By continuing you agree to eChinacities's Privacy Policy .
Sign up with Google
Sign up with Facebook
Q: It is virtually logically impossible for any racist to substantiate his/her grounds. Do you agree?
A racist is someone who makes a negative statement against an entire race, to say the least.
Normally, we are talking about millions, or billions of people for a race. How can any human claim to know everyone in that race, personally? So, it is virtually meaningless, groundless, absurd to make whatever statement, be it positive or negative act, about any race. Well, unless that race only has a few dozens of people, or hundreds, and you really know them all, personally (it is possible).
When we are talking about millions of people, therefore, it is equally stupid to make such kinds of statements as well as calling someone a racist because in all practicality, such a scenario (knowing everyone in an entire race) is an impossibility, for a human being at least.
Do you agree with the reasoning?
Scientifically, racism is stupid. As Dr. Monkey points out, there is no basis for bias based on "race" (origin of ancestors). The only true variances are those that exist between cultures and geographical areas. A black person born in America is completely different than a black person born in Africa. A British born Chinese is completely different from a Chinese mainlander. Even people from neighborhood to neighborhood are different! Racism is just stupid and the last resort of ignorant and limited people.
dokken:
There are some genetic differences. The days of white men winning the Olympics 100m sprint is long gone. People don't want to examine these differences because genetic variation between races is such an awkward subject.
xinyuren:
LOL,dokken. You are saying that a white man is incapable at excelling past blacks in a race because of genetics? That's stupid. You've made my point. At one time, the 4 minute mile was considered an impossible barrier. Until someone broke it. Now everyone is breaking it. Was that genetics too? Were the pre-four minute runners somehow genetically inferior, or was there another factor involved? The reason why this topic isn't debated often is because there is no scientific basis for discussion. Only ignorant people make the argument you are making.
dokken:
What the hell? I guess you know little about science. There are proven genetic differences. I remember they ran clinical trials for aprticular type of anti-malarial drug in Scotland. when the trials were successful and they ran the next phase in Africa, 10 african men died from cranial swelling. Turns out african black men have a particular variant of an enzyme that white men do not. very often medicines have to be ethnic specific. this is fact. nothing to do with superiority/inferiority. from a purely scientific, genetic differences between races should be examined, discussed and understood.
the last white winner of the 100m was alan wells in 1980 (only cause USA didn't take part. in the last three olympics a white man has not reached the semi final. since 1983 every finalist (10starters) in the 100m sprint at the world athletic championships apart from one, has been black. so that is a ratio of 320 black men to one white man. To anybody with a iota of objectivity, it is obvious that as a whole, black men have an inherent genetic advantage in sprinting. whites and asians do better in the field events and swimming. it would be interesting to one day to get a full picture about why this is. But it is FACT
I'm not suggesting one race is superior or inferior. there is no evidence that one race is more intelligent than another. in fact there is evidence to the contrary. but there are some interesting differences. these should be examined with a cool head and a scientific mind. emotion and desire should not constrain science.
If you got time to read http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2012/08/12/the-dna-olympics-jamaicans-win-sprinting-genetic-lottery-and-why-we-should-all-care/2/
xinyuren:
Your comments made me laugh. The article too. So let's look at golf. Dominated by white people. Genetics? LOL. I haven't seen many black people winning in water polo. Or swimming. Ah, they are genetically disadvantaged in those sports. Obviously Asians are genetically inclined to win at table tennis. Then you lean on science to back you but you give me an article written by a guy who proclaims he " writes skeptically about science, public policy, media and NGOs."
LOL!
This subject is a conundrum only for Evolutionists (which itself is an enigma). There is no science that proves your point. There is only speculation. When they find the "sprinter's gene", you let me know. Good luck with that. LOL.
xinyuren:
BTW, I didn't say genetic variances do not exist. I am saying they exist in all humans. Some are more susceptible than others. So it is very possible for a white person to beat Usain Bolt in the 100 meter dash. Thanks for keeping racism alive.
xinyuren:
Oh! I have more! What if a person has a black mother and a white father? What "race" is he? Can he beat Usain Bolt? What if he is a white African? And what does an African gene have to do with a black person in America? Didn't we all come from Africa anyways? so we are all "black"? Do you see how insane this reasoning is?
dokken:
320 black men to one white finalist. white men do try to compete in this sport. I'm white. this has nothing to do with racism. there is genetic variance inside races and general differences between races. As i have said there is no evidence that any race holds the advantage in terms of I.Q. So does it really matter about other things?
They will find these genes eventually. the science is not quite there yet. it will involve complex interaction between many genes. it will be interesting and will tell us much about evolution. it will not and should not harm anybody revealing these facts. it will just lead to greater understanding
your particularly stupid comment about mixed race i will answer but i don't know why. sometimes genes from either parent will be expressed. Can be a total mixture or genes from one parent can dominate. same as anymotherfather. not sure of the relevance of this to your point. i know some mixed race kids who are a different shade of colour from their brother or sister.
you come from a really emotional place i dont know why. i think you demean true racism by saying somebody suggesting that there might be some genetic variance between race is a racist. very narrow minded and not logical
dokken:
The writer writes -:
"The hard truth is that we cannot avoid confronting the fact of our patterned human biodiversity. Over the past decade, human genome research has moved from a study of human similarities to a focus on population-based differences. Such research offers clues to solving the mystery of disease, the Holy Grail of genetics. So why do we readily accept that evolution has turned out Jews with a genetic predisposition to Tay-Sachs, Southeast Asians with a higher proclivity for beta-thalassemia and blacks who are susceptible to colorectal cancer and sickle cell disease, yet find it racist to suggest that Usain Bolt can thank his West African ancestry for the most critical part of his success—his biological possibility?"
xinyuren:
You missed my whole point. Right over your head. You have a bunch of facts, but you came to dubious and speculative conclusions about them. That's what science is for. Science takes a set of facts and makes proper conclusions based on hard evidence and proof derived from a proven method. Your method is no better than the Chinese who believe that tiger testicles will help their libido ("hey, people who eat tiger balls have more xiao sans so those tiger balls must work") What you're saying isn't science at all.
You saying what you think scientists will find doesn't make it truth.
In case you didn't know, Southeast Asian is not a race. Ethiopian is not a race. People with white skin are not a race. We are all humans. We all have the potential to inherit a particular set of genes. Gene pools are established by a people connected to a geographical area (see my original comment), If an American black person and an African white person have children, they create a new set of genes that will be mixed with whatever pool they belong too. This is irrespective of what you call "race". None of my family tree on both sides have suffered from sickle cell. I am black. Does that make me not really black? No. Our gene pool just doesn't have that proclivity. There are plenty of other social and psychological factors that can account for the facts that you presented and making a blanket statement about people because of the color of their skin or facial features is "racist". You clearly have not thought this issue thru enough. Humanity is too diverse for thinking like yours. Am I being emotional? No, I am being entertained. I find it amusing when people like you use such simplistic reasoning and static labels to justify racist ideas.
dokken:
"Lacking the ACTN3 protein does not seem to have any harmful health effects, but does affect running ability. Scientists conclude that it is almost impossible for someone who lacks the ACTN3 protein to become an elite sprinter. Those of African ancestry have the lowest incidence of the mutation that prevents the muscles from firing."
This is science. By your logic, this should be ignored, discounted, not even investigated in the first place. Yet all it is, is a scientific observation. Were the scientists racist. Should the link not be discussed? What if you're wrong and there is a link? Do you think in this case it should not be noted? It should be taboo.
Any genetic variance whether it be between race, sex or yes even individuals should be recorded. Nothing should be off the table. It does not reflect who we are, our dreams, our identity. It is just observation. Irrational people screaming RACIST hinder investigation.
One day society will mature enough to allow a place for the study of genetic variation between races, without the feeling that the motivation behind it is to prove one race superior or inferior. People will believe it is just examing how different natural selection pressures in different regions of the world (before geographic displacement) affected genetic make up.
Your linking the opinion that race might affect sporting capabilities to racism, is narrow minded. I haven't made sweeping generalizations in anything I have said. Many black men can't run fast. However as a whole 320 black finalists in 100m to one white, strongly points toward a genetic component. Even if it is proven one day to be wrong, there is nothing wrong with observing something everybody can see.
dokken:
“Evolution has shaped body types and in part athletic possibilities,” Joseph Graves, Jr. told me. Graves, who is African American, is an evolutionary biologist at North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University and UNC Greensboro. “Don’t expect an Eskimo to show up on an NBA court or a Watusi to win the world weight lifting championship. Differences don’t necessarily correlate with skin color, but rather with geography and climate. Endurance runners are more likely to come from East Africa and sprinters from West Africa. That’s a fact. Genes play a major role in this.
Black scientist. Is he racist?
xinyuren:
you are really confused about the difference between scientific discovery and speculations.
xinyuren:
Are you really that dense or are you baiting me? This doctor you quoted said basically what I have been telling you! Of course he isn't racist. He's an evolutionist, so that colors his research, but at least he didn't blanket all black people with one statement, like you did. Of course there is genetic variance among humans. I said that! But you made a giant leap from local genetic variance to 'black people have a genetic advantage in the 100 meter dash.' Please don't tell me you're too obtuse to see that such a jumping to unsubstantiated conclusions is dangerous! There is no science to back that. But there are plenty of people who are willing to jump to their own conclusions about other facts. For example:
FACT - In America, people with dark skin are incarcerated tens times more than those of white skin. CONCLUSION - Soon scientist will discover the genetic link between black people and violence. Are genetics causing black people to be lazy and anti-social? Are black people inherently stupid? All unsubstantiated conclusions from the facts, but you (in principle) provide fodder to such simplistic and racist claims.I really don't care if you are racist or not. But if you put stupid comments under my answer like you did, I will call you out, bend you over my knee and give you a good spanking.
dokken:
Narrow minded idiot now willing to debate, emotional straight of the bat.
dokken:
You said there is no genetic variance between races. That is what you said. I was just pointing out the inaccuracy of this.
As as I had said there is no difference in IQ. If I was being racist I would be saying that there is and that one race is superior. I do not believe that. I just think the emotion of studying evolutionary genetics should be left behind. It's not rational.
Black men whose genetic heritage originates from Western Africa may not be fantastic sprinter. But to be a world beating sprinter, you need this heritage. Science goes by facts. 320 to one. That is fact. It is not racist to be interested in what genes affect sporting performance. Differences between men and women's physiology in sports interest me too
xinyuren:
I did not say there is no genetic variation within race. I don't even use the term "race" as you know it. There is no race. Only humans. Which is why your assumptions are ludicrous. You still think there are races that are divided among skin colors. My mind isn't closed. It's screwed on right. End of conversation.
dokken:
different races usually have different skin colors or other morphological differences. there are different genetic phenotypes between races. when a body is found, even if there is little or no tissue, forensic scientists can easily determine race. this has nothing to do with racism. you do not judge people you meet by their genetic evolutionary inheritance. we are all humans as you said.
you said i was a racist for thinking there should be room for scientists to study evolutionary genetics without being called racist. you said there was no genetic variance between race only between individuals, but there is both. you said the athletes in the 100m sprint do not have an inherent genetic advantage, statistics would never back this claim.
"way to keep racism alive". What a dipshit
xinyuren:
Please don't bring the word science into your conversations. You have no idea what science even is. You use terms like "usually" and "most of" to make your conclusions. This isn't scientific. This is called jumping to conclusions. How can statistics back up your claim that black sprinters have a genetic advantage? Statistics? Really? So mathmaticians are genetic scientists? Who really is the dipshit? No genetic scientists have brough forth facts to back your claim. So you are just talking out of the air.
I never said any of those things you attribute to me. So you can't read either. I said you are racist because you said black people have a genetic advantage in a sprint. What I should have said was that is a racist statement. You can research the hell out of that, I don't care, but come back with some scientific facts, not some stupid speculation and statistics. Statistics, LOL.
At first I thought you were some young punk. Now I think you are old fossil. My son and daughter have an Asian mother. My son has darker skin and my daughter skin is light. What race are they? Do they get to choose? Who decides what race they are? Every reply you give makes you sound more stupid. You should just shut up now and read more. When you have more to say than what comes out your backside, you are welcome to come and debate this more.
dokken:
"saying black people have an inherent genetic advantage is a racist statement". No it is not. Dr Jospeh Graves says the same thing "Endurance runners come form Eastern Africa, sprinters come from West Africa" Is this world renowned scientist who suffered terrible racism early in life, in the habit of making racist statements? i have read his papers, they say the exact same thing I say. My black classmates who studied developmental and evolutionary genetics, would not scream RACISM RACISM RACISM. They understand the subject. They do not throw the word racism about so cheaply. They understand there is a next to zero per cent chance given the number of black winners, that the underlying genetics driving those of west african heritage to win at the 100m, will not be deduced one day. it hurts no-one. it is only interesting from a physiological point of view.
"mathematicians are scientists". you go off at at a tangent and say something incredibly stupid. most scientists are competent in statistics. most science courses do an incredible amount of training in the use of statistics. I had courses lasting a year. if something is really complicated they might go to a mathematician. not sure of your point. the stats used in the gene study mentioned above are beyond reproach..
your daughter and son will be mixed race. they do not get to chose. nor does it matter what they are. i agree i wish people would not use or mention the word race other than in studying evolutionary genetics. Race is now an artificial human contruct taht should not be applied by mankind the way it is.
end of discussion. i cannot take any more tangents.
billions of people for a race, you mean like china or india, that is pretty specific.
@ambivalentmace "Normally, we are talking about millions, or billions of people for a race...", "When we are talking about millions of people,...." (i.e. not just billions). Sure, if the population of that race is in the billions, then that would include India and PRC.
Full Definition of RACISM
1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
Merriam-Webster
**************************************************************
So, I guess a racist does not have to make negative statements against other races. But, anyway, I know and you know we (people) don't make our racist judgements based on knowing other races members personally, let alone all of them. We just make generalisations based on personal observation/societal conditioning.
Now my statement that will piss off a lot of people-
Generalisations usually have some, I will say very valid, reason for being generated and widely held.
earthizen:
This is even more true when those generalizations are made through years of first hand experiences, and tally with many others' who went through similar experiences (ie not isolated incidents).
nzteacher80:
Come on then. Let's stop beating around the bush. Let's here some of your generalizations. I'm guessing they're the kind of generalizations that you wouldn't make in the company of people that come from one of the racial groupings that may be offended by any such possible generalizations. It's much safer to do it on the internet.
diverdude1:
@nz- you are correct. I would not make the statement around members of the group. Generalisation #1: I believe negroid are more prone to violent behavior than caucasoid or mongoloid.
gatoloco12:
I believe whites are more violent than blacks, because whites had mass murdered a lot more people (billions) than blacks.
BlaBla.Lee:
Generalizations on their own are less than sufficient to make such harsh conclusions about an entire racial group, the fact that they can be swayed by so many factors among other things rules them out as a reliable basis to characterize an entire racial Group .....BTW, @Diver dude ... The statement about Negroids is completely Incorrect ...!! That sounds more like a personal opinion driven by a really bad experience ....
Using generalisations to explain an entiire race is scrapping the bottom of the barrow ..... They are less than valid. If there are no 2 people that are alike then certainly i will not find a couple hundred million that are ... GENERALISATIONS ARE BASED ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT ALLTHE PEOPLE FROM ONE RACIAL GROUP ARE THE SAME....WRONG!
BlaBla.Lee:
Generalizations on their own are less than sufficient to make such harsh conclusions about an entire racial group, the fact that they can be swayed by so many factors among other things rules them out as a reliable basis to characterize an entire racial Group .....BTW, @Diver dude ... The statement about Negroids is completely Incorrect ...!! That sounds more like a personal opinion driven by a really bad experience ....
Using generalisations to explain an entiire race is scrapping the bottom of the barrow ..... They are less than valid. If there are no 2 people that are alike then certainly i will not find a couple hundred million that are ... GENERALISATIONS ARE BASED ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT ALLTHE PEOPLE FROM ONE RACIAL GROUP ARE THE SAME....WRONG!
BlaBla.Lee:
Generalizations on their own are less than sufficient to make such harsh conclusions about an entire racial group, the fact that they can be swayed by so many factors among other things rules them out as a reliable basis to characterize an entire racial Group .....BTW, @Diver dude ... The statement about Negroids is completely Incorrect ...!! That sounds more like a personal opinion driven by a really bad experience ....
Using generalisations to explain an entiire race is scrapping the bottom of the barrow ..... They are less than valid. If there are no 2 people that are alike then certainly i will not find a couple hundred million that are ... GENERALISATIONS ARE BASED ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT ALLTHE PEOPLE FROM ONE RACIAL GROUP ARE THE SAME....WRONG!
You're a moron.
xunliang:
You're doing a pretty good job of doing that yourself. Cos you're a moron. 
To be sure to not hurt anyone and being beyond judgement of anybody... Just never talk, be completely mute. Being invisible might help too. You might even pass for somebody wise.
earthizen:
Haha, you know, this is music to all dictators throughout the history of mankind.
DrMonkey:
You yell "racist", and there you go, debate is poisoned beyond hope, end of the debate. You might want to speak about a group of people with a common background... if they have common physical traits and/or culture, good luck trying to have a rational debate. For example, do a study about, say, the Amish people, and the study point out some issues : call the study racist against Amish people and the dialog is dead. Monkeys throwing feces at each other.
Hello, my name is Scots... and I am a racist.
I don't want to be, but I am.
I hate racism.... I detest it... I accept I benefited from white privilege. I overcompensate. I grew up during the time of pure racism on UK TV, I started working during the years of positive discrimination (totally agree with that by the way), and now here I am in China with a Chinese wife and a Chinese daughter.
Hopefully, I will be the last of the racist generations. As Oprah Winfrey said in a recent TV interview.... they just need to die.
I agree with Oprah.
The only acceptable result is total equality. I try too hard. So not equal.
We will only be equal when the concept of race does not exist.
earthizen:
lmao, "I don't want to me, but I am". Even if you want to, you can't be. Thanks for bringing this up in the other thread btw (individual vs society as a whole). Just to play along, "Mr. Scots the racist, whatever race you have problems with, how did you manage to know everyone in that race, personally?" 
ScotsAlan:
I don't have a problem with any "race"earthizen..
I think it all comes down to the definition of racism.
On a scale of ten to zero, 10 being the cross burning KKK noobs, through to your "I'm not racist...but" crowd (about five on the scale), all the way down to those who are completlly and totally not racist at zero.
I don't think there can be a cut off point. You can't say that somebody at 2 on the scale is not racist but someone at 3 is. To be considered as non racist you need to be at zero.
I believe the only way to combat racism is to accept that if you are not at zero on the scale then you are racist. I apply the speck in your brother's eye, plank in your own concept to this.
I detest racism. But I am not a zero on the scale, hence I am a racist. I would love to be a zero on the scale, but I think my upbringing makes that impossible.
By the way, this is a way of personal thinking I have very recently adopted after something that happened at the weekend.
A point worth noting.... your question is racist. You are defining people by race, placed into finite groups, rather than one big group with no boundaries.
I do the same, that's why I am not a zero on the zero to ten scale.
earthizen:
Whatever dictionary you use, the definition of racism centers around the idea of negative opinion, or treatment of an entire race. For example, Merriam-Webster defines racism as poor treatment of or violence against people because of their race, meaning if you are of that race, you are treated worse.
If you have no problem with any race, then by dictionary or legal definition you are not a racist. You can call yourself whatever you want and define racism anyway you like for self-entertaining or other purposes, sure, but for communication purposes it is a matter of practicality to use the same definition, that is one of the purposes of dictionaries.
Even without race, there would be (and are) numerous other things to fill its place. There are plenty of studies to prove that, some done decades ago. For example, one group of students (teenagers) were playing along fine, no conflicts. A teacher split them into two groups, give the group a color, "red group", "purple group". Before long conflicts (in a matter of hours, if I remember correctly) broke out. Hey, teachers out there, if you don't believe it, you can test it.
And then, money, of course. The rich$ group and the poor$ group. You say, let's wipe that out, look at communist countries, look at the corruption, look at the interpersonal conflicts. No money? Oh, there is power! No money no power? There is looks! (My group is more handsome/beautiful/taller/faster/...whatnot than yours). You name it.
Can you see that the problem lies a lot deeper than race, money, face....etc. These are only the symptoms, the surface layer. The problem is with the human species itself, especially the warmongering ones among this species. If something is manufactured with faulty parts, who do go for replacement parts, haha ?
ScotsAlan:
Your question was about Racism.
All I am saying is that I have re- calibrated myself towards racism. That's all.
I don't care what a dictionary says. I am the only person who knows how I feel about it. In the classic definition of the word I am not a racist. But in my opinion, it achieves nothing to point the finger at some ranting bigot and then proclaim " wow.. look at that bigot, no way am I a racist compared to him".
earthizen:
Been getting this 504 Gateway Time-out error message, looks like something not going right with the forum's webserver.
Ultimately it is to yourself, some would use the term conscience, that you have to answer to. Classifications have their rightful place, especially neutral classification such as scientific ones (physics, chemistry, biology....etc.), or profession. You are an engineer, he is an ESL teacher, she is a doctor....etc. It is the certain negative aspects from classifications that some find it difficult to swallow. Mind you, some are true, while others aren't. Whether you classify people into races or not, races exist. Different skin colors, traditions, cultures....etc. The white race has Christmas, the yellow race has Mid-Autumn (Moon) Festival, what's wrong? It is only wrong when you say bad things about an entire race, which I pointed out is logically, or technically impossible because you can't possibly know everyone in that race due to its sheer population size. Sure, some do it. Hey, the human species isn't well known for its rational, scientific thinking!!! In fact, it is well known for its emotions, haha.
ScotsAlan:
Ha ha Earthzien.
Basically, I have set my self a zero racism target... for myself.
But I am not enforcing that on other people. So by admitting I am not at zero, I am freeing myself from the trouble of pointing out to the bigots that they are wrong.
Follow my thinking ?
No.
In that, I disagree with the claim that it's logically impossible to substantiate a 'racist' position.
Let's take skin colour, as an example. Dark (black) skin colours are better in high sun and heat conditions than those with white skins - thus have much better survivability in such conditions.
What? Genetics, biology and evolution doesn't count???
True racism is about unwarranted claims. Pedantic, however, the question opened itself to it!
xinyuren:
"Let's take skin colour, as an example. Dark (black) skin colours are better in high sun and heat conditions than those with white skins - thus have much better survivability in such conditions."
earthizen:
Actually you aren't disagreeing. Your idea of a racist is different and it is good you put 'racist' in quotes. You are talking about scientific facts regarding color pigments and their advantages. This is like getting a natural tan with plenty of sunshine, it is a natural protective mechanism. Of course it is better to have this protective feature than without, unless you are selling suntan lotion or similar products, haha.
Scientifically, racism is stupid. As Dr. Monkey points out, there is no basis for bias based on "race" (origin of ancestors). The only true variances are those that exist between cultures and geographical areas. A black person born in America is completely different than a black person born in Africa. A British born Chinese is completely different from a Chinese mainlander. Even people from neighborhood to neighborhood are different! Racism is just stupid and the last resort of ignorant and limited people.
dokken:
There are some genetic differences. The days of white men winning the Olympics 100m sprint is long gone. People don't want to examine these differences because genetic variation between races is such an awkward subject.
xinyuren:
LOL,dokken. You are saying that a white man is incapable at excelling past blacks in a race because of genetics? That's stupid. You've made my point. At one time, the 4 minute mile was considered an impossible barrier. Until someone broke it. Now everyone is breaking it. Was that genetics too? Were the pre-four minute runners somehow genetically inferior, or was there another factor involved? The reason why this topic isn't debated often is because there is no scientific basis for discussion. Only ignorant people make the argument you are making.
dokken:
What the hell? I guess you know little about science. There are proven genetic differences. I remember they ran clinical trials for aprticular type of anti-malarial drug in Scotland. when the trials were successful and they ran the next phase in Africa, 10 african men died from cranial swelling. Turns out african black men have a particular variant of an enzyme that white men do not. very often medicines have to be ethnic specific. this is fact. nothing to do with superiority/inferiority. from a purely scientific, genetic differences between races should be examined, discussed and understood.
the last white winner of the 100m was alan wells in 1980 (only cause USA didn't take part. in the last three olympics a white man has not reached the semi final. since 1983 every finalist (10starters) in the 100m sprint at the world athletic championships apart from one, has been black. so that is a ratio of 320 black men to one white man. To anybody with a iota of objectivity, it is obvious that as a whole, black men have an inherent genetic advantage in sprinting. whites and asians do better in the field events and swimming. it would be interesting to one day to get a full picture about why this is. But it is FACT
I'm not suggesting one race is superior or inferior. there is no evidence that one race is more intelligent than another. in fact there is evidence to the contrary. but there are some interesting differences. these should be examined with a cool head and a scientific mind. emotion and desire should not constrain science.
If you got time to read http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2012/08/12/the-dna-olympics-jamaicans-win-sprinting-genetic-lottery-and-why-we-should-all-care/2/
xinyuren:
Your comments made me laugh. The article too. So let's look at golf. Dominated by white people. Genetics? LOL. I haven't seen many black people winning in water polo. Or swimming. Ah, they are genetically disadvantaged in those sports. Obviously Asians are genetically inclined to win at table tennis. Then you lean on science to back you but you give me an article written by a guy who proclaims he " writes skeptically about science, public policy, media and NGOs."
LOL!
This subject is a conundrum only for Evolutionists (which itself is an enigma). There is no science that proves your point. There is only speculation. When they find the "sprinter's gene", you let me know. Good luck with that. LOL.
xinyuren:
BTW, I didn't say genetic variances do not exist. I am saying they exist in all humans. Some are more susceptible than others. So it is very possible for a white person to beat Usain Bolt in the 100 meter dash. Thanks for keeping racism alive.
xinyuren:
Oh! I have more! What if a person has a black mother and a white father? What "race" is he? Can he beat Usain Bolt? What if he is a white African? And what does an African gene have to do with a black person in America? Didn't we all come from Africa anyways? so we are all "black"? Do you see how insane this reasoning is?
dokken:
320 black men to one white finalist. white men do try to compete in this sport. I'm white. this has nothing to do with racism. there is genetic variance inside races and general differences between races. As i have said there is no evidence that any race holds the advantage in terms of I.Q. So does it really matter about other things?
They will find these genes eventually. the science is not quite there yet. it will involve complex interaction between many genes. it will be interesting and will tell us much about evolution. it will not and should not harm anybody revealing these facts. it will just lead to greater understanding
your particularly stupid comment about mixed race i will answer but i don't know why. sometimes genes from either parent will be expressed. Can be a total mixture or genes from one parent can dominate. same as anymotherfather. not sure of the relevance of this to your point. i know some mixed race kids who are a different shade of colour from their brother or sister.
you come from a really emotional place i dont know why. i think you demean true racism by saying somebody suggesting that there might be some genetic variance between race is a racist. very narrow minded and not logical
dokken:
The writer writes -:
"The hard truth is that we cannot avoid confronting the fact of our patterned human biodiversity. Over the past decade, human genome research has moved from a study of human similarities to a focus on population-based differences. Such research offers clues to solving the mystery of disease, the Holy Grail of genetics. So why do we readily accept that evolution has turned out Jews with a genetic predisposition to Tay-Sachs, Southeast Asians with a higher proclivity for beta-thalassemia and blacks who are susceptible to colorectal cancer and sickle cell disease, yet find it racist to suggest that Usain Bolt can thank his West African ancestry for the most critical part of his success—his biological possibility?"
xinyuren:
You missed my whole point. Right over your head. You have a bunch of facts, but you came to dubious and speculative conclusions about them. That's what science is for. Science takes a set of facts and makes proper conclusions based on hard evidence and proof derived from a proven method. Your method is no better than the Chinese who believe that tiger testicles will help their libido ("hey, people who eat tiger balls have more xiao sans so those tiger balls must work") What you're saying isn't science at all.
You saying what you think scientists will find doesn't make it truth.
In case you didn't know, Southeast Asian is not a race. Ethiopian is not a race. People with white skin are not a race. We are all humans. We all have the potential to inherit a particular set of genes. Gene pools are established by a people connected to a geographical area (see my original comment), If an American black person and an African white person have children, they create a new set of genes that will be mixed with whatever pool they belong too. This is irrespective of what you call "race". None of my family tree on both sides have suffered from sickle cell. I am black. Does that make me not really black? No. Our gene pool just doesn't have that proclivity. There are plenty of other social and psychological factors that can account for the facts that you presented and making a blanket statement about people because of the color of their skin or facial features is "racist". You clearly have not thought this issue thru enough. Humanity is too diverse for thinking like yours. Am I being emotional? No, I am being entertained. I find it amusing when people like you use such simplistic reasoning and static labels to justify racist ideas.
dokken:
"Lacking the ACTN3 protein does not seem to have any harmful health effects, but does affect running ability. Scientists conclude that it is almost impossible for someone who lacks the ACTN3 protein to become an elite sprinter. Those of African ancestry have the lowest incidence of the mutation that prevents the muscles from firing."
This is science. By your logic, this should be ignored, discounted, not even investigated in the first place. Yet all it is, is a scientific observation. Were the scientists racist. Should the link not be discussed? What if you're wrong and there is a link? Do you think in this case it should not be noted? It should be taboo.
Any genetic variance whether it be between race, sex or yes even individuals should be recorded. Nothing should be off the table. It does not reflect who we are, our dreams, our identity. It is just observation. Irrational people screaming RACIST hinder investigation.
One day society will mature enough to allow a place for the study of genetic variation between races, without the feeling that the motivation behind it is to prove one race superior or inferior. People will believe it is just examing how different natural selection pressures in different regions of the world (before geographic displacement) affected genetic make up.
Your linking the opinion that race might affect sporting capabilities to racism, is narrow minded. I haven't made sweeping generalizations in anything I have said. Many black men can't run fast. However as a whole 320 black finalists in 100m to one white, strongly points toward a genetic component. Even if it is proven one day to be wrong, there is nothing wrong with observing something everybody can see.
dokken:
“Evolution has shaped body types and in part athletic possibilities,” Joseph Graves, Jr. told me. Graves, who is African American, is an evolutionary biologist at North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University and UNC Greensboro. “Don’t expect an Eskimo to show up on an NBA court or a Watusi to win the world weight lifting championship. Differences don’t necessarily correlate with skin color, but rather with geography and climate. Endurance runners are more likely to come from East Africa and sprinters from West Africa. That’s a fact. Genes play a major role in this.
Black scientist. Is he racist?
xinyuren:
you are really confused about the difference between scientific discovery and speculations.
xinyuren:
Are you really that dense or are you baiting me? This doctor you quoted said basically what I have been telling you! Of course he isn't racist. He's an evolutionist, so that colors his research, but at least he didn't blanket all black people with one statement, like you did. Of course there is genetic variance among humans. I said that! But you made a giant leap from local genetic variance to 'black people have a genetic advantage in the 100 meter dash.' Please don't tell me you're too obtuse to see that such a jumping to unsubstantiated conclusions is dangerous! There is no science to back that. But there are plenty of people who are willing to jump to their own conclusions about other facts. For example:
FACT - In America, people with dark skin are incarcerated tens times more than those of white skin. CONCLUSION - Soon scientist will discover the genetic link between black people and violence. Are genetics causing black people to be lazy and anti-social? Are black people inherently stupid? All unsubstantiated conclusions from the facts, but you (in principle) provide fodder to such simplistic and racist claims.I really don't care if you are racist or not. But if you put stupid comments under my answer like you did, I will call you out, bend you over my knee and give you a good spanking.
dokken:
Narrow minded idiot now willing to debate, emotional straight of the bat.
dokken:
You said there is no genetic variance between races. That is what you said. I was just pointing out the inaccuracy of this.
As as I had said there is no difference in IQ. If I was being racist I would be saying that there is and that one race is superior. I do not believe that. I just think the emotion of studying evolutionary genetics should be left behind. It's not rational.
Black men whose genetic heritage originates from Western Africa may not be fantastic sprinter. But to be a world beating sprinter, you need this heritage. Science goes by facts. 320 to one. That is fact. It is not racist to be interested in what genes affect sporting performance. Differences between men and women's physiology in sports interest me too
xinyuren:
I did not say there is no genetic variation within race. I don't even use the term "race" as you know it. There is no race. Only humans. Which is why your assumptions are ludicrous. You still think there are races that are divided among skin colors. My mind isn't closed. It's screwed on right. End of conversation.
dokken:
different races usually have different skin colors or other morphological differences. there are different genetic phenotypes between races. when a body is found, even if there is little or no tissue, forensic scientists can easily determine race. this has nothing to do with racism. you do not judge people you meet by their genetic evolutionary inheritance. we are all humans as you said.
you said i was a racist for thinking there should be room for scientists to study evolutionary genetics without being called racist. you said there was no genetic variance between race only between individuals, but there is both. you said the athletes in the 100m sprint do not have an inherent genetic advantage, statistics would never back this claim.
"way to keep racism alive". What a dipshit
xinyuren:
Please don't bring the word science into your conversations. You have no idea what science even is. You use terms like "usually" and "most of" to make your conclusions. This isn't scientific. This is called jumping to conclusions. How can statistics back up your claim that black sprinters have a genetic advantage? Statistics? Really? So mathmaticians are genetic scientists? Who really is the dipshit? No genetic scientists have brough forth facts to back your claim. So you are just talking out of the air.
I never said any of those things you attribute to me. So you can't read either. I said you are racist because you said black people have a genetic advantage in a sprint. What I should have said was that is a racist statement. You can research the hell out of that, I don't care, but come back with some scientific facts, not some stupid speculation and statistics. Statistics, LOL.
At first I thought you were some young punk. Now I think you are old fossil. My son and daughter have an Asian mother. My son has darker skin and my daughter skin is light. What race are they? Do they get to choose? Who decides what race they are? Every reply you give makes you sound more stupid. You should just shut up now and read more. When you have more to say than what comes out your backside, you are welcome to come and debate this more.
dokken:
"saying black people have an inherent genetic advantage is a racist statement". No it is not. Dr Jospeh Graves says the same thing "Endurance runners come form Eastern Africa, sprinters come from West Africa" Is this world renowned scientist who suffered terrible racism early in life, in the habit of making racist statements? i have read his papers, they say the exact same thing I say. My black classmates who studied developmental and evolutionary genetics, would not scream RACISM RACISM RACISM. They understand the subject. They do not throw the word racism about so cheaply. They understand there is a next to zero per cent chance given the number of black winners, that the underlying genetics driving those of west african heritage to win at the 100m, will not be deduced one day. it hurts no-one. it is only interesting from a physiological point of view.
"mathematicians are scientists". you go off at at a tangent and say something incredibly stupid. most scientists are competent in statistics. most science courses do an incredible amount of training in the use of statistics. I had courses lasting a year. if something is really complicated they might go to a mathematician. not sure of your point. the stats used in the gene study mentioned above are beyond reproach..
your daughter and son will be mixed race. they do not get to chose. nor does it matter what they are. i agree i wish people would not use or mention the word race other than in studying evolutionary genetics. Race is now an artificial human contruct taht should not be applied by mankind the way it is.
end of discussion. i cannot take any more tangents.
Wait a minute did you not post a question asking if all mainlanders are not civilized. You are racist
earthizen:
Don't you know china mainlanders, at best, is a subset of ethnic Chinese, ever heard of countries called Taiwan, Singapore, Malaysia, ....etc., ever heard of Taiwanese, HongKongers, Singaporean Chinese, Malaysian Chinese, American Chinese....etc.? Quote me where I said all mainlanders are uncivilized. You are both an ignorant and a liar.
dokken:
From your china experience, what is your impression of the percentage of PRC Mainlanders (as oppose to ethnic Chinese worldwide) who meet these criteria?
A. less than 1%
B. less than 5%
C. less than 10%
D. more than 10% (please feel free to specify your estimate)
yeah not racist at all. sure buddy
earthizen:
Can't help you if you don't know what percentages are, or never heard of Taiwanese, Hong Kongers, Singaporean Chinese, American Chinese......etc.
ScotsAlan:
American Chinese? No wonder America has so many problems. African American, Irish American, Chinese American.... so on so on... why not just American? Amazing that a persons identity in America is connected with their skin colour and physical looks...This couls be part of the problem.
earthizen:
@Scots This is what ethnicity (ethnic origin) is about. Nationality is a different thing, IRS knows about nationality better than anybody else, haha. Your ethnic background tells more about the cultural aspects of you, especially the case for new immigrants. Sure, for those who aren't immigrants and don't find ethnic origin meaningful or describe themselves accurately enough, then just use nationality.
Everybody has a brain trained to make sense of the world by making distinctions, separating and categorizing things, i.e. discriminating. In a way, we are all racist, and it's up to our culture to determine which thoughts and opinions are acceptable.
So, when a Chinese is being racist, and this can be both negative (against foreigners) or positive (praising Chinese), his/her culture determines what is acceptable.
A Chinese in China is not being racist by Chinese cultural standards. By my standards he is, so there is a culture clash.
Generalizations are another matter. Opinions about generalizations range from "equally reprehensible" to "acceptable if warranted". I prefer to precede my generalizations with the disclaimer Most: Most Chinese are too cowardly to risk speaking up against any wrongdoing.
Narrowing it down, I'll guard using the weasel word Some: Some Mainlanders are homocidal sociopaths who have worked their way up the government with impunity.
If I'm feeling brave, I'll emphasize a statement with the risky word All: All Mainland Chinese dream of leaving the dismal medieval mysticism of the PRC for a ticket to western prosperity. It helps if the statement can't be conclusively disproven.
Maybe it would be better to include the terms "bigotry" and "prejudice" into this discussion...
havent read the thread but yes, chinese are racists, always has and always will be. end of story
