The Problem of 'Anti-Racism'

[Big Jim]

Why can we recognize differences between the races in so many visual ways, including skin color, hair color and type, eye shape, facial features, and yet believe that there are no differences below the skin or above the neck?  We know from DNA that we are who we are in every cell of our bodies.  A single hair or flake of skin or drop of blood can be traced back to its owner.  So how can we assume that differences we can see are not indicative of some that we cannot see?  We're all different, individually and in groups.  What's wrong with acknowledging that?  It seems like the same mindset that values diversity in all situations also wants to deny the differences that make us diverse.  Such mutually exclusive goals can never be satisfied so I suspect the status quo of racial problems will be with us for a long time.

[Grim Reaper 6]

26 minutes ago, Big Jim said:

Why can we recognize differences between the races in so many visual ways, including skin color, hair color and type, eye shape, facial features, and yet believe that there are no differences below the skin or above the neck?  We know from DNA that we are who we are in every cell of our bodies.  A single hair or flake of skin or drop of blood can be traced back to its owner.  So how can we assume that differences we can see are not indicative of some that we cannot see?  We're all different, individually and in groups.  What's wrong with acknowledging that?  It seems like the same mindset that values diversity in all situations also wants to deny the differences that make us diverse.  Such mutually exclusive goals can never be satisfied so I suspect the status quo of racial problems will be with us for a long time.

Jim, I think the differences are no more than genetic, so when we look at things from a genetic perspective we realty are not that different all. Since the currently scientific believe is that what would become the human race all started on the African Continent, we all have the same genetics of our brains, and our inner body systems. The exterior differences, are technically little more than mutations that occurred do the location of sub-populations that left the African Continent. This includes skin color, eye color, hair color and general complexation, so outside of these mutations or adaptations to the environment our ancestors choose to call home did not effect the Brain or its chemistry.

However, the cultural traditions has created different ways to approach different subjects, but essentially all humans still desire the same things. These desires are, the basic necessities of life, such as, safety, security, food, water, and an environment where we can find everything we need to survive. So in effect out side of cultural differences, and the genetic mutations that have changed our exterior look we are basically the same. I can think of nothing that would disprove this genetically, so while we do look different and cultures may make differences in the way we think, we can over come our fears, and prejudgments through education. The way we are educated when we are young about other genetic groups is how we will view them as we grown, this is where people prejudge ours by their race.

Edited July 10, 2020 by Manwon Lender

[Big Jim]

13 minutes ago, Manwon Lender said:

Jim, I think the differences are no more than genetic, so when we look at things from a genetic perspective we realty are not that different all. Since the currently scientific believe is that what would become the human race all started on the African Continent, we all have the same genetics of our brains, and our inner body systems. The exterior differences, are technically little more than mutations that occurred do the location of sub-populations that left the African Continent. This includes skin color, eye color, hair color and general complexation, so outside of these mutations or adaptations to the environment our ancestors choose to call home did not effect the Brain or its chemistry.

However, the cultural traditions has created different ways to approach different subjects, but essentially all humans still desire the same things. These desires are, the basic necessities of life, such as, safety, security, food, water, and an environment where we can find everything we need to survive. So in effect out side of cultural differences, and the genetic mutations that have changed our exterior look we are basically the same. I can think of nothing that would disprove this genetically, so while we do look different and cultures may make differences in the way we think, we can over come our fears, and prejudgments through education. The way we are educated when we are young about other genetic groups is how we will view them as we grown, this is where people prejudge ours by their race.

Then explain why different races are susceptible to different diseases.  That's not culturally induced or dependent on the environment.  

[Grim Reaper 6]

15 minutes ago, Big Jim said:

Then explain why different races are susceptible to different diseases.  That's not culturally induced or dependent on the environment.  

Sorry Jim, but it certainly is. It works likes this, some groups are exposed to different diseases than others so they develop immunity over time. Its like when Europeans first went to America, Disease that were common in Europe had never been seen in the Americas, such as Small Pox, so when the Native Americans were exposed to it the first time it wiped out entire tribes because their bodies had no defense against it. Until world travel became common in the 19th and 2oth century many different diseases where only located in certain parts of the world. Then when travel became common place diseases were distributed around the entire globe instead of just in certain locations. Lets face it a virus that effected people in china 400 years ago, had no way to travel around the unexplored world, a Virus must have a host that will move them around, because can not live outside the human body for long periods of time.

That's the way it is Jim, it is ok if you don't agree with me, but honestly if you search around on the internet you will see it is true.

Take Care Sir

[SHaYap]

What we know now that we didn't know then... 

Quote

[00.03:45]

~

[psyche101]

3 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

The Papameter shows me of above average Intelligence!

It was made by a guy who welches on bets. So that's not a good reference. 

 

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/10/181004143943.htm

[Piney]

7 hours ago, Hugh Mungus said:

I remember Stefan Molyneux was cancelled when he tried a speaking tour which touched on this topic. He is not an expert on the topic, but had experts on his discussion forums and channels to discuss the topic. The studies are conclusive around IQ, and to all those white supremacists out there, Jewish peoples conclusively rank the highest, followed by east Asian peoples. 

Show the studies. Not the rantings of a racist. Because in the Max, the Bloods were far smarter than members of the Aryan Nation. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Molyneux

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Stefan_Molyneux

 

[Big Jim]

6 hours ago, Manwon Lender said:

Sorry Jim, but it certainly is. It works likes this, some groups are exposed to different diseases than others so they develop immunity over time. Its like when Europeans first went to America, Disease that were common in Europe had never been seen in the Americas, such as Small Pox, so when the Native Americans were exposed to it the first time it wiped out entire tribes because their bodies had no defense against it. Until world travel became common in the 19th and 2oth century many different diseases where only located in certain parts of the world. Then when travel became common place diseases were distributed around the entire globe instead of just in certain locations. Lets face it a virus that effected people in china 400 years ago, had no way to travel around the unexplored world, a Virus must have a host that will move them around, because can not live outside the human body for long periods of time.

That's the way it is Jim, it is ok if you don't agree with me, but honestly if you search around on the internet you will see it is true.

Take Care Sir

Gee, I'm glad it's ok to disagree with you.  

https://news.softpedia.com/news/Different-Races-Are-Genetically-Prone-to-Different-Diseases-44056.shtml#:~:text=Different Races Are Genetically Prone to Different Diseases.,90% and 60 % more than White people.

[spartan max2]

7 minutes ago, Big Jim said:

Gee, I'm glad it's ok to disagree with you.  

https://news.softpedia.com/news/Different-Races-Are-Genetically-Prone-to-Different-Diseases-44056.shtml#:~:text=Different Races Are Genetically Prone to Different Diseases.,90% and 60 % more than White people.

To add to your post,

 

The generic differences in health is why in recent years there has been a push for more diversity and representation in research studies. To ensure that medications and such work the same for everyone or if it works different for different groups. 

[+Desertrat56]

9 hours ago, Big Jim said:

Why can we recognize differences between the races in so many visual ways, including skin color, hair color and type, eye shape, facial features, and yet believe that there are no differences below the skin or above the neck?  We know from DNA that we are who we are in every cell of our bodies.  A single hair or flake of skin or drop of blood can be traced back to its owner.  So how can we assume that differences we can see are not indicative of some that we cannot see?  We're all different, individually and in groups.  What's wrong with acknowledging that?  It seems like the same mindset that values diversity in all situations also wants to deny the differences that make us diverse.  Such mutually exclusive goals can never be satisfied so I suspect the status quo of racial problems will be with us for a long time.

The problem with this is that you are pretending that there are  more than one race of humans.  There is only one race, if we were different races there would not be viable reproduction between people with different colored skin, it would be like a horse and a donkey producing a mule at best, and at worst, no reproduction.  Race is imaginary when used to describe people.  Ancestry may be a valid way to describe someone, but I bet you can't tell the difference from someone whose ancestry is part native american (north or south) and part spanish and someone who is from India.  Especially if both of those people were born in the U.S.

Have you had your DNA added to the database?  Do you know where all your ancestors came from?  If you are in the U.S. and you have not done that I suggest you do, you may find some surprises.

You are right, all humans are different as individuals and pretending like there are different races diminishes the acceptance of that, so make up your mind, are we all human individuals regardless of our ancestry or not?  As long as you have the attitude that there are "races" when referring to humans of course there will continue to be "problems".

Edited July 10, 2020 by Desertrat56

[WVK]

19 hours ago, OverSword said:

Equality of outcome for every person is an extremely undesirable goal because at that point everyone's outcome would be mediocre regardless of some's ability to do better. 

That makes sense to me.   But considering current events I'm  not sure your opinion is shared by the majority of youth.  Before you know it they  will be in charge.

[+OverSword]

7 minutes ago, WVK said:

That makes sense to me.   But considering current events I'm  not sure your opinion is shared by the majority of youth.  Before you know it they  will be in charge.

By the time they're in charge they will not be quite so idealistic and only the one's without the drive or talent to have a life will believe everyone should have everything.

[Big Jim]

9 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

The problem with this is that you are pretending that there are  more than one race of humans.  There is only one race, if we were different races there would not be viable reproduction between people with different colored skin, it would be like a horse and a donkey producing a mule at best, and at worst, no reproduction.  Race is imaginary when used to describe people.  Ancestry may be a valid way to describe someone, but I bet you can't tell the difference from someone whose ancestry is part native american (north or south) and part spanish and someone who is from India.  Especially if both of those people were born in the U.S.

Have you had your DNA added to the database?  Do you know where all your ancestors came from?  If you are in the U.S. and you have not done that I suggest you do, you may find some surprises.

You are right, all humans are different as individuals and pretending like there are different races diminishes the acceptance of that, so make up your mind, are we all human individuals regardless of our ancestry or not?  As long as you have the attitude that there are "races" when referring to humans of course there will continue to be "problems".

Your opinion goes against centuries of science and common knowledge.  I'm not pretending that there are several races of Homo Sapiens.  You may be confusing races with species, as in your example of the horse and donkey, those are two different species.  You're correct that I may not be able to tell by sight a person's ancestral mixture but their DNA can.  You confirm that with your next paragraph.  Changing my "attitude" about races won't change a thing, unless the few billion other people that agree with me also agree to ignore what they know.

[+Desertrat56]

7 minutes ago, Big Jim said:

Your opinion goes against centuries of science and common knowledge.  I'm not pretending that there are several races of Homo Sapiens.  You may be confusing races with species, as in your example of the horse and donkey, those are two different species.  You're correct that I may not be able to tell by sight a person's ancestral mixture but their DNA can.  You confirm that with your next paragraph.  Changing my "attitude" about races won't change a thing, unless the few billion other people that agree with me also agree to ignore what they know.

Change starts with self and ripples out.  You can cling to attitudes that do not serve you or the world or you can change them, regardless of whether your neighbor does or not, your children will see the change, and they will teach their children differently.  As for science and common knowledge, you are confusing attitudes with genetics.

[+OverSword]

12 hours ago, Big Jim said:

Why can we recognize differences between the races in so many visual ways, including skin color, hair color and type, eye shape, facial features, and yet believe that there are no differences below the skin or above the neck?  We know from DNA that we are who we are in every cell of our bodies.  A single hair or flake of skin or drop of blood can be traced back to its owner.  So how can we assume that differences we can see are not indicative of some that we cannot see?  We're all different, individually and in groups.  What's wrong with acknowledging that?  It seems like the same mindset that values diversity in all situations also wants to deny the differences that make us diverse.  Such mutually exclusive goals can never be satisfied so I suspect the status quo of racial problems will be with us for a long time.

I was recently watching a show on PBS about genetics and at some point a person being interviewed pointed out that 50 to 100 thousand years ago humanity was reduced to a very small population and nearly extinct.  This is where we can all trace our roots back to one common female.  Because of this our gene pool and diversity was/is extremely limited.  The result is you can find more difference in the DNA of two chimpanzees of different tribes but from the same jungle than you can genetically find between any two humans in the entire world.  We are one very singular species with more in common than differences.

[spartan max2]

This seems like a decent article on what I was saying.

 

We need more diversity in medical studies because medications can react different in different races due to genetics. 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/clinical-trials-have-far-too-little-racial-and-ethnic-diversity/

[+Desertrat56]

1 minute ago, spartan max2 said:

This seems like a decent article on what I was saying.

 

We need more diversity in medical studies because medications can react different in different races due to genetics. 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/clinical-trials-have-far-too-little-racial-and-ethnic-diversity/

You are still using the word "race" and it has no meaning.  For example, there is a genetic trait common in Japanese people that causes them to get flushed and experience some pain when they drink an alcoholic beverage.  I believe it has something to do with liver enzymes.  I have that but have NO Japanese ancestors that I know of and only east asian dna shows up in my chart.  Race is a word we need to quit using.  It fosters division and we need unity.

[spartan max2]

5 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

You are still using the word "race" and it has no meaning.  For example, there is a genetic trait common in Japanese people that causes them to get flushed and experience some pain when they drink an alcoholic beverage.  I believe it has something to do with liver enzymes.  I have that but have NO Japanese ancestors that I know of and only east asian dna shows up in my chart.  Race is a word we need to quit using.  It fosters division and we need unity.

If a medication being researched reacts differently in most black people then it does in most white people. Then how would you like the researchers to talk about that?

 

Edit

@Desertrat56

Quote

For example, carbamazepine, a medication used to treat epilepsy, can cause a severe skin disorder in patients of Asian heritage with a particular gene variant

Example from the article.

Edited July 10, 2020 by spartan max2

[+Desertrat56]

4 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

If a medication being researched reacts differently in most black people then it does in most white people. Then how would you like the researchers to talk about that?

 

Edit

@Desertrat56

Example from the article.

They could talk about it as genetic markers, if they can first prove that is what it is.  Other wise, if there are tests to determine how the drug will react, they should be done no matter what someone looks like.  Also, doctors discount diet often to the failure of finding the cause of an issue so maybe they could include that and possibly find that it is some dietary thing that causes the difference, not your presumption that all black people are alike genetically and all white people are alike genetically.

[Jon the frog]

22 hours ago, Desertrat56 said:

She's just a senile old lady who should have retired 10 years ago.

Like most of the politician rats in North America and probably the world...

[spartan max2]

8 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

They could talk about it as genetic markers, if they can first prove that is what it is.  Other wise, if there are tests to determine how the drug will react, they should be done no matter what someone looks like.  Also, doctors discount diet often to the failure of finding the cause of an issue so maybe they could include that and possibly find that it is some dietary thing that causes the difference, not your presumption that all black people are alike genetically and all white people are alike genetically.

This seems like semantics and feeling getting in the way of science.

Do you agree that humans who have similar ancestors will have similar genetics?

Yes, every individual varies. But someone who is a second generation immigrant from Mexico is probably get to have more similar ancestors and genetics with someone else from Mexico then with my background.

Which is why scientist having been pushing for my diverse research populations when testing drugs m because it's normally 90 percent white men and they find that drugs can act different with different populations so it's unethical to not test the drug in other populations.

[+Desertrat56]

4 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

This seems like semantics and feeling getting in the way of science.

Do you agree that humans who have similar ancestors will have similar genetics?

Yes, every individual varies. But someone who is a second generation immigrant from Mexico is probably get to have more similar ancestors and genetics with someone else from Mexico then with my background.

Which is why scientist having been pushing for my diverse research populations when testing drugs m because it's normally 90 percent white men and they find that drugs can act different with different populations so it's unethical to not test the drug in other populations.

The problem is that you are mixing things up to justify your need to separate people (like me and not like me) or even into more groups than that and the subject is "Anti-racism" which I think you and I agree is wrong, but for different reasons.

[Big Jim]

6 hours ago, Desertrat56 said:

Change starts with self and ripples out.  You can cling to attitudes that do not serve you or the world or you can change them, regardless of whether your neighbor does or not, your children will see the change, and they will teach their children differently.  As for science and common knowledge, you are confusing attitudes with genetics.

Then let my neighbor change while I stay the same.  It's all the same in the end, right?  The children thing is lost on me.

2 hours ago, Desertrat56 said:

You are still using the word "race" and it has no meaning. 

You may use your own Kumbaya dictionary but for those of us who prefer to use Webster's "race" is still a word and does, in fact, have meaning.  The ratio can be expressed as 'the entire English speaking world' to one.

[Autochthon1990]

There are minor differences, like Lactose intolerance in Asians because they didn't use nearly as much dairy early on. But that's mostly because of ten thousand years of minor genetic drift, the Lactose thing was a mutation that didn't spread to that specific population, and Melanin is just ten thousand years of natural selection deciding skin cancer wasn't ideal for those in the south, and vitamin D was kinda needed in the north. 

Thing is, all this stuff is just environmental selections based on what's handy in the immediate area. Do you know what's handy in every environment on earth? Intelligence. Stupid animals don't survive long enough to spread their DNA, and the same thing happened in early humanity, the guy who was dumb enough to taunt a saber toothed tiger probably didn't live long enough to get laid. 

Edited July 11, 2020 by Autochthon1990

[+Desertrat56]

3 hours ago, Big Jim said:

Then let my neighbor change while I stay the same.  It's all the same in the end, right?  The children thing is lost on me.

You may use your own Kumbaya dictionary but for those of us who prefer to use Webster's "race" is still a word and does, in fact, have meaning.  The ratio can be expressed as 'the entire English speaking world' to one.

You can do what ever you want.  I was just pointing out that your descriptions of race are not genetically based.