|
Post by phinehas on Feb 7, 2007 18:15:19 GMT -5
blondie,
I am giving my opinion...I think it rather obvious that there are significant differences in people that there can be classifications. I don't have any Amazon.com links for you right now but you could look up A. W. F. Edwards. Your pasted comments are interesting, do you have a link to who wrote it?
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Feb 7, 2007 18:17:34 GMT -5
"I just wonder why it is so important to you that you would take such shortcuts in building your argument."
This forum isn't a scientific peer review. I am only going to spend enough time and research that proves my point in an obvious manner. If you want more data than ask Blondie for Amazon.com book links.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Feb 7, 2007 21:16:01 GMT -5
Phinehas,
Though I appreciate the condescension you have to realize that I was unaware that there were still people who thought the way you do.
The fact that racial divisions are a human construct seems to me self evident.
1. Are you familiar with the term nominalism? 2. How many races are there? 3. Who came up with these races and why? 4. Do you see dramatic differences between North and South Koreans? 5. Do you realize that almost all African-Americans have European ancestors? 6. When DNA tests are made on Americans it turns out we're all mutts and the real sex lives of your ancestors involved a lot of jungle fever. 7. Do you base your race theories on the supernatural or some sort of divine revelation?
Don't take this wrong but you are obviously selecting your "facts" to prop up your presuppositions. This is the exact opposite of what you should do if you want to find answers.
My quote above was from PBS. I'm sure you'll dismiss this objective mainstream source as liberal propaganda. On that show they did a DNA test of some African-American girl and it turned out that the person that had the closest match to her was some cracker in Eastern Europe.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Feb 7, 2007 23:41:22 GMT -5
blondie,
Of course classifying people into different groups based on differences is a human construct. What other construct can there be? I don't talk to animals, so I don't know what their thoughts are on the matter.
Really, like I am the only person on the freakin planet that can still see differences in people that can be classified into groups? Nobody can tell the difference between a black person and a white person anymore? Things have become so mixed that a person with average perception and aptitude can no longer figure it out? I guess I am hearing things when people say black, white or hispanic....I guess that last census wasn't multiple choice and had the words "race" on them. Give me a break. I answered your question and gave you A. W. F. Edwards as ONE legitimate genetic scientists that still believes in the concept of race. I imagine that he is not alone in the field.
As far as your numerations.....
1. Doesn't impress me as anything worth thinking about. I live in reality. 2. I don't know but my unscientific guess would be African, European, Asian, Australian, South American and a group in the middle east that were neither African, Asian or European, everybody is either within their one group or a mixture of some groups...some less of a mixture than others and therefore can be said to predominately belong to one group. 3. People came up with races when they came across people that were obviously different enough from them to notice. 4. I haven't looked at North and South Koreans before in that way. I imagine I could form an opinion later. 5. Yeah, I realize that because they mixed with Europeans during the slave trade days. 6. There is no doubt that most White people have different mixtures of European backgrounds. That's not a big surprise. 7. The Bible details different people and it wouldn't be a stretch to consider that some of those people described in the Bible would be considered different races.
I don't know what facts you think I am being selective about. Is it not a fact that African Americans have been shown in medical studies to exhibit a denser bone mass than other races? I don't know of any studies that have scientifically shown that black people, on average, are faster in short distance running and have better jumping abilities than other races....but in practice, this has shown to be a fact. Like I said before, one only has to look at the Olympic gold medals, state, country and world records in these events for it to be obvious beyond a reasonable doubt. Are there exceptions to the rule, sure...but they are exceptions.
I don't dismiss PBS. I will add that the first information I heard regarding bone density was a PBS program on the Navy Seals and the swimming issue was discussed in length from the Seals instructor. The fact that an African American girl could have a black parent and a white parent would easily explain DNA tests matching closer to a European. Point being, a large percentage of African Americans have mixed with other races...so what. The fact that a black person would have to exclusively breed with White people for X amount of generations before the offspring could outwardly be described as being part of the white group is reality.
Do you honestly believe there are no differences in people, just on the outward level alone, around the world to the extent that they can not be considered similar enough to be a part of distinct groups?
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Feb 8, 2007 8:26:14 GMT -5
blondie, Of course classifying people into different groups based on differences is a human construct. Thanks. Here's some fun facts: The Aryans are from Iran. That's where the word comes from. www.iranchamber.com/people/articles/aryan_people_origins.phpCaucasians are people from the Caucus Mountains. You can divide the human race up any way you want but if your findings happen to coincide with those of the KKK or neo-Nazis you might want to reconsider them.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Feb 8, 2007 8:34:33 GMT -5
I guess I am hearing things when people say black, white or hispanic Oh yeah, even among people who believe in race "hispanic" isn't one. Unless we recently made up a new one. Further evidence that this is nonsense. More fun facts: A lot of the "hispanics" are Jews. Think about it. When did the big migration come from Spain? During the Inquisition. If you're a Jew living in Spain in the 1500s what are you going to do? Hop on the next boat to the new world.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Feb 8, 2007 13:01:30 GMT -5
I used the word hispanic in order to generally denote people that are Mexican or from South America. That is not further evidence of nonsense.
If your going to refute my basic premise on sematics then there can not be an intellectually honest discussion.
People of different races and nationalities have become Jews, that doesn't mean they represent the exact people who were the "Jews" or should I say Hebrews in the Bible. That's like pointing out a person from China, now living in London and saying that person is representitive of the original British.
"Caucasians are people from the Caucus Mountains." ......and you think all caucasians sprang from that mountain range?
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Feb 8, 2007 17:53:01 GMT -5
I used the word Hispanic in order to generally denote people that are Mexican or from South America. That is not further evidence of nonsense. If your going to refute my basic premise on sematics then there can not be an intellectually honest discussion. People of different races and nationalities have become Jews, that doesn't mean they represent the exact people who were the "Jews" or should I say Hebrews in the Bible. That's like pointing out a person from China, now living in London and saying that person is representitive of the original British. "Caucasians are people from the Caucus Mountains." ......and you think all Caucasians sprang from that mountain range? Of course the Jews in Spain in the 1500s were the same Jews. They had a pretty big group in Spain under the Moors. Those guy on Lorner Rd are a lot closer to the lost tribes of Israel than the English. See, real history is more fun than the pretend kind. "Caucasians" sprang from the imagination of racist white guys 100 years ago reading the bumps on peoples heads. "Original British" isn't a term that even makes since. This stuff isn't as simple and black and white as you seem to believe.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Feb 8, 2007 18:04:34 GMT -5
Your history lessons so far are devoid of any facts that discredit my claims. My example made perfect sense. You would rather argue over everthing else but the basic points I have made. First you exclaim that, "Caucasians are people from the Caucus Mountains." then later say "Caucasians" are an imagined group of people. Let me ask you this question. Do you believe the Bible to be accurate? How about Flavius Josephus? What evidence would you need? Let's cut to the chase, so I don't have to waste time proving something in a manner that you would not accept. How is this for history: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khazaren.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jewswww.faqs.org/faqs/judaism/FAQ/07-Jews-As-Nation/section-5.htmlwww.khazaria.com/
|
|