Topic: On race

[nkad]

Your response to my question should be concise. Please provide examples to back up your reasoning.

I might appear to look white, others might appear to look black, but is an accurate categorization of so called "race"? I should think not. And as I learn more, I am beginning to see how our civilization twists words and phrases to suite ones needs. It is easy to follow the main stream, to follow the path of least resistance, and to rely on the opinion of others in determining ones own decision. Is conforming to a norm really what is to be desired? This might be desired but what good is to come from this? How could change be influenced? So “race” as an illusion is something that I am still exploring. People flaunt “race” so often; we don’t realize what it really means not let alone the true purpose for the creation of the term. So as I continue my journey for ultimate truth I leave my loose ends untied with this final though - A human is just a human, but is an Ant only an Ant? Not that I am disregarding genetic differences. But considering that all of man kind is roughly equal in abilities, you can’t say the same, for example, for the species of Ant's, as each species of Ant has a leap in genetic difference that makes it a separate subspecies with different abilities. Do dogs have a “race”? Do ants? Do spiders? Why do humans feel compelled to classify ourselves in this awkward manor?

[mendhak]

Being at our highest point in the evolutionary curve, one thing that makes us who we are is self-realization and self-awareness. Despite this, our territorial instincts still remain with us, and this manifests itself in the form of our habit of categorization.

You can also look at it as our way of seeking order in chaos. Just about every faith, religion, pattern and scientific observation is part of our endeavor to find order in the universal chaos. While on the topic of patterns in chaos, think about coincidences.

And so you'll notice we like to create categories for everything, we are inherently discriminators and will always seek differences between things, it's part of the pattern searching. Therefore animals have species, plants have species, we can't decide whether Pluto is a planet or not, and the Eskimos have 20 words for trout.

To ask whether a dog has race is irrelevant because we do not know if dogs are self-aware and whether they categorize too. We can assume they don't, but we can never be 100% sure on that.

[penagate]

The race is the next level of human classification after the species. Lots of species of animal are given races, for example many species of bird.

How valid, or necessary, a differentiation it is when applied to humans, is a debatable point. If you classify by appearance, then you can differentiate humans by race. If you classify by other means, you may or may not be able to. I doubt however that it is necessary, either way. Human races are converging - whereas the same cannot be said for other animal species for which "race" is a valid method of differentiation, for human purposes.

[Shaggy Hiker]

If you look at the history of race, it has a sordid past as it has a sordid present. I forget whether it was Linnaeus or his mentor who first came up with the idea of classifying humans into categories (races). Whichever it was, they came up with four categories: Caucasian, mongoloid, negroid....and what...I can't remember. In any event, there were four categories. The next, and most sordid step came next. If Linnaeus came up with the four categories, then his student made it five. If his mentor made it four, then Linnaeus made it five. Either way, the reason there were five was simply this: If you only have four, then there cannot be a BEST one. By dividing one of them into two groups, you were able to make a progression with two races at the base, two that were higher than each of the base races, and one (no prize for guessing which) was placed above the other four.

Therefore, the actual races, as they now stand (white, black, oriental, polynesian, and I still forget the last), were the result of a desire to create a pattern of ascension such that one race would be naturally above the others. Ain't that grand? Form over function at it's best!

[Wally Pipp]

does Indianapolis fit in there somewhere?

[nkad]

does Indianapolis fit in there somewhere?

What?

[Valleysboy1978]

Race is simply the ultimate manifestation of the tribal governments. Other tribes were looked on with suspicion and even hatred, even though they may well have close ties of some sort. Mankind will always try to see differences, just to make themselves feel that little bit more special.

[mendhak]

does Indianapolis fit in there somewhere?

Just say Redneck and you're safe.

[crptcblade]

Today is a great day for black people of all races...

[wiz126]

Today is a great day for black people of all races...

why may i ask?

[Valleysboy1978]

Because they now have the power.
If you call someone black you are branded a racist, yet they can call us white without problem? Hardly equal is it. They also call each other N*****s yet another cannot use that derogatory term

[wiz126]

Because they now have the power.
If you call someone black you are branded a racist, yet they can call us white without problem? Hardly equal is it. They also call each other N*****s yet another cannot use that derogatory term

thats true

[crptcblade]

Because they now have the power.
If you call someone black you are branded a racist, yet they can call us white without problem? Hardly equal is it. They also call each other N*****s yet another cannot use that derogatory term

I've never been called a racist for referring to a person as black. I did get the crap kicked out of me during my public reading of Huckleberry Finn, though.

[nkad]

This is the very ambiguity that I am referring. It is easy to describe what someone’s looks, in fact, there is no way around it. However, I find it difficult to call someone white or black, primarily because of this inaccuracy. It might be easy to say something like “See that white man over there, he will point you the way.” Sometimes it might be necessary to explicitly define our environment in this way. But how accurate is it to say “Black people” or “White population” etc? My point is it’s erroneous. Yet people say this kind of stuff every day. So this goes back to the problem of race, and what it really means. This age old idea has been defined, re-defined, again and again… it’s like we’re beating a piñata just for the candy. Then again, I often see race used interchangeably with ethnicity or species. Just today I saw a questionnaire that a graduate student posted on cross-culture communication in which one of the questions asked to select “your race or ethnicity”. I’m not entirely sure, but I don’t think race and ethnicity are considered the same, rather, they are closely related.

[crptcblade]

I hate the Irish.

[nkad]

I hate the Irish.

Well, in that case, then you would have to consider the fact that there might be varying degrees of Irishness. One might be 100% Irish (which is assumed by your remark) while others might be mearly 20%, or even .01% of Irish heritage. And while you could tell a person is Irish if they were 100%, you wouldn't have a clue if they were only 20% or .01% Irish.

So, in any case, your comment doesn't stand ground. It is flawed.

Next!

[mendhak]

Well, in that case, then you would have to consider the fact that there might be varying degrees of Irishness. One might be 100% Irish (which is assumed by your remark) while others might be mearly 20%, or even .01% of Irish heritage. And while you could tell a person is Irish if they were 100%, you wouldn't have a clue if they were only 20% or .01% Irish.

So, in any case, your comment doesn't stand ground. It is flawed.

Next!

He was attempting to be humorous.

[nkad]

I know. Maybe I went a bit far.

[grilkip]

The race between races is best raced by the racers of the racing race.