|
TwigtheWonderkid
6,043 posts
19 months
|
Everybody can have their opinion, but there are scentific and gentic classifications.
Along the lines of humans being a species, negro would be a race, Indian would be a nationality, and judaism would be a religion. In this country we're familiar with jews of eastern european (askinazi) or spanish/portuguese (saffardic) decent. But there are jews in Ethiopia and Argentina. There's probably a small jewish community in Tokyo. Jewish is not a race. Jews saying it is doesn't make it so.
David Baddiel/Gabby Roslin, hardly a spot the difference contest!!
|
|
|
loafer123
2,695 posts
84 months
|
St. Anger said: shunaphil said: Burnham said: GTIR said: Burnham said: Quick, where the 'thats racist' Gif! "that's"  "where's" "GIF" "?"
|
|
|
mattnunn
4,096 posts
30 months
|
TwigtheWonderkid said: Everybody can have their opinion, but there are scentific and gentic classifications. No there isn't, not since the 1940s and the death of the Eugenices movement has anyone of any serious academic standing classified humans into races based on gentic data. Your use of the term negro either shows your age or your ignorrance. Unless you know otherwise.
|
|
|
TwigtheWonderkid
6,043 posts
19 months
|
mattnunn said: TwigtheWonderkid said: Everybody can have their opinion, but there are scentific and gentic classifications. No there isn't, not since the 1940s and the death of the Eugenices movement has anyone of any serious academic standing classified humans into races based on gentic data. Your use of the term negro either shows your age or your ignorrance. Unless you know otherwise. You seem to have a fixation with relating any mention of genetics to eugenics and by default the nazis and mass extermination. You've already asked for any good reason to classify by race that isn't sinister, and I answered it quite logically. I suspect any DNA found at a crime scene would go to the lab and the results would come back, if not with a match from the database, then with other info. AFAIK, they'd be able to give indication of race. They could then say "this DNA is typical of people from N.Africa for example, or Scandinavia. There's work being done on DNA all the time, to isolate genes that cause cancer or whatever. Most of the people in this field are, believe it or not, not Aryan supremicists!!
|
|
|
TwigtheWonderkid
6,043 posts
19 months
|
NinjaPower said: I asked her what physical features made her genetically Jewish and she pointed out that all her family had 'big noses and dark curly hair'. Well that accounts for Sammy Davis Junior. He had a big nose and dark curly hair, but then again I wouldn't have known he was Jewish if I hadn't been told. Goldie Horn is Jewish. But she's blonde with a cute button nose. I guess she must be a convert. 
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
mattnunn
4,096 posts
30 months
|
TwigtheWonderkid said: mattnunn said: TwigtheWonderkid said: Everybody can have their opinion, but there are scentific and gentic classifications. No there isn't, not since the 1940s and the death of the Eugenices movement has anyone of any serious academic standing classified humans into races based on gentic data. Your use of the term negro either shows your age or your ignorrance. Unless you know otherwise. You seem to have a fixation with relating any mention of genetics to eugenics and by default the nazis and mass extermination. You've already asked for any good reason to classify by race that isn't sinister, and I answered it quite logically. I suspect any DNA found at a crime scene would go to the lab and the results would come back, if not with a match from the database, then with other info. AFAIK, they'd be able to give indication of race. They could then say "this DNA is typical of people from N.Africa for example, or Scandinavia. There's work being done on DNA all the time, to isolate genes that cause cancer or whatever. Most of the people in this field are, believe it or not, not Aryan supremicists!! So please, do enlighten us then, what are these "races" that scientists pigoen hole people into. You've cited Scandinavian and North African as "Races" tell us the others that complete your list... Whilst you're thinking perhaps check out the 8 steps to genocide! Please do.
|
|
|
Hugo a Gogo
15,140 posts
102 months
|
TwigtheWonderkid said: I suspect any DNA found at a crime scene would go to the lab and the results would come back, if not with a match from the database, then with other info. AFAIK, they'd be able to give indication of race. They could then say "this DNA is typical of people from N.Africa for example, or Scandinavia.
you may suspect that, but it's not that simple http://essays.backintyme.com/item/44
|
|
|
TwigtheWonderkid
6,043 posts
19 months
|
mattnunn said: So please, do enlighten us then, what are these "races" that scientists pigoen hole people into. You've cited Scandinavian and North African as "Races" tell us the others that complete your list...
Whilst you're thinking perhaps check out the 8 steps to genocide! Please do. There you go again with the Nazi/genocide fixation. You're not one of these weirdos who's sitting at their keyboard in stockings, suspenders and jackboots are you? Do you behave like this when someone buys a VW Beetle? But, a quick search on google gives a traditional classification of 5: 1) Mongoloid (Asian and American Indian) 2) Caucasoid (European) 3) Australoid (Australian and oceanic) 4) Negroid (east African black) 5) Capoid (south African black) However, modern day genetics are able to break these classifications into numerous smaller classification. So DNA can tell you if someone is of Inuit decent, but it can't tell you if they come from Alaska. Their grandparents might have moved to Saudi Arabia and become Muslims!
|
|
|
TwigtheWonderkid
6,043 posts
19 months
|
Hugo a Gogo said: I never suggested it was simple, just possible. And the link is 4 yrs old, which is a lifetime in genetic science.
|
|
|
Zwolf
22,321 posts
75 months
|
TwigtheWonderkid said: 4 yrs old, which is a lifetime in genetic science. TwigtheWonderkid said: But, a quick search on google gives a traditional classification of 5:
1) Mongoloid (Asian and American Indian)
2) Caucasoid (European)
3) Australoid (Australian and oceanic)
4) Negroid (east African black)
5) Capoid (south African black) That list dates from the late 18th Century. 
|
|
|
Superficial
743 posts
43 months
|
I don't think it's racist, it's just not as 'politically correct' as saying mixed race, or depending on how people view their heritage, black. My first boyfriend was half black, half white and despite being raised by his white family always saw himself as black.
John Agard sums it up pretty well in his poem Halfe-Caste, before I saw him perform that at poetry live I used to say half cast.
|
|
|
Hugo a Gogo
15,140 posts
102 months
|
TwigtheWonderkid said: Hugo a Gogo said: I never suggested it was simple, just possible. And the link is 4 yrs old, which is a lifetime in genetic science. find a link telling us about it
|
|
|
TwigtheWonderkid
6,043 posts
19 months
|
Zwolf said: That list dates from the late 18th Century. Yes, as I said...traditional classifications. But my main point, it is possible to explore genetics and race and classify by race for benign reasons. Mattnunn seems to think even raising the topic makes you a signed up member of Column 88!
|
|
|
Brother D
843 posts
45 months
|
Superficial said: I don't think it's racist, it's just not as 'politically correct' as saying mixed race, or depending on how people view their heritage, black. My first boyfriend was half black, half white and despite being raised by his white family always saw himself as black.
John Agard sums it up pretty well in his poem Halfe-Caste, before I saw him perform that at poetry live I used to say half cast. Basically anyone slightly off-white with afro-hair is deemed 'Black', certainly if said person is succesful, it doesn't matter how diluted the genes are.
|
|
|
Tiggsy
7,177 posts
121 months
|
Brother D said: Basically anyone slightly off-white with afro-hair is deemed 'Black', certainly if said person is succesful, it doesn't matter how diluted the genes are. One drop rule.
|
|
|
micky g
1,402 posts
104 months
|
My dear departed dad used to say, "some day, we'll all be the same race and the sooner the better."
He was a wise man.
|
|
|
drivin_me_nuts
13,754 posts
80 months
|
I tend to see myself as none of the above, with the exception that I am most definitely not black and would be somewhat annoyed if I was deemed to be put into that 'box'.... as being the only alternative to white. It's a curious thing though, having grown up in this country and having gone through sheer bloody racism hell when I grew up, I find myself (mostly) ambivolent with the whole colour/race/creed/national identity thing.
Shame the labelling boxes don't have an option for 'human being'. It's about the only one I am truly content ticking. All the rest can just sod off.
|
|
|
NinjaPower
2,318 posts
49 months
|
micky g said: My dear departed dad used to say, "some day, we'll all be the same race and the sooner the better."
He was a wise man. I can sometimes be heard saying this very thing. One day in the future, the global population will just be one big melting pot and we will all look similar, which frankly, will solve a lot of problems.
|
|
|
Hugo a Gogo
15,140 posts
102 months
|
well the world is just a great big onion, after all
|
|
|
Burnham
2,658 posts
128 months
|
loafer123 said: St. Anger said: shunaphil said: Burnham said: GTIR said: Burnham said: Quick, where the 'thats racist' Gif! "that's" "where's" "GIF" "?" 
|
|
