Wednesday, 19 November 2008

Part 1

So for the first part I’m going to write a little history about racism.

If you’re an educated and informed person immediately you’re already lodging a complaint that goes something like this “But Rooster, study after study shows there is no such thing as race !”. You’re right of course and in the strongest sense. When you apply the methodology used to determine difference races within animal groups to humans you do not get anything close to enough variation. That’s not to say there aren’t significant genetic variation that are a huge factor on our potential. There are and they are a significant part. The problem is that when you take two unrelated individuals of any so called “race” in the world you will find huge genetic variation between them. Not in any significant way any less variation than if you took two unrelated people of two different “races”. This has been consistently demonstrated the past few years. So not talking about “race” is not a matter of being polite, it’s a matter of being scientific.



http://record.wustl.edu/archive/1998/10-15-98/articles/races.html

So when did this silly idea of racism start in the scientific sense ?


Over 100 years ago a certain smart chap named Charles Darwin introduced us to the idea of evolution. Shortly after the theory became popular there started a movement unrelated to Darwin called “social darwism”. The premise and assumption of the movement was that Western Men represented the “most evolved” “race” and that much could be learned about our evolutionary ancestors by studying races less similar to whites. Queue a barrage of white scientists traveling to Africa and South America with tape measures in hand with rule books looking for races with flatter noses, or higher foreheads etc. A ridiculous and stupid idea that we laugh at in the age of genetics, but it did represent the start of a group of people who tried to validate the differences between groups of people to be related to their race, rather than their environment using science.

When science caught up and we discover genetics the ideas of race were tested and failed. Simple as that. However in the lay mans mind the idea of race has been as popular as ever. Why ?

A tiny proportion of human variation our the genes that make up our relatively insignificant genetically speaking-phenotype. That is to say arbitrary things like our skin color (melanin levels) and hair color, height etc. Some are less arbitrary than others. Brain size for example correlates strongly with intelligence, just as big muscles correlate with strength. That’s why by the way men are much smarter than women and twice as likely to be geniuses.

While these phonotypical things seems to be vastly different and significant, take into account how acute and developed mans senses of recognition are. Considers how amazingly well human beings can make out different faces even amongst their own groups of people ,who objectively look very much the same.”Whites” will tell you all “asians” and “blacks” look the same. But that’s exactly what asians are likely to say to each other about whites and blacks…and what blacks say about whites and Asians etc. If you like I was when I first got to Asia you’re saying to yourself, but come on…they do look all the same. We have different hair colors and eye colors etc …But trust me, that’s exactly what they think about you. So I think it’s fair to say if we’re over exaggerating the differences amongst people with the similar phenotype of individuals who objectively look like us, then we’re really overstating the differences of other ”races” in our own mind.

If you’ve never lived in Asia I guarantee you could not tell one asian person from the next. You would allocate an entire stereotypical group of traits to them. Yet spend some time in Asia and you will quickly notice how you tune in an become able to tell the differences, and how something so seemingly uniform at first was made up of a massively diverse group of people all with extremely different cultures and traits. In other words there’s massive diversity between something you considered “the same” if you look for it. How “race” and “looks” play absolutely no role in any of it. A trip to Laos and Japan will demonstrate this nicely for you.

Another way to look at what little role phenotypes play in behavior is easily demonstrated to anyone whose ever had a brindle and fawn boxer dog. Very different looking creatures, but undoubtedly boxers. And even despite their very limited and similar social exposure…totally unique little chaps.

So to conclude I think it’s fair to say that looking different does not make us different. Nor does looking the same make us the same. What’s at play is the human tendency to exaggerate the differences between “us” and “them’ and trivialize the similarities.

To be continued ……

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

A Fawn and Brindle Boxer Dog...? Is that the best you could come up with. It is their hair colour that differs not their skin colour. Your stupid argument falls flat before it even starts...

BWAHHAHAHAHAHAHA.

They are both Boxers(Same breed of species, but I am sure you know the difference between breeds and species...), Both Boxers with different hair colour. Like Whites have different hair colour.

Now look at physical differences between breeds. A German Shepherd has a longer nose, different body shape. Bigger brain. Therefore he is more intelligent.

Some breeds are faster than others. Some breeds are stronger. Some breeds are more aggressive than others and some breeds are just plain dumb!

Now if that can be said about Dog breeds...Certainly the same should exist amongst different humanoid breeds, such as Negroids, Whites and Asians.

Why can you accept it amongst dog or horse breeds, but not amongst humans?

Anonymous said...

so looks like the bok is about to come off the jersey rooster is will be moved to the right side of the jersey and is much smaller and it will get smaller and smaller until its gone,

pretty sad day for south africa.

Ron. said...

Though some anthropologists are using the term cluster to describe what was formerly noted as race. Regardless of whether one calls a group of macro related people a race or a cluster there still exist discernable groups whose shared genetic heritage have made them into distinct collectivities. While you assert that there is no biological foundation to prove races: one could also equally argue that the clustering & evolution of numerous sub groups which share common biological heritage among themselves is de facto evidence of races - at least in a cultural context - or what others now refer to as clusters.

The Rooster said...

Now if that can be said about Dog breeds...Certainly the same should exist amongst different humanoid breeds, such as Negroids, Whites and Asians.
-------------------

Nope. I specifically said that if you use the standard that is accepted to determine race ammongst animals in humans then you do not even come close. F for fail.

The Rooster said...

Now if that can be said about Dog breeds...Certainly the same should exist amongst different humanoid breeds, such as Negroids, Whites and Asians.
--------------

thye put a shitty little protea with it. Big deal man....look at new zealand and australia...they did much worse recently. Cry me a fucking river.

The Rooster said...

Now if that can be said about Dog breeds...Certainly the same should exist amongst different humanoid breeds, such as Negroids, Whites and Asians.
-------------

Kak..it's called ethnicity. As i will be writing about in times to come a black frenchman has more in common with winston churchsill than robert mugake. i'll also be doing twin studies...and a whole load of shit. So shut the fuck up weith your dumb ideas.

Anonymous said...

No Rooster. You did not get an F for Fail. You did much worse. You got a GFY. HAHAHA. Jeez If I was your prof. I would have eaten you for breakfast and chased you out my class. How did you ever get into varsity? It looks like the standards have dropped since my days. Looks they will give any moron a degree nowadays, the more liberal the answers the higher the score.

Yip...when you start namecalling and calling for people to shut the fuck up, it means you have no counter arguments and are driven into a corner. Once again you have lost the argument. But don't let me stop you...keep it coming. I am just warming up. Can see I am going to enjoy ripping your senseless stupidity to shreds. It is painful to watch a white man make his name arse, but you asked for it.

Anyway, write faster. I cant wait for your next humorous piece of hogwash. TEHEHEHE!

Anonymous said...

What is called racism is really a form of enlightened narcissism.

The first person a baby sees is his mother. Quite natural and essential, to see your mother as well as other people you grow up with and who look after you as beautiful.

Where the bind sets in is where your children are brought up by servants of other races treated as inferiors to be despised.

This creates a situation of "cognitive dissonance" - a term that Ugly Guy on SAS likes to pepper his efforts at text with.

You need the maid, but you have been taught to hate the maid.

Maids are not going to go out of fashion soon in SA. Nor will gardeners. Most middle class people will still employ maids and gardeners rather than emigrate to imagined utopias in rainy, cold lands.

We just need to get rid of the racism.

Then things will work out.

Anonymous said...

Rooster, sorry to hear that you are not well and I wish you a speedy recovery.
We are yet to see the conclusion of your race ramble but I thought I would interject with a few thoughts on the subject.

Race is still a massive cultural identifier. It’s natures crude but effective way of telling us what herd we are from so we can cling to each other in order to form a more formidable defensive mechanism whenever the shit hits the fan.
I agree that there is nothing scientifically incompatible about the mingling of races and in many cases the culmination can be favourable. However, these complementary entanglements can not be used to template every such encounter. Had our white cousins in Rhodesia known what was in store for them when they tentatively inserted themselves into an equation that neither wanted, nor needed them, they might have adopted a far more aggressive settlement strategy.

To underestimate the implications of dismissing race is Darwinist Russian roulette as any white Zimbabwean will tell you (if you can find one).To claim to belong to the human race and no other, while noble, is to disregard the very essence of self and the natural inclination to protect what is like to yourself. Why, because of our instinctive realization of the conflict between autonomy and survival.

The real question here is; are we ready as a species to erase our most fundamental instinctive predispositions regarding self preservation? Are we strong enough to survive at our weakest?
Not while our dreams of full autonomy are being perpetually dashed by corrupt, power hungry tyrants and certainly not while large percentages of the population and authoritarian institutions have neither the willingness nor capacity to apply logic and reason to rudimentary pronouncements.

In conclusion, people are still too dumb and greedy to play nice and unless you want to get hit by their huge, blunt club of ignorance you have to have your crude, chunky, self-preserving shield armed and ready.

-R.J.

Ron. said...

Racial differences are observed by anthropologists in skeletal remains based on differing bone structure which is used to determine what race a particular person was.