Black guys like white girls because they're white

Wedlock,

We would have to agree to disagree. I do not agree with you 100% on this matter of race. Again, observed physical differences has nothing to do with race. Again, even in the ROA theory, it does acknowledge physical adaptation to regions, but that our species is too young and hasn't been isolated enough to develop into distinct races. Furthermore, when traveling from region to region, the "racial line" is blurred. Neither does "race" determine intelligence. Furthermore, IQ tests has been hotly debated that it may have more to do with culture and experiences than with "race". You are clearly attempting to racialize people and I am just cutting to the point. Also, multi-regional theory does not racialize people. Thus, it cannot be used to support your claims. It does allow people to develop over a period of time, but no where in the theory does it state that populations were so completely isolated from one another and did not interbreed that we developed into distinct races and the features of caucasians are uniquely theirs that cannot be found on anyone else. Even MRE followers acknowledge cultural exchanges between regional groups that could be accounted for intellectual development. Furthermore, since we want to talk about "Caucasions" it is more likely their origins fit closely to the Out of Africa model than the MRE model. In fact, MRE followers are actually looking towards China and Australia to prove their theory, not EUROPE.

By the way, some of my sources are:

Origins of Modern Humans: Multiregional or Out of Africa? by Donald Johanson, Professor of anthropology and Director of the Institute of hUman Origins at Arizona State University.

homosexual erectus in East Asia:
Human Ancestor or Evoluntionary Dead-End?
Dennis A. Etler; Department of Anthropology, Cabrillo College, Aptos, California

Again, search the pbs website that has writings on race. Race: The Power of an Illusion.

There are others, but this is a good start.

99.9% of humans are genetically similar, this is a pretty well known in the field of anthropology and genetics. Also, that little .01 percent hardly indicates there are distinct races, but just surface variations among humans.

Peace.

 

Stereotypes and Myths

Yes, we will have to agree to disagree.I simply stated that race is objective.You disagreed, but have yet to answer those questions I raised except to say those differences have nothing to do with race.That doesn't answer what's objectively behind the differences.
Neo sociology, in its attempt to be politically correct, tries to sidestep the differences and attempts to homogenize people rather than take a hard look at analyzing distinctions. I never said that the differences in IQ scores were because of race, what I said was that there are observable quantifiable differences in IQ scores among various "populations."You prefer to evade the issue of race,and say it's something else like a social factor; I say let's examine the differences.I also raised a very good question regarding the origins of the physical differences if race isn't objective.All you did was tell me that there wasn't enough time and isolation historically in order for certian traits to be limited to a particular group, that race isn't a biological fact.
It's easier to just evade the topic except when it's convenient for you to use the term "black" or "white." The truth is, all I did was raise questions regarding these issues.
Okay........you quoted sources, I have sources as well
I'd try...and ....Click here: Stalking the Wild Taboo - J. Philippe Rushton on Race as a Biological Concept
Or I'd read a pro/con on the subject Click here: Race: The reality of human differences -- Foster 113 (12): 1663 -- Journal of Clinical Investigation or maybe you could go and Click here: http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/PHILSCI/journal/issues/v70n5/700525/700525.web.pdf . Those are just a few sources.

Again, using that 99.9% figure without a source for the data is like me saying I'm "99.9%" sure to have bad luck if a black cat crosses my path.Where is the source of that"well known" anthropological fact? I for one agree that human beings are way more similar than different, but that still won't allow me to hide from those differences that are there.
Last but not least, you have said you don't "buy into"the concept of race.I can agree as far as not using racial differences as a tool for division, but if you're in the biotech/pharmaceutical industry like me, when certain ethnic groups have trials run and the clinical findings are such that certian "populations" respond better or worse to certain medicines, that research is useful and can be life saving in fact.
This has been a good discussion, even though I think we veered off course a little.But isn't it ironic that you don't buy into the concept of race, yet we still are using the terms of "black" and "white colloquially?
In the end, miscegenation is a trend that will continue well into the next century, and futuristically the discussion we're having now will probably be of little to no consequence.But I think our disagreement is more fundamentally rooted in epistemology than arguing whether or not race is objective, or even a real biological fact.
Thanks so much.

 

Again,

I answered your questions, including mentioning our differences is regional adaptations, however, they do not mean that they are different distinct races. Those regional traits caused by regional adaptations have been traveling and mixing. Therefore, it would be faulty to think that the regional adaptations is limited to one area, it is a refusal to acknowledge the intermixing that has occured among the human beings. In order for a distinct race to appear, there must be complete isolation and no interbreeding where human population similarity is extremely low. This is not a fact, human population similarity is extremely high and human beings has not been isolated from each other long enough for distinct races to develop. Human beings have been in constant motion-migrating and mating with each other on a consistent basis where distinct races has not have time to truly develop. Again, we are the most similar of all species.

Also, all of the resources I have given you includes all of the information I stated in my response, including the 99.9% similarity. I suggest you begin to look at my sources, it is obvious that you did not.

Furthermore, I believe it is dangerous to limit a disease to a particular "race" because great mishaps of misdiagnoses of human beings. For example, sickle cell anemia.

You give merit to IQ tests, I do not. I do not give credit to them, b/c they have been highly questionable, and they have been considered to measure cultural experiences and not "race". Therefore, I do not consider them a reliable source to support your claim for racial differences.

You racialize people, I do not. I recognize differences, I do not recognize races. As far as us using terms like Black, White, and etc.. Even though race is not a biological fact, it is definitely a social reality. That is the reason why we fall into the trap of using Black, White, and etc.


Peace.

 

I just read the last source you have given me. According to that source,

In short, all they are referring to is regional ecological adaptations, and using that definition to define "races". Also, they do acknowledge that even these adaptive traits are not limited to the region due migration and interbreeding and it is expected for a person to show mulitclinal traits. Furthermore, similar regional traits can be found in areas where the ecology is the same--thus, fair-skinned people can have little to do with ancestry and more to do with environmential adaptation. Also, it could be both. Also, they do not subscribe to the "folk" races of White, Black, Asian--as you do. They are more concerned with smaller populations exhibiting certain familiar environmental adaptations, and stating that the biological "races" based on an ecotype definition would be far more expansive than the "folk" definitions of race--Caucasian, Mongoloid, Black, and etc...Using this definition, the Caucasian group could infact be not one race at all but made up of different "races" b/c of their environmental adaptation to the regions they are located. Therefore, comparing a Southern Italian with a person from Norway, both could easily be viewed as different "races" due to their environmental adaptations to their environment, even though you would perhaps consider them one race--Caucasian. Thus, using the point of view of the authors, you would be committing a serious fallacy by stating that Caucasian features are unique only onto those who are Caucasian. First, by using Caucasian, which would be considered a "folk" race--they do not subscribe to, and second stating features are only uniqe to their group using it in the context of now--ignoring the fact of multiclinal traits. Also, the article really doesn't put a time frame on the origins of adaptations of these regional adaptations, and the do not make the claim that they are not shared either through migration and mixing and/or developed in regions that had a similar environments.

Also, in response to your I.Q., let me just use the words by those who you choose to support your claims:

"But while skin color is not well correlated with other phenotypic traits
of interest in humans, there is, despite Gould’s claims (Gould 1996) to the
contrary, no guarantee that particular populations of humans will not, due
to particular features of their environment, share particular distributions of
adaptive behavioral (including intellectual) traits, as opposed to simple
physical traits. To the best of our knowledge, there is no evidence that such populations exist, nor are there reasons to suppose that such populations must exist. Given the difficulty with testing hypotheses regarding the adaptive significance of behavioral tendencies in humans simpliciter (Lewontin 1998), the lack of evidence for behavioral (and/or intellectual) ecotypes in humans is not surprising."

And

"Many of the most obvious problems with discovering and testing adaptive behavioral traits in humans are at least much less severe with respect to traits that vary systematically between human populations (see Kaplan 2000). Obviously this is very speculative: Again, there is no evidence that such populations exist, and if they do, discovering them and properly testing the adaptive hypotheses may yet prove impossible given our limited ability to test adaptive hypotheses regarding humans more generally. But looking for such variation does not commit one to racist thinking; the populations displaying such variation would very likely not correspond closely to folk races."

Excerpts taken from: On the Concept of Biological Race and Its
Applicability to Humans by Massimo Pigliucci and Jonathan Kaplan
(pp. 8-9)

I understand that looking for behavioral adaptation can be viewed as an interest for pure science to understand the characteristics of human population, however, it could also be used for racist motives as well.

In short, they proved my point of view of not having biologically distinct separate or in their words, "incipient" human races, and that the "folk" races of White, Black, Asian, and etc... definitely does not apply to human beings. Just regional adaptions, according to my point of view, are not races, even though they would like to refer to these regional adaptations as such. However, they even admit these regional adaptations are not limited and belong to only one person or group, but that it is expected to see multiclinal traits in one person due to migration and interbreeding. Also, not once do they mention exactly when these adaptations did occur, and does it really matter if we are all one "incipient" species, and perhaps have a great extensive overlapping of these traits. Thus, it would be a mistake on any biomedical scientist or doctor's part to even automatically use those differences, without careful examination and testing of the individual, to suggest proper treatment for certain diseases. In the end, it would be more wise to treat each person on an individual basis b/c of the possible multiclinal traits people have. You are suppose to treat the person, not their "race".

Peace.

 

Stereotypes and Myths

Hello Grand Rapids:
I have read and your sources, but I just think we are going to have to agree to disagree.You don't accept the validity on IQ tests for an example, but I do.What I think you're missing is that I can freely divorce saying "race" but use "group a" and "group b."It doesn't matter.The differences are still going to be there.To say that there are "only differences in people"and then deny an objective category like race is just another attempt at social engineering.You don't like the the category of race, so you'll find anything you can to avoid facing the reality of it when it comes to things like IQ tests.I think it's wholly important for us as black people to look at ourselves and dig down and ask....how can we improve the conditions of black people? Whether we like the truth or not, we as black people do not perform as well on things like standardized tests-each person lives as an individual, yes but acheivement gaps concern me.Dismissing it as merely that "group of people" doesn't have us look into the mirror.
We speak on black, white, and the other because it is a social reality.I hold that it's biological as well because objectivism is the key to my whole epistemological outlook. I'd say that if I looked at your skin, I would be able to establish it was objective via my eyes.If you look/touched my hair in my photo ID, you'd be able to establish it was objective by the feel/texture.I hold that the term biological means"Of or relating to a living organism.Relatedness in a genetic sense."Are you saying there's no such thing as a genetic code that is passed on to give you those objective biological features? If race had no basis in biology, I wouldn't be chatting with a "black" woman right now from Grand Rapids.Obviously you're a person first, but if you were the author of this thread, the title says it all.Plus you identified yourself as a" black "(BW)woman.Now, if that's not proof of race being objective, what else is?What else would you call yourself on a daily basis?Would you say "I- am- a -person- of -color- who- happens- to- have- darker- pigmentation- due- to -a- reigonal- occupany- of -my- ancestors- and- you- should- not- look- at- the- way- I -look- as- a- biological- fact- but-rather- a- social- construction?" I don't think the term"black" is a trap.If I asked you to show me an example of what a "black" man looked like you'd be able to do it.The same for white, etc.Are you trying to tell me that if you called yourself something else that you'd be that instead?I am happy to use the term "black" in describing myself if asked what my race is.It doesn't matter if I am light, dark, or somewhere in between, it's objectively part of who I am.Now does it define me?Is there such a thing as "black thought?"I guess we'd leave that to black philosophers like Kwame Gyekye.Temple University Press:African Philosophical Thought(1995) My point being is that unless you wish to challenge the term "biological," I don't see how you can say that the traits that are displayed in certain peoples cannot be used to describe them in a larger categorical sense.Recall that the term I used was "aesthetic' with respect to my attraction to white females.So are you trying to tell me that there isn't such a thing as black culture that has a basis rooted in objective reality?I'd take it further and say that you can examine the deeper reasons for a culture being established, and the deeper you go, the closer you get to an origin of a common denominator.I think you're acting as if I think because the term black, white, etc, exists that I'm saying the black person or white person belongs to anything other than the human race.That's not true.My definition of race is simply:"Each of the major divisions of humankind having distinct physical characteristics." Are you really deep down going to deny there are distinctive characteristics between what we know as "black" and "white" in people?It just seems like you're working too hard to resist that the term "interracial dating" wouldn't even exist if we couldn't observe the differences.
Did you read up on "Stalking the taboo?" by Rushton? I think his views correlate to what I am saying about the differences.NOW,I do not agree with people who have agendas that say that because there is a difference between me as a black male, and a white or asian male, that this is grounds for belief in superiority or disparate treatment of human beings.But no, if I observe a man running down the street, and the police ask me to describe the man, I'm not going to shirk the question if they ask me to identify that man's race unless I can't tell. That 99.9% figure you quote sounds terribly sweeping and again, can you show me where it's rooted in science? I can agree that human beings are the most closely related, but what math were the scientists using to determine that we're 99.9% alike?DNA sampling?
In my field we don't treat a "race," we are treating an individual, but by numerous samples and clinical trials it's easy enough to see that biomedical responses do have a basis in race.The drug Bidil for an example, from 2005, benefits black patients.
Click here: FDA Approves Heart Drug for Black Patients
These trials are not designed to mean anything more or less than what the preliminary data suggests from the trials.It's obvious that you can't just prescribe Bidil to all black people, but you have to realize there's something objective running in the statistical trials in order to make that medical evaluation.
If your doctor suggested this to you, would you say that he's using a mere "social construction?"
It's your turn, sister.

 

Again,

You racialize people, and I do not. Furthermore, I do acknowledge differences, and not races. Also, by social construction in the U.S., I am considered a Black Woman that is why I refer to myself as a BW. If you look into my ancestry, I would be considered differently. You can't look at a person to determine their so-called race. I am from White, Native American, Black West African, and possibly even Asian ancestry. However, if I had to depend on you and the opinion of the majority, you would definitely state Black. I personally like to refer to myself as being of multi-ethnic descent and a person with "multiclinal traits". However, even if I was just from Black West African ancestry alone, I can have a diverse ancestry and still show "multiclinal traits". I am very proud of my diverse heritage, however, I would be just as proud to be only Black West African.

In the end, I just believe we are going in circles, and neither of our views will change. Therefore, I think it will be better to just let it be.

Again, we will disagree on this matter. I read one of your sources, and it didn't prove my standpoint to be wrong, and I guarantee the other ones would not either.

Peace.

 

Stereotypes and Myths

Okay, we'll leave it alone.I actually think we're both right. Race is a social construction.But it is borne out of trying to describe objective differences between different groups of people.
I maintain that those objective differences would be rooted in what I would define as"biological." I would maintain that my strongest case in coming to that conclusion would be the field of biomedics that I am in.
In this debate, however, I don't think I could ever prove you wrong in your thinking, and in fact futuristically there will be other descriptors and criteria used in an attempt to define objective differences among different people. I am not sure what the future holds in that regard.
One thing I am proud of is that I think we now understand each other better than when the thread first began.Your ideas have made me think, and believe it or not, I used to subscribe to the views you currently hold.If you're like me, on all applications where the race question is asked, I still leave it blank or put "other."Your ideas have made me engage and understand that my attraction for white females must run pretty deep in my psyche to be this strong in a society where I am going against a social norm.I strive to be individuated and transcend race in one sense;yet I still make distinctions while using race as a descriptor in order to be able to point to what I am attracted to.
Thanks for everything in this thread, and when you next feel passionately about something I want a shot at your time if I disagree.
Peace.

 

Re: Stereotypes and Myths

Nice to see that you can agree to disagree, but nevertheless someone has to speak up and address the nonsense Wedlock came up with in this threat.


Wedlocks sources

It's quite shocking that Wedlock cites the president and grantees of the white supremacist, racist, racial eugenist and anti-semitic Pioneer Fund as source for his race theories. The concepts of the Pioneer Fund are nothing more than racist drivel cloaked under the disguise of science and I'm quite puzzled that someone who claims to be educated in the field of biomedicine propagates this kind of racist hogwash which is discarded as pseudoscience, scientifc racism and has absolutely no credibility in mainstream medicine or science.


"Race" and differences in IQ scores

Oh yeah, race and differences in IQ scores, one of the main field of "research" done by the grantees of the Pioneer Fund. That someone would even buy into this racist hogwash is bad enough, but that someone has the guts to come to this site propagating the concepts of these lunatics leaves me speechless.

 

Re: Stereotypes and Myths

The Case of BiDil

In response, I'm going to cite excerpts from a paper done by the Department of Society, Human Development and Health, Harvard University and the Department of Sociology, Ohio State University:


No case illustrates the pitfalls inherent in investigations that attempt to link race/ethnicity, genes, and disease than the case of BiDil, the first drug in the U.S. to be based on a patent formulated in terms of its benefit to a specific racial or ethnic group. BiDil, a combination of hydralazine and isosorbide dinitrate (H/I), was approved by the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) last June 23rd to treat heart failure in African-Americans exclusively.

The FDA’s approval of BiDil relied heavily on the results of the African-American Heart Failure Trial (A-HeFT) published in the New England Journal of Medicine in November 2004 (Taylor, Cohn and Worcel 2005). The trial involved 1050 self-identified Blacks with moderate to severe heart failure. The trial was halted early due to a higher mortality in the placebo group compared to the group receiving BiDil, 54 deaths (10.2%) compared to 32 deaths (6.2%), respectively. The response of Whites or other groups with heart failure receiving current standard therapy remains unknown because only Blacks were included in the A-HeFT trial.

Jonathan Kahn, a law professor at Hamline University, has closely and critically followed the process of bringing BiDil to market and he argues that it is one of the most egregious cases of manipulating science to serve commercial interests (Kahn 2004; Kahn 2003; Kahn 2005; Sankar and Kahn 2005). According to Kahn, BiDil has set in motion a trend in the pharmaceutical industry of turning widely used and cost-effective generics into patented expensive drugs in the name of health disparities.

In short, BiDil is a combination of two genetic drugs that is likely to be beneficial to all patients suffering from heart failure. Early studies of heart failure treatment conducted in the 1980s by the Veteran’s Administration included both Blacks and Whites and showed great promise for combining H/I (what is now BiDil) with enalapril (an angiotensin converting enzyme that is now the standard therapy for heart failure for all race/ethnic groups) (Cohn et al. 1986; Cohn et al. 1991). Up until this point in its development, BiDil was not a race-specific drug and its advocates argued that it would work effectively in all individuals experiencing heart failure. BiDil only morphed into an African-Americanspecific drug after it failed to receive initial support from the FDA in 1996.

At this point, no funds were raised to conduct a more rigorous trial of BiDil that would meet FDA criteria for new drug approval because BiDil only combined two generic drugs and generics that do not combine differently are not profitable. It is only at this point that the researchers returned to their VA data and began to exploit race/ethnic differences in response to treatment. A 1999 paper published in the Journal of Cardiac Failure found significant differences in response to H/I in the 49 African-Americans who were placed on H/I in the first VA trial (Carson et al. 1999). The same month that this article appeared, the pharmaceutical company Nitromed purchased the intellectual property rights for BiDil and 34 million dollars were raised in private venture capital financing to conduct the confirmatory trial now known as A-HeFT.

According to Kahn, the question of whether H/I helps heart patients was never the question of the AHeFT trial, for this had already been demonstrated in the earlier VA trials for all heart failure patients. The point of A-HeFT was to prove BiDil’s efficacy in such a way that patent law could protect it and a new drug application (NDA) could succeed. That “way” was by positing race/ethnic differences in the genetic basis for disease.

Kahn argues that the primary forces driving the re-invention of BiDil as a racespecific drug were legal and commercial rather than biomedical (Kahn 2004). In the weeks following A-HeFT, NitroMed stock more than tripled in value and then again following the publication of the results in the New England Journal of Medicine, the stock soared.

BiDil is hypothesized to work more efficaciously in African-Americans because the isosorbide is a nitric oxide donor and the hydralazine is an anti-oxidant, which may enhance the efficacy of nitrates (Taylor, Cohn and Worcel 2005). But instead of making lower levels of nitric oxide the determining factor for admission into the trial, it was whether or not you self-identified as Black. In a recent editorial that appeared in the Annals of Internal Medicine, Barr (2006) suggests that decreased levels of nitric oxide are also a principal contributor to vascular damage associated with diabetes. One alternative explanation for the higher rates of vascular nitric oxide activity in Blacks is the higher rate of diabetes among Blacks in the U.S. Indeed, the prevalence of diabetes among patients in the treatment group of the A-HeFT trial was statistically significantly greater than among the patients in the control group and was substantially greater than that among all patients with congestive heart failure (CHF). Barr suggests that H/I will likely be of benefit to all populations of patients with CHF and high rates of coexistent diabetes, regardless of individual racial affiliation. Conversely, H/I might be less useful for CHF with patients who do not have impairment of endothelial nitric oxide associated with diabetes.

A further case against using self-identified race as a treatment criteria for heart failure is made by a meta-analysis of fifteen different anti-hypertensive drugs (Sehgal 2004). The analysis demonstrate that while, on average, Blacks and Whites differ in their response to specific antihypertensive drugs, there is wide variation in drug-associated changes in blood pressure within each racial group.

The percentage of Whites and Blacks with similar drug associated changes in systolic blood pressure ranged from 83% to 93%. The authors conclude that small differences among thousands of patients will say little about how a particular patient will respond. It is impossible for “race to provide both perfect sensitivity and specificity for the presence of a DNA sequence variant.”

 

Re: Stereotypes and Myths

Race, DNA and scientific facts

I guess these quotes will to for a start. Let me know if you need more:

J. Craig Venter, Ph.D., President and Chief Scientific Officer Celera Genomics Corp.
The concept of race has no genetic or scientific basis. In the five Celera genomes there is no way to tell one ethnicity from another. Society and medicine treats us all as members of populations, whereas as individuals we are all unique and population statistics do not apply. No serious scholar in this field thinks that race is a scientific concept. It just is not.

Dr. Sylvia Spengler, U.C. Berkeley Genetics
Trying to mix genetics with race is, to my mind, inappropriate; cannot be done. Race is something we do to each other; it has nothing to do with what our DNA does to us.

Eric Lander, director of the Human Genome Sequencing Lab, Whitehead Institute
Any two humans on this planet are more than 99.9 percent identical at the molecular level. Racial and ethnic differences are all indeed only skin deep.

American Anthropological Association
Evidence from the analysis of genetics (e.g., DNA) indicates that most physical variation lies within so-called racial groups. This means that there is greater variation within "racial" groups than between them.

San Diego Mercury News
Race Not Seen as Factor in Variation of Genetic Code

University of Colorado
There’s no genetic or scientific basis for the concept of race, or ethnicity,
they’re cultural concepts, not scientific facts.


But maybe you need someone of Rushtons ilk to convince you:

"I know perfectly well, just as well as all those tremendously clever intellectuals, that in the scientific sense there is no such thing as race. But I as a politician need a conception which enables the order which has hitherto existed on historic bases to be abolished and an entirely new and anti-historic order enforced and given an intellectual basis. All propaganda must be popular and its intellectual level must be adjusted to the most limited intelligence among those it is addressed to. Consequently, the greater the mass it is intended to reach, the lower its purely intellectual level will have to be" Adolf Hitler

 

Re: Stereotypes and Myths

The "objectivity" of racial categories

Mostafa Hefny is "white" under US law
"I was not told by Immigration that I was white until I passed the exam for citizenship and then I was told I am now white"



Walter White was a "black" man


Wallace Fard Muhammad, "white" according to his birth certificate, but "black" in the mind of his adherents.



The "black" Irish
In his very influential book, The Races of Man (1862), John Beddoe, the future president of the Anthropological Institute, developed an Index of Nigressence, from which he argued that the Irish were close to Cro-Magnon man and thus had links with the "Africinoid" races.


Find out for yourself how easy is it to group people into “races” based on appearance. Try to "sorte" the individuals on this site http://www.pbs.org/race/002_SortingPeople/002_00-home.htm and see if it matches how people think of themselves.

(Click on "begin sorting" first!)

 

Stereotypes and Myths

Silvercosma:
Have you been following the entire thread? The heart of the debate was simply that Grand Rapids took the approach that race wasn't a biological factor, and that I said that is was both subjective(a social construct) and objective(things which can be verified through our senses).
Next drugs that run trials through our industry do have varying levels of performance in different racial groups.That's not pseudoscience, it's something that I deal with in the field. I respect your source, except to say that you 're going to have critical opposition to what the FDA says and does.But it's completely absurd to negate performance results because you don't like the social ramifications of the outcome.In fact, I wasn't saying that Bidil wasn't beneficial across the board, but there's nothing unethical or pseudoscientific about an observation of performance. If for an example, science is able to develop a drug that works with a certain population better, how in the world is that a mistake?There may something that the population is currently taking where the results show that the drug isn't performing well.Race is only one possible place to look.Certainly not the only one.
Next, it isn't hogwash that IQ test numbers are different among different populations.I'm certianly not a racist, and if you read the thread you'd know that I don't support eugenics simply by stating that there are differences.The definition I was using regarding race was speaking about distinctive physical traits.Feel free to disagree, but if someone asked me to identify a black person, I'd start with myself, and if someone asked me to identify a white person I could do the same.
Please explain how that is hogwash. I don't mind being challenged at all, but please get the tone of the thread.When it began I was saying that I don't "like" a white woman because she is "white." I simply said I was attracted to white women, but not because they were "white." Maybe I am drawn to certain aesthetics I see in a white woman, but the list is way longer than just that alone.
Then we disagreed on whether or not race was rooted in biology or simply a social construction. One error I find is that a person will maybe jump in on a thread and get an impression of someone that isn't the case.I don't subscribe to any racial superiority theories at all.

That source I quoted wasn't meant to say anything of the sort.Grand Rapids simply stated that the physical differences seen were environmental adaptations;I was on board with that.I took it further and said okay, but using the term race was only a descriptor of groups with those similarities.I mean when I am asked to give an example of a black person, white person, etc, I'm using the 5 senses I have and using the social construct as shorthand language to point to it.That's my basic thought on what I mean by "objective.'
So, a good discourse to me is important, and from what I read in your post, you seem to think I'm in agreement with racist thinking, but clearly, I am not.Where I drew a line in the thread was where there are objective differences;let's not try and ignore them or homogenize them. I'm not some guy out in left field who thinks that blacks are inherently less intelligent, more suited for slavery, "physcopathic," etc.That is nonsense.But please don't come on the thread and act like criticism of the FDA or a clinical trial means an invalidation of the trials themselves.If later on it's found that there were critical errors in the way the data was ascertained, then certainly the original claim would be redacted and medicine would just move on.
Next, you seem to labor under the idea that a fact or observation cited makes this fact observation racially motivated.For my benefit, are there any racial differences you have ever observed, for an example and had a theory as to why? Or do all observations offend you?Like for an example, we all know David Duke as a racist who subscribes to those eugenist theories you mentioned, but if he were to cite something that was based in fact like a difference in IQ scores or crime rates, whatever..would you get (a)get angry, (b) work to dispute the claim, or (c)if the claim had validity seek out a different or perhaps underlying cause of the claim when examined critically?
If my posts have offended or angered you and a dialogue is now out of the question, then I accept that, but I'm posting in response here because I don't want people reading the thread and only getting a one sided view of how I think.Let's see if we can understand where we're coming from, perhaps?

 

Yeah right. :roll:

Maybe you should expand your own dating pool first before you keep on questioning other peoples dating choices, implying that they must have somekind of deep routed "problems" caused by somekind of "brain washing" because they prefer to date only a certain group of people. :roll:

 

Re: Stereotypes and Myths

See my post above: The "objectivity" of racial categories

See my post above: The Case of BiDil

Determining factor was not race but higher rates of vascular nitric oxide activity associated with diabetes, with the prevalence of diabetes among patients in the treatment group of the A-HeFT trial statistically significantly greater than among the patients in the control group. BiDil only morphed into an African-Americanspecific drug after it failed to receive initial support from the FDA in 1996.

Yeah, right ... :roll:
You do not subscribe to any racial superiority theories and you do not support eugenics, yet the best you can do is to cite the racist hogwash from one of the most prominent supremacist and eugenist organisation to "evidence" your twisted outlook on race?

And if I am asked to identify a blonde and a redhead, a short and a tall persoan, I can do that too. Yet nobody is calling a blonde and a redhead or a short and a tall person a "different race".

Oh yeah? Then what was that about?
"what I said was that there are observable quantifiable differences in IQ scores among various "populations."You prefer to evade the issue of race,and say it's something else like a social factor; I say let's examine the differences" (Posted by Wedlock, Fri Apr 27, 2007 12:04 pm)

You come here propagating Rushton's lunatics and raise the question of differences in IQ scores which - what a coincidence - happens to be the main topic of this racist scum and now after you are called out on it you want to tell us that you think all that is nonsense? Yeah, whatever!

First Rushton, now David Duke, what's next? The Aryan Nation?
If something is accepted as a scientific fact you will find a bunch neutral sources to support these facts. That you have to bring up those Eugenists and white supremacists to prove your "points" tells a lot about your mindset and the credibility of your "concepts".

Do what you have to do. And no, I'm not interested in any further dialoge, I just stopped by to set the record straight on the notions you propagated in your posts. I'm not interested in posting much on this board period since most members of the original target group are gone anyway and the remaining posters are either BW trolls and/or posters which use this board solely as a platform to express their anti-semitic, xenophobic and anti-white bias and titts-and-ass talk. So the floor is all yours ...
8)

 

I am a ww dating a bm at work. We work in a correctional facility. I am totally in love with this man and he is very important to me, but no one knows about us seeing each other. Over the last 4 years we have been together, I have come to know him to be a very private person. We are monogomous, but at first my first thought was he must be seeing someone else. We act totally professional at work with other. With inmates this is a must. However when we are in public, we do all the things other couples do, hold hands, kiss, the whole 9... I have learned to respect his wishes to remain secretive about our relationship, but not before a pretty frank conversation between us. I respect him and keep my mouth shut, but I sometimes want to talk to my 2 closest friends at work. He insists that they will want to tell just one person and that one person will want to tell just one person and so on...I took me a long time to get over the feeling of being his "dirty little secret", but it is worth it to be with him.

 

Stereotypes and Myths(fairly long)

If the board has become that it's a shame.If you're not really interested in further dialogue that's a shame also.Next, I can see you're more interested in emotional responses.
Your ideas are great, but you over state your case.How you extrapolate that I support the Aryan Nation by saying that even a person with racist motives can cite a statistical fact?If David Duke does cite FBI statistics regarding a correlate between blacks and crime the numbers aren't going to change just because someone else states the same stats-unless they are trying to manipulate the numbers just for their purposes.
In other words numbers aren't personal.But you're charged up emotionally , I see from your post, so you can't see that.
Next, I don't have any twisted views on race,lol. I work in a field where the drugs we test have specific warnings and observations with respect to certain groups of people.Just because you cited a source critical of what a company like mine does, again, doesn't invalidate these warnings and observations.If you were to try and dialogue, I'd be happy to privately show you our protocols and how the trials are run. The data that comes from the sponsors. This would be an example of a neutral source, just stating a clinical observation.No eugenics, there,lol.

Your sources quoted with regard to the PBS broadcast has some merit, and you bring up a valid point in general, but with the pictures you posted I would ask for an example, why you'd list a man who has white on his birth certificate, but adherents "considered" "regarded"(in their minds) him as "black?" So by your logic, MY birth certificate says I am black, but if some people from the Klan "regarded" me(in their minds) as white, would that change?LOL Then I guess I could be a grand dragon as a black man,lol.
Next, you cited some good sources of people who do not believe race is based in scientific fact, but rather cultural concepts.So why would you list that the Irishman in the photo had anything to do with "Africinoid" races? Which one do you think is more correct? Plus, in your last post you used the designation of "BW"(trolling), now I thought that stood for "Black Women?"If the notion of race isn't objectively real, what are you saying that for?
Next, you issued a photo of Hefny.But what I found interesting is that it specifically stated that" according to US Law........."Okay, but do you think he'd say "I look white?"Would you identify him as white if somebody asked you, and you didn't know him?
Next, please understand that the 5 senses are a legitamate branch of epistemology.In other words, I assume your post of those pictures was to try and illustrate how appearances can be deceiving.Truly spoken, yes, but the design of epistemology is how you know what you know. If my eyes are not reliable, then I couldn't read your rebuttals, nor understand the information you tried to portray.Hence, my sense of sight, and what appears to be so is in fact reliable.That's why if you charged me with identifying someone black, white, etc, I could do it.So can you. That's not to say that the photo you posted of Walter White isn't a case of appearances being deceiving, but the visual aspect of me determining black, white ,other, is still at least reliable. If you don't agree, then do you think the URL whitewomenblackmen.com is a misnomer?What about the photos listed on the site?Aren't those supposed to represent what this site is like? I thought you were a subscriber because you shared an interest in "interracial dating?" Now, I paid, and I read the postings of the 'white women' section.I click on the icon(of the cute white lady) and read and check out the photos. At least my sense of sight tells me what these ladies post themselves to be.Hence, I know the difference.How about you? Social construct or not, if 10 black men were in a room and asked to identify the ladies I spoke of, if 1 says "they are not really white ladies because race is an illusion," is that one guy right?Or are the nine at least participating in a shared observation of something being objectively real?
I use that example to illustrate that general concepts are objective, and that just because I couldn't identify in SOME instances, that doesn't mean that I cannot reliably identify.
Next, you seemed to think you "called me on something"because I said I didn't subscribe to eugenics, even though I used Rushton in debating with Grand Rapids.Okay, this is just an elementary lesson for you. If I cite that under Hitler's regime, the Germans/Nazi's built "great highways," that doesn't mean I am necessarily a Nazi; it could just mean I am a fan of "great architecture/infrastructure." It's the same with Rushton; his other ideas may be as "nutty as a fruitcake's,"but I was trying to show a range of thought of people who would list that there are differences.I don't mind taking the heat if you found the source repugnant, but you commit a logical fallacy if you think that because I cite a given source, that I agree with everything from that said source.This is where I think you became heavy handed, and a little aggressive.
If I quoted Andrew Hacker, a white professor from Queens College/Cornell University, best known for his book "Two Nations," for an example, would you charge me with "lunacy then?" Hacker happens to be a good authority on the whole race/class debate, and his politics are neutral to what may be considered "liberal" in some academic circles.But yet he was an informative chapter called "Education'' Ethnicity and Achievement, where he states simple statistics about differences in performance on standardized tests.Obviously Hacker and Rushton are radically different with respect to WHY the disparities exist, but Hacker doesn't deny the numbers just because he may think that Rushton, or whomever is a "nut."
I think I understand the spirit of what you're trying to communicate, but you seem angry in your post.Again, if you attempted to dialogue with me you'd see clearly that I don't hold any sort of ideas in my mind like the radical one you seem to think I do.
I apologize if you didn't like the Rushton source, but you haven't "called me" on anything, you just jumped to a conclusion.You cited good counterpoints to refute what I was saying, but I don't think you truly understood the spirit of the thread, and decided I was many things which I am not.I'm sorry this board isn't serving you, I hope I have a different experience and find a partner.
Thank you.

 

The term "black Irish" refers to those Irish people living along the Atlantic coast and the offshore islands, who are a litthe darker than the rest of the population. They owe their origins to the close contact (maritime/trade) between Ireland and Spain. Indeed many of them look Spanish.
But there would have also been contact between Ireland and North Africa. Also North African pirates took white slaves from the southern Irish coast.

 

Stereotypes and Myths.

Hello:
There is even a local band called "The Black Irish." From the photo, I couldn't really tell if they were darker/lighter, but I was positng that bit about the "Africinoid" races. It was my contention that race is at least a descriptive attempt to categorize something objective about the people of that group.
Earlier in the thread, there were some citations from those who believe that race is simply a social construction, or cultural concept. I was just asking that if it weren't objective, then why the term "Africinoid" in regards to a concept that isn't real, or why bother using, for an example, an "Index of Nigressence" if there wasn't something objectively tying them together with a common base? It looked to me as if Beddoe was using anthropology as an objective basis for his argument. So, to me anthropology is a litte more objective than a mere social construct.
So if the people were all commonly from this area, isn't his use of the term " Cro-Magnon man," him trying to describe/classify/categorize something unique about these people in relation to an objective index?
Thanks for chatting with me on the thread.I feel like some of the other posters jumped on me and wanted to form ideas about me without even having a rational discussion on the subject.If the word "race" is so antiquated and politically incorrect as a descriptor, then what would be something more appropriate to account for differences in people? Please understand that to me we're all very much alike. I never meant to suggest that using the term 'race' meant that any group of people were any better or worse as people.We're all people first.
Thanks again.

 

Wedlock,

Like you, I do not list my "race" when I fill out applications. I do understand your point of view, being in the world of science that you would like to acknowledge physical differences among populations to best service them better. Maybe 'race' is not the best word for it. Maybe, it could be better to describe our surface physical differences as not a 'race', but ecotypes as the article mentioned. The word race is very misleading and could imply using more criteria besides physical ecological adaptations. However, we still must remember, that not all of those who look "Black" have "Black" diseases, and not all "White" people have "White" diseases.

I, like you, tend to use the defintions that I learned about what is White to physically describe a "White" person. However, I do know better, and recently, I have been more conscious not to "judge a book by its cover". Maybe why I have started to veer away from quickly typing people is I constantly remind myself of the high admixture in my family and what I have seen in other families to know better. Many people have a limited view in the U.S. about the various hair colors, skin colors, body structures, and eye colors Black Americans possess. If I tell someone that red-heads run in my family, they can't believe it. However, the statement is true--my family produce many redheads with freckles in our family regardless if we are very light or brown. In fact, I have a cousin who has red hair, very light skin with a reddish tint to it, and freckles. She does have full lips, and a slightly medim wide nose. She is constantly mistaken for being bi-racial, but both of her parents are brown-skinned Black people. Another case, I have another cousin, who is Black and White, her mother is very light and her father is White, she came out looking like a White woman in the American definition--having a keen nose, small to medium lip size, fine and wavy Black hair--no kinks, and medium-light. In a nutshell, she looked more similar to a light skinned close to fair skinned Italian, Spainaird than a person mixed with Black. The only way you could know she was half-Black, she would have to tell you. Finally, I know of a BW who looks she could be of Puerto Rican or Dominican descent whose Blackness is far down the line, even though she is an American Black--very light skin, smooth straight somewhat wavy hair texture. It would be hard to place her as being "Black" according to her physical traits alone, due to the majority of her physical traits indicating something other. Her family has a history of BLONDES!! Natural born, no dye. That is what I mean race is socially constructed, we use certain traits we perceive or taught in our society as "White", "Black", or "Asian", not taking into account the long history of admixture among human populations and the fact that other regions may produce people who exhibit similar traits. I definitely understand differences, the danger is having a SET definition to describe a whole group of people, when it may not be the case--not taking into account the diversity within the group and within the person. The categories of White, Black, Asian simply does not cut it in recognizing the physical diversity of human populations. Also, they are used to indicate personality, athletic ability, and that other B.S. that has nothing to do with physical ecological adaptation. Also, it misleads to show people that we are genetically more disimilar as a species than showing that we are more similar as a species. Again, I still believe we are one "race", despite the surface differences. That is why I opt to use environmental adaptations not "races". I do agree that in the realm of medicine, understanding certain diversity traits among human beings could be viewed as important and beneficial. However, I would still say treat the person not based on what you understand to be a "Black" or a "White", but first run some tests first, evaluate, and then see what medicine may fit them. Also, scientists must consider the current environment the person lives, their lifestyle, and what they eat in order to see is it due to physical traits or other factors that may cause the person not to respond to the medicine or treatment. All of these tests must be done. Because maybe a medicine for a "White" person may be better suited for the "Black" person and vice versa. That is what I mean in the danger of limiting medicines to a specific "race".

Also, just b/c I may identify a person as "White" doesn't mean the person is objectively White. White is socially constructed. We have been TAUGHT in the U.S., a White person has a keen nose, small lips, fair skin, and etc.. Thus, when we see a person who fits the description of what we were TAUGHT only a "White" person possess, then we identify them as White. However, that person may not be "White". Furthermore, you may have "White" people, as defined by our government, who does not possess "the package" of being "White", but they are "White" due to the fairness of skin or come close to the skin color of "White" (fair or medium light). They are, in our society, considered more of the exception than the rule, when they are just as prevelent as the Whites who do not possess these characteristics. Also, there are numerous human populations of people who possess White physical traits, however, they are not viewed as White in our society, but rather a person of color simply b/c of their darker skin color and/or country of origin. Thus, when we see those "people of color" who possess White traits, we consider them the exception than the rule, when they are not the exception at all--just our definiton of what is Black or a "person of color" is limited according to what we are TAUGHT in the U.S. Also, the definitions of White, Black, and all else in between varies from country to country. That is what I mean when I say race is a social construction and not an objective reality. Differences is objective, race is not.

Peace.

 

silver has been a member since july of 2005...and posted 467 times...i hardly think that silver is a troll...it would be more appropriate to recognize the fact that we have bw trolling the site because they have nothing better to do with their time...i'm so glad you have finally decided to be honest with the board and with yourself about not being fond of white people...why don't you just admit that you are a racist and can't stand the fact that the men on this board choose to date white women...it's a choice...period...end of story...i will pray for you my dear that you find a man or woman since your sexual preference has also been questioned and leave the rest of us the f!@k alone...