Soy Chicano Forums

Go Back   Soy Chicano Forums > Identity/Culture/Race/Religion > Chicano Movement

Chicano Movement Share information relating to The Chicano Movement

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #151  
Old 04-01-2004
sad_surena sad_surena is offline
Prospect
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Alaska(yep u read right)
Posts: 35
Send a message via MSN to sad_surena
Default

You make me laugh soooo much mueller. Why do you insist on this nonsense of yours. Ok let me just pretend you're right and hispanics and blacks are most likely to commit a crime. But have you ever asked yourself Why????? Because most hispanics and blacks grow up in environments that keep putting their race down. Which is accumulating hate inside them that gives them the need to take such drastic measures. And it's people like you that help with that hate. As I said before it's not the race but the ENVIRONMENT what part don't you understand? Don't whites(no offense intended) and asians grow up in almost perfect environments?

And no I don't defend just my kind. I defend what is right and right here it is not right that you keep putting people down because of their race. Yes I'm mexican and I'm proud but that doesn't mean I'm going to go around putting down peole just because they're not what I am. Because before I'm mexican I'm a human being and I know what it feels like to be insulted or neglected by people for my nationality and I would never want anyone to feel such a pain. And no not even you. No one deserves to be put down for what they are.

PS stop calling me a four year old or inclining that I understand like one. As you may be able to tell I understand perfectly fine and am aware of the issues in the world and don't need things explained to me constantly.
Reply With Quote
  #152  
Old 04-01-2004
Mueller88 Mueller88 is offline
Chicle
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 74
Default

Quote:
Why????? Because most hispanics and blacks grow up in environments that keep putting their race down. Which is accumulating hate inside them that gives them the need to take such drastic measures. And it's people like you that help with that hate. As I said before it's not the race but the ENVIRONMENT what part don't you understand? Don't whites(no offense intended) and asians grow up in almost perfect environments?
Ever see the slums in China, or trailer parks in the Eastern U.S.?

Also poor white communities dont commit crimes as much as poor black communities.

It's worth mentioning that poverty cannot be the root cause of the disparity between Black and White rates for violent crime. According to the US Census, 11.2% of American Whites and 29.0% of American Blacks lived in poverty in 1995. Yes, a higher percentage of Blacks than Whites are poor. But how many poor Whites and poor Blacks are we talking about? Obviously poverty can't motivate anybody who is not poor to commit a violent crime. In 1995, there were 218.3 million American Whites and 33.1 million American Blacks, which shows (after multiplying by the respective percentages) that there were 24.4 million poor Whites and 9.5 million poor Blacks living in the United States that year. Wetbacks to one side, poor "Americans" were 72% White and 28% Black in 1995. Poor Whites outnumbered poor Blacks by a ratio of 2.57 to one. If poverty were the fundamental cause of violent crime, as the liberals say it is, then for each 100 murders in the US committed by Blacks, about 257 murders would be committed by Whites. But that is not what happens. The fact is that about 55% of the murders in the United States are committed by Blacks. In other words, for each 100 murders committed by Blacks, only 82 murders are being committed by non-Blacks. (note: Non-blacks include hispanics, asians, jews, whites)
. And keep in mind that there were 6.8 times more Whites than Blacks in America in 1995. These facts are in conflict with a prediction that can be reasonably drawn from the liberal theory, which is therefore wrong. Poverty isn't the cause of Black violence, and the famous "poverty causes crime" hypothesis is a liberal myth.

Just to check, in 1998, 10.5% of American Whites and 26.5% of American Blacks lived in poverty <http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/poverty98/table5.html>. The Census Bureau estimates that there were were 223.0 million White Americans and 34.4 million Black US residents on July 1 of that year. At that time, then, there were 23.4 million poor Whites and 9.1 million poor Blacks living in the United States in 1998. The poor were once again 72% White and 28% Black, setting aside poor people of all other races. In 1998 as in 1995, poor Whites outnumbered poor Blacks by a ratio of 2.57 to one.


When confronted with facts such as those that I gave to prove that poverty does not cause violent crime, liberals will usually try to repair the hole shot in their egalitarian doctrine by shifting from a 'poverty causes crime' position to a 'class-envy causes crime' position. Suddenly it isn't the conditions of poverty per se that lead to crime, but the sight of rich people driving by in their stretch limos on their way to posh restaurants for caviar buffets. Whereas earlier the Liberal had been implying that unfulfilled basic needs drove poor Blacks to a life of crime, now the Liberal is saying that jealousy (for which of course the Black criminals should not be blamed) is the problem. In rural areas, the poor and the rich don't bump into each other much, while in urban areas there is more contact and, say the liberals, more opportunity for class-envy to arise and subsequently to motivate violent crime.
But this hypothesis is easily shot down as well. Compare Mississippi (over 30% Black) with West Virginia (about 3% Black). Both states are relatively rural (Inner city not used because of such little amount of whites it would be impossible to get a clear statistic, rural areas can be used because no one in the rural areas is forced to come into contact with many others.). But Mississippi has the higher rates of violent crime. If you think that this comparison is atypical, then feel free to replace West Virginia with Iowa, or with North Dakota, or with any other mostly rural state-sized region with an at least 96% White majority. Or feel free to replace Mississippi with any other mostly rural state-sized region in which Blacks are more than 30% of the population. Then for good measure, try contrasting cities with essentially equal levels of urbanization but with differing racial demographics, to check out that side of the urban-rural scale. For example, you might compare crime rates in Washington DC with those in Colorado Springs. Again, you'll see that racial composition makes a much better predictor of the rates for violent crimes than the degree of urbanization, and the liberal evasion of class-envy is thus refuted.

THE EFFECT OF URBANIZATION.
Urbanization does have an effect on the per capita murder rates for both Blacks and Whites.
Whites in the countryside commit about 25 murders per million Whites per year. Whites in the cities typically commit about 82 murders per million Whites per year.
Blacks in the countryside commit around 230 murders per million Blacks per year. Blacks in the cities commit about 872 murders per million Blacks per year.
An average Black is 9.5 times more likely to commit murder than an average White.
An average city dweller is 3.5 times more likely to commit murder than an average resident of the countryside.
The effect of race is thus found to be 2.7 times greater than the effect of urbanization.

The general trend for the 50 US states, as well as for the major US cities, is that the higher the percentage of non-Whites there is in the population, the higher the rate of violent crime is. (I'm not the first to have noticed the correlation. It was also pointed out in Ideology and censorship in behavior genetics <http://161.57.216.70/isar/Whitney/review.htm> by Glayde Whitney, Past President Behavior Genetics Association Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida, in Vol. 35 of Mankind Quarterly, 06-01-1995, pp 327.)
Massachusetts is a state with a population that is 5.7% Black and 5.7% Hispanic, but it has a violent crime rate of over 800 crimes per 100,000 persons per year. The racial demographics for Massachusetts are similar to those in Kansas and Rhode Island, but the rate of violent crimes in Massachusetts is roughly twice that in those other two states. It is tempting to conclude that there is something wrong with the way the law works in Massachusetts.
Massachusetts is a (fairly) White state, though by no means is it among the nation's Whitest. But in relation to the percentage of Blacks and Hispanic residents, Massachusetts has an above-the-trend crime rate. One Liberal, arguing with me on the MSNBC board titled "Race in America" (which was terminated by MSNBC shortly after racists started beating the liberals in debates) pointed to Massachusetts and argued that it was the Whites who were doing the crimes there. But when I studied the county-level crime data, here is what I found:
(chart would not print out, but showed a list of the crime rates within the counties. The more non-whites per county, the greater the crime rate. On an average that made sense when compared to the crime rates by race of the states.)
Reply With Quote
  #153  
Old 04-01-2004
Mueller88 Mueller88 is offline
Chicle
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 74
Default

Quote:
like in my mind do u guys have the right to be nationalistic???
Jews have Israel, Blacks have ghana, hispanics and Asians need not fear, but whites are becoming an endangered species.
Quote:
but u realize that u do tho right? and other nation's as well??? but u wont ever see that...
I dont defend it I have just corrected you when you make a false statement.

Quote:
which among ur discourses on race u fail to acknowledge, or at least that i have seen, that "race" is a social construct and not something concrete


New York Times Re-discovers Race
By Sam Francis

When the Human Genome Project (the vast plan to decode and map all the genes of the human body) was completed last year, the first pronouncement about it from many scientists was that it proved "race doesn't exist."

The claim was not new. The notion that race is merely a "social construct" and a "biologically meaningless" concept as the New England Journal of Medicine editorialized had prevailed among most biological and social scientists for decades.

Now, however, the scientists have made yet another discovery: Race exists.

One scientist who says race exists is Dr. Neil Risch of Stanford University. His claims were surveyed in the New York Times Science section last month, and a good many of his colleagues are agreeing with him. Dr. Risch points out that some variations in human genetic endowment largely correspond to common ethnic and racial categories and, most importantly for his purposes, that the variations have immense medical significance.

In fact, that has long been known. As the Times article points out, Africans tend to have a genetic mutation that causes sickle cell anemia, while another that causes a certain metabolic disorder is rare among Chinese and Indians but present among Swedes. There are similar racial variations for such disorders or diseases as cystic fibrosis, Tay-Sachs syndrome and the ability to digest milk. Put simply, different racial groups inherit certain diseases or tendencies to contract them, and therefore there are genetic differences between the races. Race exists.

Dr. Risch isn't the only one saying this these days. As the Times notes,

“Many population geneticists ... say it is essential to take race and ethnicity into account to understand each group's specific pattern of disease and to ensure that everyone shares equally in the expected benefits of genomic medicine."

Dr. Risch argues that race

"has arisen because of the numerous small genetic differences that have developed in populations around the world,"

and he points to studies showing that

"these differences cluster into five major groups, which are simply the world's major continental areas."

Dr. Risch is not using his claim to justify donning a bedsheet, and so far nobody seems to have accused him of that.

His point is simply that denying the existence of race, largely for ideological reasons, is not only scientifically false but also medically harmful.

Knowing that racial variations in diseases exist is immensely helpful to doctors and researchers trying to cure or prevent the diseases.

Denying the reality of race doesn't advance such efforts. It's a little like trying to develop a space program if you assume the earth is flat and rests on the back of giant turtle.

The "race doesn't exist" school of thought, of course, has been invoked to discredit segregation, white supremacy and apartheid (though all of those institutions developed well before any scientific concept of race existed at all). But challenging and abandoning the very concept of race when white racial power was the target was not exactly consistent with programs like affirmative action that counted by race.

Nor were the supposed racial egalitarians able to do without the concept of race when they wanted to dole out special privileges and treatment for the races they favored.

In short, when whites used race to justify and entrench their privileges, race didn't exist; when non-whites used race to justify and entrench theirs, it did.

Denying that race exists, therefore, doesn't mean that it can't be used to serve a particular group's political agenda, nor does affirming that race does exist necessarily imply that it will or should be used to serve another group's agenda.

It does mean that scientists, of all people, ought to face the truth about what they study.

And it also means that race may mean more than differences in diseases. If race "has arisen because of the numerous small genetic differences that have developed in populations around the world," then there logically ought to be other differences between the races than merely their proclivity to different health problems.

Each race, developing in a different environment, came into existence because of the need to adapt to such environments. It makes sense to believe that there may be many other differences between the races in addition to those we are—painfully—finally acknowledging as real.

Now that we know that race is real, the thing for serious scientists to do is to stop denying its existence and get on with finding out what else is real about it.

Once we know what race really means—not just for disease and health but also for intelligence, temperament and behavior—we'll be able to forget about some agendas and pursue others that are based on something closer to scientific reality than to racial and political ideology.

COPYRIGHT CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

August 26, 2002



It's All Relative: Putting Race in Its Proper Perspective
By Steve Sailer

Steve Sailer writes: For the last two summers, University of California's Ward Connerly, leader of the successful 1996 Proposition 209 campaign outlawing racial preferences in California and the 2004 Racial Privacy Initiative, has hosted a small but wide-ranging conference at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library. This year, he asked Boston U. anthropologist Peter Wood, author of the upcoming book Diversity: A Biography of a Concept, and I to debate the fundamental question of whether race is a biologically meaningful concept. This provided me with a wonderful opportunity to outline my approach at adequate length before a distinguished audience.

I'm sometimes complimented on being a perceptive observer of the myriad ramifications of race and asked why I notice more than most writers on the subject. I reply that it helps to have a model in your head that corresponds fairly well with how the world works. When you've got the right theory, it's easy to observe more - you can hold more details in your mind because they fit together. With that in mind, I've included links within this essay, which serves as a culmination to a decade of writing about race, to a host of articles I've written detailing various aspects of the subject. If you are interested in reading more, I've included summaries of important articles at the end.

Does race exist in a biological sense?

Race is hardly the most important thing in life, but it's not so insignificant that we can blithely ignore it. We need to understand why, here and all over the world, racial conflicts keep popping up their ugly heads.

I'm going to outline a framework for thinking about race that I've found extremely useful. And this novel way of thinking about race suggests a few practical things we can do about it to keep conflicts under control.

My concept of race seems to be relatively new—I can't find anything on Google in English matching my definition. Yet I think it will also strike you as immemorially old. I don't think I'm going to tell you much that you didn't already sense intuitively.

The idea that Race Does Not Exist has become quite fashionable in intellectual circles. But its appeal to the public is limited by its difficulty in passing the Richard Pryor Test. To many regular people, the No Race theory's advocates sound like they are asking, "Who are you going to believe? Us college professors or your lying eyes?"

Before I explain my definition of race, though, I'd like everybody to do a few brain-stretching warm-up exercises.

First Exercise—Which of these four conflicts are between different races and which are merely clashes between some other kinds of groups?

1. President Mugabe's black supporters vs. white farm-owners in Zimbabwe

2. Sudan's civil war between the brown people in the North and the black people in the South

3. Rwanda's civil war between the tall black Tutsis and the short black Hutus

4. The Troubles in Northern Ireland between Catholics (often red-headed) and Protestants (often red-headed).

And if you think you know the answer to which of these fights are between races and which are not, please try to explain to yourself why you drew the line where you did.

It's kind of hard, isn't it? I've noticed that traditional defenders of the concept of race tend to get twisted up trying to draw distinctions between what is a race and what is not quite a race. This allows the Race Does Not Exist crowd to score some easy points.

I avoid all that by focusing on the mechanism that creates racial groups - of whatever size or degree of distinctiveness. One of my goals has been to create what the computer guys call a “scaleable solution” - one that will provide insights about what all four of these unhappy situations have in common.

Second exercise—I'm sure you are familiar with a lot of plausible-sounding objections to the very notion that race might be a meaningful concept.

For example, Peter Wood has argued, "If race is obvious, surely it shouldn't be too hard to count them." Or, as many have demanded, "If race exists, how can there be people who belong to more than one race?"

Many of these criticisms are powerful. But they would be equally strong if they were directed toward many other useful but noncontroversial concepts like, say, "region."

So when I read off a standard complaint about race, think along with me about how you can say the same thing about region.

Q. How come you people who think race exists can't even agree on how many races there are in the world?

A. Well, how many regions are there are in the world? Can we even count all the regions we happen to be in right here at the Reagan Library? Let's see, we're in Ventura Country and the Pacific Rim and North America and the West Coast and the Pacific Time Zone and NAFTA and, well, I could go on for a long time without coming close to enumerating all the regions we are in.

Q. If races exist, doesn't that mean one race has to be the supreme Master Race? And that would be awful!

A. Indeed it would, but no race is going to be best at everything - any more than one region could be the supreme master region for all human purposes. For example, this mountaintop is a stirring place to put a Presidential Library. But if you want to break the land speed record in your rocket car, it's definitely inferior to the Bonneville Salt Flats.

Q. If race exists, how can people belong to more than one race? Mustn't the races be mutually exclusive?

A. If “region” exists, how can people be in more than one at a time – just as we are now in the Western Hemisphere and the Northern Hemisphere?

Of course, some kinds of regions are mutually exclusive, typically the ones that are legally defined. Since we are in Ventura County, we can't be in Los Angeles County. Laws often work that way.

But nature, which often glides gradually from one state to another, seldom does. So you often get poor fits when you try to force something natural into sharp-edged artificial categories.

For example, the various so-called "one drop rules" for defining blacks made the black and white races legally mutually exclusive. In contrast, whites did not always demand mutual exclusivity of whites and American Indians. Winston Churchill's American grandmother Clara claimed she was 1/4th Iroquois, but her dark looks didn't exclude her from New York's high society. Herbert Hoover's Vice-President Charles Curtis was famously proud of being 1/8th American Indian and having spent several years of his childhood on a reservation.

After political power shifted from white supremacists to the minority groups, black activists still demanded the one drop rule because they wanted as many voters to benefit from racial preferences as possible in order to keep their political support up. This doesn't cost them anything, because the size of the quota pie automatically expands when somebody new decides to identify himself as black.

Meanwhile, Indian tribes generally require a higher fraction (such as 1/4th) of documented tribal ancestry before they'll give you a slice of their casino pie. After all, their casino privileges are assigned to the tribe, not the tribe member, and are finite. Also, because their tribal privileges are guaranteed by treaty, not by politics, Indians can afford to be snobbish.

These differing attempts to fit legal definitions to the natural phenomenon of ancestry explain otherwise curious scenes like Halle Berry's blonde mom calling her daughter a credit to the black race.

Now, the key point about debating "Does Race Exist" is that it's essentially a semantic dispute. If you can find the dumbest definition anybody ever came up with—something like "racial groups are virtually separate species that almost never interbreed"—then, under that strawman definition, "race" would definitely not exist.

Conversely, of course, if you rigorously define "race" to mean something that actually does exist on Earth, then, by definition, race exists.

It's not hard to find ridiculous definitions of race to prove wrong, since lots of dumb stuff has been said about race over the years, even by scientists. Although in the last few decades there has been some good thinking about what race is not, there have been very few attempts to come up with a new understanding of what race is … because it has become dangerous to scientists' and intellectuals' careers.

I got interested in coming up with a rigorous definition of race a few years ago when I saw that all we had to choose from were


the obsolete definitions that largely failed to incorporate sophisticated sociobiological perspectives or


the hip nihilism of the Race Does Not Exist crowd.

Early 19th Century credulity and late 20th Century postmodernism aren't adequate. We need a working definition for the 21st Century.

Obviously, there's something that our lying eyes see. But what exactly is it?

Up until the 1960's, physical anthropologists tended to conceive of racial classifications as fitting neatly into a taxonomy of the kind invented by the great 18th Century naturalist Carolus Linnaeaus. The top-down Linnaean system describes how the God of Genesis might have gone about efficiently organizing the Creation. It subdivides living things into genuses and then into species, subspecies, races, and presumably into sub-races and so on.

Linnaean taxonomy is still hugely useful. It even works fairly well for humans: see the July 30, 2002 New York Times article, "Race Is Seen as Real Guide to Track Roots of Disease" for how Stanford geneticist Neil Risch's crude model of dividing the world up into five continental-scale races for medical purposes can help save lives.

But naturalists now understood, however, that the Linnaean mindset always imposed a little too much order on the messiness of evolution. All of these Linnaean terms, like genus and subspecies, are not absolute but relative designations. Thus, they tend to be unavoidably arbitrary. Paleontologists are always bickering over whether some new hominid skull dug up in Africa is different enough to deserve its own genus or whether it is just a lousy new subspecies.

Even "species" is less written-in-stone than it sounds. Witness the constant debate over whether dogs, wolves, and coyotes are three species or one. Enforcement of the Endangered Species Act is constantly being bogged down in disputes over whether a particular brand of bug or weed is a separate species. Billions of dollars of Southern California property development has been hung up for years over whether the rare California gnatcatcher bird is a different species than the abundant Baja gnatcatcher. The only difference is that the California gnatcatcher tends to a somewhat different color than the Baja gnatcatcher.

(This is also true of humans, of course, but that doesn't make them different species!)

None of this is to say that the concept of species should be discarded; just that, like races, species tend to be fuzzy sets, too.

Race is all relative, in two senses.

First, it's all about who your relatives are.

A modern Darwinian approach to race would start from the bottom up, with the father, mother, and baby. All mammals belong to biological extended families, with a family tree that features all the same kinds of biological relatives as you or I have—grandfathers, nieces, or third cousins and so forth. And everybody belongs to multiple extended families—your mom's, your dad's, etc.

Which leads to my modern definition of race:

A racial group is an extended family that is inbred to some degree.

That's it—just an "extended family that is somewhat inbred." There's no need to say how big the extended family has to be, or just how inbred.

We know that humans have not been mating completely randomly with other humans from all over the globe. Most people, over the last few tens of thousands of years, just couldn't afford the airfare.

If you go back to 1000 AD, you would theoretically have a trillion ancestors alive at that time—that's how many slots you have in your family tree 40 generations ago. Obviously, your family tree has to be a little bit inbred. That far back, you'd probably find an individual or two from most parts of the world among your ancestors.

But, in anybody's family tree, certain statistical patterns will stand out. Just ask somebody, "What are you?" and they'll tell you about some of the larger clusters in their family tree, such as, "Oh, I'm Irish, Italian, and Cherokee."

So, my definition is close to a tautology. But then so is "survival of the fittest." And that proved to have a bit of predictive power.

This is a scaleable solution. Do you want to know a lot about a few people? Then, the more inbred, the more distinct the racial group. Or, do you want to know a little about a lot of people? The less inbred, the larger the group.

For example, Icelanders are a lot more inbred and thus a lot more distinct than, say, Europeans, who are, though, much more numerous. Which one is the "true race?"

It's a useless question. They are both racial groups. For some questions, "Icelander" is the more useful group to focus upon. For others "European" is the more effective.

Of course, the bottom-up model accounts for everything seen in top-down approaches. Average hereditary differences are—as one might expect—inherited. The bottom-up approach simply eliminates any compulsion to draw arbitrary lines regarding whether a difference is big enough to be racial. With enough inbreeding, hereditary differences will emerge that will first be recognizable to the geneticist, then to the physical anthropologist, and finally to the average person.

Similarly, two separate racial groups can slowly merge into one if barriers to intermarriage come down.

I'm more interested in the reality that there are partly inbred extended families than in what it's called. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find a better word than "race."

Various euphemisms have been tried without much success. For example, the geneticists, such as the distinguished Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza of Stanford, who study what the normal person would call "race," don't call themselves "racial geneticists." Instead, they blandly label themselves "population geneticists."

That allows them at least sometimes to sneak their research projects by under the radar of the politically correct. But it's important to realize that they are not using "population" in the non-racial sense of phrases like "California's population" or "UCLA's student population," but in the specific sense of "hereditary populations" such as the Japanese or the Icelanders or the Navajo.

Among all the different kinds of "populations," the only ones population geneticists study are the ones whose members tend to share genes because they tend to share genealogies.

That's what I'd call a "racial group." But, if you don't like the word "race," well, maybe we should just hire one of those firms that invent snazzy new names like "Exxon" for unfashionable old corporations like Standard Oil, and then hire an ad agency to publicize this new name for "race."

Unfortunately, I'm a little tapped out until the end of the month. But if you have a spare fifty million dollars, that might cover it.

The second sense in which Race is all relative: it's pointless to make absolute statements about the significance or insignificance of race. You always have to ask, "Compared to what?"

For instance, I am constantly informed that genetic differences between racial groups are absolutely insignificant because 99.9% of human genes are shared among all people. Yet we share over 98% of our genes with chimpanzees (and, supposedly, 70% with yeast). Does that mean genetic differences between humans and chimps (or yeast) are insignificant?

You have to look at it relatively. If you were planning to climb Mt. Everest and somebody were to say, "The difference between Mt. Everest and sea level is insignificant, it's just a 0.15% difference in the distance from the center of the Earth," you'd roll your eyes. But, when somebody says the same thing about genetics, it's treated as a profundity.

Similarly, we are constantly told, "there are more genetic differences within races than between races." This is, in general, true. But it hardly means that the differences between races therefore don't exist.

For example, a team of geneticists led by Rick Kittles of Howard U. recently documented that race accounts for 20% of the variations seen in the gene that controls the strength of the body's androgen receptors. Men with stronger androgen receptors tend to behave as if they have higher levels of testosterone and other male hormones. For example, those with the versions of the genes that heighten androgen reception are more susceptible on average to prostate cancer. Men of West African ancestry tend to have more of the gene variants conducive to high androgen receptivity than men of European descent (which is one reason they suffer more from prostate cancer). Whites, in turn, tend to have more testosterone receptivity than men of Northeast Asian descent.

Keep in mind that 80% of the variation observed was within racial groups. Which is about what you'd expect from observing the world around you. In every racial group, there exists a wide variety of physical and personality types among men, from the most hyper-masculine to the most gentle.

Still, few who watch sports on television, follow Olympic running results, or examine interracial marriage patterns, will be surprised that blacks on the whole score highest on those androgen receptor gene alleles associated with greater masculinity.

We've seen what's wrong with the old-fashioned Linnaean taxonomists' approach to race and the fecklessness of the postmodernists' denial of race. But what are the strengths and weaknesses of the typical American's concept of race?

The way most Americans currently think about race tends to fall in between rigor and absurdity. The consensus American view is full of contradictions, obsolete ideas, and fantasies. But in a rough way, it does approximate the American reality.

Yet because the American geographic and historical situation is so unusual, we lack a model that would apply well to rest of the world, which is one reason we are finding it difficult to grasp the politics of Afghanistan.

Afghanistan's division into warring extended families is tragic-comically extreme, probably due to the severity of its terrain. But Afghans are like most people in history who have instinctively viewed the world as consisting of concentric circles of blood relations. Race to them is just family writ large. "My brother and I against my cousin. My cousin and us against the world."

America, however, was populated from across the seas. The striking contrasts between blacks, whites, and American Indians—peoples from different continents—overshadowed the normal pattern of extended family blending almost imperceptibly into racial group as it spread geographically.

We Americans tended to forget that race is relative. We became obsessed with big, continental scale racial differences. Thus in recent decades we have decided that smaller racial differences—whether Norwegians vs. Armenians or Pygmies vs. Dinkas—weren't really there. They were just "ethnic," not racial. We may well be better off not noticing, but one problem is that standard American thinking about race doesn't scale up and down well.

That's why Americans have a hard time understanding the rest of the world. Let's come back to those four civil conflicts. Which ones are racial?

Zimbabwe
Rwanda
Sudan
Northern Ireland

The conventional American response is: "just Zimbabwe." After all, that's the only dispute between whites and blacks, as we think of them.

In reality, all these disputes are fights between relatively distinct extended families. Take Northern Ireland (please). Americans always call it a "religious war." But the hard men on both sides don't care much about theology. No, even though outsiders can't generally tell the two sides apart by looking at them, this is, in essence, a struggle between two large families. One family used to own Northern Ireland until the other family took it away from them. Some members of the first family want it back.

From this perspective, we can see the commonality in all four conflicts—they are all property disputes between extended families that may not share enough recent common ancestry to make compromise possible because no-one has anybody they can trust on the other side.

And once you understand this, it becomes simpler to think of ways to ameliorate these kinds of conflicts.

My definition of race offers that kind of conceptual power for a host of other issues.

What practical steps are implied by this family-based definition of race?

First, if race is a natural, omnipresent potential fault line in human affairs, that suggests to me that we Americans should be extremely wary of using the vast power of the government to exacerbate the natural divisiveness of race by officially classifying people by race.

Second, in the long run, intermarriage is the most fundamental solution for extended families at odds with each other.

The effects of interracial marriage are more complex than Tamar Jacoby or Gregory Rodriguez assume—that's why 500 years of intermarriage haven't made Mexico or Brazil a racial utopia. Indeed, Brazil has just begun to introduce racial preferences.

Still, intermarriage is what turned the Angles and the Saxons into the Anglo-Saxons. And one way to raise the intermarriage rate is to cut back on immigration. Here in California, native-born Americans are something like three times more likely to intermarry than immigrants.

Third, humans just like to belong to a group. Because race is not, at root, a social construct, we need to promote a positive social construct as an alternative for people to organize around.

Perhaps the most beneficial alternative to race is citizenship. But we need to do more than just promote national solidarity as the alternative to racial solidarity. We need to actually do things for our less fortunate fellow citizens - like reducing immigration so that supply and demand will raise their wages.

In summary: I believe that knowing the truth is a lot more beneficial to humanity than ignorance, lies, or wishful thinking.
Reply With Quote
  #154  
Old 04-01-2004
miguelito21's Avatar
miguelito21 miguelito21 is offline
Maestro
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Belo Horizonte, Brazil
Posts: 3,249
Default

Perez forgot the 2 nuclear bombs in the second world war. that was mass murder also wasnt it ?
__________________
"Advertising has us working jobs we hate so we can buy shit we don't need." - Tyler Durden

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell (copied from the most honorable KA)
Reply With Quote
  #155  
Old 04-01-2004
sad_surena sad_surena is offline
Prospect
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Alaska(yep u read right)
Posts: 35
Send a message via MSN to sad_surena
Default

ok mueller I get it, but all you're showing us are articles and opinions of other. Why can't you fight with your own words and knowledge. I'm not giving you all this crap about this and that. And all that sh*t, that you yourself prabably didn't read either. All I know is that I don't have time to read sh*t that has no importance. Tell me did any of those people who wrote the articles and stuff have a childhood like most of us did? Did they ever once have to see their parents in my case only my mother working their butt off just to support their family? They don't know squat about our life all they do is research that half the time isn't accurate. They don't know what an environment now a days really looks like. Now tell me this because I'm still not understanding what part you don't understand. Now the first time I gave you all that crap and research I wasn't thinking with MY head but just showing you work of others. I want to know what you think not what everybody else says. I want to know you're theory on why hispanics and blacks commit the most crime. And don't start with all of your research because it's not always going to be there to help you. Some times you actually have to use your head.

Mueller hear me out all I'm saying is that everyone commits crimes. Yes maybe some more than others in your opinion, but you have to think how it makes people feel when people call all of them them criminals or say that they're most likely to commit a crime. It doesn't feel so good does it? And this is another factor that contribute to your so called theory it makes them want to play that roll. They say "heck they're already calling us criminals might as well be some" If I were to call you racist how would you feel bad wouldn't you? And you'd want to prabably play that roll if enough people said it. But as I said before I'm not calling you one because I'm not falling to that level but you should be ashamed of callin us criminal, rapists and what not. You need to understand that I'm just trying to set things right. People hate getting called names that don't even apply to them. Shoot I know I don't. And I think speak for everyone saying this.
Reply With Quote
  #156  
Old 04-02-2004
Mueller88 Mueller88 is offline
Chicle
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 74
Default

Quote:
Have you ever read the book " The Indian Givers"?

Jack Weatherford --> One of your own white's admits that the concept of daily bathing came from the Indigenous Americans... Spain outlawed it thinking it was unhealthy...

You guys were a dirty people... you learned to bathe daily from us...
The romans and greeks had bath houses.

Quote:
could go on to list how the Inca's were the first to perform brain surgery... the Mayans had a calendar more accurate than the one we use today...
Bolth true, exept that the brain surgery one is still under debate (the purposes for the holes in the skiulls are still not 100% clear.) But the Incas and Mayans were one of the more advanced societies at the time.

Quote:
the largest city in the world was Tenichitlan until Spain came and detroyed it by backstabbing us like cowards ...
Can you please show me where it says that it was the biggest city? I have never heard this before and seems questionable.


Quote:
ok mueller I get it, but all you're showing us are articles and opinions of other. Why can't you fight with your own words and knowledge. I'm not giving you all this crap about this and that. And all that sh*t, that you yourself prabably didn't read either.
Yes i have. Unlike you i take the time to know what Im talking about.

Quote:
All I know is that I don't have time to read sh*t that has no importance.
So you know it has no importance without reading it?

Quote:
Tell me did any of those people who wrote the articles and stuff have a childhood like most of us did? Did they ever once have to see their parents in my case only my mother working their butt off just to support their family? They don't know squat about our life
They present scientific facts and very seldom give an opinion that would be changed by the situation you described. And for all you know (and I) their lives could have been just as hard.

Quote:
all they do is research that half the time isn't accurate. They don't know what an environment now a days really looks like.
Do you know the authors? how can you say such accusations? Wait maybe your research isnt accurate.

Quote:
I want to know you're theory on why hispanics and blacks commit the most crime. And don't start with all of your research because it's not always going to be there to help you. Some times you actually have to use your head.
You were not trusting my words so i posted some articles from the Wall Street Journall. As for commiting more crimes, its a mix of Genetics, Culture, and Environment, just like I.Q. and many other aspects of our life, before you talk about the environment you live in again and blame crime on that, remmember in poor white (and asain) neighborhoods, in the US, Asia, and Europe, the crime rates are much lower, plus the article went ino more detail on those things also.

Quote:
Yes maybe some more than others in your opinion,
Its not an opinion.

Quote:
"heck they're already calling us criminals might as well be some"
So crime stems from people being called criminals? this is reverse logic, what happened first, the man pulled the trigger or the impact of the bullet?

Quote:
you should be ashamed of callin us criminal, rapists and what not.
have i personally called you a criminal? No. i said that hispanics and blacks are more prone to becoming one.
Reply With Quote
  #157  
Old 04-02-2004
sad_surena sad_surena is offline
Prospect
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Alaska(yep u read right)
Posts: 35
Send a message via MSN to sad_surena
Default

Actually muller I do know what I'm talking about just by looking around me. How old are those articles they don't state the present but the past. I look into the present and future not the past. What's done is done. Yes those articles do make you feel that you know what you're talking about but I already know what I'm talking about and I don't need someone else to tell you so. Oh and maybe I don't have the time to do the research I'm busy working helping my mom out with the rent and trying to keep my grades up. I reply to you so you'll know I'm not a quitter

" Do you know the authors? how can you say such accusations? Wait maybe your research isnt accurate. "

No I don't know the authors. But what do the authors have to do with their articles???? And no I'm not giving such accusations I'm simply saying that they don't know about my life or even yours they don't live with me to know how I feel and react to the world's problems. do they? And I am defitenetly not saying my research is accurate because all I know is that it was never a reasearch to begin with, I didn't go out and judge others' lifes and write about it. Because then I would be the same as those who did this so called "research" as well. And I surely am not.


"So crime stems from people being called criminals? this is reverse logic, what happened first, the man pulled the trigger or the impact of the bullet? "

ok the man pulled the trigger. But answer me this what made the man pull the trigger??


have i personally called you a criminal? No. i said that hispanics and blacks are more prone to becoming one.

No,and I am so sorry. But you did say that hispanics and blacks are more prone to become criminals. Ok get the cuffs I might as well be jailed if I'm more prone to become a criminal. Right? Mueller it is not right to make statments like that you see you've hurt my feelings without even knowing what I may come out to be when I am older. You've judged me without even knowing me. How? Well you said the word "hispanics" tada it's like magic. (sarcastically)The new and improved way to insult a person without them noticing,get yours at your local "I think hispanics and blacks commit the most crime shop" prices may vary,get yours while supplies last!!!
NOT, guess what we do notice and it hurts like a dagger to the heart. My goodness isn't that a crime. Look it's the new way to commit a crime. When will the inventions end??? I think I'm going to be sick. Call a doctor will you?

To everyone:
Can I ask you a question am I a good debator should I become a lawyer or something like that? Maybe an attorney. I don't know I'm going for the debate team next year. (beep beep beep, back away from the side-subject and keep on with the "how does it feel)
Sorry got a little off track.
Reply With Quote
  #158  
Old 04-02-2004
sad_surena sad_surena is offline
Prospect
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Alaska(yep u read right)
Posts: 35
Send a message via MSN to sad_surena
Default

AAAAAAAAH

I wrote a lot

didn't know I could write so much
Reply With Quote
  #159  
Old 04-02-2004
FreedomNow's Avatar
FreedomNow FreedomNow is offline
Abstinent Attitude
Presidente
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wood!
Posts: 23,572
Default

ha ha... how u gonna quote ward conelly? he is one of the biggest uncle toms in cali... but that s besides the point. his argument is sooo absurd. Racism does exist in this country and by not acknowledging race one negates the presence of racism. when i say race i am talking about it as a social construct not to be confused with something that is concrete and set in stone... Prop 54 was bullshit mueller...
__________________
If you´re not ready to die for it, put the word ´Freedom´ out of your vocabulary- El Hajj Malik Shabazz

...freedom's not a gift received from a State or a leader but a possession to be won every day by the effort of each and the union of all - Albert Camus

In the belly of misery convulses the fetus of rebellion - Ricardo Flores Magon
Reply With Quote
  #160  
Old 04-03-2004
SA_Imelda_896's Avatar
SA_Imelda_896 SA_Imelda_896 is offline
Travieso
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Clearfield,UT
Posts: 373
Send a message via AIM to SA_Imelda_896 Send a message via MSN to SA_Imelda_896
Default

Oh my goodness...Who brought this back up??
Here we go again...Mueller88 i thought you left...

Ok everyone knows my opinion on this im not going to say anything.
__________________
Mel
Reply With Quote
  #161  
Old 04-05-2004
Mueller88 Mueller88 is offline
Chicle
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 74
Default

Quote:
Actually muller I do know what I'm talking about just by looking around me. How old are those articles they don't state the present but the past. I look into the present and future not the past. What's done is done
Most within the year I believe.

Quote:
And no I'm not giving such accusations I'm simply saying that they don't know about my life or even yours they don't live with me to know how I feel and react to the world's problems. do they? And I am defitenetly not saying my research is accurate because all I know is that it was never a reasearch to begin with, I didn't go out and judge others' lifes and write about it. Because then I would be the same as those who did this so called "research" as well. And I surely am not.
Those articles are acuurate, and scientific, some published in major science journals.

Quote:
made the man pull the trigger??
Are you justifying murder now? Many murders come from druggies in a mugging gone bad/ robbery. Others may come from other reasons, very few are for some noble cause.

Quote:
Mueller it is not right to make statments like that
but it is true, your now living in denial.

Quote:
Racism does exist in this country and by not acknowledging race one negates the presence of racism.
Its like denying the diffrence between Dobermans and Border Collies [sp]
Its already proven that race can be a factor in the field of health, so to eliminate racism we all must burry our heads in the sand and pretend the truth deosnt exist?

Quote:
Prop 54 was bullshit mueller
So are many laws, matters of opinion.

Quote:
they cite sources to prove that Tenochitlan was the biggest city in the world at that time... as well as the most advanced.
Anything from "Mexica-Movement" on the Aztecs must be looked on with scrutiny, and for the most advanced, HA, maybe in calenders, but not in anything else. What is the time period for this ultimate city?
Reply With Quote
  #162  
Old 04-05-2004
mich_mexican mich_mexican is offline
Mocoso
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Adrian, MI
Posts: 187
Send a message via Yahoo to mich_mexican
Default

*Walks in sees muller88 is back again. yawns turns around and leaves*
__________________
\"When I give food to the poor,they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food they call me a communist.\" Dom Helder Camara
Reply With Quote
  #163  
Old 04-21-2005
Preciouz_MyZz-G Preciouz_MyZz-G is offline
Travieso
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NiNe SeVeN TwO
Posts: 432
Send a message via MSN to Preciouz_MyZz-G Send a message via Yahoo to Preciouz_MyZz-G
Default

LOL this is FUNNY!! U know what, dont come about talking your stuff like u know something... Ok you might such to provoke an argument over the internet, but go out on the STREET...how many white people do you SEE building roads, houses, highways??? LMAO...like 1 out of 40... That one, is either black, or white... I'm not using any type of "reaserch," dont try to come and tell me such and such when i know what i see..Either way...part of this country was ONCE part of Mexico, and you know why it's being invaded by hispanics? Because we're about to TAKE BACK what was ours
Reply With Quote
  #164  
Old 04-21-2005
Preciouz_MyZz-G Preciouz_MyZz-G is offline
Travieso
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NiNe SeVeN TwO
Posts: 432
Send a message via MSN to Preciouz_MyZz-G Send a message via Yahoo to Preciouz_MyZz-G
Default

LOL this is FUNNY!! U know what, dont come about talking your stuff like u know something... Ok you might such to provoke an argument over the internet, but go out on the STREET...how many white people do you SEE building roads, houses, highways??? LMAO...like 1 out of 40... That one, is either black, or white... I'm not using any type of "reaserch," dont try to come and tell me such and such when i know what i see..Either way...part of this country was ONCE part of Mexico, and you know why it's being invaded by hispanics? Because we're about to TAKE BACK what was ours
Reply With Quote
  #165  
Old 08-04-2018
LaChavela's Avatar
LaChavela LaChavela is offline
Veterano
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: where flowers grow
Posts: 11,362
Default Re: How deos it feel

I wonder how these arguments are doing under Trump
__________________
'Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways - Chardonnay in one hand -chocolate in the other - body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming 'WOO HOO, What a Ride'
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
When do you feel best?..... SuaveHighTimes General Discussion 27 10-10-2005 09:31 AM
how do u feel sometimes lil_king Clubs, Venues, and Concerts 13 07-26-2005 07:53 PM
wat can i do not 2 feel so bad? LatinaFreak619 General Relationship Talk 10 07-05-2005 04:25 PM
i feel sad cKofer General Discussion 13 06-17-2005 08:56 PM
Y DO I FEEL LIKE THIS LACOQUETA Advice Column 2 06-08-2005 04:17 PM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:41 PM.


All the comments are property of their posters. Images, logo, content and design are © copyright by SoyChicano.com. All Rights Reserved.