What is racism?

DestinyCall · 2020-03-30 18:28:47

Europe has mono-race countries? There are so many cultural groups in close proximity, I would think every place would end up with some minorities. I'm surprised it isn't an issue where you live.

voy178 · 2020-03-30 19:58:21

DestinyCall wrote:

Europe has mono-race countries? There are so many cultural groups in close proximity, I would think every place would end up with some minorities. I'm surprised it isn't an issue where you live.

So there's a bit of history to why the cultures are so separated. See, before WW2 Europe was very mixed in terms of culture and origin which is natural. There were Germans, Italians, etc all over the continent due to historical settlements since the medieval ages, trade, colonialism, historical conquests, etc. After WW2, the USSR and the West decided to forcibly move thousands of people back to their original home countries even if the people had been integrated and didn't even speak their old language anymore.

Although I'd like to point out that not one single country in Europe is 100% monocultural, the vast majority has very minor percentages of minority groups within them (not counting language subgroups or historical regional minorities).

Elsayal · 2020-03-30 20:27:28

From race to culture to language ?
Just to point out : race is not culture, langage is not culture (you can speak french or spanish and have different culture).

DestinyCall · 2020-03-30 22:44:52

When talking about Europe, I think "ethnic group" might be the best term, since many Europeans are "white" but they are not necessarily the SAME white.

Like how we have vanillas and ginger in OHOL.

voy178 · 2020-03-31 11:28:20

Elsayal wrote:

From race to culture to language ?
Just to point out : race is not culture, langage is not culture (you can speak french or spanish and have different culture).

There is no such thing as race.

Gogo · 2020-03-31 13:00:54

?

DestinyCall · 2020-03-31 13:43:34

Gogo wrote:

?

If you are confused by Voy178's statement regarding race, it might help to get a little history regarding the origin of races and why "white" is considered cohesive race by many people in the real world, but "ginger" is not.

Encyclopedia Britannica wrote:

The modern meaning of the term race with reference to humans began to emerge in the 17th century. Since then it has had a variety of meanings in the languages of the Western world. What most definitions have in common is an attempt to categorize peoples primarily by their physical differences. In the United States, for example, the term race generally refers to a group of people who have in common some visible physical traits, such as skin colour, hair texture, facial features, and eye formation. Such distinctive features are associated with large, geographically separated populations, and these continental aggregates are also designated as races, as the “African race,” the “European race,” and the “Asian race.” Many people think of race as reflective of any visible physical (phenotypic) variations among human groups, regardless of the cultural context and even in the absence of fixed racial categories.
The term race has also been applied to linguistic groups (the “Arab race” or the “Latin race”), to religious groups (the “Jewish race”), and even to political, national, or ethnic groups with few or no physical traits that distinguish them from their neighbours (the “Irish race,” the “French race,” the “Spanish race,” the “Slavic race,” the “Chinese race”, etc.).
For much of the 20th century, scientists in the Western world attempted to identify, describe, and classify human races and to document their differences and the relationships between them. Some scientists used the term race for subspecies, subdivisions of the human species which were presumed sufficiently different biologically that they might later evolve into separate species.
At no point, from the first rudimentary attempts at classifying human populations in the 17th and 18th centuries to the present day, have scientists agreed on the number of races of humankind, the features to be used in the identification of races, or the meaning of race itself. Experts have suggested a range of different races varying from 3 to more than 60, based on what they have considered distinctive differences in physical characteristics alone (these include hair type, head shape, skin colour, height, and so on). The lack of concurrence on the meaning and identification of races continued into the 21st century, and contemporary scientists are no closer to agreement than their forebears. Thus, race has never in the history of its use had a precise meaning.
Although most people continue to think of races as physically distinct populations, scientific advances in the 20th century demonstrated that human physical variations do not fit a “racial” model. Instead, human physical variations tend to overlap. There are no genes that can identify distinct groups that accord with the conventional race categories. In fact, DNA analyses have proved that all humans have much more in common, genetically, than they have differences. The genetic difference between any two humans is less than 1 percent. Moreover, geographically widely separated populations vary from one another in only about 6 to 8 percent of their genes. Because of the overlapping of traits that bear no relationship to one another (such as skin colour and hair texture) and the inability of scientists to cluster peoples into discrete racial packages, modern researchers have concluded that the concept of race has no biological validity.
Many scholars in other disciplines now accept this relatively new scientific understanding of biological diversity in the human species. Moreover, they have long understood that the concept of race as relating solely to phenotypic traits encompasses neither the social reality of race nor the phenomenon of “racism.” Prompted by advances in other fields, particularly anthropology and history, scholars began to examine race as a social and cultural, rather than biological, phenomenon and have determined that race is a social invention of relatively recent origin. It derives its most salient characteristics from the social consequences of its classificatory use. The idea of “race” began to evolve in the late 17th century, after the beginning of European exploration and colonization, as a folk ideology about human differences associated with the different populations—Europeans, Amerindians, and Africans—brought together in the New World. In the 19th century, after the abolition of slavery, the ideology fully emerged as a new mechanism of social division and stratification.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/race-human

TLDR; Race is an out-dated social construct, not a biological reality. It's a quick way to group together people of similar skin tones and/or other physical features together for your convenience, but it lacks scientific credibility.

It would make as much sense to group everyone with blue eyes together as "blues" and everyone with green eyes together as "greens" and so on, dividing humanity up into unique races based on eye color instead of skin tone. But eye color is harder to spot from a distance, so skin tones are the primary method for assigning race. In places where everyone is the same skin tone, you have to try a little harder to assign people to distinct minority groups, using more nebulous things, like religion, language, and ethnicity. But if two people are both dark-skinned, it's super easy to know what they are just by looking, right?

This article goes into greater detail regarding how the concept of race has evolved over the centuries and how it differs between cultures. Race as biology is a relatively recent concept, replacing previous less-scientific explanations for why different groups of people vary in physical appearance. But race is not determined by your biology. It is determined by your society.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_race_concepts

Last edited by DestinyCall (2020-03-31 15:01:03)

Gogo · 2020-03-31 15:38:04

So what's the new word for grouping people by their main appearance traits? Dogs are classified as races depending on their looks. If aliens would come to us, they would classified ppl from India and Mexico in same category, brown skin race. Then they would spot differences in behaviour and clothes (culture). In the same time they would categorize us by our position on planet (countries).

Last edited by Gogo (2020-03-31 15:38:18)

Elsayal · 2020-03-31 15:48:54

Or maybe aliens would classified humans and baboons in the same category, who knows ?

Anyway "race" in dogs is used as race was used for human being. In fact we are from the same species, meaning we can reproduce alltogether.

New word is "human being". But you could use ethnicity, even if it refer to language and culture.

Last edited by Elsayal (2020-03-31 15:49:57)

Glassius · 2020-03-31 21:57:32

DestinyCall wrote:

The sentence looks like it was cherry-picked. I'd be interested to see the actual context surrounding it.

By describing sytemic racism you proved it is not cherry-picked.

I've googled that systemic racism and came to Wikipedia entry about Institutional racism. This is the great entry, as it shows systemic racism is overused. Due to historic events black immigrants are poorer and more prone to be criminal, and it is described as racism But even them, throwing someones CV to thrash because of name origin seems very exotic to me. Well, there are people collecting stamps, so everything is possible, even institutional racism in moder societies.

DestinyCall wrote:

The author is a black woman named Ijeoma Oluo who was born in Texas, so I'm guessing she has had some personal experience with both varieties of racism in her life.

Never trust anyone because of his personal experience or origin. Especially if that person utils compassionation of others. If the statement needs that kind of authority, it is worthless. Only statements which can defend itself even if spoken by anonymous Internet troll are worth considering. Remember:
1. Alicia Esteve Head who gain fame by faking being September 11 survivor.
2. Rachel Dolezal who faked being African American to gain the chair of the Office of the Police Ombudsman Commission in Spokane.
3. Great Lakes refugee crisis. After Rwanda genocide people around the world were aiding refugee camps in Zair. But refugees were mostly Hutu who started genocide, lost civil war and escaped from Rwanda. They were using refugee camps and international aid to raid Rwanda for almost 2 years.
4. Simon Mol, Cameroon-origin politcal refugee who made career in Poland as writer, journalist and anti-racist activist. Respected and rewarded multiple times was using his fame to spread AIDS across local women. He was performing very brutal sex to increase infection probability and accusing of racism if asked to use a condom.

DestinyCall wrote:

As a white person in a white society, you don't typically face systemic racism

Such a thing was common in Europe in past. Maybe you heard about Holocaust? Or about origin of Ludwig Zamehof? Prussian deportations? Armenian Genocide? Did you watch a movie Evil from 2003 with Sweden racism against certain whites in the background?

Well, forget Europe. 100 years ago Slavs, Italians, Hungarians and Greeks were not considered white in USA, therefore they were facing the institutional racism for example in real estate market.

DestinyCall wrote:

Your president is a white guy. Your senator is a white guy. Your governor is a white guy .. and so on, all the way down to your boss who is probably also a white guy.

All my co-workers, prisoners and garbage collectors are white aswell.

I've never saw "nigga" in OHOL during my gameplays. Maybe because all Americans were sleeping in that moment, so I was playing with Europeans And I've never saw anyone to care about skin tone ingame. Maybe you see racial specialization as the way to promote diversity, but from Eastern-European perspective we see it as a solution to non-existing problem.

Elsayal wrote:

Just to point out : race is not culture

Race not, racism can be Seriously, check definition.

voy178 wrote:

There is no such thing as race.

Of course there are races . Those are groups described by subjective criteria. Most visible is skin color, but you can use other classifications utilizing eye color, lactose tolerance or even blood type I totally agree with DestinyCall here.

DestinyCall · 2020-04-01 00:47:57

Gogo wrote:

So what's the new word for grouping people by their main appearance traits? Dogs are classified as races depending on their looks. If aliens would come to us, they would classified ppl from India and Mexico in same category, brown skin race. Then they would spot differences in behaviour and clothes (culture). In the same time they would categorize us by our position on planet (countries).

Dogs are not classified by race. They are classified by "breed" with each breed association maintaining a breed standard and pedigree system for recognized dog breeds. In the United States, the American Kennel Club is perhaps the best known kennel club, but other clubs exist both in the US and across the world.

A breed standard typically covers externally visible qualities of the animal such as appearance, movement, and temperament. Breed standards come in different formats and can be updated or changed over time, depending on the needs of the breed and evolving husbandry practices. Differences in breed standards between different countries can result in noticable differences between dogs bred to conform to those standards.

Conformation to the breed standard is assessed at competitions held by kennel clubs. Typically, in order to enter into a dog show, the dog must first prove that he is a member of the appropriate breed. This is done through a pedigree system. Purebred dogs are registered with the kennel club and their offspring are registered as well. As long as both parents are in the breed registry, the offspring is considered purebred and eligible for show. If either parent is unregistered, the kennel club will not allow registration as "purebred". Some breed associations do allow registering "percentages" - an animal who is less than 100% pure. But the majority do not.

This creates some interesting situations. For example, your dog might be 100% labrador retriever, but if you do not have papers for your dog, you cannot register his puppies as purebred 100% lab puppies. Registration requires money and paperwork. Unless you plan on showing or breeding your dog, you probably don't care about papers that much, you just want a cute doggo who knows how to play fetch. But people will often shop for purebred dogs in the hopes of getting a dog that matches the breed standard in terms of size, temperament, appearance, or instinctive behavior.

Responsible breeders are expected to know the breed standard for their breed and select healthy, good quality dogs who meet the standards established by their local kennel club. To prove the quality of their dogs, they compete at dog shows where purebred, registered dogs are compared against the current breed standard to assess which dogs exemplify their breed and class. Deviation from the standard is considered a fault. Too many faults or certain defined major faults may mark an animal as "unfit to breed". These animals are frequently sold as "pet quality" for a lower price, since they will not be registered. A dog who closely matches the breed standard has "good conformation" and is likely to be bred to continue the breed.

Over time, selectively breeding for a particular standard AND maintaining closed registries can lead to an accumulation of recessive traits and an increased risk of health problems. Many breeds are plagued by genetic disorders, like epilepsy, hip dysplasia, and alopecia. Genetic testing is now being used to screen for these conditions and hopefully remove affected dogs from the breeding population. There also many examples of dog breeds that have been "overbred" to the point that they have health problems related to their body shape or other physical features. For example, English Bulldogs have very large heads and narrow hips. This shape is part of the breed standard and it has been exaggerated over many generations to the point that natural births are now quite challenging for this breed. The puppies can become "stuck" in the birth canal due to their large skulls, so c-section is often medical necessity for this breed. Another example would be whippets who have been bred to be extremely thin and with very long legs. They are incredibly agile dogs, capable of jumping very high and running very fast. But unfortunately, their thin leg bones are prone to breaking, especially when young.

In theory, the breed standard is supposed to ensure quality and health, but in practice, breeding for a particular type can lead to unintended consequences. What we see on the surface doesn't always tell the whole story and continued breeding toward a color or size standard can lead to less visible traits, like health and temperament being neglected. It doesn't help that dog shows judge the dog's appearance more than his working ability. There are frequently noticable quality differences between working lineages and show lineages within the same breed, as the breeders value different traits, depending on their goals. Most dog breeds were originally bred to perform a particular function, like hunting, herding, or tracking. A working dog will be bred not only for adherence to the breed standard, but also for innate ability, like the instinct to chase game or retrieve, and performance in the field.

So what does all this have to do with race? Not a whole hell of a lot. But it is interesting to consider that even in dogs, with as much variation between breeds as teacup chihuahuas to great danes, dobermans to welsh corgis and bloodhounds to jack russell terriers ... genetic testing to confirm "breed" is highly unreliable. Even after many generations of selective breeding, on the inside, dogs are more alike than they are different and they share many of the same genetic markers across the artificial breed lines created by humans.

Breed standards are based on physical appearance and presentation. Most dog breeds were originally formed by "mixing" dogs from various sources to obtain or enhance certain desirable characteristics, then carefully selecting offspring that possessed the desired traits. At times, "out-crosses" have occured, either accidentally or intentionally to strength the breed or improve a particular characteristic.

All of that means that dog breeds are bred to fit a particular "type", not to possess a unique set of genes that distinguishes them cleanly into different categories. So although two dogs in the same breed might look quite alike, that appearance can be deceiving. They might have genetic markers that indicate a close genetic heritage to unexpected dog breeds. Likewise, two mixed breed dogs might look like they are from completely different breeds, yet come from the same litter. Genetics is weird and tricky stuff.

...

For example, the breed standard for labrador retrievers originally called for a solid black coat color without spots or off-marks. Later on, the standard was expanded to include solid yellow coat color. The standard for yellow color allowed a wide range of "yellow", from fox red to light cream. Much later, the chocolate lab (brown) was included in the breed standard. Some purist dog fanciers do not consider the chocolate labs to be "real" labrador retrievers and prefer to breed black or yellow labs, since they are closer to the original breed standard.

Genetically, a chocolate lab has a mutation that causes his black coat to have a rich chocolate brown appearance. This mutation effects eumelanin production, the dark pigment responsible for the black lab's color, reducing its expression. It is a recessive gene, so in order to be chocolate, both of the dog's parents must have at least one copy of the mutation responsible for chocolate color. There is also another gene that affects melanin distribution. Normally, melanin is present in both skin and hair. But a mutation in this gene causes melanin to not be produced in the hair and the dog will appear yellow, instead. The shade of yellow is influenced by other genes that affect expression of a different pigment, pheomelanin. Skin pigment is unaffected, so a yellow lab can have a solid black nose and dark eyes.

Since black is dominant over both chocolate and yellow, it is possible for a pair of black labs to give birth to a mixed litter of black, chocolate, and yellow puppies. If this happens, it means that both parents are split for these recessive traits.

In recent times (1950s) a new color of labrador retriever has entered circulation. These dogs have a dilution gene that reduces color expression in the coat, creating a "silvered" appearance. The effect is most noticeable in chocolate labs, creating a striking silver-grey coat. However, the dilution gene also affects black and yellow coats, adding silver color. These colors are often called charcoal and champagne, respectively. The breed standard for labradors does not recognize "silver" as an acceptable color so it is considered a fault. Some kennel associations refuse to register silver labs at all, while the American Kennel Club will allow the dogs to be registered under their associated primary color - charcoal labs can register as black, silver as chocolate, and champagnes register as yellow. Due to the broad range of accepted yellow colors, champagne labradors can participate in dog shows as "yellow" labs without worry, and some charcoals can also try to pass, but silver labs are unable to be shown.

Beyond the fact that their color does not match the accepted breed standard, there is significant controversy surrounding the true origin of silver labs among labrador retriever breeders. The labrador retriever breed has a closed registry. This means in order for a dog to be considered a purebred lab, it must be ALL labrador. No mixing allowed. But silver labs appeared suddenly, late in the breed's development. It is a recessive trait, like yellow and chocolate, so it might have been present all along. But both yellow and brown showed up decades ago. If the gene responsible for silvering was present from the beginning, why didn't it appear sooner?

Some breeders think it was a novel mutation that occurred randomly at some point and was only later discovered. But many lab breeders suspect out-breeding is responsible. The same dilution gene that creates silvering in the lab is responsible for the similarly colored grey coat in a different dog breed - the Weimaraner. A breeding between a Weimaraner and a labrador could have introduced the dilution factor into the labrador bloodlines that "discovered" this new color. Debate over the origins of the silver color remain heated as the novel color gains popularity among pet owners.

Many purists reject the idea that silver labs are "real" labrador retrievers, barring them from the show ring, while allowing black, chocolate, or yellow dogs from the same litter to compete.

Even dogs have to deal with color-based discrimination, I guess?

Last edited by DestinyCall (2020-04-01 05:37:19)

Glassius · 2020-04-13 18:20:03

Some historic background about Polish in Haiti

Haiti's first head of state Jean-Jacques Dessalines called Polish people "the White Negroes of Europe", which was then regarded a great honour, as it meant brotherhood between Poles and Haitians. Many years later François Duvalier, the president of Haiti who was known for his black nationalist and Pan-African views, used the same concept of "European white negroes" while referring to Polish people and glorifying their patriotism

Therefore Polish people have permit from first Haiti president to use the N-word. Let me use it: "I am some sort of nigga myself"

One Hour One Life Forums

#51 2020-03-30 18:28:47

Re: What is racism?

#52 2020-03-30 19:58:21

Re: What is racism?

#53 2020-03-30 20:27:28

Re: What is racism?

#54 2020-03-30 22:44:52

Re: What is racism?

#55 2020-03-31 11:28:20

Re: What is racism?

#56 2020-03-31 13:00:54

Re: What is racism?

#57 2020-03-31 13:43:34

Re: What is racism?

#58 2020-03-31 15:38:04

Re: What is racism?

#59 2020-03-31 15:48:54

Re: What is racism?

#60 2020-03-31 21:57:32

Re: What is racism?

#61 2020-04-01 00:47:57

Re: What is racism?

#62 2020-04-13 18:20:03

Re: What is racism?

Board footer