• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Babies Born Racist?

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Also:

Humans of the same sex are 99.9% genetically identical. There is extremely little variation between human geographical populations and most of the variation that does occur is in the personal level within local areas, and not between populations.[122][153][154] Of the 0.1% of human genetic differentiation, 85% exists within any randomly chosen local population, be they Italians, Koreans, or Kurds. Two randomly chosen Koreans may be genetically as different as a Korean and an Italian. Any ethnic group contains 85% of the human genetic diversity of the world. Genetic data shows that no matter how population groups are defined, two people from the same population group are about as different from each other as two people from any two different population groups.[122][155][156][157]

Current genetic research have demonstrated that humans on the African continent are the most genetically diverse.[158] There is more human genetic diversity in Africa than anywhere else on Earth. The genetic structure of Africans was traced to 14 ancestral population clusters. Human genetic diversity decreases in native populations with migratory distance from Africa and this is thought to be the result of bottlenecks during human migration.[159][160] Humans have lived in Africa for the longest time which allowed accumulation of a higher diversity of genetic mutations in these populations. Only part of Africa’s population migrated out of the continent, bringing just part of the original African genetic variety with them. African populations harbor genetic alleles that are not found in other places of the world. All the common alleles found in populations outside of Africa are found on the African continent.[122]

Geographical distribution of human variation is complex and constantly shifts through time which reflects complicated human evolutionary history. Most human biological variation is clinally distributed and blends gradually from an area to the next. Groups of people around the world have different frequencies of polymorphic genes. Furthermore, different traits are non-concordant and each have different clinal distribution. Adaptability varies both from person to person and from population to population. The most efficient adaptive responses are found in geographical populations where the environmental stimuli are the strongest (e.g. Tibetans are highly adapted to high altitudes). The clinal geographic genetic variation is further complicated by the migration and mixing between human populations which has been occurring since prehistoric times.[122][161][162][163][164][165]

Human variation is highly non-concordant: most of the genes do not cluster together and are not inherited together. Skin and hair color are not correlated to height, weight, or athletic ability. Human species do not share the same patterns of variation through geography. Skin color varies with latitude and certain people are tall or have brown hair. There is a statistical correlation between particular features in a population, but different features are not expressed or inherited together. Thus, genes which code for superficial physical traits – such as skin color, hair color, or height – represent a minuscule and insignificant portion of the human genome and do not correlate with genetic affinity. Dark-skinned populations that are found in Africa, Australia, and South Asia are not closely related to each other.[129][134][164][165][166][167] Even within the same region, physical phenotype is not related to genetic affinity: dark-skinned Ethiopians are more closely related to light-skinned Armenians than to dark-skinned Bantu populations.[168] Despite pygmy populations of South East Asia (Andamanese) having similar physical features with African pygmy populations such as short stature, dark skin, and curly hair, they are not genetically closely related to these populations.[169] Genetic variants affecting superficial anatomical features (such as skin color) – from a genetic perspective, are essentially meaningless – they involve a few hundred of the billions of nucleotides in a person's DNA.[170] Individuals with the same morphology do not necessarily cluster with each other by lineage, and a given lineage does not include only individuals with the same trait complex.[122][156][171]

Due to practices of group endogamy, allele frequencies cluster locally around kin groups and lineages, or by national, ethnic, cultural and linguistic boundaries, giving a detailed degree of correlation between genetic clusters and population groups when considering many alleles simultaneously. Despite this, there are no genetic boundaries around local populations that biologically mark off any discrete groups of humans. Human variation is continuous, with no clear points of demarcation. There are no large clusters of relatively homogeneous people and almost every individual has genetic alleles from several ancestral groups.[122][163][164][172][173][174][175][176][177][178][179][180]
Human - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is a great deal of information, which I'm sure bolsters your argument from the perspective of your
definition of race, but does not address the existence of popularly perceived races, eg, white, black, Asian.

Ergo, "race" is a useless biological and anthropological concept. It belongs in social sciences since it's a social construct.
FWIW, I'd be happy to get rid of racial classifications on census forms, university applications, etc.
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
Also:

Humans of the same sex are 99.9% genetically identical.

How do we judge the importance of that .1% when chimpanzees are 98+% genetically identical with humans??

I will return to my comparison between Japanese-Americans and African-Americans and make the claim that there are physiological genetic differences that make one group more inclined to be successful in basketball and football than the other group.

it seems to me that when the argument for 'egalitarianism' goes to 'identicalism' the wheels of common sense start flying off.
 

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
This is a great deal of information, which I'm sure bolsters your argument from the perspective of your
definition of race, but does not address the existence of popularly perceived races, eg, white, black, Asian.

Those are arbitrary groupings made by superficial observation.
 

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
How do we judge the importance of that .1% when chimpanzees are 98+% genetically identical with humans??

I will return to my comparison between Japanese-Americans and African-Americans and make the claim that there are physiological genetic differences that make one group more inclined to be successful in basketball and football than the other group.

it seems to me that when the argument for 'egalitarianism' goes to 'identicalism' the wheels of common sense start flying off.

Once again, do you have any scientific evidence for this claim? If not, you really need to stop saying it, unless you don't have an issue with being seen as a racist.

The reason why there's more African-Americans playing basketball and football than Asians is that those are primarily American sports and are very popular among African-Americans due to culture. So most football and basketball players you're going to be familiar with will be white and black Americans. In fact, during it's earlier decades, pro basketball players were mostly white and Jewish Americans!

Kids growing up in dense, urban environments often turn to basketball as their sport of choice. This is partly because it fits, in a physical sense. All things being equal, a basketball court takes up a lot less room than a football or soccer field. For the economically disadvantaged, it’s also relatively cheap to play. If you have a court available, you only need a pair of shoes and a ball. For this reason, whatever population finds itself in this type of environment tends to take up basketball.

That’s why the sport was dominated by Jews in the first half of the 1900s. Just like many African-Americans today, at that time many immigrant Jewish families found themselves isolated in inner cities. Basketball seemed like a way out. “It was absolutely a way out of the ghetto,” explained retired ball player Dave Dabrow. Basketball scholarships were one of the few ways low income urban Jews could afford college.
When Jews Dominated Professional Basketball » Sociological Images

Basketball is primarily an urban, inner-city sport so it will be most popular among groups who live in those areas. There's your answer.

But there's many Asian basketball players, and China has a very successful basketball program.

Success in sports has nothing to do with ethnicity. Its has to do with culture and training. Look at soccer (football, really), which is hugely popular across the globe, making it one of the world's only truly global sports, if not the only, that can count billions of fans. You find amazing soccer players of just about every "race" and great teams on pretty much all continents.
 
Last edited:

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
Study: Babies Show Racial Bias « CBS Seattle
People love to say that racism is a learned thing, perhaps hoping that it
might be cured completely some day by our just becoming more advanced.
Does the above linked study dash such hope?
I don't see this as complicated myself. Humans are born, not racist, but with a batch of mental processes and instincts that can easily become racism under certain circumstances.

We're instinctively tribal. We also categorize and rationalize. In an ideal place all children grow up secure and nurtured, with different sorts of folks around interacting with no particular emphasis placed on racial characteristics. (Or for that matter gender, size, etc) In such a place racism would be unknown. But we don't all grow up in ideal circumstances. So while here(USA) we have made huge gains on this front in recent decades, I doubt that racism will be completely eradicated in the foreseeable future. But it's getting better mostly.

Tom
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
Once again, do you have any scientific evidence for this claim? If not, you really need to stop saying it, unless you don't have an issue with being seen as a racist.

The evidence for my claim is a lifetime of objectively observing and considering argumentation from both sides of the issue. It is impossible to put that in a post.

I need to see your definition of a 'racist' before I can comment on the second sentence.

The reason why there's more African-Americans playing basketball and football than Asians is that those are primarily American sports and are very popular among African-Americans due to culture. So most football and basketball players you're going to be familiar with will be white and black Americans. In fact, during it's earlier decades, pro basketball players were mostly white and Jewish Americans!

When Jews Dominated Professional Basketball » Sociological Images

Basketball is primarily an urban, inner-city sport so it will be most popular among groups who live in those areas. There's your answer.

But there's many Asian basketball players, and China has a very successful basketball program.

Success in sports has nothing to do with ethnicity. Its has to do with culture and training. Look at soccer (football, really), which is hugely popular across the globe, making it one of the world's only truly global sports, if not the only, that can count billions of fans. You find amazing soccer players of just about every "race" and great teams on pretty much all continents.

I agree that environment is a factor but I disagree that it is the only factor in athletics. I believe environment AND heredity are important.
 

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
The evidence for my claim is a lifetime of objectively observing and considering argumentation from both sides of the issue. It is impossible to put that in a post.

I need to see your definition of a 'racist' before I can comment on the second sentence.

I agree that environment is a factor but I disagree that it is the only factor in athletics. I believe environment AND heredity are important.

I'm done talking to you in this thread since you refuse to show any facts that support your argument. I know why that is, so I understand. :rolleyes:
 

Halcyon

Lord of the Badgers
Ethnicity isn't race. Once again, what exactly do you mean by "race"?
I'd class it as shared superficial morphological characteristics, so pigmentation of skin, hair and eyes, skeletal structure (i.e. prominance of brow ridge/nose bridge/mandible width), presence of epicanthic folds, structure of the hair shaft etc. Personally I also extend it to shared cultural characteristics, but that's just me.

And I don't think anyone has said that racial differences are anything more than superficial. They're just adaptations to different environments, or they're caused by genetic bottle-necking.

Humans of the same sex are 99.9% genetically identical. There is extremely little variation between human geographical populations and most of the variation that does occur is in the personal level within local areas, and not between populations.[122][153][154] Of the 0.1% of human genetic differentiation, 85% exists within any randomly chosen local population, be they Italians, Koreans, or Kurds. Two randomly chosen Koreans may be genetically as different as a Korean and an Italian. Any ethnic group contains 85% of the human genetic diversity of the world. Genetic data shows that no matter how population groups are defined, two people from the same population group are about as different from each other as two people from any two different population groups.
This I've seen before and I find it misleading, if not a little racist itself. For many people their race is a matter of personal identity, pride, or historical importance.

As I said before, it's not the differences that define a race, it's the shared similarities. Genetically a Korean and an Italian person won't be significantly different genetically, of course they won't, they're both human for goodness sake not different species. I find it a ridiculous argument, because anyone who isn't blind can tell an indigenous Korean from an indigenous Italian. It's part of what makes the human species so magnificently diverse, that people from different geographical locations do have superficial differences. It's a diversity that should be celebrated, not ignored.

Provide evidence that all animals and babies are xenophobic? Sounds like a projection.
Just type in the words "chimpanzee" and "xenophobia" into Google.

Or, better yet, look out the window and watch some animals.
Squirrels, robins, ants, butterflies. All common garden animals, all fiercely territorial, all of which will act aggressively to any non-related invader of their territory. You might think I'm being stupid as, obviously, they're just animals defending their food sources and competing for mates... Well, the same is true for human xenophobia, we just dress it up in fancy ideologies.
 

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
This I've seen before and I find it misleading, if not a little racist itself. For many people their race is a matter of personal identity, pride, or historical importance.

I think it's more cultural and ethnic pride than it is racial pride. There's a difference between saying you're proud to be white and saying that you're proud to be German or Irish or Russian, etc.

Just type in the words "chimpanzee" and "xenophobia" into Google.

Or, better yet, look out the window and watch some animals.
Squirrels, robins, ants, butterflies. All common garden animals, all fiercely territorial, all of which will act aggressively to any non-related invader of their territory. You might think I'm being stupid as, obviously, they're just animals defending their food sources and competing for mates... Well, the same is true for human xenophobia, we just dress it up in fancy ideologies.

A squirrel will fight with another squirrel and a bird will fight with another bird that's the same type as them. That has more to do with defending the territory of a family unit. It's like how my three cats aren't all the same breed but they function as a family. If I tried to introduce a 4th cat into the mix, they would fight with it.
 

Halcyon

Lord of the Badgers
I think it's more cultural and ethnic pride than it is racial pride. There's a difference between saying you're proud to be white and saying that you're proud to be German or Irish or Russian, etc.
I'd say that for descendants of African slaves it's very much a matter of racial pride, being proud of who they are in simple physical terms as well as cultural. Just being a POC can be significant and important, historically and personally.

A squirrel will fight with another squirrel and a bird will fight with another bird that's the same type as them. That has more to do with defending the territory of a family unit. It's like how my three cats aren't all the same breed but they function as a family. If I tried to introduce a 4th cat into the mix, they would fight with it.
That's xenophobia. Xeno = foreign, phobia = fear, so xenophobia is simply the fear or dislike of those who are different/unrelated. Usually the more noticeable the difference (however superficial, like skin colour) the stronger the xenophobia.
It stems from the desire to retain resources/territory for those who are like us, and so are likely to be related to us, thus better ensuring the survival of our genes. People and animals can learn to accept newcomers given time, and a lack of competition for resources - I'm sure your cats would fight a newcomer, but eventually they'd probably learn to tolerate it, if not accept it as a group member.
 
Last edited:

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
I'd say that for descendants of African slaves it's very much a matter of racial pride, being proud of who they are in simple physical terms as well as cultural. Just being a POC can be significant and important, historically and personally.

Pride in being black is much the same as pride in being LGBT. It's a reaction to historical and institutional bigotry and oppression. It was quite a refreshing and revolutionary change to be able to stand up and say in the face of a racist society "I'm black and I'm proud" and "black is beautiful". Whites have never been institutionally oppressed in America or the West (except by other whites in a few instances), so they can't use that reasoning. White supremacy is the norm in America and white power trash are the shock troops trying to defend it. But like I said, being proud of being Irish, German, French, Russian, etc. is a different thing. That's a cultural celebration and there's nothing wrong with that.

That's xenophobia. Xeno = foreign, phobia = fear, so xenophobia is simply the fear or dislike of those who are different/unrelated. Usually the more noticeable the difference (however superficial, like skin colour) the stronger the xenophobia.
It stems from the desire to retain resources/territory for those who are like us, and so are likely to be related to us, thus better ensuring the survival of our genes. People and animals can learn to accept newcomers given time, and a lack of competition for resources - I'm sure your cats would fight a newcomer, but eventually they'd probably learn to tolerate it, if not accept it as a group member.

I'm still not sold that prejudice due to superficial physical differences is inborn rather than learned.
 

IHaveTheGift

U know who U R
This is why I despise studies done on kids, completely misleading.
Babies are usually scared of anything what so ever that is new to them and will always choose what ever is familiar to them first.

Every single living creature does that, it is perfectly natural and does not take rocket scientist to figure out why.
Huge waste of time and money on what ever the heck the study was even for.
 
Top