Admitting that racism is a thing, and calling it racism is an everybody who's actually rational thing
I disagree.
Discrimination is real.
The concept of "race" is fabricated.
Between 1660 and 1690 the RULING CLASS invented the term "WHITE RACE" very specifically as a tool to FRACTIONALIZE poor workers.
The English had a long history of separating themselves from others and treating foreigners, such as the Irish, as alien “others.” By the 17th century their policies and practices in Ireland had led to an image of the Irish as “savages” who were incapable of being civilized.
The social position of Africans in the early colonies has been a source of considerable debate. Some scholars have argued that they were separated from European servants and treated differently from the beginning. Later historians, however, have shown that there was no such uniformity in the treatment of Africans. Records indicate that many Africans and their descendants were set free after their periods of servitude. They were able to purchase land and even bought servants and slaves of their own.
Some African men became wealthy tradesmen, craftsmen, or farmers, and their skills were widely recognized. They voted, appeared in courts, engaged in business and commercial dealings, and exercised all the civil rights of other free men. Some free Africans intermarried, and their children suffered little or no special discrimination. Other Africans were poor and lived with other poor men and women; Blacks and whites worked together, drank together, ate together, played together, and frequently ran away together.
Moreover, the poor of all colours protested together against the policies of the government (at least 25 percent of the rebels in Bacon’s Rebellion [1676] were Blacks, both servants and freedmen). The social position of Africans and their descendants for the first six or seven decades of colonial history seems to have been open and fluid and not initially overcast with an ideology of inequality or inferiority.
The colonial leaders found a solution to both problems: by the 1690s they had divided the restless poor into categories reflecting their origins, homogenizing all Europeans into a “white” category and instituting a system of permanent slavery for Africans, the most vulnerable members of the population.
Between 1660 and 1690, leaders of the Virginia colony began to pass laws and establish practices that provided or sanctioned differential treatment for freed servants whose origins were in Europe. They conscripted poor whites, with whom they had never had interests in common, into the category of free men and made land, tools, animals, and other resources available to them. LINK
SEARCH ROKU TV FOR "LOGICZOMBIE"
SEARCH YOUTUBE FOR "LOGICZOMBIE"
ZOMBIEBASICTRAINING
+proHUMAN +proFAMILY
Your scathing critique is requested.
Dear @logiczombie, I was shocked that the British racialized the Irish. The British and the Irish belong to the same Celts. Although often famous for racism between whites and blacks in the United States, racism among whites in Europe is not.
Many Koreans who visited Europe argued that European racial discrimination was worse than in the United States.
I agree, discrimination is real. It's easy for it to take place between the weak and the powerful. No matter where this occurs, when there is force from one to another and no help in sight, the weaker one is disadvantaged. Commonly the poor (unfree) in front of the rich.
Modern science - which can be biased to the core - only cares about differences if something profitable can be made out of them. What has to do with medicine and runs via scientific, so-called empirical studies, cannot deal with deviations, exceptions and peculiarities, because study participants who react to a drug being tested, for example, in a unique way that is not found in any other subject are excluded from the studies. Since the studies must always be repeatable under exactly the same conditions, outliers are not suitable for making accurate statements.
But actually there are no identical reactions from different people at all, there are only effects that the participants describe and judge as severe, moderate or mild.
Modern medicine does not take into account that a disease once diagnosed could just as well disappear on its own. That the intake of 50 milligrams could be a high dose for one person in relation to, for example, his age, his daily form, daylight, ingested food, psychological mood, geological weather conditions, season, etc., for another a barely noticeable amount and for the next it makes no difference.
The deeper and more intensely one looks, the more innumerable subtle as well as gross differences can be detected between people. Everyone has a unique flora and fauna in and on their body. We will never know exactly how all the influencing factors relate to the medicines administered and to each person's particular body. But we like to pretend that we do.
Every mass-produced product that is exactly the same in form, composition and weight etc. always meets people who are very different. Technology, however, forces us to regard ourselves as the same in form, composition and measurement, and so it is now the other way round that human beings serve medicine and technology, not as individually unique beings but as collectively identical functionaries.
The talk of race, gender and skin colour is merely a pastime, a distraction from the fact that politically correct drivel has not the slightest thing to do with aliveness and love, with acceptance of differences. People who publicly advocate "protecting the rights of minorities", for example, and have that on their agenda, make me sceptical from the start.
If we really believed the nonsense about "saving ourselves" through medicine, we would have to believe just as much that if damage occurred, we could quite as easily, without error, attribute the damage to a specific cause.
But interestingly, when this is attempted on the way back, for example, to prove that bee mortality is caused by pesticides, we are unsuccessful in doing so with the manufacturers. In fact, they have a point there, because the entire ecosystem is also considered to influence bees and their deaths, i.e. numerous influencing factors that cannot all be taken into account. Of course, it would still be wise to do without pesticides, but tell that to the manufacturers and monoculture farms.
An interested scientist always looks at the peculiar, investigates the single case, the specific environment and asks for differences, not only similarities.
Well stated.
Thank you for your thoughtful words.
thank you very much for the post, have a good week
Thank you very much for your post, have a good week
Interesting thought.
But still races are a biological fact, not only in humans but also in animals and plants. What you describe is an abuse of that biological principle in order to oppress poor people. But you can´t conclude that races are fabricated. They just exploited them.
Race as a categorizing term referring to human beings was first used in the English language in the late 16th century. Until the 18th century it had a generalized meaning similar to other classifying terms such as type, sort, or kind. **
The modern use of the term "RACE" is NOT a "biological fact".
It's simply an arbitrary (ONTOLOGICAL) categorical choice.
Before the 16th century, people were categorized primarily by their SOCIAL STATUS (Varna) and or geographic place of birth and or their chosen religious beliefs (NOT simply their relative skin-tone).
Maybe you are put off by the term due to it´s negative connotation and the fact that stating that one race is superior than others caused lot of suffering (and still does), called racism. But if no races exist, why e.g. there are some medicines only licensed for one race and not another? Why are some sport disciplines (like marathon) only be won by one race and others (like swimming) only by another, when it would be so arbirary but without a biological cause?
Call them populations or variations if you have a problem with the term "race", but don´t ignore the biology of it.
Historical sample-bias, specifically in the medical field.
There are still medical guidelines in place based on the false AXIOM that dark-skinned women have a narrow pelvis that complicates child-birth.
This is NOT "FACTUAL". Skin color is NOT correlated with pelvic width.
It's simply a widely unquestioned relic of some very lazy "science" that's been codified for so long now that everyone still thinks it's "true".
WE MUST REJECT ANYONE WHO TELLS US THAT SKIN COLOR IS A GOOD WAY TO CATEGORIZE HUMANS.
No, not historical sample-bias. This is relatively new, check out here:
https://www.bidil.com/
African American.
Do you know how large and ethnically diverse Africa is?
Do you understand that not all darker-skin-toned people are not necessarily genetically African?
Do you realize that heart disease is strongly correlated to POVERTY AND DIET?
Question How did the burden of cardiovascular disease in the United States differ between persons with the most resources (the top 20% of earners) and the rest of the population between 1999 and 2016?
Findings In this serial cross-sectional analysis of a nationally representative sample of 44 986 participants, decreases in cardiovascular disease prevalence primarily occurred in the highest-resources group, whereas the prevalence among the rest of the population declined at a much lower rate, stayed the same, or increased, depending on the cardiovascular condition.
Meaning Findings of this study suggest that substantial and increasing disparities in cardiovascular disease prevalence exist in the United States between people in the highest-resources group and the remainder of the population; further research into the drivers of such disparities is needed as well as policy and public health efforts to mitigate the consequences of these inequality dynamics. **
INCOME IS CORRELATED WITH SKIN-TONE ONLY BECAUSE WE FALSELY CONFLATE SKIN-TONE WITH GENERAL ABILITY.
GENETIC DIVERSITY EXISTS.
YES.
DIFFERENT POPULATIONS IN DIFFERENT GEOGRAPHIC AREAS DEVELOP DIFFERENT SPECIALIZATIONS.
HOWEVER.
THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT ALL LIGHTER-SKIN-TONED PEOPLE SHARE THE SAME TALENTS.
IN THE SAME WAY THAT ALL DARKER-SKIN-TONED PEOPLE DON'T SHARE THE SAME TALENTS.
And one of the simplest definitions of racism is probably judging an individual by traits that you assume them to have or treating them differently because of the color of their skin or geographic decent. Whether or not those traits are common in that group or only perceived to be is beside the point. I think most people would agree that doing so is a bad thing. The problem these days is that "anti-racism" isn't simply being against this sort of behavior. It's trying to somehow compensate for it by penalizing or helping only people of a certain skin color. In other words, it actually encourages the behavior.
Well stated.
Even the term "African American" is just plain goofy.
Algeria is on the continent of Africa.
Morocco is on the continent of Africa.
Egypt is on the continent of Africa.
Do these people "look" like Africans? Well, THEY ARE AFRICANS.
IMAGE SOURCE
IMAGE SOURCE
I find the concept of "blood quantum" (specifically in reference to "native american tribes") to be especially problematic.
When you say "race" do you mean SKIN-TONE?
AND, (IFF) you don't mean SKIN-TONE (THEN) please explain exactly what you actually DO mean
In the past they were defined primarily by skin, but the closer you look, the more differences you find between the races. From superficial things like skin, hair type and eyes (and even penis length) to chemistry things like adrenaline levels, etc.. There are tons of studies about also psychological differences like aggression potential and IQ. I know, not politically correct, but science doesn´t care about PC. Do your own research - without prejudices and independent of current paradigms.
Humans are genetically diverse. I hope we can agree on this point.
The key focus here is that there is a LOT of genetic diversity WITHIN groups of people with similar skin-tones.
Skin-tone is not and should never be a PRIMARY consideration when measuring a person's individual aptitude.
Try this,
Start with the premise that all short-haired people are different than all long-haired people.
Run your SCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS.
YOU WILL FIND PATTERNS OF CORRELATION.
You'll find that shorter-haired people tend to be taller than longer-haired people.
But does that mean that hair-length causes people to grow and or shrink?
CORRELATION =/= CAUSATION
I find the concept of "blood quantum" (specifically in reference to "native american tribes") to be especially problematic.
Never heard about this concept.
Congratulations @logiczombie! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
You can view your badges on your board and compare yourself to others in the Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPDo not miss the last post from @hivebuzz:
Good morning @cuddlekitten drink a coffee with me :)