Racist Comments on this board could = a Fine.

[Ktulu]

Stereotyping people by race was popular in the Victorian period onward and was used to justify discrimination and exploitation of certain 'races' not necessarily black,brown or yellow...

'In much of the pseudo-scientific literature of the day the Irish were held to be inferior, an example of a lower evolutionary form, closer to the apes than their "superiors"

I'm well aware of what racial stereotyping was (and is still) used for... having brown skin in a predominately white country teaches you these things through experience... I don't have to read up on it like you. But that doesn't mean that's all "race" can be used for... genetic traits are important in susceptibility to specific diseases, food allergies and ignoring your genetic history is doing yourself a disservice.

Or is there some way you could identify them by genetic differences?

Again, I hope you're kidding. Genetic markers are prevalent amongst all races, so it's pretty easy to test for genetic differences. Hell, if you really want, you can check your ancestry all the way back to one of 7 women (assuming you have access to some mitochondrial DNA from a female in your family). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Seven_Daughters_of_Eve

Like I said, it's a little different in Europe... we don't get all emotional about this issue down here (like you obviously do). We still have issues around race, but it doesn't have the same stigma about it. Besides, I'm doing my part to homogenise... I gots me a white women

[littlefrank]

'The 0.1% genetic difference that differentiates any two random humans is still the subject of much debate. The discovery that only 8% of this difference separates the major races led some scientists to proclaim that race is biologically meaningless. They argue that since genetic distance increases in a continuous manner any threshold or definitions would be arbitrary. Any two neighboring villages or towns will show some genetic differentiation from each other and thus could be defined as a race. Thus any attempt to classify races would be imposing an artificial discontinuity on what is otherwise a naturally occurring continuous phenomenon.

However, other scientists disagree by claiming that the assertion that race is biologically meaningless is politically motivated and that genetic differences are significant. Neil Risch states that numerous studies over past decades have documented biological differences among the races with regard to susceptibility and natural history of a chronic disease, though acknowledges that these differences do not constitute any major subdivisions of the human species: '...These conclusions seem consistent with the claim that "there is no biological basis for 'race'" and that "the myth of major genetic differences across 'races' is nonetheless worth dismissing with genetic evidence". Of course, the use of the term "major" leaves the door open for possible differences but a priori limits any potential significance of such differences.' Effectively Neil Risch is attempting to redefine "race" for human populations to represent that small proportion of variation that is known to vary between continental populations. It is well established, that the level of differentiation between the continental human groups, as measured by the statistic FST is about 0.06-0.1 (6-10%), with about 5-10% of variation at the population level (that is between different populations occupying the same continent) and about 75-85% of variation within populations.(Risch et al., 2002; Templeton, 1998; Ossorio and Duster, 2005; Lewontin, 2005). Tempeton (1998) states that in biology a level of 0.25-0.3 (20-30%) of differentiation normally accepted in biological literature for a population to be considered a race or subspecies.'



Which is why Anthropologists, social scientists et al say that 'race' if using that term, is based on 'shared culture, ancestry and history'

So Americans are indeed a 'race' has they do have a shared culture, ancestry and history.

[Ktulu]

Which is why Anthropologists, social scientists et al say that 'race' if using that term, is based on 'shared culture, ancestry and history'

Yes well, we're just going to have to agree to disagree here. I find anthropology is interesting but lacks the science to offer it much credibility. Genetic differentiation my only be a few points of a percent, but we're only talking a couple of percent and we're chimps... so it's not a particularly strong argument.

I do want to say that I appreciate your point of view and think that we'll never really evolve the collective consciousness of mankind until we all think of ourselves as one race and start working together to make the world a better place for us ALL to live in... but considering how hard it'd be to get Winter to sit down with me and sing kumbaya... I doubt we'll ever get remotely close to obtaining a collective human consciousness.
Personally I think we shouldn't even think of ourselves as humans... we're just part of a greater living organism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis
And until we all acknowledge that, we're never going be able to live in harmony... but that's pretty much a given.

Oh and Americans don't have a shared culture and history... unless you count raiding the indigenous people and wiping out their history and culture as being "shared". I spose it did achieve a type of cultural homogeneity.

[littlefrank]

Oh and Americans don't have a shared culture and history... unless you count raiding the indigenous people and wiping out their history and culture as being "shared". I spose it did achieve a type of cultural homogeneity.

'Prior to 1840 Maori customary lore and practice governed all land. Of the 66 million acres held in 1840, 3 million remained in Maori control by 1901. In 2002, approximately 5% of land in New Zealand is Maori Freehold Land. As Justice Edie Durie has noted ‘much [is] on poorer land, some 7% unworkable’

'At the turn of the 20th century, Maori were reportedly a dying race. Disease and land loss had apparently taken their toll on the population with a drop from an estimated 100,000 Maori in 1840 to 45,000 in 1901'

“(Sir Joseph George Ward) I told Rua...that in New Zealand King Edward is king, and is represented here by his government or king....there can’t be two suns shining in the sky at the same time.” Rua replied to Ward, "Yes, there is only one sun in the heavens, but it shines on one side- the pakeha side- and it darkens on the other.”

And you married a Pākehā, are you sharing your culture?

[Ktulu]

And you married a Pākehā, are you sharing your culture?

Yeah, my wife is Finnish, so she's pretty culturally neutral really. I don't really consider her Pakeha (which just means stranger)... she's more Maori (which means ordinary) than some Maori I know. She's just enrolled in a "Maori Ora" course which will teach her Maori custom and a bit more of the language. Where she will never be considered Maori in a genetic sense... her children will.
We're not particularly representative of the population though (of any cultural heritage) as I want my children to experience as much cultural diversity as possible (which is one thing that New Zealand has in abundance, but very few take advantage of). I even make a point of taking them to the local Mosque every year when they have their open day... and I'm a devout atheist.

Those figures you've quoted are rather out dated... a lot of the land that Pakeha (ie the English) confiscated, has been handed back or have resulted in settlement payments by the Crown (in some cases hundreds of millions of dollars each for some tribes). Population figures are also rather old... we number nearly 600,000 now.

[Chrysoberyl]

I always thought that "race" was a strictly biological term,based on physical characteristics.What in earth has it to do with culture?

[Kupcake]

I always thought that "race" was a strictly biological term,based on physical characteristics.What in earth has it to do with culture?

Check some online dictionaries, and um, the previous postings on this topic ... it's pretty clear that it's a complicated issue.

My take is that for the most part in our lives we deal with individuals rather than groupings of people, and while there may be some broad sweeping statements we can make about a group of people (e.g. all Australians drink beer) we will always find individuals who fall outside of those broad sweeping statements. My personal policy is take people as you find them, regardless of race and culture. I'm pleased that diversity is alive and well within races and cultures.

[Chrysoberyl]

My point is that when anybody chooses to talk about an American race(besides,about which part of America are we talking?) or an English race and so on,two concepts that are completely independent from each other get confused.There's not such a thing as a French,or Spanish,or German race,just to name a few examples.

[littlefrank]

I always thought that "race" was a strictly biological term,based on physical characteristics.What in earth has it to do with culture?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craniometry


'An Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races (1853-1855) by Joseph Arthur Comte de Gobineau is a milestone of "scientific racism" (also missynonymized with "racialism") and White supremacy, and is generally considered to be the first formulation of "biological racism", in contrast to Boulainvilliers' theory of races. In this essay, Gobineau makes 3 main divisions between races, based not on colour but on climatic conditions and geographic location. He conceived the "Aryan race" as the most advanced and inherently superior to all other racial groups.'


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Essay_o ... uman_Races

[Rob A.]

My point is that when anybody chooses to talk about an American race(besides,about which part of America are we talking?) or an English race and so on,two concepts that are completely independent from each other get confused.There's not such a thing as a French,or Spanish,or German race,just to name a few examples.

The usage of the word, "race", has changed over time...at one point it had the sense of "common lineage"....in that sense, "German race", "British race" etc. meant those people inhabiting the various German states, or the British Isles, and, more or less, conforming with the contemporary culture...

It is not unusual to read remarks made by historic figures in which they were using the word, "race", in that sense.... If those same people were speaking today they would choose a different word...probably, "nation"...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical ... ns_of_race