Author Topic: What is "race"? (Read 1598 times)

s2srea · « **on:** October 10, 2011, 06:32:06 PM »

I was reading the Racial-mix Brainwashing thread, and couldn't tell if I agreed with people, or disagreed. I would like to know what your definition of 'Race' is? As specific as possible. Thanks.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #1 on:** October 10, 2011, 06:47:35 PM »

Race can refer to many different things. First of all though it has to do with heredity.

For example:

The race of Israel are the descendants of Jacob.

A race can be very much like a breed. Certain peoples, isolated in a certain place, practice endogamy and become interbred to such an extent that the people are fairly closely related.

Racial differences are differences in heredity. Someone who is completely Europid caucasoid has a family tree that joins the family tree of someone who is completely Australoid long long ago.

There are obvious physical traits that show racial affinities. If no absolute line can be drawn between races (although I am certain there are quite sharp discontinuities - genetics is technically discreet, since the number of men who have lived is finite, but there are boundaries between groups that are quite distinct - often corresponding to geographical divisions), yet there is no doubt when someone is speaking to a black African, a blonde scandinavian, a Japanese man, or an Australian aborigine. No doubt at all about their ancestry and where it originates.

Obviously, the genetics of race and interracial mixing are quite complicated.

An interesting thing to observe is the fact that mixed race people can rarely find matching bone marrow.

A race develops over a very long time - once it is mixed with another race, it can't be unmixed.

MaterDominici · « **Reply #2 on:** October 10, 2011, 07:30:17 PM »

Not really an answer to your question, but I liked Canuk's point that a discussion of mixing race is really a discussion of killing culture.

Related note, I think some in that thread are having problems with the use of the word "normal" to define that which is most commonly done.

Anna1959 · « **Reply #3 on:** October 10, 2011, 07:42:13 PM »

I think many people use the word "race" rather loosely. Historically this was also done, for example, Greeks, Italians and Jєωs (as well as the British and Germans!) were once referred to as "races" (when what was really meant was "ethnicity".)

Race is far more than skin color; otherwise white people who get suntans would become a different race.

Scientific studies, esp. before the dawn of political correctness, illustrated very clearly that races are more than just skin color. In fact biracial people often have trouble getting bone marrow transplants because the matches run strictly along racial lines....and the more unusual your racial mix, the less likely you will find a match in time. So too much racial mixing can also prove fatal to the children. See: http://www.physorg.com/news162659550.html

Race properly defined is: "A family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock". Which is also why there is no such thing, scientifically, as a "human race".

A good set of books to read on this subject are:

"Why Race Matters" by Dr Michael Levin, Ph.D

"Race, Evolution and Behavior" by Dr J. Phjilippe Rushton, Ph.D

(Both available from Amazon.com)

Telesphorus · « **Reply #4 on:** October 10, 2011, 07:43:57 PM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

genetics is technically discreet

doh, and I had just congratulated myself on not making such errors when Bishop Williamson used "discrete" instead of "discreet" - well here I should have used "discrete."

Telesphorus · « **Reply #5 on:** October 10, 2011, 07:45:44 PM »

Quote from: Anna1959

Race properly defined is: "A family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock". Which is also why there is no such thing, scientifically, as a "human race".

The "Race of Adam" Anna.

Anna1959 · « **Reply #6 on:** October 10, 2011, 07:50:07 PM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Quote from: Anna1959
Race properly defined is: "A family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock". Which is also why there is no such thing, scientifically, as a "human race".

The "Race of Adam" Anna.

That's why I said "scientifically" there is no such thing as a "human race".

clare · « **Reply #7 on:** October 11, 2011, 09:14:12 AM »

Quote from: Anna1959

A good set of books to read on this subject are:

"Why Race Matters" by Dr Michael Levin, Ph.D

Might that be a Jєωιѕн surname??? :surprised:

Quote

"Race, Evolution and Behavior" by Dr J. Phjilippe Rushton, Ph.D

Just looked that one up. It seems to pre-suppose an old earth and evolution.

Scientists and philosophers, especially today, are not infallible. Not even when they advance politically incorrect positions!

Graham · « **Reply #8 on:** October 11, 2011, 09:33:30 AM »

Quote from: s2srea

I was reading the Racial-mix Brainwashing thread, and couldn't tell if I agreed with people, or disagreed. I would like to know what your definition of 'Race' is? As specific as possible. Thanks.

I recently looked it up in the OED where the definitions ranged from family units (typically dynasties) to extended kinships, tribes, ethnicities, to the major groupings we normally understand by it today: basically any particular genetic stock can correctly be called a race. If I, however, were to describe myself as a man "of the _____ race" it would likely take even educated people a moment or two to get it, since the more limited meanings have fallen into unuse. What most people today mean by race are the major and obvious groups, e.g. caucasian, mongolian, african, etc. They are sometimes divided into five, sometimes into seven.

Race can also have non-biological meanings. For one, in the past, the aristocracy was sometimes said to be of a seperate race (root 'ar', cf. 'aryan', meaning 'noble', and cf. the dynastic definition of race I mentioned earlier) from the commons, even if the biological stock was the same. This is related to the practice of claiming descent from certain deities, which can be seen on a larger scale in the ancient city states which claimed divine patronage - e.g. Athens from Athena, etc. It's interesting to see the Emperor Julian's take on this:

Quote

Our writers say that the creator is the common father and king of all things, but that the other functions have been assigned by him to national gods of the peoples and gods that protect the cities; every one of whom administers his own department in accordance with his own nature. For since in the father all things are complete and all things are one, while in the separate deities one quality or another predominates, therefore Ares rules over the warlike nations, Athene over those that are wise as well as warlike, Hermes over those that are more shrewd than adventurous; and in short the nations over which the gods preside follow each the essential character of their proper god. Now if experience does not bear witness to the truth of our teachings, let us grant that our traditions are a figment and a misplaced attempt to convince, and then we ought to approve the doctrines held by you. If, however, quite the contrary is true, and from the remotest past experience bears witness to our account and in no case does anything appear to harmonise with your teachings, why do you persist in maintaining a pretension so enormous?

Come, tell me why it is that the Celts and the Germans are fierce, while the Hellenes and Romans are, generally speaking, inclined to political life and humane, though at the same time unyielding and warlike? Why the Egyptians are more intelligent and more given to crafts, and the Syrians unwarlike and effeminate, but at the same time intelligent, hot-tempered, vain and quick to learn? For if there is anyone who does not discern a reason for these differences among the nations, but rather declaims that all this so befell spontaneously, how, I ask, can he still believe that the universe is administered by a providence?

His classifications don't have a strictly biological nor a strictly cultural basis. Replace "gods" with "Dominions" and St. Thomas' views are identical.

Graham · « **Reply #9 on:** October 11, 2011, 09:34:46 AM »

Quote from: clare

Quote
"Race, Evolution and Behavior" by Dr J. Phjilippe Rushton, Ph.D

Just looked that one up. It seems to pre-suppose an old earth and evolution.

Scientists and philosophers, especially today, are not infallible. Not even when they advance politically incorrect positions!

You have to understand that there are empirical observations, and there are theoretical explanations for said observations. Rushton's observations are valid even if his explanations are not.

Graham · « **Reply #10 on:** October 11, 2011, 09:46:26 AM »

Basically, S2srea, you probably aren't going to get a strict definition from anyone, and you shouldn't trust it if you do. A strict definition wouldn't even be helpful, necessarily. But most people are speaking of the five or seven major groups, distinguished by colour, bone structure, skull shape, and so on.

Matthew · « **Reply #11 on:** October 11, 2011, 09:57:03 AM »

Quote from: Graham

Quote from: clare

Quote
"Race, Evolution and Behavior" by Dr J. Phjilippe Rushton, Ph.D

Just looked that one up. It seems to pre-suppose an old earth and evolution.

Scientists and philosophers, especially today, are not infallible. Not even when they advance politically incorrect positions!

You have to understand that there are empirical observations, and there are theoretical explanations for said observations. Rushton's observations are valid even if his explanations are not.

Good point. Just because the facts are being twisted to advance something objectively erroneous doesn't mean that the collected facts presented in the book are not facts.

Just tune the guy out when he starts "making sense of it" or drawing conclusions from it.

Just like Mr. Hovind and Creationism -- I know the man is far from perfect (he's a Protestant preacher!) but the facts he's gathered are invaluable in understanding the truth of Creationism -- and the ridiculousness of evolution.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #12 on:** October 11, 2011, 10:21:22 AM »

Does he want a strict definition of a Holstein? A Jersey?

It's not necessary to know what race is to know it exists. It's not necessary to define something to discuss it. This is a common error that people make about logic. It is only necessary to have common premises. We can accept the premise that someone belongs to a race without defining race, just as we can take the premise that two non-parallel lines in the same plane intersect in a point without defining line and point.

Graham · « **Reply #13 on:** October 11, 2011, 11:20:23 AM »

Quote from: Matthew

Good point. Just because the facts are being twisted to advance something objectively erroneous doesn't mean that the collected facts presented in the book are not facts.

There are incorrect explanations of the facts, and then there are incorrect or hasty interpretations of the facts. For example, Rushton is at pains to demonstrate that the major races (he identifies five, I believe) have different mean IQs. (What you would expect: blacks low, whites middle, yellows high.) Now, many people who read him will believe that he’s showing or trying to show that some races are more intelligent than others. Someone with more perspective will know that IQ tests only measure a few aspects of that mysterious and multifaceted thing we call intelligence, and being created by modern whites, are skewed to measure those aspects of intelligence that most typify modern whites. For this person, the IQ results will indicate that the races are intellectually different – that they tend to think differently, thus showing that race differences are more than skin-deep – not that one is smarter than another in an absolute sense. That’s what I take from it at least.

On another note, I believe that differences in 'spiritual type' (put another way, in 'spiritual race') are more pronounced than differences between the biological races. White and black 'warrior' types will be more deeply similar than a white warrior type to a white 'artisan' type. However this doesn't reduce biological race to insignificance.