks"....that's only one example of scientists utilizing racial classification in research...there are numerous conditions which science has shown occur more in certain "racial groups" than others...skin cancer rates among "whites" for example...all scientifically proven. If there was no biological basis in racial classification, such disparities could not be found.

> You can argue against
>consistently proven facts all you
>want, but that makes what
>you are saying an opinion
>(and a false one at
>that) and not factual in
>any way, shape, or form.

Actually, I'm on the majority of the world's side with this one...you guys have the hard road of convincing the Earth's 6 billion people that race doesn't exist. Good luck.

Spread love,

Spirit
http://www.theamphibians.com

9 out of 10 people with two arms find something interesting about http://www.theamphibians.com
This summer: new audio, same odd sense of humor. Don't get "left" out, mossie your two-armed self on over and check it out.

Peace,

Spirit (Alan)
http://wutangbook.com

>>Humans ARE animals...

>Come on now, you think I
>don't know that? However, no
>one divides the human species
>into suubspecies in modern biology.

Right because modern biologists dont regard human categorzation through RACE.

>When the term "animal" is
>used in general language, it's
>used to refer to mammals
>and reptiles that are non-human...when
>is the last time you
>heard of an "animal rights"
>organization fighting for the rights
>of humans?

according to the same dictionary "animal" means

"A HUMAN BEING considered with respect to his or her physical, as opposed to spiritual, nature."

Its funny how you want us to observe the official definition but when you find out it doesnt support your claims we're supposed to regard "general language"


YUCK

K

>>>Humans ARE animals...
>
>>Come on now, you think I
>>don't know that? However, no
>>one divides the human species
>>into suubspecies in modern biology.
>
>Right because modern biologists dont regard
>human categorzation through RACE.

Then explain why medical science continues to stand by research indicating certain diseases (sickle cell anemia, skin cancer, etc) affect certain RACES disportionately? YOu're an idiot if you actually believe that modern biologists don't believe in racial classification. You ask them what race they are, they'll tell you.


>
>>When the term "animal" is
>>used in general language, it's
>>used to refer to mammals
>>and reptiles that are non-human...when
>>is the last time you
>>heard of an "animal rights"
>>organization fighting for the rights
>>of humans?
>
>according to the same dictionary "animal"
>means
>
>"A HUMAN BEING considered with respect
>to his or her physical,
>as opposed to spiritual, nature."

That is NOT the sole definition of "animal" in that dictionary. By only snipping out the definition that (weakly) supports your position, you show how intellectually dishonest you can be.

Further, a human being with respect to his PHYSICAL NATURE...not human beings as a whole, because MOST PEOPLE distinguish human beings from the rest of the animal kingdom, due to our higher cognitive level.

animal - 2. AN ANIMAL ORGANISM OTHER THAN A HUMAN BEING, ESP. A MAMMAL.
(Webster's New College Dictionary)

I am at work, so I can't access the other dictionary I used before (it's at home), but that ought to explain my position clearly enough. In its general usage "animals" as a classification does not usu. connote human beings.

The other two definitions describe what traits are acribed to an animal ("caoacity for locomotion, fixed bodily structure and restricted growth", etc.) but the definition makes clear that human beings are to be excluded from this general category...and that is how "Animal" is used in colloquial English.

Idiot...

Spread love,

Spirit
http://www.theamphibians.com

August is Top 10 Month...

The 10 Reasons why you should go to http://www.theamphibians.com

(1) the all-american jerk boy awards...guilliani is leading...
(2) for your convenience, we only do updates once every blue moon
(3) because i'll break your legs if you don't
(4) you need a reason to put off clipping your toenails for 7 more minutes
(5) the bizarre user names (mr. bungles, angry armenian, spottieottiedopalicious etc.)
(6) the good posts that get completely unrecognized
(7) the amazingly true story of me getting mugged, somewhere in there
(8) the goofy bios
(9) to figure out what the hell "fermented bells" are
(10) because you're tired of reading this long ass lists of reasons....just click it! http://www.theamphibians.com

9 out of 10 people with two arms find something interesting about http://www.theamphibians.com
This summer: new audio, same odd sense of humor. Don't get "left" out, mossie your two-armed self on over and check it out.

Peace,

Spirit (Alan)
http://wutangbook.com

>Then explain why medical science continues
>to stand by research indicating
>certain diseases (sickle cell anemia,
>skin cancer, etc) affect certain
>RACES disportionately? YOu're an idiot
>if you actually believe that
>modern biologists don't believe in
>racial classification. You ask them
>what race they are, they'll
>tell you.

African American is not a race spirit its an ethnic heritage. Sickle cell anemia is mor prevalent in African Americans according to the medical industry.

as far as asking scientists- we'll get to that later.

>>>When the term "animal" is
>>>used in general language, it's
>>>used to refer to mammals
>>>and reptiles that are non-human...when
>>>is the last time you
>>>heard of an "animal rights"
>>>organization fighting for the rights
>>>of humans?
>>
>>according to the same dictionary "animal"
>>means
>>
>>"A HUMAN BEING considered with respect
>>to his or her physical,
>>as opposed to spiritual, nature."
>
>That is NOT the sole definition
>of "animal" in that dictionary.
>By only snipping out the
>definition that (weakly) supports your
>position, you show how intellectually
>dishonest you can be.

YUCK- YOU"RE DOING THE SAME SHIT!

oh it means the part were it says not humans- not the part where it says humans.

>Further, a human being with respect
>to his PHYSICAL NATURE...not human
>beings as a whole, because
>MOST PEOPLE distinguish human beings
>from the rest of the
>animal kingdom, due to our
>higher cognitive level.


>animal - 2. AN ANIMAL ORGANISM
>OTHER THAN A HUMAN BEING,
>ESP. A MAMMAL.
>(Webster's New College Dictionary)

wait didnt you just say to do this would show how "intellectually dishonest you can be. "

>I am at work, so I
>can't access the other dictionary
>I used before (it's at
>home), but that ought to
>explain my position clearly enough.
>In its general usage "animals"
>as a classification does not
>usu. connote human beings.

yuck

>The other two definitions describe what
>traits are acribed to an
>animal ("caoacity for locomotion, fixed
>bodily structure and restricted growth",
>etc.) but the definition makes
>clear that human beings are
>to be excluded from this
>general category...and that is how
>"Animal" is used in colloquial
>English.

yuck

>Idiot...

yuck

>according to the same dictionary "animal"
>means
>
>"A HUMAN BEING considered with respect
>to his or her physical,
>as opposed to spiritual, nature."

That's not the same dictionary *I* read: which was the American Heritage Dictionary, which defines animal as: 1. An organism distinguished from a plant by structural and functional characteristics, such as the ability to move. 2. A LIVING BEING OTHER THAN A HUMAN BEING. 3. A brutish person - adj. 1. Of or relating to animals. 2. Sensual or physical rather than spiritual.
(American Heritage Dictionary, Second College Edition)

Only the last definition comes anywhere near what you quoted and the second definition CLEARLY states that human beings are not to be considered within the context of "animals". With that in mind, clearly the SAME DICTIONARY's defintion of race = subspecies ONLY as regards "plants or animals" is meant to exclude "humans" from the animal classification. That, my friends, is called reasoning...which is lacking in this discussion...

Now that this thing has gotten completely ridiculous, I'm out...

Spread love,

Spirit
http://www.theamphibians.com

August is Top 10 Month...

The 10 Reasons why you should go to http://www.theamphibians.com

(1) the all-american jerk boy awards...guilliani is leading...
(2) for your convenience, we only do updates once every blue moon
(3) because i'll break your legs if you don't
(4) you need a reason to put off clipping your toenails for 7 more minutes
(5) the bizarre user names (mr. bungles, angry armenian, spottieottiedopalicious etc.)
(6) the good posts that get completely unrecognized
(7) the amazingly true story of me getting mugged, somewhere in there
(8) the goofy bios
(9) to figure out what the hell "fermented bells" are
(10) because you're tired of reading this long ass lists of reasons....just click it! http://www.theamphibians.com

9 out of 10 people with two arms find something interesting about http://www.theamphibians.com
This summer: new audio, same odd sense of humor. Don't get "left" out, mossie your two-armed self on over and check it out.

Peace,

Spirit (Alan)
http://wutangbook.com

....Out of your mind.

According to you the first definition is


> 1. An organism distinguished
>from a plant by structural
>and functional characteristics, such as
>the ability to move.

Ok- Im not a plant and i have the ability to move- this definition shows that humans are indeed animals

as far as "your dictionary" goes Im quoting the online American Heritage dictionary which is accessible by anyone reading these posts and is probably more current than the stuff you're reading.

you can find it here

http://www.bartleby.com/61/

K

...spent a week trying to tell people that humans arent animals.

and called me an idiot through the whole thing- doesnt anybody see how funny that is?

Do you feel silly when you get called out on saying stuff like this?

>race - 3. a subspecies,
>breed, or strain of plants
>or animals.
>(american heritage dictionary)

Humans are animals spirit- seeing as youve hjust proved that race implies the idea of subspecies among animals your whole case is blown.

good thing it was a parting shot- cuz you'd laughed out the box trying to back that one up.

"if the language of 3 isn't clear enough, it refers to plants or animals, not people as humans are not divided into subspecies by any reputable modern geneticist, which is what i said to some earlier poster (bluetiger?) who stated that race was a synonym for "subspecies"...sorry, blue, that's only as concerns plants and animals."

bwahaahhaahaa- you're killing me

K

>Do you feel silly when you
>get called out on saying
>stuff like this?
>
>>race - 3. a subspecies,
>>breed, or strain of plants
>>or animals.
>>(american heritage dictionary)
>
>Humans are animals spirit-

In the context of the definition (the rest of which you snipped) there was an implicit distinction being made b/t people and animals...a distinction most people make as well (when folks think "animal kingdom", they don't expect to see a special on some people living in a Brooklyn apartment, they expect lions, tigers, etc...). Amazing how people will pretend to forget how language is conventionally used in the heat of an argument.

seeing as
>youve hjust proved that race
>implies the idea of subspecies
>among animals your whole case
>is blown.

Not at all. Good you think so. You fellows have the rather difficult course of convincing the majority of the 6 billion folks on earth that they shouldn't belong to a racial group. good luck.

Spread love,

Spirit
http://www.theamphibians.com

9 out of 10 people with two arms find something interesting about http://www.theamphibians.com
This summer: new audio, same odd sense of humor. Don't get "left" out, mossie your two-armed self on over and check it out.

Peace,

Spirit (Alan)
http://wutangbook.com

You're funny spirit- I can hear them pedals grinding backwards as i type.

Here's the definition as you posted it so there is no mischaracterzation of what you said.

race - 1. a group of people distinguished by genetically transmitted physical characteristics.
2. a group of people united by a common history, nationality or tradition. 3. a subspecies, breed, or strain of plants or animals.
(american heritage dictionary)

>In the context of the definition
>(the rest of which you
>snipped) there was an implicit
>distinction being made b/t people
>and animals...a distinction most people
>make as well (when folks
>think "animal kingdom", they don't
>expect to see a special
>on some people living in
>a Brooklyn apartment, they expect
>lions, tigers, etc...).

sorry spirit seeing as the dictionary and science and common educated knowledge also EXPLICITLY regards people as animals- you're argument is weak.

The definition says animals- thats all there is to it Spirit, you can argue that they didnt mean people- but they sure as hell didnt say that and even the definition of animals from the same dictionary says

4. A human being considered with respect to his or her physical, as opposed to spiritual, nature.

spin your way out of that one.

>Amazing how
>people will pretend to forget
>how language is conventionally used
>in the heat of an
>argument.

You didnt demonstrate conventional use- you demonstrated the definition as provided by a dictionary of your choice and it defied everything you said so you had to hide by the "conventional" use of the owrd- which is hard to substantiate and even then is undermined by the fact that the same dictionary offered that the conventional use may be in accordance with your views but the official use is not.

by the way- we're not talking about conventional use of the term we're talking about its supposed scientific validity and you brought up the matter of its definition as such- conventional opinion doesnt really matter in either arena.

>Not at all. Good you think
>so. You fellows have the
>rather difficult course of convincing
>the majority of the 6
>billion folks on earth that
>they shouldn't belong to a
>racial group. good luck.

I am happy to inform you that a great number of people dont even acknowledge racial classification. But it would be funny if tribesmen of the Lithuala swamp actually thought they were less evolved than the "white" people that they never see.

K

>sorry spirit seeing as the dictionary
>and science and common educated
>knowledge also EXPLICITLY regards people
>as animals- you're argument is
>weak.

Hey, dickhead, scroll up....first, your definition not state "people are animals", it stated that "animal" could be used as a term to describe the physical nature of human beings, but noting the distinction that human beings have a "spiritual nature" which cannot be described by the term "animal". Further, the Webster's New College Dictionary definition I cite in the post above EXPLICITLY states that "animal" does NOT describe human beings ("an animal organism OTHER THAN A HUMAN BEING...").

Further "common general knowledge" seperates human beings from animals...you won't see people in a zoo anytime soon, moron.

>I am happy to inform you
>that a great number of
>people dont even acknowledge racial
>classification. But it would be
>funny if tribesmen of the
>Lithuala swamp actually thought they
>were less evolved than the
>"white" people that they never
>see.

Since when were the "tribesman of the Lithuala swamp" a "great number of people"? You haven't informed me of a damn thing.

Spread love,

Spirit
http://www.theamphibians.com

August is Top 10 Month...

The 10 Reasons why you should go to http://www.theamphibians.com

(1) the all-american jerk boy awards...guilliani is leading...
(2) for your convenience, we only do updates once every blue moon
(3) because i'll break your legs if you don't
(4) you need a reason to put off clipping your toenails for 7 more minutes
(5) the bizarre user names (mr. bungles, angry armenian, spottieottiedopalicious etc.)
(6) the good posts that get completely unrecognized
(7) the amazingly true story of me getting mugged, somewhere in there
(8) the goofy bios
(9) to figure out what the hell "fermented bells" are
(10) because you're tired of reading this long ass lists of reasons....just click it! http://www.theamphibians.com

9 out of 10 people with two arms find something interesting about http://www.theamphibians.com
This summer: new audio, same odd sense of humor. Don't get "left" out, mossie your two-armed self on over and check it out.

Peace,

Spirit (Alan)
http://wutangbook.com

So ashamed by his own ignorance that he resorts to insults and persnal attacks.

you're brilliant spirit.


anyway ...

this is what your dictionary has to say about "people"

"Animals or other beings distinct from human beings: "Rabbits and squirrels are the furry, little people of the woods."

so apperently they are talking about non human animals after all. but wait that contradicts your original definition

"race - 1. a group of people distinguished by genetically transmitted physical characteristics."

oh so they must mean rabbits are racially diverse

Sorry spirit- when dealing with dictionaries you'll be hard pressed to find consitency much less demonstrate some accurate assessment as to what they are implying. Since the definition
of "animal" is both regarding humans and organisms other than humans (as does the term people) you dont have a very strong case to say that in the case of the definition that you
presented they meant "animals" in the fashion that you propose.

you lose again chief- and the fact that you're getting dogged by a supposed moron is even funnier.

all that book learnin and you still cant make sense

K

first off, out the gate, i apologize for the personal insults....even though your use of "yuck" indicates less than a mature discourse, it was improper for me to use personal insults.

>this is what your dictionary has
>to say about "people"
>
>"Animals or other beings distinct from
>human beings: "Rabbits and squirrels
>are the furry, little people
>of the woods."


wow. you've finally lost it. this makes absolutely no sense. if it it says animals are distinct from human beings, why would you call rabbits "furry people"? what on earth? anyway...it's not "my" dictionary, it's the american heritage dictionary. i didn't write it...and you obviously didn't read it.

>"race - 1. a group of
>people distinguished by genetically transmitted
>physical characteristics."
>
>oh so they must mean rabbits
>are racially diverse

you can't snip out parts of the definition. they had several definitions. none of them were contradictory regarding the non-human animal v. human being distinction.


>Sorry spirit- when dealing with dictionaries
>you'll be hard pressed to
>find consitency much less demonstrate
>some accurate assessment as to
>what they are implying.

Sure, you know the English language better than the dictionary. Anyway, my part in this argument is over now...

Spread love,

Spirit
http://www.theamphibians.com

August is Top 10 Month...

The 10 Reasons why you should go to http://www.theamphibians.com

(1) the all-american jerk boy awards...guilliani is leading...
(2) for your convenience, we only do updates once every blue moon
(3) because i'll break your legs if you don't
(4) you need a reason to put off clipping your toenails for 7 more minutes
(5) the bizarre user names (mr. bungles, angry armenian, spottieottiedopalicious etc.)
(6) the good posts that get completely unrecognized
(7) the amazingly true story of me getting mugged, somewhere in there
(8) the goofy bios
(9) to figure out what the hell "fermented bells" are
(10) because you're tired of reading this long ass lists of reasons....just click it! http://www.theamphibians.com

9 out of 10 people with two arms find something interesting about http://www.theamphibians.com
This summer: new audio, same odd sense of humor. Don't get "left" out, mossie your two-armed self on over and check it out.

Peace,

Spirit (Alan)
http://wutangbook.com

>first off, out the gate, i
>apologize for the personal insults....even
>though your use of "yuck"
>indicates less than a mature
>discourse, it was improper for
>me to use personal insults.

YUCK!

>>this is what your dictionary has
>>to say about "people"
>>
>>"Animals or other beings distinct from
>>human beings: "Rabbits and squirrels
>>are the furry, little people
>>of the woods."
>
>
>wow. you've finally lost it. this
>makes absolutely no sense. if
>it it says animals are
>distinct from human beings, why
>would you call rabbits "furry
>people"?

Um- thats the text from the definition - smart guy- you're having trouble with that dictionary eh- how bout i give you a link.

http://www.bartleby.com/cgi-bin/texis/webinator/sitesearch/?query=people&db=db&cmd=context&id=38d474bf69e#hit1

ok just click it

>what on earth? anyway...it's
>not "my" dictionary, it's the
>american heritage dictionary. i didn't
>write it...and you obviously didn't
>read it.

you cited it and its easy to demonstrate that that dictionary is not only inconsistent but vague and on those grounds you dont offer much credence by telling us what the dictionary "implies" and asking that we disregard what the shit says.

the fact is the definition you cited said specifically that race applied the ideas of "sub-spoecies" to "animals" being that it also defined animals as "human beings" elsewhere whether or not the "general" understanding is this way or that (and you need to quit bullshittin and admit that it- much like you- goes both ways) doesnt make a difference cuz its a notch on both sides of the argument.

Unfortunately you made the additional claim that the idea of subspecies was not among the common ideas of race and then you pulled out a dictionary and demonstrated quite clearly that it was.

you can keep arguing if ya want - dog but you're just running your name into the ground cuz you're trying to defend the premise that people arent animals- thats just silly shit

its like my man said- your shit is straight comedy.


>>"race - 1. a group of
>>people distinguished by genetically transmitted
>>physical characteristics."
>>
>>oh so they must mean rabbits
>>are racially diverse
>
>you can't snip out parts of
>the definition. they had several
>definitions. none of them were
>contradictory regarding the non-human animal
>v. human being distinction.

yuck- you did it- why do you keep this nonsense up?

>>Sorry spirit- when dealing with dictionaries
>>you'll be hard pressed to
>>find consitency much less demonstrate
>>some accurate assessment as to
>>what they are implying.
>
>Sure, you know the English language
>better than the dictionary. Anyway,
>my part in this argument
>is over now...

cool then we can carry on with the intelligent part of the discussion thanks for playing sport.

K

Yes, there are genetic differences between people. And two dark humans are more likely to have a dark child than two light humans. But there are enormously bigger differences noted within a race than any of the differences between two races.

The reason "racial" differences are so noted is because they're visible. The incredibly few genes that wind up being very visible happen to be noticed. Many people presume that this means that the rest of the genes are different too. Not the case.

The human species happens to be one of the most homogeneous, because of our historical tendency to travel. All the genes got everywhere. It's just that the light skinned genes never survived in tropical areas... the sickle cell anemia gene never survived anywhere where malaria wasn't a problem.

At the root of the matter, yes there are differences between people, but no racial classification can be scientifically approved. You say a Spaniard is different from a Moroccan, but people have traveled back and forth ever since the times the first hominids crossed the straight between them. The genetic difference between two Spaniards (who are not relatives) is just as great as the difference between a Moroccan and either of the two Spaniards.

It's not as if Africans and Europeans were ever at any point isolated from one another. People always traveled. So did genes.

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
giving you true posts since 1999 - effa charter member

"I can assure you, we won't be putting money into a society which is not transparent and corrupt."
-George W Bush

>Yes, there are genetic differences between
>people. And two dark
>humans are more likely to
>have a dark child than
>two light humans.

Thank you conceding that point.

>But
>there are enormously bigger differences
>noted within a race than
>any of the differences between
>two races.

I will concede this point.

>The reason "racial" differences are so
>noted is because they're visible.
> The incredibly few genes
>that wind up being very
>visible happen to be noticed.
> Many people presume that
>this means that the rest
>of the genes are different
>too. Not the case.

I don't think many people presume that races have huge genetic differences. Most folks think races have *cultural* differences (as in "Asian people do this", "White people do that"), but I haven't met anyone yet that things white people are a different subspecies of human being. That's outdated and considered psycho by most regular people.

>The human species happens to be
>one of the most homogeneous,
>because of our historical tendency
>to travel. All the
>genes got everywhere. It's
>just that the light skinned
>genes never survived in tropical
>areas... the sickle cell anemia
>gene never survived anywhere where
>malaria wasn't a problem.

Right, and these biological differences became the basis for racial classification. If we all looked alike, there wouldn't be racial categories as we know them.

>At the root of the matter,
>yes there are differences between
>people, but no racial classification
>can be scientifically approved.

Sure it can, by means of looking at the occurrence of biological traits associated with certain racial groups. You already spoke about "light skinned gene(s)". If it is genetic, it can be scientifically approved.

>You say a Spaniard is
>different from a Moroccan,

did i?

> but
>people have traveled back and
>forth ever since the times
>the first hominids crossed the
>straight between them. The
>genetic difference between two Spaniards
>(who are not relatives) is
>just as great as the
>difference between a Moroccan and
>either of the two Spaniards.

i concede this point.

still, this just means that classifications are arbitrary (nationality, ethnicity, etc) as none of these groupings place people together by genetic makeup (only family could, actually).

>It's not as if Africans and
>Europeans were ever at any
>point isolated from one another.
> People always traveled.
>So did genes.

Have to disagree here. Africa is a rather large continent. In the absence of relatively modern modes of travel, getting from South Africa to Sweden is a pretty arduous task. So, there was some degree of isolation.

All this said, everyone seems to agree that physcial traits between races can be distinguished. Any tendency which can be observed can be scientifically proven. And so it goes with racial difference. Someone just set up random demarcating points (if you possess these characteristics, you are ____), but it's still based on observable phenomena. Why not argue for a breakdown of ALL categorizations. Because, honestly, there's not much difference b/t any randomly chosen group of people. As such, arguing against one form of classification while supporting another appears arbitrary and illogical. There is no genetic basis at all for cultural groups. So why hould people call themselves French or German?

Spread love,

Spirit
http://www.theamphibians.com

9 out of 10 people with two arms find something interesting about http://www.theamphibians.com
This summer: new audio, same odd sense of humor. Don't get "left" out, mossie your two-armed self on over and check it out.

Peace,

Spirit (Alan)
http://wutangbook.com

>>But
>>there are enormously bigger differences
>>noted within a race than
>>any of the differences between
>>two races.
>
>I will concede this point.

Oops! No, I won't concede that, sorry. I didn't read that properly before responding. I thought you meant there were differences within races as well as b/t races. HOWEVER, you appear to be arguing that there are *bigger* differences within races than b/t races. I can't agree with that at all and wonder how you came to that conclusion and what you base it on.

Spread love,

Spirit
http://www.theamphibians.com

9 out of 10 people with two arms find something interesting about http://www.theamphibians.com
This summer: new audio, same odd sense of humor. Don't get "left" out, mossie your two-armed self on over and check it out.

Peace,

Spirit (Alan)
http://wutangbook.com

>I don't think many people presume
>that races have huge genetic
>differences. Most folks think races
>have *cultural* differences (as in
>"Asian people do this", "White
>people do that"), but I
>haven't met anyone yet that
>things white people are a
>different subspecies of human being.
>That's outdated and considered psycho
>by most regular people.

True. The main difference between your school and mine is our definition of race... that's why u and kolo got crazy about definitions for a minute. If we all used the same def's, i think we'd see each other's points better.


>Right, and these biological differences became
>the basis for racial classification.
>If we all looked alike,
>there wouldn't be racial categories
>as we know them.

OK...

>
>>At the root of the matter,
>>yes there are differences between
>>people, but no racial classification
>>can be scientifically approved.
>
>Sure it can, by means of
>looking at the occurrence of
>biological traits associated with certain
>racial groups.

So you define a "race" such as the "white race" by a series of characteristics unique to it: medium height, light skin, thin long nose, straight, wavy, or curly hair, possibly light hair and/or eyes, prone to skin cancer.

Okay... and then once you define "white" like that, you can very easily scientifically verify that "white" people are more prone to skin cancer, have thinner longer noses, blonder hair and greener eyes, than black people, who are defined to not have those characteristics.

Like I said, racial classifications are their own evidence and their own consequence.

If someone makes a scientific hypothesis like "White people have lighter skin than black people," and then proves it by classifying "whites" as those with light skin, what exactly are they proving?

Scientific experiments have proven that Japanese people are Japanese.

>>You say a Spaniard is
>>different from a Moroccan,
>
>did i?

Oops. No, you didn't.

>
>> but
>>people have traveled back and
>>forth ever since the times
>>the first hominids crossed the
>>straight between them. The
>>genetic difference between two Spaniards
>>(who are not relatives) is
>>just as great as the
>>difference between a Moroccan and
>>either of the two Spaniards.
>
>i concede this point.
>
>still, this just means that classifications
>are arbitrary (nationality, ethnicity, etc)
>as none of these groupings
>place people together by genetic
>makeup (only family could, actually).
>

see, we don't think that different from each other. Your definition of race is just less strict than mine.

>
>>It's not as if Africans and
>>Europeans were ever at any
>>point isolated from one another.
>> People always traveled.
>>So did genes.
>
>Have to disagree here. Africa is
>a rather large continent. In
>the absence of relatively modern
>modes of travel, getting from
>South Africa to Sweden is
>a pretty arduous task. So,
>there was some degree of
>isolation.

Okay, then let's not talk about Sweden and S.A. Let's talk about Spain and Morocco.

>
>All this said, everyone seems to
>agree that physcial traits between
>races can be distinguished.

Only as those races are defined by those physical traits. You paint the door red in order to prove that it is red.

> Any
>tendency which can be observed
>can be scientifically proven
>And
>so it goes with racial
>difference. Someone just set up
>random demarcating points (if you
>possess these characteristics, you are
>____), but it's still based
>on observable phenomena. Why not
>argue for a breakdown of
>ALL categorizations. Because, honestly, there's
>not much difference b/t any
>randomly chosen group of people.

You're marchin right up my alley.

>As such, arguing against one
>form of classification while supporting
>another appears arbitrary and illogical.
>There is no genetic basis
>at all for cultural groups.
>So why hould people call
>themselves French or German?

because that's a part of their life. if you're from Germany and you speak, live, and breathe German, that's pretty damn significant to you no matter what way you look at it. How important is your long thin nose and your pasty white ass?

To answer your question with another question: Is it okay for someone to be proud to be German? How about proud to be "white"?

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
giving you true posts since 1999 - effa charter member

"I can assure you, we won't be putting money into a society which is not transparent and corrupt."
-George W Bush

But when I come back- ive got information on race that not even Spirit could refute (although Im sure he'll try) dont worry my views havent changed and even studying the matter of race from an anthropological standpoint (which is the most pragmatic condition we can prescribe to it) it still demonstrates a major inpropriety on the behalf of "White" people.

Im going to chicago for the weekend but when i come back ill let you all know what ive found.

ps. Spirit activism doesnt have to be acting against certain entities it only regards acting for progress. in this case im acting for the enlightenment of so-called "white" peopl and anyone who would rather identify themselves with truth and accuracy and respect for thir heritage.

stay tuned


K

u told me i could come.

_______________________________
Celebrating Bitch Month

23july2000
u can't have my fire/they fear'd ur flame/& so sprayed caustic foam out of dbl sided lips/speakin like pale faces
w/broken peace pipes/U BLK/U UGLY/U
INK SPOT/which in it's translation of nigganglish resounded to/I AM BLK/
I AM UGLY/I DON'T HAVE IT SO I CAN'T WANNA LOVE U/beautiful transcriptionist u are...dark elegy/that heightens midnight stars/which pale in daylight
u spot of convection.../u say fierce real slow & be sayin "fire"/turn ur faces now to ur bricked bahamanian sphinx/look at her in ur wanton NEED
to be DARK as the meetin of mary's thighs/to be as BLK as sun spots
as UGLY as her heretofore eradicated nose/LOOK!!! at that blk girl gone blk
gone blue beyond blue beyond u
lookit fire y'all... leavin them w/burnt faces -k l moore
one...- the bad bitch asighn4jane

"respect my genius, suck my penius!" - young isa/my dawg

"respect my month or lick my rump! -fire da BITCH

________________________________________
who gonna check me boo?!

www.twitter.com/firefire100
http://instagram.com/firefire100
www.philadelphiaeagles.com

> in this case im
>acting for the enlightenment of
>so-called "white" peopl and anyone
>who would rather identify themselves
>with truth and accuracy and
>respect for thir heritage.

The hypocrisy in your position is that you seem unduly focused on convincing "white" people to eliminate their racial identity. If you were sincere in your efforts, you would be equally focused on convincing EVERYONE that they have no racial identity...which would mean you would be posting "you are not Asian" or "you are not Latino" as often as you post "you are not white".
Since you only focus on one group, your sincerity is questionable. And this is coming from a "black" person. You need to be more consistent, definitely. The term 'black' was arbitrarily created to encompass peeople with a wide number of cultural and physical differences. Sine I don't see you posting "you are not black", your position sounds dishonest.

Spread love,

Spirit
http://www.theamphibians.com

August is Top 10 Month...

The 10 Reasons why you should go to http://www.theamphibians.com

(1) the all-american jerk boy awards...guilliani is leading...
(2) for your convenience, we only do updates once every blue moon
(3) because i'll break your legs if you don't
(4) you need a reason to put off clipping your toenails for 7 more minutes
(5) the bizarre user names (mr. bungles, angry armenian, spottieottiedopalicious etc.)
(6) the good posts that get completely unrecognized
(7) the amazingly true story of me getting mugged, somewhere in there
(8) the goofy bios
(9) to figure out what the hell "fermented bells" are
(10) because you're tired of reading this long ass lists of reasons....just click it! http://www.theamphibians.com

9 out of 10 people with two arms find something interesting about http://www.theamphibians.com
This summer: new audio, same odd sense of humor. Don't get "left" out, mossie your two-armed self on over and check it out.

Peace,

Spirit (Alan)
http://wutangbook.com

latino and Asian- are not race terms spirit and neither is black ive explained it many times furthermore "white" people are the most pervasively influenced by race theory as few people of color are willing to believe that they are less evolved and inferior to whites. I have remained consistent throughout my expression of these beliefs spirit but if you're still unsure about my insincerity thats your perogative just dont think that speaks for any large measure of people who ive shared my ideas with.

K

>latino and Asian- are not race
>terms spirit

Hispanic and Asian are both choices on the US Census and recognized racial groups.

If you think race is a faulty way of categorizing people, you should be opposed to any group claiming racial allegiance. As such, I expect you to write a "you're not black", "you're not Asian", and "you're not Hispanic" post in the near future. The reason why you won't, apparently, is because you're more concerned with theories of white supremacy than honestly seeking to eradicate race as a construct.

Alright, now I'm out for real...

Spread love,

Spirit
http://www.theamphibians.com

August is Top 10 Month...

The 10 Reasons why you should go to http://www.theamphibians.com

(1) the all-american jerk boy awards...guilliani is leading...
(2) for your convenience, we only do updates once every blue moon
(3) because i'll break your legs if you don't
(4) you need a reason to put off clipping your toenails for 7 more minutes
(5) the bizarre user names (mr. bungles, angry armenian, spottieottiedopalicious etc.)
(6) the good posts that get completely unrecognized
(7) the amazingly true story of me getting mugged, somewhere in there
(8) the goofy bios
(9) to figure out what the hell "fermented bells" are
(10) because you're tired of reading this long ass lists of reasons....just click it! http://www.theamphibians.com

9 out of 10 people with two arms find something interesting about http://www.theamphibians.com
This summer: new audio, same odd sense of humor. Don't get "left" out, mossie your two-armed self on over and check it out.

Peace,

Spirit (Alan)
http://wutangbook.com

>>latino and Asian- are not race
>>terms spirit
>
>Hispanic and Asian are both choices
>on the US Census and
>recognized racial groups.

Like Im willing to abide by the idea that the US census is somehow demonstrative of consistent and fair categorization. Fool how many times do I have to say the US census categories are vague and innacurate? I dont care how those groups of "recognized" they are NOT racial categories they are categories of ethnic heritage. look it up- on a level of doctrine race categories are caucasoid, mongloid, and negroid.

>If you think race is a
>faulty way of categorizing people,
>you should be opposed to
>any group claiming racial allegiance.

thats a slippery slope argument- that is not necessarily the case but in this case- if we're discussin so called "white" people then yes I am opposed to them claiming racial allegiance. The difference between them and anyone else is not only that their race ideology proposes that they are biologically and intelectually superior but they've had a long history of oppresses others by that ideology.

Big difference

>As such, I expect you
>to write a "you're not
>black", "you're not Asian", and
>"you're not Hispanic" post in
>the near future. The reason
>why you won't, apparently, is
>because you're more concerned with
>theories of white supremacy than
>honestly seeking to eradicate race
>as a construct.

Yuck- Im not going to explain this again but you can say the same shit in the next post if you want.

K

Hispanic is not a racial category. Your definition of race is not fitting if it includes Hispanic as a race. Hispanic means that a person is from a Spanish-speaking culture. Spain, Mexico, Cuba, Dom. Rep., Peru, Venezuela...

You've just included "racial" whites, blacks, mulattos, mestizos, Amerindians, Indians, Asians, (more?) all as one race based on a similar colonial history. Hispanic doesn't fit *my* definition of race. If it fits yours, we gotta talk.

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
giving you true posts since 1999 - effa charter member

"I can assure you, we won't be putting money into a society which is not transparent and corrupt."
-George W Bush

>Hispanic is not a racial category.
> Your definition of race
>is not fitting if it
>includes Hispanic as a race.
> Hispanic means that a
>person is from a Spanish-speaking
>culture. Spain, Mexico, Cuba,
>Dom. Rep., Peru, Venezuela...

I know that. The US Census includes two categories: white Hispanic and black Hispanic. There are numerous Latino/Hispanic groups who fight for "Latino interests". This isn't about whether you or I consider Latino/Hispanic a racial group. They are considered a racial group, period.

>You've just included "racial" whites, blacks,
>mulattos, mestizos, Amerindians, Indians, Asians,
>(more?) all as one race
>based on a similar colonial
>history. Hispanic doesn't fit
>*my* definition of race.
>If it fits yours, we
>gotta talk.

It's not me making up the definitions. I think the problem with much of this discussion is people are making up their own definitions...stating that, for example, black is more than a race because of the nationalist overtones around the category...this of course casually overlooks the fact that "white" as a category has nationalist overtones as well. None of these groupings are strictly biological, but they all have some biological basis (general groupings based upon skin color, hair texture, and facial structure).

Latinos/Hispanics as a group have more than just colonial history in common, btw, the way it is defined, for example, Japanese/Peruvians would be seen as having a mixed racial heritage whereas someone with an African/native/Spaniard heritage would be seen as Latino/Hispanic. A lot of this has to do with distinctions in physical characteristics (distinguishing Japanese/Peruvians from the majority of Peruvians due to distinctions in physical appearance).

Latino/Hispanic IS a recognized racial group, however. By the US Census, on birth certificates, by anyone doing medical research about racial disparities of the impact of certain diseases (for example, when reviewing the rates of skin cancer amongst various racial groups, Latinos/Hispanics would be a distinct group).

Any other questions and you can hit the e-mail.

Spread love,

Spirit
http://www.theamphibians.com

August is Top 10 Month...

The 10 Reasons why you should go to http://www.theamphibians.com

(1) the all-american jerk boy awards...guilliani is leading...
(2) for your convenience, we only do updates once every blue moon
(3) because i'll break your legs if you don't
(4) you need a reason to put off clipping your toenails for 7 more minutes
(5) the bizarre user names (mr. bungles, angry armenian, spottieottiedopalicious etc.)
(6) the good posts that get completely unrecognized
(7) the amazingly true story of me getting mugged, somewhere in there
(8) the goofy bios
(9) to figure out what the hell "fermented bells" are
(10) because you're tired of reading this long ass lists of reasons....just click it! http://www.theamphibians.com

9 out of 10 people with two arms find something interesting about http://www.theamphibians.com
This summer: new audio, same odd sense of humor. Don't get "left" out, mossie your two-armed self on over and check it out.

Peace,

Spirit (Alan)
http://wutangbook.com

>It's not me making up the
>definitions. I think the problem
>with much of this discussion
>is people are making up
>their own definitions...stating that, for
>example, black is more than
>a race because of the
>nationalist overtones around the category...this
>of course casually overlooks the
>fact that "white" as a
>category has nationalist overtones as
>well.

This is a horrible summation of the things I've said. Even your example still demonstrates the fact that what lies behind what you claim are congruent ideologies is the matter of doctrine and in the case of "white" race ideology there is an detailed account of genetics or science that demonstrates that there is a genetic difference that makes blacks and whites mutually exclusive and furthermore that whites are more advancd genetically. Black ideology even if I was to agree that it signifies race (which i most certainly do not) still doesnt demonstrate the same demeaning properties that are professed by the ideology that substantiates the "white" race.

>None of these groupings
>are strictly biological, but they
>all have some biological basis
>(general groupings based upon skin
>color, hair texture, and facial
>structure).

But those groupings hold that "whites" have common origins and properties as all sorts of colored peple- as such to label them as White is not based on any group that science identifies.

you're argument still avoids addressing the fact that even if Hispanics and latinos are recognized as a racial group then why are Europeans NOT recognized in a lateral fashion- by their national origins or culture.

You must admit that it is incredibly suspicious that "whites" are obliged to be represented in a race category that race and social science (anthropology) do not validate.

All that you have left to defend is the right of European americans to misrepresent their origins and identity and admit that such policies have done a great deal of damage thus far.


you're tired spirit- nobody's making up their own definitions Im citing sources and even using the dictionaries YOU represent. they all point out at the very least a blatant incosistency but frequently pont race out as we know it as a blatant mischaracterization of science and human properties.

there is no defense nor any excuse for it


K

>I know that. The US Census
>includes two categories: white Hispanic
>and black Hispanic. There are
>numerous Latino/Hispanic groups who fight
>for "Latino interests". This isn't
>about whether you or I
>consider Latino/Hispanic a racial group.
>They are considered a racial
>group, period.

So just because Latinos are considered a racial group, you accept it? There are also groups who fight for the interests of blind people. does that make blind a race?


>It's not me making up the
>definitions. I think the problem
>with much of this discussion
>is people are making up
>their own definitions...

I agree with you here. Koala is right about where the idea of race began, and the truth is that the meaning has changed very little, and the dogma of Darwin and Hitler after him are still implied by the concept of race which most believe in today.

>stating that, for
>example, black is more than
>a race because of the
>nationalist overtones around the category...this
>of course casually overlooks the
>fact that "white" as a
>category has nationalist overtones as
>well.

I agree with you here. To use the word "black" when talking about a cultural pride is misleading because it implies a racial pride. "White" is not misleading because white pride typically IS a racial pride.

>None of these groupings
>are strictly biological, but they
>all have some biological basis
>(general groupings based upon skin
>color, hair texture, and facial
>structure).
>

OK

>Latinos/Hispanics as a group have more
>than just colonial history in
>common, btw, the way it
>is defined, for example, Japanese/Peruvians
>would be seen as having
>a mixed racial heritage whereas
>someone with an African/native/Spaniard heritage
>would be seen as Latino/Hispanic.
>A lot of this has
>to do with distinctions in
>physical characteristics (distinguishing Japanese/Peruvians from
>the majority of Peruvians due
>to distinctions in physical appearance).
>

The significance of this difference is in culture, not biology.

>
>Latino/Hispanic IS a recognized racial group,
>however. By the US Census,
>on birth certificates, by anyone
>doing medical research about racial
>disparities of the impact of
>certain diseases (for example, when
>reviewing the rates of skin
>cancer amongst various racial groups,
>Latinos/Hispanics would be a distinct
>group).
>

Are you to tell me that Sammy Sosa is as likely to get skin cancer as Ricky Martin?

You accept a very loosely defined, biased definition of a word that is much more dangerous than you think it is.