Talk:Racism
Contents |
[edit] Explain the problem
with this edit.[1] Mikemikev (talk) 07:51, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- My vote is that the major issue is that it is poorly written. It took me a few reads to figure out what you were getting at - that athletes of certain races to do well in certain sports irrespective of which country they live in. That point is fair enough, but you haven't made it very well here. --DamoHi 07:58, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- Would you be happy with "This is contradicted by the fact that athletes of certain races to do well in certain sports irrespective of which country they live in."? Actually I think I put it better. Mikemikev (talk) 08:06, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- I'll leave that to others. What was the point of bringing up Cambodia? That looks out of place. --DamoHi 09:01, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- It's an example of a poor country that doesn't produce top sprinters. Seriously, I feel a bit silly even discussing this. Does anyone really think West Africans do not have natural sprinting ability? Nevertheless, I will address the bizarre ad hoc environmental explanations if I must. Mikemikev (talk) 09:11, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- There are also examples of poor W.African - and other predominantly black - countries which don't produce top sprinters (Liberia, Ivory Coast, Sierra Leone, Haiti, etc.) ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ
Methinks it is a Weasel 13:03, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- It's an example of a poor country that doesn't produce top sprinters. Seriously, I feel a bit silly even discussing this. Does anyone really think West Africans do not have natural sprinting ability? Nevertheless, I will address the bizarre ad hoc environmental explanations if I must. Mikemikev (talk) 09:11, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- I'll leave that to others. What was the point of bringing up Cambodia? That looks out of place. --DamoHi 09:01, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- Would you be happy with "This is contradicted by the fact that athletes of certain races to do well in certain sports irrespective of which country they live in."? Actually I think I put it better. Mikemikev (talk) 08:06, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
[edit] "Race is not in our genes"
The section is referenced to the book "Not in our genes" by Richard Lewontin, Leon Kamin and Steven Rose.
"Dawkins wrote that the book practices reductionism by distorting arguments in terms of genetics to "an idiotic travesty (that the properties of a complex whole are simply the sum of those same properties in the parts)", and accused the authors of giving "ideology priority over truth".[3] He also accused the authors of having a "bizarre conspiracy theory of science", accusing them of lies and idiocy, and concluding that it is a "silly, pretentious, obscurantist and mendacious book"."
Are we using the best sources? Mikemikev (talk) 07:59, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
"Steven Pinker writes that the book's authors use words such as "determinism" and "reductionism" as "vague terms of abuse", and misrepresent the views of scientists such as Wilson and Dawkins, falsely ascribing ridiculous beliefs to them." Mikemikev (talk) 08:29, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
[edit] Athletes
It's a mistake to say that current athletic prowess proves anything about race. For instance, thirty years ago the best long- and middle-distance runners were all British. Now we're bloody useless in hat area, and not just because we're slower than the Kenyans and Ethiopians - we're slower than we used to be. There are massive cultural factors at work in sporting prowess. SophieWilder 10:52, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed. It's a very controversial statement to be making (and one very much associated with racism) on a very flimsy anecdotal basis. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď
Methinks it is a Weasel 10:59, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- I was just thinking while making a cup of tea just now, there are loads of black boxers but few wrestlers. SophieWilder 11:06, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- It isn't associated with racism in the slightest to suggest that certain races have certain physical characteristics. In fact it would only be associated with pig-headedness to deny it. DamoHi 11:18, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- The problem is the use of the word "races" - it's easy to say that those with these genetically predisposed attributes have these genetically predisposed attributes but that's just circular reasoning. The added danger is that, while there is an obvious and evident mapping between region of origin and genetic markers, that this becomes the be all and end all. Sprinters come from Jamaica (at the moment) because track and field is their national sport, no because they're darkies. Jack Hughes (talk) 11:29, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- Race is defined as an ancestral group so that's just a semantic quibble. It may be your opinion that West Africans make better sprinters because of their culture, although I think many would question that. Either way, the argument that living in a poor country explains proclivity to sprinting success is demonstrably false. Mikemikev (talk) 12:44, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- Now the article states as fact that the differences are purely cultural. I think this response I gave to an admin who vandal binned me recently for supposed procedural reasons while calling my edits "disgusting" (and who has a history of reverting "racist" scientific facts) is relevant.
- "There is nothing disgusting about my edits, other than in your PC warped mind. What's disgusting is the transparent nonsense you support because it's "not racist", whether or not it's obviously false or speculative. Sure, West Africans do not dominate sprinting because of their demonstrable physiological differences. East Africans do not have a build suited to distance running. It's all "culture". Where is your evidence for that? Oh, you don't have any, but it's "not racist" so it must be true. Some scientist you are. I am trying to present both possibilities, you are just making shit up. The funny thing is that your website loses credibility by including this rubbish."
- I think "anti-racism" may qualify as a new religion. They call it "liberal creationism" sometimes I think. The things these people believe (or pretend to) are far stranger than any traditional religion. Mikemikev (talk) 14:00, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- Okay. See you in half an hour. Did he doubt/Or did he try? 14:08, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- As far as I know, and I don't have any evidence other than a documentary about the hurdler Colin Jackson, but there is a genetic "abnormality" for a group of individuals from part of West Africa which confers an advantage for sprinting. Many slaves transported to the West Indies and southern US had this genetic trait. This is why so many of the good sprinters are from Jamaica and the US. This genetic trait is not shared bya lot other Africans so when you talk about race you need to be very careful how you use the word. However, the US and Jamaica do focus heavily on training in sprinting so separating the genetic from the cultural influences is difficult. The main problem is that Mikemikev seems to be focussing so much on these "racial" differences without really specifying what he means by race. Too often it appears that the lowest common denominator being plugged for these differences is skin color and that is patently false.
ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member
15:38, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- (ec) Whatever you say, Mr. Entine. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:39, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- Well, it's certainly true that there are heritable physical traits. The problem, as Genghis notes, is that "race" is not a good label for these traits, because it's a culturally-constructed bundle of immediately perceptible differences rather than a meaningful descriptor. Some peoples that originate from some parts of Africa also are more susceptible to sickle-cell anemia (presumably as a response to malaria), but "black people" are not, except in the crudest and least useful way of saying it. And while such poor communication isn't ordinarily a problem, there is a long history and almost ubiquitous practice of nasty results from such sloppy speaking. So, Mikemikev, let's work on clarity.--
talk
15:57, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- Of course I am not talking about f*cking skin color. Race is defined by ancestry, in fact it essentially synonymous. Individuals can share ancestry and race group and have totally different skin color, such as Caucasoid Dravidians and Europeans. And top level races split into sub-races, such as in the same example. Mikemikev (talk) 16:03, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- You should not be shocked that people understand your meaning to be the most-common one, rather than the special one in your head. This is why clear expression is important, and why avoiding loaded and silly terminology is a good idea.--
talk
16:06, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- Now the use of the term European in this discussion makes me feel uncomfortable because if we were really talking about race as some narrow definition of ancestry then Scandinavia would not be lumped together with Mediterranean countries.
ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.
16:33, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- Well I would dispute that Nords don't cluster with Meds vis a vis Turks, but if so you could think of European as one end of a continuum. Either way, this is something of a tangent. Do you agree we can meaningfully speak of West African ancestry (as I did in my original edit)? As an aside I think race was always defined by ancestry. The idea that anyone thinks it's "skin color" seems like a ridiculous strawman deployed by Leftists to throw a spanner in the works of honest discussion of human variation. Mikemikev (talk) 17:23, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- I think we should be mature enough to say that some people from some heritages have a slight genetic advantage when it comes to certain physical attributes. Getting away from sprinters for a moment, it is an undeniable fact that kids of polynesian extraction tend to develop a year or two quicker than their white counterparts. It is a massive problem for age group rugby because the average Samoan 15 year old is 10kgs heavier than the average Pakeha 15 year old. You cannot put that down to cultural factors no matter how much one would wish to. Pakeha boys tend to catch up in the late teens/early 20's, but the affect is real. I understand that people feel uncomfortable talking about this sort of stuff, but we really shouldn't. --DamoHi 21:40, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- Even if you're right on this, and without a bunch of studies that take into account things like environmental factors, diet, levels of physical activity and a host of other things, I won't think you are, is this something really worth talking about? Some groups of people are a little heavier at a certain points in their life than other groups of people? People of African descent are more likely to get sickle-cell anemia. Jews are more likely to be lactose intolerant. Those are important things for epidemiologists, public health experts and nutritionists when they're doing their work. They have nothing to do with racism. If the thunder don't get you/Then the lightning will. 22:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- Also, as long as blacks in america (to give one handy example) have to contend with higher incarceration rates and lower incomes, your desire to talk about ideas that inform those sorts of outcomes as though they don't is worrisome. I fucking well should feel uncomfortable talking about racial difference as something with a scientific basis when I enjoy all of the benefits of being on the lucky side of the melanin sweepstakes. If the thunder don't get you/Then the lightning will. 22:07, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- @Damo: Even if that were true, it doesn't have anything to do with the edit in question, which just repeats the claims made in Jon Entine's Taboo. Hence, my comment above. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:10, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- Also, as long as blacks in america (to give one handy example) have to contend with higher incarceration rates and lower incomes, your desire to talk about ideas that inform those sorts of outcomes as though they don't is worrisome. I fucking well should feel uncomfortable talking about racial difference as something with a scientific basis when I enjoy all of the benefits of being on the lucky side of the melanin sweepstakes. If the thunder don't get you/Then the lightning will. 22:07, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- (EC)I agree, nothing much to do with racism, though they are to do with what is rather crudely called 'race'. Here is an article I found that calls bullshit on the "cultural" theory of athletic traits. [3] I don't know what the motivation for MikeMikeV for putting this into the article, but in my opinion, it should be there because this "cultural effect" is being overplayed to the point of it being a form of liberal woo. --DamoHi 22:13, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- And... you post a link to a Jon Entine article after I provided one above refuting his claims. Thanks for reading my comments carefully. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:16, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- Have you actually even read the article that you cited? The author of the article you cited indicates that it is likely true that they have genetic advantages which aid them in sport, but that it is inappropriate to draw attention to it. He seems to think that the stereotype (which he does not deny) is damaging and so should be rejected. Shabby, shabby stuff. IMO Entine does not have "a special moral obligation to show how his conclusions do not contribute more to maintaining barriers of the past than to constructing a more open and just future" just because the author of that article feels that it is counter-productive. DamoHi 22:26, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- And... you post a link to a Jon Entine article after I provided one above refuting his claims. Thanks for reading my comments carefully. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:16, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- Even if you're right on this, and without a bunch of studies that take into account things like environmental factors, diet, levels of physical activity and a host of other things, I won't think you are, is this something really worth talking about? Some groups of people are a little heavier at a certain points in their life than other groups of people? People of African descent are more likely to get sickle-cell anemia. Jews are more likely to be lactose intolerant. Those are important things for epidemiologists, public health experts and nutritionists when they're doing their work. They have nothing to do with racism. If the thunder don't get you/Then the lightning will. 22:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- Now the use of the term European in this discussion makes me feel uncomfortable because if we were really talking about race as some narrow definition of ancestry then Scandinavia would not be lumped together with Mediterranean countries.
- You should not be shocked that people understand your meaning to be the most-common one, rather than the special one in your head. This is why clear expression is important, and why avoiding loaded and silly terminology is a good idea.--
- As far as I know, and I don't have any evidence other than a documentary about the hurdler Colin Jackson, but there is a genetic "abnormality" for a group of individuals from part of West Africa which confers an advantage for sprinting. Many slaves transported to the West Indies and southern US had this genetic trait. This is why so many of the good sprinters are from Jamaica and the US. This genetic trait is not shared bya lot other Africans so when you talk about race you need to be very careful how you use the word. However, the US and Jamaica do focus heavily on training in sprinting so separating the genetic from the cultural influences is difficult. The main problem is that Mikemikev seems to be focussing so much on these "racial" differences without really specifying what he means by race. Too often it appears that the lowest common denominator being plugged for these differences is skin color and that is patently false.
- Okay. See you in half an hour. Did he doubt/Or did he try? 14:08, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- Race is defined as an ancestral group so that's just a semantic quibble. It may be your opinion that West Africans make better sprinters because of their culture, although I think many would question that. Either way, the argument that living in a poor country explains proclivity to sprinting success is demonstrably false. Mikemikev (talk) 12:44, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- The problem is the use of the word "races" - it's easy to say that those with these genetically predisposed attributes have these genetically predisposed attributes but that's just circular reasoning. The added danger is that, while there is an obvious and evident mapping between region of origin and genetic markers, that this becomes the be all and end all. Sprinters come from Jamaica (at the moment) because track and field is their national sport, no because they're darkies. Jack Hughes (talk) 11:29, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- It isn't associated with racism in the slightest to suggest that certain races have certain physical characteristics. In fact it would only be associated with pig-headedness to deny it. DamoHi 11:18, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- I was just thinking while making a cup of tea just now, there are loads of black boxers but few wrestlers. SophieWilder 11:06, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
No, he does not deny the stereotype but the genetic explanation for it. Specifically: "Entine points out that “All of the thirty-two finalists in the last four Olympic men’s 100 meter races are of West African descent”. But he offers no explanation as to why, if genes rather than training are the crucial variable, no West African’s were among the finalists." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:34, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- I would have thought that relatively obvious. Countries with more money/better programmes do better. But that is not the point. The point is that in those countries with more money the athletes that do the best are all of West African descent (or almost all with a few exceptions). Athletes in the same programmes that are not of West African descent do badly by comparison. Besides, there have been plenty of theories and studies about why this is so. Better fast twitch muscles, higher centres of gravity, the prevalent of the ACTN3 gene amongst others no doubt. I'm no evolutionary biologist so I won't pretend to understand that phenomena but I do think you are being more than a little naieve if you think that it all comes down to cultural factors.
- The real heart of the issue, it seems to me is something PowderSmoke said above, which was seemingly the whole point of that dubious article you cited: "I fucking well should feel uncomfortable talking about racial difference as something with a scientific basis when I enjoy all of the benefits of being on the lucky side of the melanin sweepstakes." In my opinion, that is the issue at play here - people subconsciously don't want to admit that people who happen to have black skin might be good at a particular sport because they think it implies they are less worthy in other areas. Like I said above, I think it is a rather "liberal" form of woo. --DamoHi 03:56, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- That doesn't address the article. The key word here is "descent." People of West African descent dominate sprinting, but not West Africans themselves. What happened to all those "sprinting genes" then? I'm not denying that genetics plays no role in athletics -- I'm not holding my breath on the NBA being overrun with Chinese superstars anytime soon. But speaking of basketball, it was once dominated by Jews in the 1930s, but obviously no one talks about Jews' innate superiority at basketball anymore. Perhaps the same thing will apply in this case, as it has in many others. As far as P-Foster's comment goes, we are sliding between "race" and "geographic ancestry" again, but that is beside my point. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:11, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
[edit] Back on the article
I wonder if we have gotten so far off track that we have forgotten what the section is about. The part of the article that I think is nonsense is this paragraph here:
- Any perceived differences between races of people can be explained away by looking at culture and history. For example, nations such as Jamaica, with large black populations, have been successful at running sports. A racist would chalk this up to black skinned people being naturally good runners, when in fact the success is an outcome of the fact that poorer nations such as Jamaica have comparatively little money for elaborate training centers, which means their aspiring athletes are more likely to pursue sports such as running, which can be done with little equipment, then they are, say, golf, which requires acres of professionally-tended land. Moreover, success begets popularity. A Jamaican kid watching Usain Bolt set world records is likely to want to be the next Usain Bolt.
Now that paragraph is nonsense almost from start to finish.
- "Any perceived differences can be explained by culture" Rubbish. Some can but some cannot - sports prowess being a classic example
- "A racist would chalk this up to black skinned people..." Or someone who watches sprints and notices that people from a certain heritage do better than others, particularly against others with the same access to training. That isn't racism
and you could go on and on. We are bending so far over backwards to not appear racist due to the sentiments I quoted from PS above, that we have lost track of reality. You guys do what you want, but that paragraph is not good. --DamoHi 06:22, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- I would be curious to know what differences between races - speaking of race specifically! - cannot be explained by culture. If black people are natural runners because of their race, then why have Kenya and Ethiopia dominated recent marathons, while other countries chock-full of people with black skin continue to do poorly?
- Or perhaps you are again confusing the cultural concept of "race" with something meaningful, like specific genetic traits strongly associated with geography (i.e. the Sherpa peoples of the Himalyas and endurance of high altitudes, or East Africans with long-running)?
- "Or someone who watches sprints and notices that people from a certain heritage do better than others, particularly against others with the same access to training. That isn't racism"
- Actually, if you look at groups of people, segregate them by their most visible physical characteristic, and then assign traits to people according to that characteristic and your immediate perceptions, then... well, that's actually the very definition of racism. It is exactly the same as "observing" that several Asian women were driving too slowly on the road and deciding that their "heritage" makes them bad drivers, ergo "Asians are bad drivers." "Black people are natural runners" is racist. Sorry if that makes you uncomfortable.--
talk
09:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think so AD. For a start, we are all aware that we are referring to a particular group of people (in this case people of Western African descent) and saying that for whatever reason they tend to produce better runners than others, whether it be the fast twitch muscles or whatever. Now if you want to be like the article and say that this is imaginary and that there are no genetic differences at all, I say that is a little silly. On the other hand if one were to say that "look at the black man, he must be a fast runner" then that would be racist, obviously. But nobody in this discussion is doing that. That is obvious. If you want to have a discussion about the evolutionary qualities of Kenyan runners, then fair enough, but we would then be talking about a different group of people. What is wrong, and what the article should not say is that it all comes down to cultural factors like availability of sports grounds or heroes or whatever, with no genetic component at all which I think is poppy cock, and I understand is accepted to be poppy cock by sports scientists. DamoHi 10:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- You have elegantly demonstrated the problem with discussing "race" in such terms - you think it's obvious that it isn't as crude as saying that "black people are better runners," but it's not. That's because "race" is a hugely inexact, heavily loaded, and absurdly useless term to use. You are perhaps making an argument for increased clarity in this section of the article, but neither nor anyone else nor the article are saying that there is no such thing as hereditary physical traits. That's because "race" doesn't mean that to most people: it means black people, white people, Asian people, and so on. Or maybe Mexicans, white people, Chinese people, and so on.
- To put it another way: you insist that "race" is as granular as you mean. But it's not, not to almost everyone. As I said before to someone else: we have no access to your special meaning of the word, only to the way it's been used historically and currently by most folks. If you want to indicate a different meaning, then you're not talking about race.--
talk
16:10, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- Damo, instead of focusing on using race as a way to explain why certain people do well do well at running, how about you focus on using race as a way to explain why certain people do well at winning chess championships or getting doctorates in math. Then we can see exactly what kind of argument you're trying to make. If the thunder don't get you/Then the lightning will. 12:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think Damo is making a case for race explaining how some people do well at running but rather how a certain genetic factor helps some people. The problem is that because a lot of people with this "fast-twitch muscle gene" trait also have another trait, i.e. greater eumelanin, many people immediately assume that the two are linked and make it Racial. Bringing in chess or maths is a Schlaflyesque red herring because I don't believe Damo is making any claims for race in those fields.
ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic?
13:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- I disagree. In a broader sense, the argument is that "race" is not a social construct but a biological fact that plays a role in shaping individual abilities. And that's an argument that shares a history with similar arguments.If the thunder don't get you/Then the lightning will. 13:23, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- All I'm saying is that for all the claims that the article doesn't say that genetic traits make no difference, that is exactly what it does say. As for winning tournaments in chess or mathemetics or whatever, that is pretty shabby stuff. It is possible that a group of people that evolved in a particular environment might tend to be better at logic or spatial reasoning etc, but I am not aware of anyone who claims that this is true. --DamoHi 21:25, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- I disagree. In a broader sense, the argument is that "race" is not a social construct but a biological fact that plays a role in shaping individual abilities. And that's an argument that shares a history with similar arguments.If the thunder don't get you/Then the lightning will. 13:23, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think Damo is making a case for race explaining how some people do well at running but rather how a certain genetic factor helps some people. The problem is that because a lot of people with this "fast-twitch muscle gene" trait also have another trait, i.e. greater eumelanin, many people immediately assume that the two are linked and make it Racial. Bringing in chess or maths is a Schlaflyesque red herring because I don't believe Damo is making any claims for race in those fields.
- I don't think so AD. For a start, we are all aware that we are referring to a particular group of people (in this case people of Western African descent) and saying that for whatever reason they tend to produce better runners than others, whether it be the fast twitch muscles or whatever. Now if you want to be like the article and say that this is imaginary and that there are no genetic differences at all, I say that is a little silly. On the other hand if one were to say that "look at the black man, he must be a fast runner" then that would be racist, obviously. But nobody in this discussion is doing that. That is obvious. If you want to have a discussion about the evolutionary qualities of Kenyan runners, then fair enough, but we would then be talking about a different group of people. What is wrong, and what the article should not say is that it all comes down to cultural factors like availability of sports grounds or heroes or whatever, with no genetic component at all which I think is poppy cock, and I understand is accepted to be poppy cock by sports scientists. DamoHi 10:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Also, I see a lot of "for whatever reason" "be that fast twitch muscles or whatever" and "I understand" that's what "sports scientists" say. If someone wants to make an argument about a scientific basis for understanding a certain group of people's skill set, I'd like to see some references to actual science that says that. If the thunder don't get you/Then the lightning will. 13:36, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- Why are Jamaicans so good at sprinting?
- The Story Behind the Amazing Success of Black Athletes (1)
- The Story Behind the Amazing Success of Black Athletes (2)
Генгисevolving
14:22, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- The Slate article mentions genetics, and also talks about training and "cultural factors." The piece in the running blog (which I did not read closely) makes a lot of claims that aren't referenced, and spends a lot of its time cataloguing achievements and then using those numbers as a way to suggest that there "must" be something to this. If the thunder don't get you/Then the lightning will. 14:43, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- The least you could do is follow the references from the Slate article. Science and American Journal of Human Genetics, although the Science article is behind an academic paywall.
ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic?
15:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- I did. Even the one behind the paywall. But like I said, the Slate article is very careful to hedge its bets and frame the discussion as one that has to address factors beyond "race." Edit: but at the end of the day -- so what? Some groups may have a genetic predisposition to having certain types of muscular structures. Just like certain groups have a predisposition to have light-coloured skin or Tay-Sachs. What this has to do with an article on creating groups according to the construct of "race" and treating them differently as members of said "race" is beyond me. If the thunder don't get you/Then the lightning will. 15:12, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- I propose we just delete the offending section altogether. The existence of race is better dealt with in the race article itself. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 13:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- This is also what I've been thinking; we've veered off the subject of racism per se. Potentially, the real or perceived connection between race (or ethnicity, genetic heritage, however we define it) and sporting prowess is a suitable subject for an article in its own right. But if we go down that road we should be citing quality research in this area, not just asserting that the connection is self-evident and undeniable, as the edits to this page by Mikmikev & Damo seemed to be suggesting. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď
Methinks it is a Weasel 18:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- Well, that makes three of us. Lemme get my saw. If the thunder don't get you/Then the lightning will. 19:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- This is also what I've been thinking; we've veered off the subject of racism per se. Potentially, the real or perceived connection between race (or ethnicity, genetic heritage, however we define it) and sporting prowess is a suitable subject for an article in its own right. But if we go down that road we should be citing quality research in this area, not just asserting that the connection is self-evident and undeniable, as the edits to this page by Mikmikev & Damo seemed to be suggesting. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď
- I propose we just delete the offending section altogether. The existence of race is better dealt with in the race article itself. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 13:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- I did. Even the one behind the paywall. But like I said, the Slate article is very careful to hedge its bets and frame the discussion as one that has to address factors beyond "race." Edit: but at the end of the day -- so what? Some groups may have a genetic predisposition to having certain types of muscular structures. Just like certain groups have a predisposition to have light-coloured skin or Tay-Sachs. What this has to do with an article on creating groups according to the construct of "race" and treating them differently as members of said "race" is beyond me. If the thunder don't get you/Then the lightning will. 15:12, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- The least you could do is follow the references from the Slate article. Science and American Journal of Human Genetics, although the Science article is behind an academic paywall.
- The Slate article mentions genetics, and also talks about training and "cultural factors." The piece in the running blog (which I did not read closely) makes a lot of claims that aren't referenced, and spends a lot of its time cataloguing achievements and then using those numbers as a way to suggest that there "must" be something to this. If the thunder don't get you/Then the lightning will. 14:43, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
[edit] Race and genes
What is the truth about this? It seems to me that "race" is arbitary and based on appearance, but genes determine our appearance. I look like some of my cousins - genes obviously, but I've got so called mixed race cousins whose African heritage is obvious - genes again. So even if race is largely artificial, genes do come into it somewhere. A bushman, an Inuit, a native Swede, a Tamil and a native Australian and a Sicilian (from old roots) all look different, and it's down to genes.-Albannach (talk) 17:09, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- Nobody denies that there are phenological characteristics shared by different population groups that are passed on genetically. Race is the politicization of phenological characteristics. We attach significance to the fact that my skin is a different colour than that guy's skin, and we are very likely, both historically speaking and in the contemporary world, to live very different lives because of the significance attached to skin colour. We do not attach much significance to eye colour, and there is little chance that my blue eyes and your brown eyes, all other things being equal, will play much of a role in shaping our specific outcomes. Did he doubt/Or did he try? 17:18, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- I guess you mean phenotypic and not phenologic. Of course race is defined by ancestry and is a biological phenomenon, as it is in other species. Whether or not that is politicised in humans is a separate matter. In fact it often is politicised: many countries have jus sanguinis naturalisation laws. Mikemikev (talk) 18:05, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- "Race" is an indeterminate and variable grouping of a few immediately obvious physical characteristics. It is not very useful except in the crudest way - "Asian" as a race seems to embrace Nepalese, Uighur, Han Chinese, Korean, and Ainu Japanese. That's because "Asian" means little or no epicanthal fold over the eyes, a broader face, black hair, and skin that is slightly darker than what would be typical for someone from northern Europe. Yet those traits are not particularly meaningful, and don't correlate very well with anything meaningful. In addition, they have the nastiest of histories and worst connotations. If you want to chop vegetables, you don't use the huge, unwieldy, and bloody axe - you use a chef's knife: it's more useful and less ugly. You only use the axe if you want to bludgeon your vegetables into a muck out of a contrarian insistence that axes do cut things. Which is true, but we actually want useful statements - we want to eat.--
talk
10:09, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry to reply late, just off a block. Actually the East Asian ancestral group does not include Uyghurs or Nepalese, who are mixed, or the Japanese Ainu, whose ancestry is uncertain and possibly Caucasoid. Race is not defined by superficial characteristics but by ancestry. This is why Negritos, who look Negroid, are classified with East Asians. And yes, it correlates with a lot of things, at multiple levels. You use an axe when you don't have a knife. Similarly, we would love to know the specific genes which cause West African sprinting ability. We don't. So we can only say that West Africans are predisposed to sprinting, and genetic causality is possible. These are facts. Mikemikev (talk) 16:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I understand that you are using your own specialized terminologies, and so when I say "Asian" you hear "East Asian." But surely that indicates the problem! While to you, "race is not defined by superficial characteristics," that is not true for almost everyone else!
- To me, it's as though someone is saying, "I didn't dream last night," and you are snapping off in reply, "Actually, you did dream. You just don't remember it." But in neither case are you correcting someone, you're just willfully avoiding communication. You actually know that the person means that they don't remember their dream and that the technical reality of REM-cycles is not to what they were referring, just as you know that saying "race" does not refer to delicately granulated ethnic groups to most people, but rather "black," "white," "Asian," etc.
- So yes, you have listed some facts. My question is why you insist on willfully stating them in the least useful, most confusing, and nastiest way?--
talk
11:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- Actually race was always defined by ancestry.
- "For example, in 1822 Virginia, a person was considered legally white with up to one-fourth African ancestry (equivalent to one grandparent). Under its Racial Integrity Act of 1924, Virginia defined as black a person with any known African ancestry, no matter how many generations in the past."
- You are attacking a strawman version of the race concept.
- When you say "Asian" I hear "Asian", and I have no idea what you are talking about.
- Rushton and Jensen also define race by ancestry:
- "In Section 8, we discussed the DNA methods that can ascertain degree of White ancestry in Black populations. Many other DNA markers identify Black–White differences regardless of how divergent the African ancestry."
- The great thing about terminology is that you get to define what you mean by it. 61.41.36.44 (talk) 13:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- So to argue that race isn't grossly simplified to large categories of physical appearance, you cite several incidents wherein enormous and complex populations are called "black" and "white."
- Yeah. You sure got me.--
talk
15:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry to reply so late. Just off a multi day block for "lameness". I am glad that the dubious section was removed and that editors have tacitly admitted I was correct all along.
- AD you are changing the subject. Yes, race is defined by ancestry. Whether that classification is informative is a separate question. And to put it simply: yes it is. It doesn't presume to capture all of the variation, neither does sex. It roughly describes some dimension of variation (ancestral/geographic). If you are going to describe geographically associated variation you have to draw some lines. Why object to an "East Asian" category but not a "Japanese" category? There is plenty of in group variation in the Japanese also, and overlap with other groups. Is the statement Negroes are 80 times more likely to develop sickle cell uninformative? If you were an MD could you distinguish African ethnic groups? Would you find it easier to distinguish Burmese, Thai and Chinese or to see that they are all East Asian? How would you describe geographic variation? What categories would you use? Is it so complex as to be impossible? Does that objection carry over to analogous cases such as the Larus gull or Xanthoptica? Or do you make a special exception for humans based on fear of being called "racist"? Mikemikev (talk) 05:50, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry to reply late, just off a block. Actually the East Asian ancestral group does not include Uyghurs or Nepalese, who are mixed, or the Japanese Ainu, whose ancestry is uncertain and possibly Caucasoid. Race is not defined by superficial characteristics but by ancestry. This is why Negritos, who look Negroid, are classified with East Asians. And yes, it correlates with a lot of things, at multiple levels. You use an axe when you don't have a knife. Similarly, we would love to know the specific genes which cause West African sprinting ability. We don't. So we can only say that West Africans are predisposed to sprinting, and genetic causality is possible. These are facts. Mikemikev (talk) 16:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
"When you say "Asian" I hear "Asian", and I have no idea what you are talking about." - When I hear "Asian", I think of Indians, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis. It's not a good descriptor for that very reason. African isn't a good descriptor for blacks either, for a similar reason - Libyans and modern Egyptians are African...-Albannach (talk) 15:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
[edit] Recent Reverts
Explain what is wrong with my additions.[4]
A) Where was it scientifically demonstrated that racial performance differences are entirely due to discrimination?
B) Why must we only list white racism and race concepts, and censor Chinese racism and race concepts, which are extensively documented and arose independently during European exploration?
Thanks. 175.193.212.64 (talk) 14:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- My two year old daughter has this thing. Before we start bedtime, she tries to negotiate. My wife says "it's time to brush teeth," and instead of trying to fight that, she says "No bath!" Sometimes, it's not a bath night, so we trade "No bath" for brushing teeth. Other time we say "would you like to start with a bath, or start with brushing teeth."
- She dosen't really have the ability to keep the "No bath!" demand in her head, but she knows that it's tooth brushing time, so she says "Bath!" because then she's won the negotiation.
- So, to you, MikemikeV, let me say "would you like to start with a bath, or start with brushing teeth?" Hipocrite (talk) 14:40, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- Your comments about Chinese racism weren't "censored", they were removed because we don't allow chunks of text that are just copypasted from Wikipedia. Balaam (talk) 14:42, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- Balaam: OK I will rewrite it. The reference to Dikotter was my own.
- Hipocrite: I guess you are making vague threats (I guess, I am really not sure what you are babbling about). I guess this is because you don't have the brainpower to bring anything to a debate other than screaming "racism". 175.193.212.64 (talk) 14:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- I see that you are incapable of debate and have to resort to censorship.[5]
- Thanks for removing any doubt that you are nothing more than a liar. 175.193.212.64 (talk) 15:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- Are you going to cry about it? That would be awesome. Could you send a video of you crying about it? Hipocrite (talk) 15:42, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- No, I'm really not. Isn't this embarrassing for you? 175.193.212.64 (talk) 16:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- If there's anything to cry about, it's that you administer an encyclopedia with articles like this, while I administer one with articles like this. 175.193.212.64 (talk) 16:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- No doubt, that second article makes me want to cry. Shall we go, you and I while we can/Through the transitive nightfall of diamonds? 17:02, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- Are you going to cry about it? That would be awesome. Could you send a video of you crying about it? Hipocrite (talk) 15:42, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
[edit] Almost a year later
You do realize that the ever so "brilliant" approach of blame whitey, and only whitey, to supposedly end racism or at least subdue it is only going to cause more hatred and resentment, right? You're so fucking smart, you must realize that, right Einstein? So you must be trying to deliberately incite racial hatred. There's no other excuse for the bias and tone of this article. It oozes with the emotion of a college softmore home on Winter break telling his much more wise parents "how it really is." I mean, it's either that...or you're too fucking stupid to see what you're doing. And if that's the case, you should probably get off of that high horse. Just because the propaganda ministry is behind you doesn't make you right.
This entire wiki is filled with opinions presented as "fact." And with the tact of a sarcastic 15 year old. I'd be ashamed to look back on this article if I were you. And to top it all off, you're no better than the "racists" you despise. 67.1.187.193 (talk) 16:58, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
[edit] Why is this site called Rationalwiki?
When you actively deny race ?
The pathetic editors here can't even admit that Black Africans are better athletes than whites genetically, it's a complete objective reality that Sub Saharan blacks have more fast twitch muscle than their Caucasian and Asian counterparts, which explains the vast gap in athletic capability between the races.
God you people are so pathetic it's unreal.— Unsigned, by: 70.50.36.253 / talk / contribs 05:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- They are stupid and/or liars. That is all. They think screaming "racist" is some kind of logical argument. 121.67.247.18 (talk) 07:02, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- Because "SkepticWiki" was already taken at the time.--ZooGuard (talk) 07:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- Let's have fun, shall we. If it's so obvious, what scientifically measurable data separates an African(race, not birthplace) from a Caucasian, in a way that there is no overlap in the two groups, and every single person can be A. African, B. Caucasian, or C. other? Please remember that this requires data. Thanks! 159.45.129.9 (talk) 20:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- A large number of polymorphism measures from the genome.
- "Genetic Similarities Within and Between Human Populations
D. J. Witherspoon, S. Wooding, [...], and L. B. Jorde...
Thus the answer to the question “How often is a pair of individuals from one population genetically more dissimilar than two individuals chosen from two different populations?” depends on the number of polymorphisms used to define that dissimilarity and the populations being compared. The answer, equation M44 can be read from Figure 2. Given 10 loci, three distinct populations, and the full spectrum of polymorphisms (Figure 2E), the answer is equation M45 [congruent with] 0.3, or nearly one-third of the time. With 100 loci, the answer is ~20% of the time and even using 1000 loci, equation M46 [congruent with] 10%. However, if genetic similarity is measured over many thousands of loci, the answer becomes “never” when individuals are sampled from geographically separated populations."
- Having fun yet? 27.1.214.45 (talk) 02:53, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
- Nice cherry picking. You forgot this bit...
- Having fun yet? 27.1.214.45 (talk) 02:53, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
"A final complication arises when racial classifications are used as proxies for geographic ancestry. Although many concepts of race are correlated with geographic ancestry, the two are not interchangeable, and relying on racial classifications will reduce predictive power still further."
- I.e., They ain't talking about race. Fun? Yes, watching you flounce around spewing nonsense is a fucking gas. Have a real fine day now. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 11:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- If 'geographic ancestry' means a narrower classification than the wider racial classification then obviously it will have more predictive power. This contradicts nothing. They are talking about race, they are talking about any population taxonomy. The three major race groups are still separable and do not overlap by definition. Try looking at a PCA chart. 211.168.4.65 (talk) 12:13, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
[edit] Racism among Bedouin
First of all, what I'm about to talk about has nothing do with the white nationalist rant that is constantly removed and than reinstated into this article (see article history for examples). However, seeing this nutter talking about Bedouin reminded me that there is an actual problem of racism among them, or at least among Israeli Bedouin. Several of the Israeli Bedouin are descendents of sub-Saharan Africans who were held as slaves by Bedouin at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th. The descendents of those slaves were eventually assimilated into the Arab Bedouin culture and were all freed when the State of Israel was formed, but they still face racism from lighter skinned Bedouin. I want to add info about this into the article, but I can only find internet sources on this subject in Hebrew. Is it OK to use Hebrew language sources or does RW has a preference for sources in the English language? - ConservapediaMarkman (talk) 15:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- There are examples of racism in every culture & we don't need to try to list them all. If there aren't English language sources available on this example, it's probably not the best example to add to the article. Wëäŝëïöïď
Methinks it is a Weasel 19:43, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Also, while I don't doubt that what's described is a kind of prejudice, from what keeps getting posted I have a hard time calling it racism. Racism is prejudice + power, in a systematic way. Do the Bedouin control the system of power there? Or are both groups transitory/part of a subgroup in a larger (Israeli?) society? This is why reverse-racism doesn't exist, and why two suppressed groups can be racist to each other only if they borrow the discourse of the dominant group who set the 'social rules' in the first place (this is why a lot of activists push for solidarity between different groups of people of color in the USA, because if they use racism to tear each other down they're really just borrowing the language and ideas from the culture that hurts them both, etc.) ±
KnightOfTL;DRgarrulous en guerre 19:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Also, while I don't doubt that what's described is a kind of prejudice, from what keeps getting posted I have a hard time calling it racism. Racism is prejudice + power, in a systematic way. Do the Bedouin control the system of power there? Or are both groups transitory/part of a subgroup in a larger (Israeli?) society? This is why reverse-racism doesn't exist, and why two suppressed groups can be racist to each other only if they borrow the discourse of the dominant group who set the 'social rules' in the first place (this is why a lot of activists push for solidarity between different groups of people of color in the USA, because if they use racism to tear each other down they're really just borrowing the language and ideas from the culture that hurts them both, etc.) ±
I notice that both Steven Pinker and Richard Dawkins agree that there were genetic explanations for the high IQ of some racial group or subsets versus others. Pinker it seems is praised by the rationalwiki folks, but he's influenced by Thomas Sowell. So doesn't that make him part of the dreaded right wing conspiracy? — Unsigned, by: 173.22.37.6 / talk / contribs
[edit] The many factors of history
I think the history section does a good job of illustrating how diverse the number of factors are that could have contributed to things such as the rise of the British Empire, that have appeared in racist thought.
HOWEVER, the whole section, and particularly the part concerning theories championed by this Jared Diamond, haven't considered economic, political and state infrastructure as well as the unique make-up of inter-European competition that contributed greatly to things such as the rise of colonialism.
There is no mention at all of extremely important factors like the emergence of the Renaissance and industrialization that all contributed to "European superiority". There's some good stuff, but the section is sorely, sorely lacking, still. IMO it greatly emphasizes this 'alternate theory based on geography' and almost ignores some of the more tangible historic factors. I suggest at least a little bit of a shift in emphasis here, preferably written by someone with more historic expertise than me. Any studied historians around here? Nullahnung (talk) 11:38, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, Diamond addresses political and cultural factors at length in his work, but it is the part of his work that has come under the most fire. He attributes the Chinese failure to capitalize and conquer based on their early technology on the massive monolithic empires that sprang up in the area, among other causes, and other historians/anthropologists have challenged both that characterization and any distinctions from Europe. I didn't put in the article, accordingly, because it doesn't represent a good consensus. I lack the background to add more independently, but we would certainly welcome further contributions.--
talk
15:06, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
[edit] Introduction + Racism in the US segment
I was wondering whether it would be ok if I rewrote the introduction since it seems to describe institutional racism rather than racism on it's own (though a segment on Institutional racism should certainly be kept on the page), and the segment on racism in the US since whats there at the moment seems a little....crap to be honest (as does the Apartheid one). It wont be a gigantic textwall or anything, just a (hopefully) well sauced couple of paragraphs. Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 14:23, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
[edit] Colorblindism
I skimmed the article, so forgive me if this is already covered and I've missed it, but do you guys think that this article should include responses to racism that rely on "colorblindism"?
You know, when people use the fact that race is arbitrary to justify allowing or supporting racist policies? I've noticed that in a lot of discussions I've seen, if one points out the absence of a particular race in a certain area, be it positions of power or wealth or in media representation, the other person will pat themselves on the back for "not seeing race," and then will accuse the first person of racism for caring enough about race to want to see racial imbalances corrected. "What does it matter if the majority of film characters/CEOs/politicians are white, if race doesn't matter? If you think there should be more representational distribution of races in these roles, then you think race matters, which makes you a racist!"
The argument is stupid, because it implies that one cannot recognize race as a non-inherent descriptor and an invalid basis upon which people should be treated, whilst realizing that the reification of it has led to people who have been designated as different "races" recieving differential outcomes, and that this situation is unjust and should be corrected. Here's just one example of this sort of mental gymnastics from recent memory:
- "If you care that certain races are not as present in comics, you are being racist. The "race"(which doesn't actually exist and is more of a loose guideline that people use) of a character shouldn't matter to you unless you are a racist. So the only way you can take umbrage with 97% of characters being white is if you are a racist.
- [...]
- By the mere act of acknowledging race as a valid concept, you are invalidating your own claim that "race doesn't matter". That you count the number of "white" superheroes and specifically pay attention to their representation means that race matters to you. You are being a blatant hypocrite"
- Source: http://4archive.org/co/thread/68545154#p68548037
Here is a decent article on the whole "I don't see race" argument: http://charterforcompassion.org/node/6104
I'm not sure if this should be part of the racism article, or get it's own article. It also has relevance to affirmative action. 184.64.232.193 (talk) 11:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'd like an article on the subject, with more examples and a look at its reasoning. Colorblindism isn't quite racism -- it's anti-anti-racism. FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 17:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- I agree that such an article would be both interesting and pertinent to RW. While colorblindism may not necessarily be racism, it can be used to provide existing racist injustices a more palatable cover. To take a hypothetical example, imagine someone using the colorblind argument as a justification for leaving Apartheid or Jim Crow in place. ScepticWombat (talk) 18:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
[edit] Under South Africa
Could we point out that the "brown-skinned people" were both black and Indian? I'd do it myself, but the page is understandably semiprotected. 24.186.49.177 (talk) 07:11, 4 February 2015 (UTC)