[quote=“Gao Bohan”]I realize that lots of people identify more closely with those of the same “race”, with prisons being an extreme but illustrative example. I also understand that medical researchers, physical anthropologists, and other academics, professionals, and politicians are interested in this concept for various reasons. I know that not all of those are selfish or sinister reasons.
But for me, focusing on racial differences is a divisive and useless exercise. I don’t consider myself a member of the white race. I consider myself a member of the human race. I realize that most people don’t think like me in this regards.[/quote]
Okay? You’re a human. Is that it? You don’t consider yourself a member of the white race. But I’m assuming you’re white, right? You only consider yourself a member of the human race? Do you also not consider yourself to be male or female either? Its these further classifications and differences in each of us that makes us different. For someone to just say, we are just one big happy family and we are a human race and everyone is the same is silly because we’re NOT all the same. But you are entitled to your own opinions.
Now that we have established that there are indeed, more than ONE race…
I’m gonna throw this out again:
It is “human nature” for us to harbor some form of racism within us, regardless of whether or not we let it be known to the general public.
No we haven’t. Skin tone, eye color, hair color and texture, are meaningless distinctions. Sure, I use the term “race” sometimes because it’s amazingly prevalent in the English language. The white “race”, the black “race”, the Asian “race”, etc. When I apply for a job, I’m “asked” to identify my race for tracking and reporting purposes. Race is talked about constantly in politics and other contexts. But my identity as a white man doesn’t mean anything to me.
I get it. Don’t assume you speak for the rest of us.
No we haven’t. Skin tone, eye color, hair color and texture, are meaningless distinctions. Sure, I use the term “race” sometimes because it’s amazingly prevalent in the English language. The white “race”, the black “race”, the Asian “race”, etc. When I apply for a job, I’m “asked” to identify my race for tracking and reporting purposes. Race is talked about constantly in politics and other contexts. But my identity as a white man doesn’t mean anything to me.
I get it. Don’t assume you speak for the rest of us.[/quote]
Haha so let me get this straight.
When you apply for a job and you’re asked to identify your race, you actually identify yourself as “human”?
If that were an option, I would. I realize this is beyond your understanding, but I see all human beings as part of a global community. I look forward to the day when absolutely nobody cares about skin color and other superficial differences, and we inter-marry to the point where we’re all the same race. I also support the end of political borders and a global government. Maybe it’s just a dream, but it’s a good dream.
Yes. You are right. This shit is flying right over my head and way beyond my understanding. You are saying you do not recognize Asians, white, black, Mexican, Indians, and so on. What are you, living in the Matrix or something? to say that a Taiwanese person is no different from a white boy from the States is straight up comedy. Thats what youre saying right? No color lines? So all humans have the same genes too right? If we’re all the same race, why is it only “black” people have brown skin? Why is it Asians have “black hair”? Why is it rare for an Asian to have green or blue eyes but normal for “white people”?
Please explain your definition for racism if, according to you, there is only one race.
And please don’t say less intelligent people hating on each other…
Gao Bohan, you’re sounding very Baha’i! (Look that up if you don’t know what it is–you might like them.) I have to admit that it’s a beautiful dream, but dividing into competing identity groups seems to be part of human nature. If race is no longer relevant, then it will be something else. Of course the markers themselves are arbitrary, although this is not to say that significant behavioral and aptitudinal differences cannot be identified between population groups.
Remember those old Planet of the Apes movies? The actors portraying apes had to wear the costumes and special-effects makeup all day. When they ate lunch, they took to segregating themselves according to species–chimps sat with other chimps, gorillas with gorillas, and orangutans with orangutans!
[quote=“Zla’od”]Gao Bohan, you’re sounding very Baha’i! (Look that up if you don’t know what it is–you might like them.) I have to admit that it’s a beautiful dream, but dividing into competing identity groups seems to be part of human nature. If race is no longer relevant, then it will be something else. Of course the markers themselves are arbitrary, although this is not to say that significant behavioral and aptitudinal differences cannot be identified between population groups.
Remember those old Planet of the Apes movies? The actors portraying apes had to wear the costumes and special-effects makeup all day. When they ate lunch, they took to segregating themselves according to species–chimps sat with other chimps, gorillas with gorillas, and orangutans with orangutans![/quote]
According to Prof Gao, there would be no chimps, gorillas or orangutans. They would all simply be known as “APES”…
Of course it is. It’s an unfortunate legacy of our tribal past. And yet we’ve managed to overcome many differences and form vast nations. I don’t see why we couldn’t do the same thing worldwide, with one nation.
By this analogy, blacks, white, Asians, etc., are different species. Is that what you think?[/quote]
Nope.
Species would be “Sapien”
Hence, Genus species = Homo sapien
Did you not pass basic biology? We learned this in high school…
Or maybe you forgot that humans are more advanced than animals and species further breaks down into race/nationalities.
Actually even animals are further broken down. IE: African elephant, Black rhino, White rhino, Asian black bear…etc
Of course it is. It’s an unfortunate legacy of our tribal past. And yet we’ve managed to overcome many differences and form vast nations. I don’t see why we couldn’t do the same thing worldwide, with one nation.[/quote]
People are most definitely NOT all the same, and the real differences have nothing to do with race. It’s not even all culture. Culture is part of it, but the real differences are deeper than culture.
There is a certain type of person who thinks it’s all about race. There’s another sort of person who tries to feel superior to the racialist/racist by saying we’re all one people. Both are wrong.
Everywhere I’ve ever been, there are stupid people and smart people, dull people and interesting people, people from sheltered upbringings and people who’ve come up in the school of hard knocks. There are good people, there are bad people, and there are yuppies – who are sort of below good and evil.
I’ll grant you this: yuppies are the same everywhere. What else could they be?
About the “Asian race”?
Have you ever talked to with Japanese, Koreans, or Pakistanis about the alleged “Asian race”? Or with Okinawans or Ainu?
And what about the “white race”?
Basques are in, Roma are out, Hungarians are in, Maltese are out, Siberians are in, Turks are out? Is that how it goes?
And what about
“race A”, i.e., the set of “white” people and “black” people with blood type A
versus
“race B”, i.e., the set of “white” people and “black” people with blood type B?
Isn’t the genetic difference expressing blood types more significant than that expressing skin colour?
Or is it, “what we can’t see can’t be”?
Just wondering.
[quote=“yuli”]About the “Asian race”?
Have you ever talked to with Japanese, Koreans, or Pakistanis about the alleged “Asian race”? Or with Okinawans or Ainu?
And what about the “white race”?
Basques are in, Roma are out, Hungarians are in, Maltese are out, Siberians are in, Turks are out? Is that how it goes?
And what about
“race A”, i.e., the set of “white” people and “black” people with blood type A
versus
“race B”, i.e., the set of “white” people and “black” people with blood type B?
Isn’t the genetic difference expressing blood types more significant than that expressing skin colour?
Or is it, “what we can’t see can’t be”?
Just wondering. [/quote]
Not quite sure I understand what you’re trying to say. Was I the only one who grew up generalizing race as white people, black people, mexicans, asians, mexicans, latinos, etc? And then these get broken down further into nationalities?
[quote=“Leftywang81”][quote=“yuli”]About the “Asian race”?
Have you ever talked to with Japanese, Koreans, or Pakistanis about the alleged “Asian race”? Or with Okinawans or Ainu?
And what about the “white race”?
Basques are in, Roma are out, Hungarians are in, Maltese are out, Siberians are in, Turks are out? Is that how it goes?
And what about
“race A”, i.e., the set of “white” people and “black” people with blood type A
versus
“race B”, i.e., the set of “white” people and “black” people with blood type B?
Isn’t the genetic difference expressing blood types more significant than that expressing skin colour?
Or is it, “what we can’t see can’t be”?
Just wondering. [/quote]
Not quite sure I understand what you’re trying to say. Was I the only one who grew up generalizing race as white people, black people, Mexicans, asians, Mexicans, latinos, etc? And then these get broken down further into nationalities?[/quote]
My mom told me that when she was a kid, she was taught there are only three types of people: black, white, and Asian. “What bout Indians?” “They’re Asian.” “What about Middle Easterners?” “They’re… Asian…?” “What about Native Americans and Mestizos?” “…”
You missed Yuli’s point. Of course we all once thought of the world like this. He (she?) is offering points to make a counter-argument.
BTW, as far as I know apartheid South Africa classified Chinese people as Indian and Taiwanese people as white.
And then there’s the delightful British term “wog,” which has been variously used to describe swarthy-skinned folks from Africa, the Mediterranean, the Middle East and South Asia.
[quote=“Hokwongwei”][quote=“Leftywang81”][quote=“yuli”]About the “Asian race”?
Have you ever talked to with Japanese, Koreans, or Pakistanis about the alleged “Asian race”? Or with Okinawans or Ainu?
And what about the “white race”?
Basques are in, Roma are out, Hungarians are in, Maltese are out, Siberians are in, Turks are out? Is that how it goes?
And what about
“race A”, i.e., the set of “white” people and “black” people with blood type A
versus
“race B”, i.e., the set of “white” people and “black” people with blood type B?
Isn’t the genetic difference expressing blood types more significant than that expressing skin colour?
Or is it, “what we can’t see can’t be”?
Just wondering. [/quote]
Not quite sure I understand what you’re trying to say. Was I the only one who grew up generalizing race as white people, black people, Mexicans, asians, Mexicans, latinos, etc? And then these get broken down further into nationalities?[/quote]
My mom told me that when she was a kid, she was taught there are only three types of people: black, white, and Asian. “What bout Indians?” “They’re Asian.” “What about Middle Easterners?” “They’re… Asian…?” “What about Native Americans and Mestizos?” “…”
You missed Yuli’s point. Of course we all once thought of the world like this. He (she?) is offering points to make a counter-argument.
BTW, as far as I know apartheid South Africa classified Chinese people as Indian and Taiwanese people as white. [/quote]
Haha I don’t get it though. Now we’re debating whether or not its wrong to say one is white or one is black or one is Asian???
What are you really talking about here?
[/quote]