Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest ColDayMan

Whites no longer a majority in US by 2043, Census Bureau projects

Recommended Posts

You and many others on this forum live in a fantasy world.

 

Race is a fantasy. It was created by European settlers and traders over the last 400 years. I am telling you that you're living in a fantasy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You and many others on this forum live in a fantasy world.

I loved this song

 

I'm not sure what that has to do with my point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You and many others on this forum live in a fantasy world.

 

Race is a fantasy. It was created by European settlers and traders over the last 400 years. I am telling you that you're living in a fantasy.

 

Asians believe in it too though.  In the western world, literary discussion of race goes back almost as far as recorded history.  Scientific discussion of race is also old news.  Not all the science has proven valid, but that's true in all sciences. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, Race emerged as an idea in the 16th century. There was no race in the ancient world. Race isn't physical difference. Race is the idea that physical difference has significance. Black skin doesn't cause someone to be black. The idea that black skin is significant causes someone to think of a person as black. Race isn't a science. It's not in our genes ,it's in our heads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, Race emerged as an idea in the 16th century. There was no race in the ancient world. Race isn't physical difference. Race is the idea that physical difference has significance. Black skin doesn't cause someone to be black. The idea that black skin is significant causes someone to think of a person as black. Race isn't a science. It's not in our genes ,it's in our heads.

 

What a baffling contention.  The Bible addresses race as a meaningful issue, and that's putting it very mildly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Race is the defining plot point of the entire Old Testament.  It's a book about a deity who has favorite and unfavorite races.  It is hardly unique in that regard.  Large sections of the Bible do nothing but list off lineages, in order to define race in the most granular manner possible.

 

Have you read any Julius Caesar?  He was extremely racist.  Everyone was.  Racism isn't new.  The notion of racism being a bad idea, that's relatively new.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Race is the defining plot point of the entire Old Testament.  It's a book about a deity who has favorite and unfavorite races.  It is hardly unique in that regard.  Large sections of the Bible do nothing but list off lineages, in order to define race in the most granular manner possible.

 

Have you read any Julius Caesar?  He was extremely racist.  Everyone was.  Racism isn't new.  The notion of racism being a bad idea, that's relatively new.

 

but the races in the bible are not the same races that exist today.  if race were scientific, the classifications would be static.  the races exist as a construction of the society at that time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if race were scientific, the classifications would be static.

 

Science includes the very act of attempting to categorize anything, static or otherwise.  And science recognizes identifiable variations within species.  Apples for example.  The fact that new varieties continue to develop does not suggest that it is somehow unscientific to acknowledge the existing varieties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I gave an example of an ancient text, as well as an ancient author from another culture, that both address race the same way we understand it today.  If they're bad examples, why?  Could you provide examples of places or times where the concept had a different meaning?  Or am I still not allowed to ask questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I gave an example of an ancient text, as well as an ancient author from another culture, that both address race the same way we understand it today.  If they're bad examples, why?  Could you provide examples of places or times where the concept had a different meaning?  Or am I still not allowed to ask questions.

 

Ancient texts are not science.  they are culture.  Or do we have black, asian, and white races in the bible?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Science includes the very act of attempting to categorize anything, static or otherwise.  And science recognizes identifiable variations within species.  Apples for example.  The fact that new varieties continue to develop does not suggest that it is somehow unscientific to acknowledge the existing varieties.

 

Sure science also includes numbers, but just because you say a number doesn't make it scientific.  Race is one of those things that seems simple at first glace, but when you start actually trying to define it, gets very complex.  Here's a good cliff notes summary:

 

https://www.cliffsnotes.com/study-guides/sociology/race-and-ethnicity/race-and-ethnicity-defined

Race and Ethnicity Defined

The term race refers to groups of people who have differences and similarities in biological traits deemed by society to be socially significant, meaning that people treat other people differently because of them. For instance, while differences and similarities in eye color have not been treated as socially significant, differences and similarities in skin color have.

 

Although some scholars have attempted to establish dozens of racial groupings for the peoples of the world, others have suggested four or five. An example of a racial category is Asian (or Mongoloid), with its associated facial, hair color, and body type features. Yet too many exceptions to this sort of racial grouping have been found to make any racial categorizations truly viable. This fact has led many sociologists to indicate that no clear‐cut races exist—only assorted physical and genetic variations across human individuals and groups.

 

Certainly, obvious physical differences—some of which are inherited—exist between humans. But how these variations form the basis for social prejudice and discrimination has nothing to do with genetics but rather with a social phenomenon related to outward appearances. Racism, then, is prejudice based on socially significant physical features. A racist believes that certain people are superior, or inferior, to others in light of racial differences. Racists approve of segregation, or the social and physical separation of classes of people.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I gave an example of an ancient text, as well as an ancient author from another culture, that both address race the same way we understand it today.  If they're bad examples, why?  Could you provide examples of places or times where the concept had a different meaning?  Or am I still not allowed to ask questions.

 

Ancient texts are not science.  they are culture.  Or do we have black, asian, and white races in the bible?

 

We definitely have races in the Bible, again that's what the first half of it is about.  And no, it's not science.  But it establishes that racism did exist in ancient times, which I still can't believe is unclear.

 

Sociology is a science, but it's a separate one from biology.  Biology tells us that identifiable variations exist within species.  Identifiable doesn't mean absolute or ironclad or permanent.  Biology recognizes complexity and change.  Sociology examines how people choose to behave toward each other.  It examines social constructs.  Biology studies race, sociology studies racism.  The fact that races are broadly recognized to exist has no bearing on whether racism makes sense.  Racism is a social construct.  Race is not.  And if our goal is to eliminate racism, claiming races don't exist may not be productive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're asking me all these questions like I'm supposed to have all the answers. I got pulled over in Kentucky of all places when I was 20 and swerving all over the place, and managed to get out of a DUI when I had obviously been drinking a lot. I guess that's one instance in which I realized I was white.

I learned I was a white male when minorities and women with less qualifications were promoted instead of me in the name of diversity.

 

I also learned my kids were white when they qualified for less scholarships and grants than students of color even though we probably made less money than their parents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I gave an example of an ancient text, as well as an ancient author from another culture, that both address race the same way we understand it today.  If they're bad examples, why?  Could you provide examples of places or times where the concept had a different meaning?  Or am I still not allowed to ask questions.

 

Ancient texts are not science.  they are culture.  Or do we have black, asian, and white races in the bible?

 

We definitely have races in the Bible, again that's what the first half of it is about.  And no, it's not science.  But it establishes that racism did exist in ancient times, which I still can't believe is unclear.

 

Sociology is a science, but it's a separate one from biology.  Biology tells us that identifiable variations exist within species.  Identifiable doesn't mean absolute or ironclad or permanent.  Biology recognizes complexity and change.  Sociology examines how people choose to behave toward each other.  It examines social constructs.  Biology studies race, sociology studies racism.  The fact that races are broadly recognized to exist has no bearing on whether racism makes sense.  Racism is a social construct.  Race is not.  And if our goal is to eliminate racism, claiming races don't exist may not be productive.

 

Both race and racism are social contruction.  Racism is based on the belief that those different from you are biologicallying inferior.  There is more genetic variation within a "race" than between races.  The idea of race was created from racism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I gave an example of an ancient text, as well as an ancient author from another culture, that both address race the same way we understand it today.  If they're bad examples, why?  Could you provide examples of places or times where the concept had a different meaning?  Or am I still not allowed to ask questions.

 

Ancient texts are not science.  they are culture.  Or do we have black, asian, and white races in the bible?

 

We definitely have races in the Bible, again that's what the first half of it is about.  And no, it's not science.  But it establishes that racism did exist in ancient times, which I still can't believe is unclear.

 

Sociology is a science, but it's a separate one from biology.  Biology tells us that identifiable variations exist within species.  Identifiable doesn't mean absolute or ironclad or permanent.  Biology recognizes complexity and change.  Sociology examines how people choose to behave toward each other.  It examines social constructs.  Biology studies race, sociology studies racism.  The fact that races are broadly recognized to exist has no bearing on whether racism makes sense.  Racism is a social construct.  Race is not.  And if our goal is to eliminate racism, claiming races don't exist may not be productive.

 

No, 'we' don't. The bible describes 'people's' and 'nations' and 'tribes' not races.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're asking me all these questions like I'm supposed to have all the answers. I got pulled over in Kentucky of all places when I was 20 and swerving all over the place, and managed to get out of a DUI when I had obviously been drinking a lot. I guess that's one instance in which I realized I was white.

I learned I was a white male when minorities and women with less qualifications were promoted instead of me in the name of diversity.

 

I also learned my kids were white when they qualified for less scholarships and grants than students of color even though we probably made less money than their parents.

 

Those are social experiences, not biological facts. Other people treated you as 'white.' They acted in a certain way. Their social actions are the issue, not your actual biological existence.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Race is the defining plot point of the entire Old Testament.  It's a book about a deity who has favorite and unfavorite races.  It is hardly unique in that regard.  Large sections of the Bible do nothing but list off lineages, in order to define race in the most granular manner possible.

 

Have you read any Julius Caesar?  He was extremely racist.  Everyone was.  Racism isn't new.  The notion of racism being a bad idea, that's relatively new.

 

no, the bible describes nations, tribes, peoples, but not races. The notion of race is a bad thing and it is new. You simply don't understand what the concept of race really is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're asking me all these questions like I'm supposed to have all the answers. I got pulled over in Kentucky of all places when I was 20 and swerving all over the place, and managed to get out of a DUI when I had obviously been drinking a lot. I guess that's one instance in which I realized I was white.

I learned I was a white male when minorities and women with less qualifications were promoted instead of me in the name of diversity.

 

I also learned my kids were white when they qualified for less scholarships and grants than students of color even though we probably made less money than their parents.

 

Those are social experiences, not biological facts. Other people treated you as 'white.' They acted in a certain way. Their social actions are the issue, not your actual biological existence.

 

 

unless you grew up in a country that was 99.9% white (or Vermont--lol) I don't know how a white person can reach adulthood and not be aware that they're "white."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^okay, I'm not sure you if you were responding to my post, but I never said race was a biological fact. It's just that we live in a culture that defines "race" by various superficial characteristics, notably by skin color, and also ethnicity, and unfortunately those features are used by some discriminate against others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^why the attitude? when did I ever even say race was a biological fact? I merely wondered how an adult of any race, white, black, etc, could not be aware of what race they were at an early age, especially growing up in America (where the topic, unfortunately, is constantly in the news) based on the comments by a couple of forum members who seemed unaware of their own racial identity until a rather advanced age. But come to think of it, maybe there are arguments for and against the biological theory by scientists who presumably have done advanced research in this field (maybe you're one of them). I don't know what difference it makes as long as you're not using the concept of race--either as sociological or biological-- to condemn or discriminate against people as a group or on an individual basis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't know.  The State of Ohio form that I use for billing offers 6 choices plus "other."  I think those 6 could be boiled down to 2, or multiplied by 2 or 3. We probably all agree that it shouldn't matter.  But if we're going to have programs to help disadvantaged groups, which I generally support, there is an obvious need to identify those groups.  And there is no perfect way to do it.  Science is not even 100% certain what "tree" means.

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/04/how-do-you-define-a-tree/557135/

 

"We think we know what trees are, but even at the level of genetics, it's difficult to find what separates them from other plants."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't know.  The State of Ohio form that I use for billing offers 6 choices plus "other."  I think those 6 could be boiled down to 2, or multiplied by 2 or 3. We probably all agree that it shouldn't matter.  But if we're going to have programs to help disadvantaged groups, which I generally support, there is an obvious need to identify those groups.  And there is no perfect way to do it.  Science is not even 100% certain what "tree" means.

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/04/how-do-you-define-a-tree/557135/

 

"We think we know what trees are, but even at the level of genetics, it's difficult to find what separates them from other plants."

 

It seems then that you appear to agree with the idea that race is socially constructed.  If it were science/biology, then we would know exactly ho many groupings should be on forms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No.  Classifying life forms is science.  We don't fully understand black holes but that doesn't mean they're social constructs!  And we can't nail down exactly what a tree is, but that fact does not render all classification of plants invalid or unscientific.  Science includes trying, and failing, to figure things out.  Science is the act of doing that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No.  Classifying life forms is science.  We don't fully understand black holes but that doesn't mean they're social constructs!  And we can't nail down exactly what a tree is, but that fact does not render all classification of plants invalid or unscientific.  Science includes trying, and failing, to figure things out.  Science is the act of doing that.

 

So what are the scientifically specific races that exist that are accepted in all reaches of the earth?

 

Also, human beings are on life form.  We have one scientific classification.  Unless you think black people are different life from from white people that is.  Otherwise your comment about classifying lifeforms makes no sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No.  Classifying life forms is science.  We don't fully understand black holes but that doesn't mean they're social constructs!  And we can't nail down exactly what a tree is, but that fact does not render all classification of plants invalid or unscientific.  Science includes trying, and failing, to figure things out.  Science is the act of doing that.

 

So what are the scientifically specific races that exist that are accepted in all reaches of the earth?

 

Also, human beings are on life form.  We have one scientific classification.  Unless you think black people are different life from from white people that is.  Otherwise your comment about classifying lifeforms makes no sense.

 

We are one scientific species at this moment in evolutionary history.  Evolutionary timescale and human social timescales are obviously wildly different (with geological timescales being even longer, and astronomical timescales even longer than that, of course).  It's within the realm of possibility that we could speciate in the future, especially if we become a spacefaring species and begin to adapt to exoplanetary environments.  (Or earlier, if we begin to tinker directly with our own genetics.)

 

Saying that we're "one life form" has a kind of Borg sound to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No.  Classifying life forms is science.  We don't fully understand black holes but that doesn't mean they're social constructs!  And we can't nail down exactly what a tree is, but that fact does not render all classification of plants invalid or unscientific.  Science includes trying, and failing, to figure things out.  Science is the act of doing that.

 

So what are the scientifically specific races that exist that are accepted in all reaches of the earth?

 

Also, human beings are on life form.  We have one scientific classification.  Unless you think black people are different life from from white people that is.  Otherwise your comment about classifying lifeforms makes no sense.

 

We are one scientific species at this moment in evolutionary history.  Evolutionary timescale and human social timescales are obviously wildly different (with geological timescales being even longer, and astronomical timescales even longer than that, of course).  It's within the realm of possibility that we could speciate in the future, especially if we become a spacefaring species and begin to adapt to exoplanetary environments.  (Or earlier, if we begin to tinker directly with our own genetics.)

 

Saying that we're "one life form" has a kind of Borg sound to it.

 

Yes we are one species.  That is the more appropriate term.  I was playing off of 327s use of life forms.  Anyway you bring up some interesting points which will may someday become very relevant indeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No.  Classifying life forms is science.  We don't fully understand black holes but that doesn't mean they're social constructs!  And we can't nail down exactly what a tree is, but that fact does not render all classification of plants invalid or unscientific.  Science includes trying, and failing, to figure things out.  Science is the act of doing that.

 

So what are the scientifically specific races that exist that are accepted in all reaches of the earth?

 

Also, human beings are on life form.  We have one scientific classification.  Unless you think black people are different life from from white people that is.  Otherwise your comment about classifying lifeforms makes no sense.

 

We are one scientific species at this moment in evolutionary history.  Evolutionary timescale and human social timescales are obviously wildly different (with geological timescales being even longer, and astronomical timescales even longer than that, of course).  It's within the realm of possibility that we could speciate in the future, especially if we become a spacefaring species and begin to adapt to exoplanetary environments.  (Or earlier, if we begin to tinker directly with our own genetics.)

 

Saying that we're "one life form" has a kind of Borg sound to it.

 

Yes we are one species.  That is the more appropriate term.  I was playing off of 327s use of life forms.  Anyway you bring up some interesting points which will may someday become very relevant indeed.

 

Being able to get a sunburn after 10 minutes in the sun is a sign of the superior race. 

 

But seriously, I have never gotten the point of being proud of melanin level in skin.  Culture, ethnicity, sure... but skin color?  Makes zero sense to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No.  Classifying life forms is science.  We don't fully understand black holes but that doesn't mean they're social constructs!  And we can't nail down exactly what a tree is, but that fact does not render all classification of plants invalid or unscientific.  Science includes trying, and failing, to figure things out.  Science is the act of doing that.

 

So what are the scientifically specific races that exist that are accepted in all reaches of the earth?

 

Also, human beings are on life form.  We have one scientific classification.  Unless you think black people are different life from from white people that is.  Otherwise your comment about classifying lifeforms makes no sense.

 

Humans are one species.  Dogs are too.  But as we discussed earlier, science recognizes variety within species.  No one is certain where all the dividing lines are.  That uncertainty doesn't make anything into a social construct.  Dog shows are a social construct.  The AKC's system of defining various breeds of dogs (all of which are the same species) is not a social construct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...