|
|
Post by Oakley on Jun 4, 2021 7:40:32 GMT -8
I asked a conservative friend of mine about the biology of race, and he thought race was also biological. When I pressed him for the origins of race, he had pretty much the same response as in getting here...no real idea. Absent any argument to the contrary of substance, can we stipulate that race might be more of a social construct today, and move forward on this? NO! |
|
Bick
Administrator 
Posts: 6,900
|
Post by Bick on Jun 4, 2021 7:48:52 GMT -8
Absent any argument to the contrary of substance, can we stipulate that race might be more of a social construct today, and move forward on this? Absoutely not. If we can't prove that human beings evolved from single-celled organisms, or were put on earth through the hand of God, we don't stipulate that they came from Mars. One thing biology has shown us is that when you take any species of animal and disperse it over the planet into differing physical environments, they develop different physical characteristics as favorable genetic variations begin to predominate in their particular environment. One-humped Arabian camels and two-humped Bactrian camels, or African and Asian elephants, or polar, grizzly and black bears, and hundreds of other examples all stemmed from a single common ancestor but developed into different "races" over time through genetic isolation and the natural selection for favorable traits. The Galapagos Islands and Darwinism are evidence of this. I don't disagree with your points. What are the current human races, and how were they decided? You didn't agree or disagree with Linnaeus' classifications. Along that same vein, what race do the children belong to with a mother whose parents are Europaeus albus: European white & Americanus rubescens: American reddish and father is Asiaticus fuscus: Asian tawny & Africanus niger: African black? |
|
Bick
Administrator
Posts: 6,900
|
Post by Bick on Jun 4, 2021 7:50:16 GMT -8
I asked a conservative friend of mine about the biology of race, and he thought race was also biological. When I pressed him for the origins of race, he had pretty much the same response as in getting here...no real idea. Absent any argument to the contrary of substance, can we stipulate that race might be more of a social construct today, and move forward on this? NO! Well shit...glad we settled that. |
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Jun 4, 2021 8:10:09 GMT -8
Absent any argument to the contrary of substance, can we stipulate that race might be more of a social construct today, and move forward on this? Absoutely not. If we can't prove that human beings evolved from single-celled organisms, or were put on earth through the hand of God, we don't stipulate that they came from Mars. One thing biology has shown us is that when you take any species of animal and disperse it over the planet into differing physical environments, they develop different physical characteristics as favorable genetic variations begin to predominate in their particular environment. One-humped Arabian camels and two-humped Bactrian camels, or African and Asian elephants, or polar, grizzly and black bears, and hundreds of other examples all stemmed from a single common ancestor but developed into different "races" over time through genetic isolation and the natural selection for favorable traits. The Galapagos Islands and Darwinism are evidence of this. Can we not, for the purposes of this one, isolated thread, agree "race" and "racism" are the topic of the thread and are used interchangeably unless a given use is stipulated in the response? I have read through and I do not see anyone using "race" as a biological construct. Every use, as I've previously explained, has used "race" to be synonymous with "racism." Your biological explanations are accurate, but this has become a distraction away from the topic. |
|
MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,814
|
Post by MDDad on Jun 4, 2021 9:58:25 GMT -8
I don't disagree with your points. What are the current human races, and how were they decided? You didn't agree or disagree with Linnaeus' classifications. Along that same vein, what race do the children belong to with a mother whose parents are Europaeus albus: European white & Americanus rubescens: American reddish and father is Asiaticus fuscus: Asian tawny & Africanus niger: African black? I don't know what the "current human races" are or how they were decided, and I'm not sure that's relevant. There are many things we can't specifically define or provide with differentiating criteria, yet we know they exist. If you take a person from Sweden whose ancestors have lived there for a thousand years, and take a second person from Zimbabwe whose ancestors have lived there for a thousand years, you would have a tough time convincing anyone there aren't very obvious racial differences. Races exist, even though their labeling can be difficult, confusing or uncomfortable. What's more important is how we react to those differences, whether or not we assign superiority and inferiority based on those differences, and whether or not we act on those outdated beliefs to disadvantage one race to the benefit of another. That's racism, and that's abhorrent, but it's also illegal. We have the freedom to believe whatever we want, and there is no way to legislate against human biases. What we don't have is the freedom to act on those outdated beliefs to disadvantage one race to the benefit of another, because that kind of activity has been rightly against the law since the mid-1960's. If we want to debate racism, let's do so, but let's not pretend there are no races. Race and racism are not the same thing. I suspect the term Critical Race Theory was intentionally not christened Critical Racism Theory as an attempt to make the two terms look interchangeable. |
|
MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,814
|
Post by MDDad on Jun 4, 2021 10:00:41 GMT -8
Can we not, for the purposes of this one, isolated thread, agree "race" and "racism" are the topic of the thread and are used interchangeably... unless a given use is stipulated in the response? I have read through and I do not see anyone using "race" as a biological construct. Every use, as I've previously explained, has used "race" to be synonymous with "racism." Your biological explanations are accurate, but this has become a distraction away from the topic. No. Then you have not read enough. Race is a physical reality, and it is not synonymous with racism. |
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Jun 4, 2021 10:58:38 GMT -8
Can we not, for the purposes of this one, isolated thread, agree "race" and "racism" are the topic of the thread and are used interchangeably... unless a given use is stipulated in the response? I have read through and I do not see anyone using "race" as a biological construct. Every use, as I've previously explained, has used "race" to be synonymous with "racism." Your biological explanations are accurate, but this has become a distraction away from the topic. No. Then you have not read enough. Race is a physical reality, and it is not synonymous with racism. Are you being purposefully obtuse or do you really not get it? As I said I KNOW RACE AND RACISM ARE NOT SYNONYMOUS! If you will read, what I said was, your bleating about race being biological, though accurate, it is a distraction from the topic. Come down off your high horse and actually look past your vastly superior biological acumen and participate in the topic. 🙄 |
|
MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,814
|
Post by MDDad on Jun 4, 2021 12:00:40 GMT -8
I think by asking people to be precise and specific in their language about this sensitive subject I AM participating in the topic. I've seen hundreds of discussions like this one get derailed or reach an impasse because the most obvious of precursors, the definition of terms and not using unlike terms interchangeably, is never agreed upon. If that's a high horse, I guess I'll keep riding it, but you'll eventually run into a discussion roadblock. Arson and an arsonist are not the same thing either.
|
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Jun 4, 2021 13:27:39 GMT -8
I think by asking people to be precise and specific in their language about this sensitive subject I AM participating in the topic. I've seen hundreds of discussions like this one get derailed or reach an impasse because the most obvious of precursors, the definition of terms and not using unlike terms interchangeably, is never agreed upon. If that's a high horse, I guess I'll keep riding it, but you'll eventually run into a discussion roadblock. Arson and an arsonist are not the same thing either. And you’re the one derailing this one with your myopic and intractable insistence on proper biology terminology. |
|
MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,814
|
Post by MDDad on Jun 4, 2021 13:54:42 GMT -8
Then please, carry on. I've been very impressed with the points elucidated so far.
|
|
|
|
Post by Oakley on Jun 4, 2021 16:46:37 GMT -8
MDDad is dealing in facts and so must you davidsf.
|
|
MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,814
|
Post by MDDad on Jun 4, 2021 18:01:57 GMT -8
And you’re the one derailing this one with your myopic and intractable insistence on proper biology terminology. Dave, please. I can only derail this discussion if you respond to me. Feel free to put me on ignore and forward your defense of Critical Race Theory. This thread has run for 8 1/2 days and there as been no thoughtful defense of the theory yet. |
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Jun 4, 2021 18:53:32 GMT -8
And you’re the one derailing this one with your myopic and intractable insistence on proper biology terminology. Dave, please. I can only derail this discussion if you respond to me. Feel free to put me on ignore and forward your defense of Critical Race Theory. This thread has run for 8 1/2 days and there as been no thoughtful defense of the theory yet. Come on, MD Dad… that is a weak sauce deflection of a vile pagan caliber. Forget it: I did not expect you to accept criticism anyway. Go ahead on down your rabbit home. I’ll just pretend we’re talking about biology. |
|
MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,814
|
Post by MDDad on Jun 4, 2021 21:31:46 GMT -8
Excellent defense of CRT, Dave. You've convinced me to get all on board with it now.
|
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Jun 5, 2021 3:43:48 GMT -8
MDDad is dealing in facts and so must you davidsf. Uhm...yeah... like I said. 🙄 |
|
