• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Where does racism come from?

Where does racism come from?


  • Total voters
    36
  • Poll closed .
The krux of the discussion isn't that people have different characteristics that are genetically determined, it is whether or not race exists. Let me direct you back to the actual discussion, since you are so keen on avoiding it:
The krux of the matter is that is what race is. Stop denying that, it's not like different, hence different races are bad, they just are.



You can't talk about these different categories without first defining them. That is what I am waiting for you to do.
It's a ridiculous point so I am ignoring it, you know what the accepted definitions are, but here, for your satisfaction. Black = people with high melanin counts, predominance for brown hair/eyes, curly haired. White = low melanin count, gets sunburned easily, straighter hair with predominant brown hair eyes, but with recessive genes towards lighter colors.
 

That link seems to directly contradict your view.

Weber however maintained that ethnic groups were "künstlich" (artificial, i.e. a social construct) because they were based on a subjective belief in shared "Gemeinschaft". Secondly, this belief in shared Gemeinschaft did not create the group; the group created the belief. Third, group formation resulted from the drive to monopolise power and status. This was contrary to the prevailing naturalist belief of the time, which held that socio-cultural and behavioral differences between peoples stemmed from inherited traits and tendencies derived from common descent, then called "race".[26]

Another influential theoretician of ethnicity was Fredrik Barth, whose "Ethnic Groups and Boundaries" from 1969 has been described as instrumental in spreading the usage of the term in social studies in the 1980s and 1990s. [27] Barth went further than Weber in stressing the constructed nature of ethnicity. To Barth Ethnicity was perpetually negotiated and renegotiated by both external ascription and internal self-identification. Barth's view is that ethnic groups are not discontinuous cultural isolates, or logical a prioris to which people naturally belong. He wanted to part with anthropological notions of cultures as bounded entities, and ethnicity as primordialist bonds, replacing it with a focus on the interface between groups. Ethnic Groups and Boundaries, therefore, is a focus on the interconnectedness of ethnic identities. Barth writes: "[...] categorical ethnic distinctions do not depend on an absence of mobility, contact and information, but do entail social processes of exclusion and incorporation whereby discrete categories are maintained despite changing participation and membership in the course of individual life histories."

In 1978 anthropologist Ronald Cohen claimed that the identification of "ethnic groups" in the usage of social scientists often reflected inaccurate labels more than indigenous realities:

... the named ethnic identities we accept, often unthinkingly, as basic givens in the literature are often arbitrarily, or even worse inaccurately, imposed.[27]

With Weber's introduction of the ethnicity as a social construct, race and ethnicity were divided from each other, since the belief in biologically well defined races lingered on. In 1950, the UNESCO statement The Race Question, signed by some of the internationally renowned scholars of the time (including Ashley Montagu, Claude Lévi-Strauss, Gunnar Myrdal, Julian Huxley, etc.), suggested that: "National, religious, geographic, linguistic and cultural groups do not necessarily coincide with racial groups: and the cultural traits of such groups have no demonstrated genetic connection with racial traits. Because serious errors of this kind are habitually committed when the term 'race' is used in popular parlance, it would be better when speaking of human races to drop the term 'race' altogether and speak of 'ethnic groups'."[39]

At present the prevailing understanding of race among social scientists is that it is, like ethnicity, a social construct. [41] Often, ethnicity also connotes shared cultural, linguistic, behavioural or religious traits.

The whole link discusses how race and ethnicity are social not biological constructs.
 
It's a ridiculous point so I am ignoring it, you know what the accepted definitions are, but here, for your satisfaction. Black = people with high melanin counts, predominance for brown hair/eyes, curly haired.

That's not even a definition. Above what melanin count? Also, saying that predominant traits define a discrete classification is a logical contradiction.

What about someone with a high melanin count but straight hair, or blue eyes? What about someone with brown curly hair and eyes but a low melanin count?

Your definition is completely empty and didn't answer my question at all.
 
Black = people with high melanin counts, predominance for brown hair/eyes, curly haired.

East Indians are sometimes as dark as any African- I've seen East Indians that are black, literally; a dusty gray-black-purple color.
And they often have curly hair.
If you're referring to frizzy or kinky hair, on the other hand, Jews and mediterranean peoples- Sicilians, Greeks- often have that.
And as for brown eyes an hair, I have that. Everybody in my family does. We're Scots.
 
That link seems to directly contradict your view.







The whole link discusses how race and ethnicity are social not biological constructs.
Yes, it does state social constructs. But genetic science already states that traits are specific to different peoples, invalidating the statemnt that races have no scientific constructs or values. The Monotype argument is only valid as far as we are all human beings, hell, plenty of animals are monotypical, but guess what they aren't the same genetically past a basic DNA structure, that should be painfully obvious.
 
East Indians are sometimes as dark as any African- I've seen East Indians that are black, literally; a dusty gray-black-purple color.
And they often have curly hair.
So have I, the point is I am giving a facetious answer to a purposefully oblivious question.
If you're referring to frizzy or kinky hair, on the other hand, Jews and mediterranean peoples- Sicilians, Greeks- often have that.
Once again, intentionally stupid questions get intentionally generic answers.
 
Yes, it does state social constructs.

What in that link was relevant to your point?

But genetic science already states that traits are specific to different peoples, invalidating the statemnt that races have no scientific constructs or values.

There are no race specific traits. There are traits that are more common within certain populations. African populations can exhibit light skin (albinism) straight hair and thin noses (Somali's) and epicanthic folds (Khosian). Once again all these traits are clinal and gradually change. Any cut-off point where we declare skin to become white, noses thin, hair straight etc. are simply arbitrary.

The Monotype argument is only valid as far as we are all human beings, hell, plenty of animals are monotypical, but guess what they aren't the same genetically past a basic DNA structure, that should be painfully obvious.

Monotype specifically means that no races exist. Beyond basic DNA structure we are all different. Rather there is more variation within a population than between them, two Europeans are less genetically similar than a European and African.[1]
 
What in that link was relevant to your point?
An ethnic group is a group of human beings whose members identify with each other, usually on a presumed or real common heritage.[1][2] Ethnic identity is further marked by the recognition from others of a group's distinctiveness[3] and the recognition of common cultural, linguistic, religious, behavioral or biological traits,[1][4] real or presumed, as indicators of contrast to other groups.[5]

Ethnicity is an important means through which people can identify themselves. According to "Challenges of Measuring an Ethnic World: Science, politics, and reality", a conference organized by Statistics Canada and the United States Census Bureau (April 1-3, 1992), "Ethnicity is a fundamental factor in human life: it is a phenomenon inherent in human experience."[6]




There are no race specific traits. There are traits that are more common within certain populations.
Predominance is in itslef a trait.
African populations can exhibit light skin (albinism)
That is a mutation, it is a genetic anomally, let's leave it to non-anomolous passing of genes shall we.
straight hair and thin noses (Somali's) and epicanthic folds (Khosian).
Different region, different people, but I see your point.
Once again all these traits are clinal and gradually change.
Yes, they change because of the nature of reproduction and genetic inheritance itself, that gets complicated and involves centuries of ancestory, but it doesn't disprove that different people have different traits, some are more prominent among various ethnicities(race)
Any cut-off point where we declare skin to become white, noses thin, hair straight etc. are simply arbitrary.
Not when they are predominant traits


Monotype specifically means that no races exist. Beyond basic DNA structure we are all different.
That would be like saying a Sheppard is a Collie is Retriever, they are all dogs, they can all breed together, but they aren't all the same now are they?
Rather there is more variation within a population than between them, two Europeans are less genetically similar than a European and African.[
But may not share the same traits.
 
Probably has already been said: but upbringing, fear, ignorance and hate are the major core issues that brings about racism..:(
 
Racism is just one of a plethora of ways humans have divided themselves into groupings. Its just based on a physical aspect, that has no qualifying reasoning behind it. But people "reason" themselves into all sorts of little social cliques, decrying all the others as wrong/inferior etc...

Disagree. If it was as simple as humans grouping themselves over physical aspects than how do you explain that some people really do love all groups of peoples that do not fit into the same groups as them?

I will say that some could stem from the nature of the beast and mans desires to be top dog and there is a major problem with the white males always wishing to be on top of our human food chain and sadly? They are still winning. :roll:
 
An ethnic group is a group of human beings whose members identify with each other, usually on a presumed or real common heritage.[1][2] Ethnic identity is further marked by the recognition from others of a group's distinctiveness[3] and the recognition of common cultural, linguistic, religious, behavioral or biological traits,[1][4] real or presumed, as indicators of contrast to other groups.[5]

Ethnicity is an important means through which people can identify themselves. According to "Challenges of Measuring an Ethnic World: Science, politics, and reality", a conference organized by Statistics Canada and the United States Census Bureau (April 1-3, 1992), "Ethnicity is a fundamental factor in human life: it is a phenomenon inherent in human experience."[6]

And as it says they're social phenomenon, they get redefined and exists regardless of blood relationships.

Yes, they change because of the nature of reproduction and genetic inheritance itself, that gets complicated and involves centuries of ancestory, but it doesn't disprove that different people have different traits, some are more prominent among various ethnicities(race)

When we look at traits like skin color we notice that Egyptians have lighter skin than the Dinka. Do they belong to the same race? When does skin become light enough to be considered white?
Not when they are predominant traits

The predominant skin color, nasal index, hair type etc. change between tribe to tribe. How do we justifiably group certain groups who skin color, hair type etc. varies together? What's the cut-off point for white skin and why is it that point? And why do we go by the predominant trait of skin color and hair type? Why not antimalarial and lactase genes which are arguably more important?


That would be like saying a Sheppard is a Collie is Retriever, they are all dogs, they can all breed together, but they aren't all the same now are they? But may not share the same traits.

Dogs break up into distinct groups because the traits aren't clinal, in humans they are.
 
And as it says they're social phenomenon, they get redefined and exists regardless of blood relationships.
True, I am not arguing that things change, simply that there are differences and that it isn't good or bad, just is.



When we look at traits like skin color we notice that Egyptians have lighter skin than the Dinka. Do they belong to the same race? When does skin become light enough to be considered white?
Dunno to be honest, I just go by traditional definitions for two reasons 1) It's generally easier to converse with others as they all have historical connotations and are understood and 2) it infuriates people in the political correctness movement.


The predominant skin color, nasal index, hair type etc. change between tribe to tribe. How do we justifiably group certain groups who skin color, hair type etc. varies together?
If it is used as a means to segregate there is no justification, but if it used when an efficient description is necessary, such as to group risk class in medicine, or for scientific study on a group specific trait it could be easily justified IMO.
What's the cut-off point for white skin and why is it that point?
I really believe the standard definitions are the cut-off.
And why do we go by the predominant trait of skin color and hair type? Why not antimalarial and lactase genes which are arguably more important?
This is actually a good point, I don't know really, but one could make a case for it I suppose.




Dogs break up into distinct groups because the traits aren't clinal, in humans they are.
Fair enough.
 
IMO if someone takes your insult about the character of an individual, and makes some kind of non-sequitur connection between that insult (that makes no racial reference whatsoever) and some kind of insult regarding that individual's racial group.... IMO the person making the non-sequitur leap is racist in a sense.

Not in a hateful sense against the group they'd have thought they were defending, but by having a knee-jerk reaction at an insult between two people of different races and assuming that any insult for the reasons stated but due to unstated racial bigotry, without reason.

Simply put: If to you a white person cannot insult a black person without it being a racial issue, YOU have racial issues because sometimes, race just isn't a factor.

I grew up on the south side of Chicago in the late 1980's and early 1990's. I read so many books and memoirs about slavery and racism, it makes my head hurt. This idea that somehow as a white person born 12 years ago that I need to apologize and repent for the things other white people, WHO MAY NOT EVEN HAVE BEEN MY ANCESTORS, did 200 years ago - makes me angry.

There was this black girl at my school, and whenever she got in an argument, she would call the person a racist. One day, I asked if she was a racist. I got a 10 day suspension, and my school apologized to her father on my behalf.

You know how Catholics tell children that they are sinners every day and that they deserve to go to hell? That's kind of like how I feel about being a white person growing up in Chicago in the late 20th century.
 
You know how Catholics tell children that they are sinners every day and that they deserve to go to hell?

No, I don't know. Do tell.
 
No, I don't know. Do tell.

You are a sinner, and you deserve to go to hell.

Also, you are white, and therefor racist and self entitled.

Jesus hates you. Repent.
 
The desire to simplify the world into an 'us' and a 'them'.
The drive to create 'us' and them' understanding is largely an evolved trait that baught survival benifit.

This manifesting itself in racism is however a learnd trait. That is to say that who we define as the other, and who we define as the us is learnt through socialisation.

There is no inherant need for this to manifest itself in racism.
Religious, political, class, language, and many other factors can work the same way.
Its just that us and them mentality shining through.
 
I grew up on the south side of Chicago in the late 1980's and early 1990's. I read so many books and memoirs about slavery and racism, it makes my head hurt. This idea that somehow as a white person born 12 years ago that I need to apologize and repent for the things other white people, WHO MAY NOT EVEN HAVE BEEN MY ANCESTORS, did 200 years ago - makes me angry.

There was this black girl at my school, and whenever she got in an argument, she would call the person a racist. One day, I asked if she was a racist. I got a 10 day suspension, and my school apologized to her father on my behalf.

Even if you aren't responsible for your ancestors' actions, their actions have created a system whereby you have white (or "nonblack") privilege. So while you didn't create the system, you directly benefit from it.
 
I learned it at home. My father was just a hairs breadth away from being a full fledged Aryan Nations devotee. He had a burning hatred of Blacks and Jews. Why I really do not know. Out of 6 brothers and sisters he was the only one that thought like that and his mother was a devout Greek Byzantine Catholic who loved everybody. He actually studied and admired Hitler. Which in my later years I found to be rather odd because my family is of Slavic descent and Hitler had no use for our people either. I never developed the hatred my father had but I had the mind set common to uneducated racism.

The military was the my first real exposure to other non white people. We lived ate and slept together. It did not take long for me to realize there was something seriously wrong with my fathers world view of other people. From there began a long journey of learning about other peoples and cultures. My dad must have spun out of his grave the day I married an Asian woman. He didn't like Asians either:)

Moe
 
Even if you aren't responsible for your ancestors' actions, their actions have created a system whereby you have white (or "nonblack") privilege. So while you didn't create the system, you directly benefit from it.

Today? Haha. No.

White people that hire and fire are desperate to hire a black person qualified for a job. All the white people around me seem to run around desperately trying to prove they aren't racists by saying "I have lots of black friends".

Racism today has become this goofy notion that omnipresent evil within whites accounts for all social injustice.

I am privileged because my mom put herself through medical school on loans. It was chance - I was born into a family that was not impoverished (but not rich). I was lucky enough to be born to a hard working woman that provided for me. It has everything to do with chance/blessing/fate that I am not poor - not my skin color.

Well I don't believe in the big scary racist ghost anymore. It died when section 8 housing destroyed the neighborhood I grew up in. People got an unfair advantage based on their skin color and ended up failing anyway, destroying the place I grew up in the process.

Life is hard for everyone, not just blacks. I'm so ****ing tired of hearing about the plights of minorities in this country. I have cigarette burns and knife cuts all over my arms and chest and face trying to relieve all the ****ing pressure I'm under every goddam day - then some ****ing idiot tells me that on top of everything else, I'm a racist because I'm white.

You know what real racism is? Real racism is running around convincing black people that they have no chance to succeed, because whites all around them secretly hate them and won't allow it. Real racism is a white pastor in a black church feeding off the fear and desperation of 1000 hopeless people for applause and misplaced admiration.
 
Nice rant.

But at least you don't have to worry about getting pulled over for driving while black, right?
 
Nice rant.

But at least you don't have to worry about getting pulled over for driving while black, right?

You don't listen. You don't read.

I mix emotion with a point I am trying to make. It makes my posts more readable. I see no reason to speak without feeling on a site designed for debate.
 
I learned it at home. My father was just a hairs breadth away from being a full fledged Aryan Nations devotee. He had a burning hatred of Blacks and Jews. Why I really do not know. Out of 6 brothers and sisters he was the only one that thought like that and his mother was a devout Greek Byzantine Catholic who loved everybody. He actually studied and admired Hitler. Which in my later years I found to be rather odd because my family is of Slavic descent and Hitler had no use for our people either. I never developed the hatred my father had but I had the mind set common to uneducated racism.

The military was the my first real exposure to other non white people. We lived ate and slept together. It did not take long for me to realize there was something seriously wrong with my fathers world view of other people. From there began a long journey of learning about other peoples and cultures. My dad must have spun out of his grave the day I married an Asian woman. He didn't like Asians either:)

Moe

See what im sayin? U joined the military, you found a new 'us'. A new comunity. And all of a sudden, all of the thigns that had previously made 'the other' 'them' melted away.

But id imagine in the U.S military, that you will find a large ammount of racial predjudice towards Arabs.

But if you were put in a diferant situation (say war with Iran) these 'us' and 'them' bariers would also melt away (for those who hold them). For many, only to be replaced by another imagined comunity of 'us' against another comunity of 'them'.

I think suprisingly few people GENUINELY manage to escape this 'us' and them way of viewing the world. And that Racism is just one of its manifestations. We as being have had a historical evolutionary interest in having tightly knit comunities. And the most effective way for these comunities to exist and porsper is in definition to an 'other'. Racism is but one way this manifests itself. We can ahve the same things occur on many levels (Polpot for example had anyone who owned reading classes shot, as it was a sign of upper class decadence. Some people seek to bash and/or kill homosexuals. And some would have you killed for blaspheming god. Some that a persons worth as a human is defined by a title in front of a name. And others would shun you entirely for not believing in global warming, or wearing fur.

Each of these actions bind an imagined comunity together.

Oh, by the way, I might sound dispasionate. But I do hate it.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom