• 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!

Is it Ok for Black Comedians to Bash Whites?

Is it OK for Blacks to Bash Whites for Comedy Purposes?

  • Yes

    Votes: 54 77.1%
  • No

    Votes: 16 22.9%

  • Total voters
    70
Did you notice that in my response to you, I critiqued your argument and your argument only. The only thing you could manage to do was personally attack me through sarcasm. It's never a good sign when the only response you have to another person's point is a personal attack.

I'll say it again: Hispanic isn't a race according to the government. Therefore, your example about "race-related" diseases is flawed because you used a group of people that is NOT considered a race by the very organization you claim is "reaching out to racial groups". This has two implications: First, race is not as clear cut as you try to make it seem as evidenced by the fact you consider Hispanic a race and the government doesn't. Second, the differences in susceptibility to diseases that you listed with black vs. Hispanic women are NOT race-related differences.

If the US Government decided to call Asian-Americans by an ethnic identifier, say Continentals, meaning the continent of Asia, and they included South Asian alongside East Asians, in this new category, then that doesn't remove the racial structure of these two groups.

Now, if the US population mix between the two groups was 20:1 in favor of East Asians compared to South Asians, then the use of the category "Continental" would capture Asian Americans almost as accurately as though they were racially sorted into that group.

We don't have many Yugoslavian or Italian Argentines being classed as Hispanics in the US - what we have a lot of is Central American Mestizos and Caribbean Mulattos, both of whom share ancestry with Caribbean/Central American AmerIndians.

The fact that the US made a social decision on how to define Hispanics - grouping Mestizos, Mulattos, White Argentines, Native Spainairds, White Cubans, etc into a cultural group doesn't mean that the cultural group "Hispanics" connotes no racial information. Now that could certainly change if the US population of Hispanics became evenly divided between Mestizos, Mulattos, White Argentines, Native Spainairds, White Cubans and so on such that the social category of Hispanic became completely divorced from any underlying genetic basis. That would be a prime example of a socially determined identity - what common feature do all of these categories of people have in common? The government calls them Hispanic and that is their new socially created group.
 
The fact that the US made a social decision on how to define Hispanics - grouping Mestizos, Mulattos, White Argentines, Native Spainairds, White Cubans, etc into a cultural group doesn't mean that the cultural group "Hispanics" connotes no racial information. Now that could certainly change if the US population of Hispanics became evenly divided between Mestizos, Mulattos, White Argentines, Native Spainairds, White Cubans and so on such that the social category of Hispanic became completely divorced from any underlying genetic basis. That would be a prime example of a socially determined identity - what common feature do all of these categories of people have in common? The government calls them Hispanic and that is their new socially created group.
That's all good and well, but none of this changes the flaws of your original post.

First, you want to make it seem as if race is a concrete category, but it isn't. Your use of Hispanic as a race coupled with the government's belief that Hispanic is not a race illustrates this.

Second, you try to validate your perception of race by pointing to the presence of biologically race-related illnesses. However, your evidence is an example of ethnicity + race related illnesses, not of race-related illnesses. Hispanic is not considered a race. Moreover, you make the mistake of assuming that such illnesses are related to biological differences when, in fact, they may be related to environmental or lifestyle differences.

Bottom lines: Your own post shows that racial categories are not clear cut and the illnesses you mention are ethnic/racial/environmental illnesses not simply "biologically race-related illnesses". Calling them the latter both simplifies and distorts the definition of "race" the government uses and the potential causes of such diseases.

I think most people's critiques of your arguments come down to the fact that race is not a biologically concrete grouping so much so that the vulnerability to illnesses you mentioned are not even broken down into exclusively racial categories. Sure, we can trace ancestry and draw conclusions based on that information but that alone does not constitute race. Race is a social construction. Nature doesn't care about the one drop rule - people do and the fact that someone who is 7/8 European and 1/8 African can be considered "black" while a genetic test would show him to be overwhelming "not black" is an illustration that races are not a biologically discrete categories.
 
The boundaries between colors are also arbitrarily defined. Does that mean that the color yellow doesn't convey information when referenced?

In scientific term no. Scientists study wavelength of light.


Your argument borders on tautology. You refer to race a s social construct and then detail a situation where the researchers inputs this piece of socially constructed knowledge into a model and out comes the correlation. The whole notion of social construction is that it is divorced from any physical reality. If tomorrow we decided that every liberal would hence forth be socially classified as black and every conservatives would henceforth be socially classified as white, then the breast cancer model would lose all predictive value because when the researcher input "black" as the race of the woman who was being tested the model wouldn't be referencing any real genetic basis.

Depending on the correlation between the "black" and "white" group to the "liberal" and "conservative" group. And that's the point of my post, the model only has meaning according to the inputs by the modeller. If I put in "poor" and "middle class" in the place of "black" and "white", or "in jail" and "not in jail", any number of combination actually - I would probably see a relationship even though the proxies for the genetic mutation are different. The only true relationship that won't change is the causal relationship between the genetic mutation and the cancer growth as a result. If I could transfer this genetic mutation from the black population without changing other other genes in that population, into the white population, the relationship between the mutation and the cancer will remain the same even though the relationship between the cancer and the "race" proxy has changed.


So clearly, when researchers are inputting a socially derived classification of black into the diagnostic model that socially derived racially classification is a.) outputting useful data from the model, and b.) the social classification is capturing the real genetic basis of race.

It doesn't say anything of the sort. It simply says that there is a statistical correlation. I can "output useful data" using other variables (say close relative with said disease), and pinpoint the "at risk" population much better than just "race" alone. The only way to capture "real genetic basis" is to study the genes itself. Anything else are statistical proxies and not true causal relationships.
 
We see it on TV and in the movies everyday. A black comedian or a black sitcom or a black movie. They move directly into bashing on whites, calling them honkies, crackers and other derogatory terms. Often times they'll have whites appear to be ignorant about the world around them and so on.

They're are even stations, BET, that tailor a large segment of their broadcasts are directed right at this type of comedy.

So, should this be allowed or is this another type of racism? Should whites be allowed to launch all white networks, such as WET, that target their jokes towards blacks?

Keep in mind, blacks use the term "cracker" and "honkie" (recently heard Kid Rock use Honkie) all the time, when's the last time you heard a modern movie where a white used the "N" word?

As a white man, I find a lot of black-on-white racial jokes incredibly funny. And I LOL right along with them.
 
Blacks in the USA were enslaved, raped, tortured, beaten, castrated, burned, harrassed, terrorized, experimented on, segregated, discriminated against, etc etc etc....

so yes, there is gonna be a double-standard for a while.
 
That's all good and well, but none of this changes the flaws of your original post.

First, you want to make it seem as if race is a concrete category, but it isn't. Your use of Hispanic as a race coupled with the government's belief that Hispanic is not a race illustrates this.

Second, you try to validate your perception of race by pointing to the presence of biologically race-related illnesses. However, your evidence is an example of ethnicity + race related illnesses, not of race-related illnesses. Hispanic is not considered a race. Moreover, you make the mistake of assuming that such illnesses are related to biological differences when, in fact, they may be related to environmental or lifestyle differences.

Bottom lines: Your own post shows that racial categories are not clear cut and the illnesses you mention are ethnic/racial/environmental illnesses not simply "biologically race-related illnesses". Calling them the latter both simplifies and distorts the definition of "race" the government uses and the potential causes of such diseases.

I think most people's critiques of your arguments come down to the fact that race is not a biologically concrete grouping so much so that the vulnerability to illnesses you mentioned are not even broken down into exclusively racial categories. Sure, we can trace ancestry and draw conclusions based on that information but that alone does not constitute race. Race is a social construction. Nature doesn't care about the one drop rule - people do and the fact that someone who is 7/8 European and 1/8 African can be considered "black" while a genetic test would show him to be overwhelming "not black" is an illustration that races are not a biologically discrete categories.
The concept is a solid one- if imperfect.
Use 'indigenous populations' as NatGeo does if you're squeamish/PC.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/europe/78081-there-such-thing-english-ethnicity-2.html#post1058887644

....
A NatGeo study started in 2005 Genographic Project - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia seeks to map migrations of all people from 11 indigenous populations.. call them ethnicities if you like (even 'races'). But people/s Are traceable through their genes.

Perhaps 'English' isn't an Ethnicity but ie, Jews are. 40% of Jews can be traced to just 4 Middle Eastern women, and virtually all the rest from another 150. I think that qualifies as 'common ancestry'.
 
Last edited:
The concept is a solid one- if imperfect.
Use 'indigenous populations' as NatGeo does if you're squeamish/PC.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/europe/78081-there-such-thing-english-ethnicity-2.html#post1058887644
You're talking about ethnicity and ancestry; I'm talking about race.

Race is not a "solid concept". Nobody is denying that people's ancestry can be traced with their genes. I am denying that race is a clear cut concept. It isn't. Moreover, NG doesn't use "indigenous populations" in order to be PC, it uses that term because it's a specific term to denote a particular reality - populations indigenous to a particular place. Some people may call them races, others wouldn't - such is the SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED nature of race.
 
You're talking about ethnicity and ancestry; I'm talking about race.

Race is not a "solid concept". Nobody is denying that people's ancestry can be traced with their genes. I am denying that race is a clear cut concept. It isn't. Moreover, NG doesn't use "indigenous populations" in order to be PC, it uses that term because it's a specific term to denote a particular reality - populations indigenous to a particular place. Some people may call them races, others wouldn't - such is the SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED nature of race.
I think we can assume "Indigenous Populations" are genetically Distinct and homogenous enough to call them whatever you like, Ethnicity, Race, etc.
That is the Point of the study.
Using 11 Genetically Identifiable Base populations.
You can use any word that makes you happy.
 
I think we can assume "Indigenous Populations" are genetically Distinct and homogenous enough to call them whatever you like, Ethnicity, Race, etc.
That is the Point of the study.
Using 11 Genetically Identifiable Base populations.
You can use any word that makes you happy.
Okay, none of this has any effect on the point that I've been making: race is not a biologically concrete grouping.
 
Okay, none of this has any effect on the point that I've been making: race is not a biologically concrete grouping.

The SUN is also not a big ball of boiling spaghetti. Who is arguing that races are biologically concrete groupings?
 
You're talking about ethnicity and ancestry; I'm talking about race.

Race is not a "solid concept". Nobody is denying that people's ancestry can be traced with their genes. I am denying that race is a clear cut concept. It isn't. Moreover, NG doesn't use "indigenous populations" in order to be PC, it uses that term because it's a specific term to denote a particular reality - populations indigenous to a particular place. Some people may call them races, others wouldn't - such is the SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED nature of race.

No, mbig is correct. You're just tilting at a strawman - he isn't arguing that race is a clear cut concept. When Wells refers to indigenous populations that is the equivalent of saying race or population group. Native Americans have had admixture from other racial groups. There is nothing particularly indigenous about them other than their group's history, but if that was really the standard then we should be referring to Swedish people in Sweden as indigenous people, etc.
 
The SUN is also not a big ball of boiling spaghetti. Who is arguing that races are biologically concrete groupings?
Let me rephrase: Race is a social construct, nothing more.
 
No, mbig is correct. You're just tilting at a strawman - he isn't arguing that race is a clear cut concept. When Wells refers to indigenous populations that is the equivalent of saying race or population group. Native Americans have had admixture from other racial groups. There is nothing particularly indigenous about them other than their group's history, but if that was really the standard then we should be referring to Swedish people in Sweden as indigenous people, etc.
Actually, mbig was wrong when he started talking about ethnicity and ancestry in response to my post about RACE. He was also wrong when he said that race was a "solid concept".

Moreover, indigenous populations are not the equivalent of saying "race" because race is a social construct. If it was equivalent to race then the "one drop rule" wouldn't exist since a man who is 7/8 European ancestry would still be considered a member of the "black race" by much of society. Some people may call such populations "races", other people don't. That's why race is a social construct.
 
We see it on TV and in the movies everyday. A black comedian or a black sitcom or a black movie. They move directly into bashing on whites, calling them honkies, crackers and other derogatory terms. Often times they'll have whites appear to be ignorant about the world around them and so on.

They're are even stations, BET, that tailor a large segment of their broadcasts are directed right at this type of comedy.

So, should this be allowed or is this another type of racism? Should whites be allowed to launch all white networks, such as WET, that target their jokes towards blacks?

Keep in mind, blacks use the term "cracker" and "honkie" (recently heard Kid Rock use Honkie) all the time, when's the last time you heard a modern movie where a white used the "N" word?

No. I'm weary of the double standards.
 
In scientific term no. Scientists study wavelength of light.

Just because you can answer, doesn't mean that you should. This answer adds nothing to the conversation because you've moved the goalposts in order to wriggle free from addressing the point I challenged you on. That's a cowardly tactic.

nonpareil: Just a very illuminating question that shows how arbitrary the whole definition of "race" is.
RiverDad:The boundaries between colors are also arbitrarily defined. Does that mean that the color yellow doesn't convey information when referenced?

You made a specific assertion that the definition of race suffers from arbitrariness. I took the time to directly address your question and asked you a question built on an identical logical structure and you respond by telling me about what scientists do. I know what scientists do, thank you very much, but your answer has nothing to do with your original point and my question to you based on the logic of your original point.

Again, is there any information conveyed to you when I tell you that a banana is yellow? Does the fact that you cannot precisely define what the color yellow is mean that the concept of yellow color conveys no information?

Depending on the correlation between the "black" and "white" group to the "liberal" and "conservative" group.

Well if the correlation is strong then we're moving away from definitions being solely socially constructed and moving into territory where the definition have both social meaning and probabilistic meaning.

If BiDil, a heart medication for black patients suffering from heart disease, is just targeting a group of people who are socially clumped together in an arbitrary fashion and with no genetic commonality, then we should expect the efficacy of the medicine to be no more effective than if it was randomly distributed to all people with heart disease. That's not the case though and this tells us that there is a genetic basis to race. The fact that there is a social layer over top of the genetic layer doesn't invalidate the genetic layer when the meanings of the social layer are modified.

The only true relationship that won't change is the causal relationship between the genetic mutation and the cancer growth as a result. If I could transfer this genetic mutation from the black population without changing other other genes in that population, into the white population, the relationship between the mutation and the cancer will remain the same even though the relationship between the cancer and the "race" proxy has changed.

Yeah, so what? The issue here is information. The best information to be had is that which is developed on each individual. The problem is that it takes time and money and resources to develop individual information and so group level information, which is less precise, is used because it provides value that outweighs the costs.


I Am a Racially Profiling Doctor


In practicing medicine, I am not colorblind. I always take note of my patient's race. So do many of my colleagues. We do it because certain diseases and treatment responses cluster by ethnicity. Recognizing these patterns can help us diagnose disease more efficiently and prescribe medications more effectively. When it comes to practicing medicine, stereotyping often works.

But to a growing number of critics, this statement is viewed as a shocking admission of prejudice. After all, shouldn't all patients be treated equally, regardless of the color of their skin? The controversy came to a boil last May in The New England Journal of Medicine. The journal published a study revealing that enalapril, a standard treatment for chronic heart failure, was less helpful to blacks than to whites. Researchers found that significantly more black patients treated with enalapril ended up hospitalized. A companion study examined carvedilol, a beta blocker; the results indicated that the drug was equally beneficial to both races.


So right here is an example of "cheap information." The physician doesn't have to get the patient's genome sequenced in order to understand the patient as an individual (the best kind of information.) All he has to do is ask the patient his race. Knowing the patient's self-identified race the physician can prescribe Carvedilol instead of Enalapril and minimize the risk to the patient.

If race was solely a social construction, then this exercise would be useless. Here's another example:


Almost every day at the Washington drug clinic where I work as a psychiatrist, race plays a useful diagnostic role. When I prescribe Prozac to a patient who is African-American, I start at a lower dose, 5 or 10 milligrams instead of the usual 10-to-20 milligram dose. I do this in part because clinical experience and pharmacological research show that blacks metabolize antidepressants more slowly than Caucasians and Asians. As a result, levels of the medication can build up and make side effects more likely. To be sure, not every African-American is a slow metabolizer of antidepressants; only 40 percent are. But the risk of provoking side effects like nausea, insomnia or fuzzy-headedness in a depressed person -- someone already terribly demoralized who may have been reluctant to take medication in the first place -- is to worsen the patient's distress and increase the chances that he will flush the pills down the toilet. So I start all black patients with a lower dose, then take it from there.​
 
Actually, mbig was wrong when he started talking about ethnicity and ancestry in response to my post about RACE. He was also wrong when he said that race was a "solid concept".

Moreover, indigenous populations are not the equivalent of saying "race" because race is a social construct. If it was equivalent to race then the "one drop rule" wouldn't exist since a man who is 7/8 European ancestry would still be considered a member of the "black race" by much of society. Some people may call such populations "races", other people don't. That's why race is a social construct.
I said you could call them what you like.
But efforts are made in IQ data to test pure indigenuous peoples (again 'races' "if you like").
Finding a 7/8 European may be easy, but finding a 7/8 Bushmen (or aboriginal) wouldn't be common, nor would a 7/8 Chinese. And a few 7/8 Europeans in a larger more homogenous population would not significantly skew the IQ data. Researchers would also be careful about testing if they could.

You'll note in the other string I cited Richard Lynn who does use "Indigenous populations". As NatGeo, he also has 11 groups. (though I highly doubt they're the same)

Richard Lynn, "Race Differences in Intelligence: An Evolutionary Analysis" 2006 Table 16.2 (indigenous populations) Estimated average IQ

Arctic Peoples - - - - - - - -- -- - - - - - 91
East Asians - - - - - - - - ---- -- -- --- - 105
Europeans - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - -100
Native Americans (north & south) -- -- 86
Southern Asian & Northern Africans - - 84
Bushmen (southern Africa) - - - - - - - -54
Africans (subsaharan) - - - - - - - - - - 67
Native Australians (aboriginals) --- --- 62
Southeast Asians - - - - - - - - - -- - - -87
Pacific Islanders - - - - - - - - - - - - - -85
Again, "Blank slate liberals" would Still scream about this data whether or not you call these groups 'races', as it's implications for some populations would be the same.
 
Last edited:
Its a joke! If you take it seriously I really feel sorry for you!
 
I said you could call them what you like.
But efforts are made in IQ data to test pure indigenuous peoples (again 'races' "if you like").
Finding a 7/8 European may be easy, but finding a 7/8 Bushmen (or aboriginal) wouldn't be common, nor would a 7/8 Chinese. And a few 7/8 Europeans in a larger more homogenous population would not significantly skew the IQ data. Researchers would also be careful about testing if they could.

You'll note in the other string I cited Richard Lynn who does use "Indigenous populations". As NatGeo, he also has 11 groups. (though I highly doubt they're the same)

Again, "Blank slate liberals" would Still scream about this data whether or not you call these groups 'races', as it's implications for some populations would be the same.
Great, none of this has any effect on my original point: race is a social construct.
 
Just because you can answer, doesn't mean that you should. This answer adds nothing to the conversation because you've moved the goalposts in order to wriggle free from addressing the point I challenged you on. That's a cowardly tactic.

nonpareil: Just a very illuminating question that shows how arbitrary the whole definition of "race" is.
RiverDad:The boundaries between colors are also arbitrarily defined. Does that mean that the color yellow doesn't convey information when referenced?

You made a specific assertion that the definition of race suffers from arbitrariness. I took the time to directly address your question and asked you a question built on an identical logical structure and you respond by telling me about what scientists do. I know what scientists do, thank you very much, but your answer has nothing to do with your original point and my question to you based on the logic of your original point.

Again, is there any information conveyed to you when I tell you that a banana is yellow? Does the fact that you cannot precisely define what the color yellow is mean that the concept of yellow color conveys no information?

My response answers the question just fine if you understand what "arbitrariness" means. Just because something conveys information doesn't mean it's not arbitrary. One "yellow" banana could be different from another "yellow" banana in the wavelength it reflects. Which "yellow" banana is the real "yellow" banana? Further, people perceive colour differently, affected by their physical characteristics and social conditioning - when someone says "yellow", the visual colour in their head could very well be different from mine. When one of them claim the banana is "yellow", I can only approximate the colour they have in their head, I never truly know the colour perceive and is refering to. This thread is about race and genetic or "color and wavelength" if you want. Scientists study genetic, not race - because race is arbitrary like 'colour' and doesn't mean anything concrete scientifically.


Well if the correlation is strong then we're moving away from definitions being solely socially constructed and moving into territory where the definition have both social meaning and probabilistic meaning.

If BiDil, a heart medication for black patients suffering from heart disease, is just targeting a group of people who are socially clumped together in an arbitrary fashion and with no genetic commonality, then we should expect the efficacy of the medicine to be no more effective than if it was randomly distributed to all people with heart disease. That's not the case though and this tells us that there is a genetic basis to race. The fact that there is a social layer over top of the genetic layer doesn't invalidate the genetic layer when the meanings of the social layer are modified.

Or we could expect the drugs to work just as well in whites with the same genetic mutation that the black patients have. It doesn't say anything about genetic bases for race - as I've explained in my original and subsequent posts.

Yeah, so what?

So the causal relationship is not base on the arbitrarily defined concept of "race".

The issue here is information. The best information to be had is that which is developed on each individual. The problem is that it takes time and money and resources to develop individual information and so group level information, which is less precise, is used because it provides value that outweighs the costs.

And what has cost effectiveness to do with the arguement that "race" is arbitrarily defined and a proxy? That you have no evidence that Blacks are less intelligent than white because of their genetic make up?

I Am a Racially Profiling Doctor
In practicing medicine, I am not colorblind. I always take note of my patient's race. So do many of my colleagues. We do it because certain diseases and treatment responses cluster by ethnicity. Recognizing these patterns can help us diagnose disease more efficiently and prescribe medications more effectively. When it comes to practicing medicine, stereotyping often works.

But to a growing number of critics, this statement is viewed as a shocking admission of prejudice. After all, shouldn't all patients be treated equally, regardless of the color of their skin? The controversy came to a boil last May in The New England Journal of Medicine. The journal published a study revealing that enalapril, a standard treatment for chronic heart failure, was less helpful to blacks than to whites. Researchers found that significantly more black patients treated with enalapril ended up hospitalized. A companion study examined carvedilol, a beta blocker; the results indicated that the drug was equally beneficial to both races.


So right here is an example of "cheap information." The physician doesn't have to get the patient's genome sequenced in order to understand the patient as an individual (the best kind of information.) All he has to do is ask the patient his race. Knowing the patient's self-identified race the physician can prescribe Carvedilol instead of Enalapril and minimize the risk to the patient.

If race was solely a social construction, then this exercise would be useless. Here's another example:
Almost every day at the Washington drug clinic where I work as a psychiatrist, race plays a useful diagnostic role. When I prescribe Prozac to a patient who is African-American, I start at a lower dose, 5 or 10 milligrams instead of the usual 10-to-20 milligram dose. I do this in part because clinical experience and pharmacological research show that blacks metabolize antidepressants more slowly than Caucasians and Asians. As a result, levels of the medication can build up and make side effects more likely. To be sure, not every African-American is a slow metabolizer of antidepressants; only 40 percent are. But the risk of provoking side effects like nausea, insomnia or fuzzy-headedness in a depressed person -- someone already terribly demoralized who may have been reluctant to take medication in the first place -- is to worsen the patient's distress and increase the chances that he will flush the pills down the toilet. So I start all black patients with a lower dose, then take it from there.


Wrong. "Social construct" doesn't equate to being useless. We human make these short-cuts to make it easier to make snap judgement. It costs more to test for genetic mutation, so the doctor approximate race to the genetic mutation, but a true scientific understanding is that the genetic mutation is the cause of the disease, not the fact that the patient was classified as black by the doctor (like you claim with intelligence). If the patient was white with that same genetic mutation, the doctor would be wrong to say the patient's less likely to get that disease because he's not black. Anyway, the question's not about whether it's cost effective to generalise to race, but whether or not blacks are less intelligent than other races because of their genetic make-up.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom