Is race real?

Discuss various aspects of ancient civilizations and humanity in general.

Moderators: Calilasseia, amok, ADParker

Re: Is race real?

#3441  Postby lyingcheat » Jul 24, 2011 6:33 pm

lyingcheat wrote; The trouble is the term 'race' has a biological (scientific) meaning separate, and often different, to the meaning of the term as commonly used.
HAJiME wrote; Really? I don't necessarily think that is true. People group other people by their obvious visual differences, differences caused by biology, before considering other social and cultural traits to group by.

You question that there might be confusion between the common and scientific use of the term, while illustrating that very confusion with your response.
Visual inspection is an unreliable way of determining 'race' as defined taxonomically.

Recall from the definition you quoted -
In biology, races are distinct genetically divergent populations within the same species with relatively small morphological and genetic differences. The populations can be described as ecological races if they arise from adaptation to different local habitats or geographic races when they are geographically isolated. If sufficiently different, two or more races can be identified as subspecies, which is an official biological taxonomy unit subordinate to species. If not, they are denoted as races, which means that a formal rank should not be given to the group, or taxonomists are unsure whether or not a formal rank should be given.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_%28biology%29

This definition, if applied to homo sapiens, would qualify the Old Order Amish of North America as a separate race since they form a closed breeding population who have presumably diverged genetically from the surrounding population. However, in downtown New Holland, Pennsylvania it's difficult to tell them apart from non-Amish locals other than by their clothing or choice of transport. And... well... I don't think wardrobe preferences are biologically valid race defining characteristics.

Likewise, bearing in mind your statement that - "People group other people by their obvious visual differences, differences caused by biology, before considering other social and cultural traits to group by.".
How would a visual inspection of these four children, scanning for 'obvious visual differences caused by biology', assist in classifying them according to a biologically valid taxonomy?
Image

Here they are again, with their parents -

Image
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/ne ... 082429.ece


HAJiME wrote; I'd say there are more social and cultural traits defining groups than biological ones, but that is besides the point, the obvious difference is visual - a difference decided (mostly, with the expectancy of environmental visual differences) by biology.

The idea that biological differences are visually obvious, and are therefore a reliable guide for racial identification purposes, is meaningful only if ones concept of 'race' is the one in common usage, ie; black, white, yellow, eskimo etc, but these are not necessarily the kinds of divisions a scientific taxonomy, that is 'race' in the biological sense, would be concerned with.

There is more genetic diversity in Africa than in the rest of the world combined. Scientifically, Africans - despite appearances, resist classification as 'the black race'. Asians are not a 'race' either since many asian cultures separated long ago, so genetically speaking they're no more a unified 'race' group in the biological sense than Africans are.
Perhaps people with Downs Syndrome qualify as a 'race', since they can be spotted visually and differ genetically from regular homo sapiens?

HAJiME wrote; The idea that things that look and behave alike are the same is a far more solid way to classify... /snip/

What you are describing is a 'folk taxonomy'. Such concepts are culturally relative and have no meaning in the objective biological sense, nor do they serve as proof, or even evidence, that any such thing as a separate 'race' of homo sapiens exists.

HAJiME wrote; /snip/ ....because in many cases species/sub-species/races wont interbreed because of such differences. Take the example of a chihuahua and great dane, unlikely that they would breed on their own accord. Some sub-species of animals found naturally won't interbreed because they have such particular mating rituals or behaviours. Same can be applied to humans.

Do you have a citation to support this assertion?


Galaxian wrote; So what does this imply? IT means that subspeciation is a rule of Nature. Even when the population is well mixed, subspeciation WILL occur...in humans as well as other animals.

WILL occur? A while ago you were insisting it 'simply must' (occur).
But all the while unable to produce an example where iT hAs OcCuRrEd.
Galaxian wrote; Chew on that!

No thanks, my diet precludes overcooked rhetoric prepared from rotten ingredients.

What are the driving forces behind speciation, or sub-speciation?

Disregarding eugenics and selective breeding of domesticated animals by humans, it is almost always the complex interplay between geographical isolation, environment, and food supply/niche.
None of which affect homo sapiens to any great degree since we've always, since leaving Africa, wandered about globally, can adapt to any environment, and readily adapt to many different sources and types of food.

So in saying, and maybe even actually believing for all I know, that humans and animals are subject to the same evolutionary and genetic forces that force sub-speciation 'race' proponents highlight the biological similarities with other animals but ignore the very thing required by biological forces to generate the effect.

How long does it take for stable sub-speciation to occur?

Considering the life cycle, complexity of the organism, and time between generations, I mean... all of which 'race' proponents also ignore in referencing our alleged 'sameness' to budgies, cichlids, and salamanders.
How long would we have to stay in complete, or very near it, geographical isolation relative to our capacity to roam, never interbreeding with adjacent populations, subjected to significantly different biological pressures versus neighbouring populations, before we were not homo sapiens any more, but perhaps homo sapiens intelligentsia?
With the neighbours no doubt forming a ragged band of homo sapiens stupidus inferios.

pinkharrier wrote; There's loads of comparisons with humans. Dogs, cats, horses, lorikeets (my fav), brahminy and whistling kites, red and black kites. Probably hundreds if not thousands. A pile of evidence.


"Pile" is an apt adjective applied to the mound of 'evidence' you present.

All life is subject to unique forces, that these forces have led to similar outcomes in many cases isn't 'evidence' that these outcomes are pre-ordained. Speciation is detectable in hindsight, not in advance since it's a side effect of evolution, not a driver.
Yet you, and others, allege that because budgies and cichlids vary, humans simply must!!!!!!!

But did prehistoric stone age cows establish trade routes all over Europe, mixing genes with local bovines? In later years did airborne tribes of Celtic budgies establish outposts and settlements from far Eastern Europe all the way to far Western?
Were Viking horses roaming out of Northern Europe as far as (some say) North America 1200 years ago, mixing genes with local horses?

Your fallacious comparisons with dogs, birds, and fish ignore the mobility and adaptability of humans, our tendency to absorb or be absorbed into local and/or adjacent populations over time, and the obvious evolutionary fact that we are going in the opposite direction biologically to 'race' or sub-species formation.
Globalism is a reality.

The evolutionary conditions that produce or force sub-speciation, or 'races', have hardly ever applied to homo sapiens and the fact is, those forces have almost no impact now.
> Insert Witty Signature Phrase Here <
User avatar
lyingcheat
 
Posts: 333
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Is race real?

#3442  Postby THWOTH » Jul 24, 2011 7:28 pm

Galaxian, you seemed to have overlooked a response to you previous comments : THWOTH @ Is race real?

Galaxian wrote:[...]Some here forget that animals are classed as separate species not just on the basis of being inter-sterile, but also sometimes by simply refusing to interbreed...even when they are perfectly inter-fertile.
Same with humans: Some races by & large REFUSE to interbreed. ...

Which races refuse to interbreed and why?

Galaxian wrote:... So if we are not classifying them as separate species, we are perfectly obliged to classify them as separate SUB-species, especially in the light of the significant genetic differences I've linked graphs & tables to on previous pages.

Are you suggesting here that you could legitimately classify different races of humans as different species on the basis of their refusal to interbreed? Why settle for race being a subspecies equivalent rather than a species equivalent?

This question has been asked of you before, though you have chosen not to address it; what are the 'significant' race-determining genetic differences, and why are these particular genetic differences considered legitimate race-determining factors where other genetic differences are not considered significantly or race-determining?

Galaxian wrote:... Intermediates can often be found, just as with other ring species, such as the northern gulls: At the Atlantic they look dissimilar & refuse to mate. But as we go around the Arctic Circle, East or West we find intermediates which happily mate. Till we get back to the Atlantic again, where, curiously, they have not benefited from the genetic mixing, look different & refuse to mate.

Can you identify any specific intermediate race-types of human, or are all humans that do not fit into some racial-classification schema of an intermediate race-type?

If the refusal to mate with individual from outside of one's race-group is a race-determining factor what race are those who do not refuse to select mates from outside of their ascribed group? Are these individuals intermediate race-types also?

How do we ascribe race-group status to intermediates who mate with intermediates - do they represent a race of their own by selecting from with their ascribed group (the intermediate group)? What race-type are the progeny of intermediates?

In asserting that a specific behaviour (a prejudice or refusal) is a race-determining factor are you not placing racial-classification squarely within the cultural or social sphere?

Galaxian wrote:Thus it is with humans: To some extent we are a ring species; we mate with the intermediates but refuse (in general) to mate across distinct racial divides. Finding an exception simply proves the rule...

What evidence are you calling on to support this assertion? On what basis are individuals refusing to mate with individuals? What is the frequency of exception to the rule and what frequency of exception would nullify the rule?

Again it seems we need to know what an intermediate race-type human is, what conditions apply to their classification and on what basis this is, or might be, justified? If an individual is of an (as yet unspecified) intermediate race-type, that is, neither one race or another, then does this not point to serious weakness in the claim that 'a race' is a biological condition of existence, the fact-of-nature you have asserted it is?

Galaxian wrote:... I'm pretty sure that a very few northern gulls do mate at the N. Atlantic. But the generality is that they don't, & that makes them...according to taxonomists, distinct subspecies.

How sure is 'pretty sure? How does a gull refuse to mate? What factors influence mate selection in gulls and how do these factors relate to human mate selection in a way that is relevant to the discussion?

Galaxian wrote:I'll explore some avenues regarding this in the next post, which I'm sure the PC brigade will deride :book:

Does everybody who criticises and questions your view automatically qualify for membership of 'The PC Brigade?'



edit: little fix and for clarrity
Last edited by THWOTH on Jul 24, 2011 10:39 pm, edited 3 times in total.
"Nothing fixes a thing so intensely in the memory as the wish to forget it."
— Michel de Montaigne, Essais, 1580


Image
User avatar
THWOTH
Senior Moderator
 
Name: Penrose
Posts: 32610
Age: 49

Country: ConDemNation
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Is race real?

#3443  Postby Agrippina » Jul 24, 2011 7:40 pm

:lol: I want one of those badges. So I can wear it the next time someone tells me I should mind my un-pc language.
Nothing is too wonderful to be true, if it be consistent with the laws of nature.
Michael Faraday
User avatar
Agrippina
 
Posts: 33326
Age: 103
Female

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: Is race real?

#3444  Postby Tiel » Jul 24, 2011 9:12 pm

Galaxian wrote:http://www.sciencemag.org/content/322/5908/1634.2.full

Probably the worst Science paper I ever read. But to be fair the authors seem recognize that the results are in fact non-conclusive!

Rodrigo Labouriau and António Amorim wrote:Although the results discussed here are expected from the theory of inbreeding and outbreeding depression (2–4, 13), they are hard to document in human populations. Reliable, sufficiently large human data sets, as in the two studies discussed here, are uncommon. Moreover, it is difficult to eliminate the possibility of spurious associations due to effects of socioeconomic factors unequivocally.


In fact I have a question: Is there possible that women who married their cousins, do it because of specific religious or social reasons? And that the same religious or social reasons explain why these same women have in average, more children?

Oh and Brazil doesn't seem to have suffered from a demographic collapse! And I'm not aware of any evidence of reduced fertility or health among the Métis! That's not the case for the Lion-Tiger hybrids!
Last edited by Tiel on Jul 25, 2011 1:12 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Tiel
 
Posts: 95

Switzerland (ch)
Print view this post

Re: Is race real?

#3445  Postby HAJiME » Jul 24, 2011 10:18 pm

You question that there might be confusion between the common and scientific use of the term, while illustrating that very confusion with your response.
Visual inspection is an unreliable way of determining 'race' as defined taxonomically.

I made no such confusion. Visual traits are, by and large, defined by biology. Aren't they?

...Do you guys realise that all these definitions you're giving for species are your own? Not that of biologists, who like I have said do not souly define separate species as groups who cannot interbreed with another group. The logic that "if they can breed to produce fertile young then they are the same species" isn't set in stone, there are exceptions, because the very nature of the thing you're trying to draw a line on is a gradual change known as evolution. :P There is no line to be drawn.

This definition, if applied to homo sapiens, would qualify the Old Order Amish of North America as a separate race since they form a closed breeding population who have presumably diverged genetically from the surrounding population. However, in downtown New Holland, Pennsylvania it's difficult to tell them apart from non-Amish locals other than by their clothing or choice of transport. And... well... I don't think wardrobe preferences are biologically valid race defining characteristics.

It's not just about being separated off and having a close breeding population, it's about all the factors which would selectively breed. If a group of any species separates off, but lives in almost exactly the same conditions and there is little development socially (as with the Aimish), then of course there will not be any great differences...? That's just common sense.

Likewise, bearing in mind your statement that - "People group other people by their obvious visual differences, differences caused by biology, before considering other social and cultural traits to group by.".
How would a visual inspection of these four children, scanning for 'obvious visual differences caused by biology', assist in classifying them according to a biologically valid taxonomy?

Firstly, why are you assuming I want or need to classify them? Just because I think it's irrelevant what race someone is doesn't change whether or not there are such things as races.

Examples of exceptions change the fact that the majority can be grouped visually? I don't know enough about genetics, but I know from my experience existing in society that that family is unusual. The very existence of those photographs reporting them demonstrate that fact.

There is more genetic diversity in Africa than in the rest of the world combined. Scientifically, Africans - despite appearances, resist classification as 'the black race'.

But... what? African's look more varied than any other Geographical group. Race is about more than skin tone, but even on that alone the variation of native Africans is VAST. I think it's fairly easy to see where abouts in Africa someone is from, in general. Maybe I'm just more observant.

Asians are not a 'race' either since many asian cultures separated long ago, so genetically speaking they're no more a unified 'race' group in the biological sense than Africans are.

Who said they were?

The thing about this is that, of course there are spills and overlaps, so what? In everything we classify, there are overlapping.

Perhaps people with Downs Syndrome qualify as a 'race', since they can be spotted visually and differ genetically from regular homo sapiens?

Now you're just being silly.

Do you have a citation to support this assertion?

No, and I wouldn't know where to look unfortunately. I know Dawkins talks about it in The Greatest Show on Earth. The great dane/chihuahua dilemma is common knowledge, though. I THINK some birds of paradise can breed with other "species", but won't due to complex mating procedures, but I'm not sure. I know some are known for hybridising, which would by your definition make them the same species - but they are classified as separate species by biologists and I just think there's something really odd in arguing with biologists over the matter that species is not a set in stone definition.

I'll get back to this later my brain hurts. lol.
User avatar
HAJiME
 
Name: Joseph
Posts: 582
Age: 26
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Is race real?

#3446  Postby pinkharrier » Jul 24, 2011 11:41 pm

THWOTH said "Do tell us what's the proper term is for those who maintain that any and all members of 'the white race' are innately superior to all others and that non-whites should be excluded from society?"


I simply asked if you defined them as "white racists" or did they define themselves as such. I looked and couldn't find the latter. I know your penchant and preference for guilt by association, therefore I have assumed you smeared them with the term.

I notice you backed off from calling Israel supporting Jews (probably still a majority) as Jewish supremacists because they prefer a Jewish state. In other words a demographic majority to protect themselves.

There is a smell of double standards here. Perhaps you can address that point as a side issue.

Cheers.
I'm a rational skeptic. Touch wood.
User avatar
pinkharrier
 
Posts: 797

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Is race real?

#3447  Postby THWOTH » Jul 25, 2011 7:20 am

pinkharrier wrote:
THWOTH said "Do tell us what's the proper term is for those who maintain that any and all members of 'the white race' are innately superior to all others and that non-whites should be excluded from society?"


I simply asked if you defined them as "white racists" or did they define themselves as such. I looked and couldn't find the latter. I know your penchant and preference for guilt by association, therefore I have assumed you smeared them with the term.

Whether 'they' call themselves supremacists or not is irrelevant - some do and some don't. The issue is the terminology I chose to use.

I made an observation, not a smear. The term is descriptive and was used because it was wholly appropriate in relation to the cited sources. If you feel a bit touchy about the term or are uncomfortable with the association then perhaps that's informative in itself?

pinkharrier wrote:I notice you backed off from calling Israel supporting Jews (probably still a majority) as Jewish supremacists because they prefer a Jewish state. In other words a demographic majority to protect themselves.

I didn't 'back off' at all, I just chose not to jump through the hoop. Whatever I think about Israel is irrelevant. My use of the term 'supremacist' does not depend on what I think about Israel or Jews and I don't earn the right to use it in one context by showing you that I am prepared to use it in another. It is interesting that you would infer from my previous reply that Jews and the Jewish State of Israel are getting an easy ride here or are subject to some favourable treatment not afforded the 'white races' as if it is somehow unfair that White Supremacists are being singled out for criticism.

Supremacism is not concerned with 'protecting' a 'demographic majority' and the claim that it is just something supremacists tell themselves to help justify their belief. Supremacism is concerned with protecting and promoting the interests of supremacists, those who belief that their particular ethnic group, religion, gender, sexual orientation, belief system or culture is automatically superior to all others and therefore deserves to accrue privileges over all others and should have dominion and control over all others. I hope this is clear?

Feel free to dispute the definition and, as I suggested, let us know if there is a more appropriate term for those who believe that all others are inferior to 'the white race.'

pinkharrier wrote:There is a smell of double standards here. Perhaps you can address that point as a side issue.

I hope my words above have gone some way to dispel that whiff under your nose? Perhaps we can address the point as a side issue - if you start a thread about how supremacism gets a bad rap I'll be sure to join in. In the meantime we can return to my previous unaddress points which this side issue has distracted us from.
"Nothing fixes a thing so intensely in the memory as the wish to forget it."
— Michel de Montaigne, Essais, 1580


Image
User avatar
THWOTH
Senior Moderator
 
Name: Penrose
Posts: 32610
Age: 49

Country: ConDemNation
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Is race real?

#3448  Postby pinkharrier » Jul 25, 2011 11:17 pm

THWOTH said "I made an observation, not a smear. The term is descriptive and was used because it was wholly appropriate in relation to the cited sources. If you feel a bit touchy about the term or are uncomfortable with the association then perhaps that's informative in itself?


So you defined them. Please spare me the bit about the cited sources then because it is BS.

As for the second sentences ("If you feel touchy...etc"), more guilt by association smearing. Why don't you run some spooky music as well.

You should have some intellectual pride.
I'm a rational skeptic. Touch wood.
User avatar
pinkharrier
 
Posts: 797

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Is race real?

#3449  Postby THWOTH » Jul 25, 2011 11:49 pm

pinkharrier wrote:
THWOTH said "I made an observation, not a smear. The term is descriptive and was used because it was wholly appropriate in relation to the cited sources. If you feel a bit touchy about the term or are uncomfortable with the association then perhaps that's informative in itself?


So you defined them. Please spare me the bit about the cited sources then because it is BS.

Have you had a look at the website Galaxian referred to? How would you describe its political agenda? It's not as if I haven't challenge Galaxian on specific points or just relied on an observation to challenge his argument. I'm also sure Galaxian is quite capable of championing his own point of view - if he is wiling to do so I am quite happy to discuss the issues with him. What else should I do, in your opinion?

pinkharrier wrote:As for the second sentences ("If you feel touchy...etc"), more guilt by association smearing. Why don't you run some spooky music as well.

Why is referring to the political agenda of the website quoted a smear exactly?

pinkharrier wrote:You should have some intellectual pride.

I have always done my best to explain my scepticism as I have done my best to address every point addressed to me. What more can I do? What have I got to be intellectually embarrassed about exactly?

I think it would be far better attending to the topic at hand, and in our case for you to respond in kind to the points of issue rather than just lambasting me for whatever you consider incorrect terminology and references :

  • http://www.rationalskepticism.org/viewtopic.php?p=935475#p935475
  • http://www.rationalskepticism.org/viewtopic.php?p=934310#p934310
  • http://www.rationalskepticism.org/viewtopic.php?p=928952#p928952
"Nothing fixes a thing so intensely in the memory as the wish to forget it."
— Michel de Montaigne, Essais, 1580


Image
User avatar
THWOTH
Senior Moderator
 
Name: Penrose
Posts: 32610
Age: 49

Country: ConDemNation
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Is race real?

#3450  Postby lyingcheat » Jul 26, 2011 5:06 am

pinkharrier wrote: You should have some intellectual pride.

^^^ Needle bending irony from the ace avoider of questions and maestro of the non sequitur.


HAJiME wrote; Firstly, why are you assuming I want or need to classify them? Just because I think it's irrelevant what race someone is doesn't change whether or not there are such things as races.

I got the impression you were interested in grouping or classifying from these two statements -
HAJiME wrote; People group other people by their obvious visual differences, differences caused by biology, before considering other social and cultural traits to group by.

HAJiME wrote; The idea that things that look and behave alike are the same is a far more solid way to classify, because in many cases species/sub-species/races wont interbreed because of such differences.

Adding the second part, regarding relevancy, to your question doesn't negate that you observe 'racial' differences. These observations, as you point out in regard to (other) 'people', are usually automatically 'grouped' or 'classified' according to whatever categories one has available.
In your case, one of the categories seems to be on racial lines.

Whether or not you think 'race' is 'relevant', or otherwise, is of no consequence to the automatic mental sorting (classification) strategy your brain employs.

To illustrate what I mean... I don't think separate 'races' of humans exist, it's impossible therefore for my automatic grouping paradigm to put people in 'racial' boxes. Certainly I notice differences, but they're cultural, social, religious, or geographical (et.al.). I may notice further divisions within those groups, such as whether someone appears (from cultural cues), to be from Eastern Europe rather than Western. Or whether they appear to be from this or that quadrant of the Southern Pacific, or of Chinese descent via Malaysia as opposed to Chinese descent via Taiwan or mainland China.
I may notice both similarities and differences between the indigenous peoples of South America and those of Canada, while also noting similarities and differences between the Canadian indigenous peoples versus the people long resident in the Arctic circle, who in turn can resemble both (far) Northern Europeans and (far) Eastern.
I may notice, though my perceptions are weaker due to little familiarity, whether someone appears to be from Southern or Central Africa as opposed to Northern Africa, and then perhaps become confused because, unless cultural cues exist, it's easy to confuse a Northern African person with someone from the Middle East, or even with someone from Southern Italy, or Spain, unless they speak, which is, of course, a cultural difference since language is learned, not inherited or genetically programmed pre-birth by evolutionary forces.

You may resist the idea that you seek to 'classify' people racially, but... you do.


HAJiME wrote; It's not just about being separated off and having a close breeding population, it's about all the factors which would selectively breed. If a group of any species separates off, but lives in almost exactly the same conditions and there is little development socially (as with the Aimish), then of course there will not be any great differences...? That's just common sense.

It is about "being separated off and having a close breeding population", since 99.9999% of the time that's the evolutionary trigger that produces, in the scientific taxonomy sense, races, and/or sub-speciation, of animals.
If any group of animals lives in undivided populations there's no reason, or likelihood, that races or sub-species will appear. Even if they did by single random mutation, proximity and inevitable interbreeding would soon eliminate the potential.

HAJiME wrote; /snip/ ....because in many cases species/sub-species/races wont interbreed because of such differences. Take the example of a chihuahua and great dane, unlikely that they would breed on their own accord. Some sub-species of animals found naturally won't interbreed because they have such particular mating rituals or behaviours. Same can be applied to humans.

I think comparisons to non-human animals are facile, since the combination of differences in social organisation, complexity of the organism, geographical spread, ability to adapt to an enormous range of conditions, longevity (generally) and therefore generational change, are entirely dissimilar to every other species of animal.

However... to address your point, there is a white (albino) Humpback whale that visits Australia every year during the annual migration south. Being completely different visually to every other humpback female has obviously not affected its breeding potential as far as humpback males are concerned, since it has a non-albino calf...
Dogs, including even chihuahua's and great dane's, will attempt to mate (or show interest) regardless of 'visual' differences, they often are careless of gender as well, so pretending dogs are 'race' or breed conscious is nonsensical.

As far as I can tell any animal, including humans, will jump anything practical that might seem half willing regardless of genetic imperative. So I'm not even sure what these probably imaginary restrictions about mating or breeding potential are supposed to signify?
Apart from the potential for conception, possibility of live birth, and fertility of progeny issues of course, which usually are indicators of genetic closeness. Or otherwise.

HAJiME wrote; The thing about this (race) is that, of course there are spills and overlaps, so what? In everything we classify, there are overlapping.

In folk taxonomies perhaps, or in social and culturally relative classifications. But not in scientific taxonomy.
Certainly, a sub-division of an animal species or sub-species may be assigned the label of 'race' if it differs from the species, or sub-species, in significant though perhaps minor, ways. Or, that label may be applied sometimes if the taxonomists are unsure if is indeed sufficiently different to be separately classified at all, whether from the species or sub-species level.
But, biologically speaking, an organism can no more be a member of two 'races' at once than it can be of two species or sub-species.

One might suppose that if an animal appeared to share characteristics of two different 'races', species, or sub-species, then that alone would imply that, scientifically, it is a de facto separate species, or sub-species, separate and different to whichever two, or more, 'races', species, or sub-species it shares characteristics with.

I can't think of any animal, or plant for that matter, that is simultaneously a member of two different species, sub-species, or races. Can you?

If this elastic rule applied uniquely to homo sapiens it would necessarily lead, as others have pointed out, to a proliferation of overlapping human 'races' each about the size of a family.
Which leads one to wonder at the utility of redundant 'racial' nomenclature when we already have perfectly good terms such as 'son', daughter', 'mother', 'father', 'cousin', 'uncle', 'aunt', or indeed, 'family member'. Not to mention perfectly functional geographical indicators such as, 'Londoner' or 'Melbournian', and 'European' or 'African'.
Descriptors such as, for instance, 'short' and 'tall' (not forgetting the infinite graduations between those extreme limits), are adequate to denote physical differences without introducing imaginary, and likewise infinitely variable, racially specific nomenclature that would, necessarily given the complexity of the overlapping relationships, need to be immensely convoluted to maintain clarity.
Which would, paradoxically, make such nomenclature unintelligible.

HAJiME wrote; /snip/ I just think there's something really odd in arguing with biologists over the matter that species is not a set in stone definition.

I'm not arguing about the definition of species. I accept the scientific (taxonomic) definitions of 'species', 'sub-species', and 'race'. My argument is that homo sapiens is a single undivided species because the apparent cosmetic and genetic differences between various populations are rendered insignificant by overwhelming similarities across the population as a whole, and that where differences exist they exist on a continuum that resists taxonomically significant or consistent demarcation.
It seems obvious to me, despite the notable variation in not only geographic location and physical appearance (including height, eye colour, tongue curling ability, how or whether we see colours, ear wax dessication, etc etc), that all humans are fundamentally and inescapably homo sapiens.

It's not proof, but concepts such as that explored in this recent movie support the idea that some things, our humanity for instance, are universal while such things as 'race' and 'culture' are learned.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1020938/
http://www.babiesthemovie.com.au/
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/10012014-babies/
> Insert Witty Signature Phrase Here <
User avatar
lyingcheat
 
Posts: 333
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Is race real?

#3451  Postby Agrippina » Jul 26, 2011 5:51 am

Cute babies.
Nothing is too wonderful to be true, if it be consistent with the laws of nature.
Michael Faraday
User avatar
Agrippina
 
Posts: 33326
Age: 103
Female

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: Is race real?

#3452  Postby pinkharrier » Jul 26, 2011 8:10 am

THWOTH said "Have you had a look at the website Galaxian referred to? How would you describe its political agenda?"


I looked and I didn't see anywhere where they stated they were white supremacist. Show me the link if I missed it. Otherwise it is just another smear and applying guilt by a (non existing) association.

As for it political agenda, I see it in much the same way I see the Japanese and Israeli (actually and specifically Jewish) attitudes to immigration. Neither better nor worse. Do you see it as worse? I guess you do.
I'm a rational skeptic. Touch wood.
User avatar
pinkharrier
 
Posts: 797

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Is race real?

#3453  Postby rainbow » Jul 26, 2011 8:31 am

pinkharrier wrote:I looked and I didn't see anywhere where they stated they were white supremacist. Show me the link if I missed it. Otherwise it is just another smear and applying guilt by a (non existing) association.

They don't.
It is blatantly clear from the sentiments expressed in the websites.

This may not be a problem to you, but if this is the only source of supporting information you can get for your viewpoint, then that shows up the weakness of your argument.

Just because the Nazis were correct on the health dangers of smoking, that doesn't make them correct on race.

Got it?
Kill the Wise One!
http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/155419

"Það er ekki til betri tími en núna til að fresta"
User avatar
rainbow
Banned User
 
Name: Señor Moderato
Posts: 6903

Mozambique (mz)
Print view this post

Re: Is race real?

#3454  Postby mindhack » Jul 26, 2011 11:14 am

I'm not reading through 173 pages if you don't mind and just try to formulate my answer to the topic question.

Race is real as soon as people internalize it as real and act on it. Racism is strong evidence that people do this. Genetically speaking I think there is very little evidence to support claims that would make me agree that different human races exist. But socially it's meaningless if people act on it as if it were real.
"Greed is out, empathy is in."
- Primatologist Frans de Waal
mindhack
 
Name: Van Amerongen
Posts: 2246
Male

Netherlands (nl)
Print view this post

Re: Is race real?

#3455  Postby lyingcheat » Jul 26, 2011 2:30 pm

pinkharrier wrote; I looked and I didn't see anywhere where they stated they were white supremacist. Show me the link if I missed it. Otherwise it is just another smear and applying guilt by a (non existing) association.

Speaking of non-existent associations... the idea that a globally unbound species (homo sapiens) that can be found in every habitat would be subject to the same evolutionary pressures and imperatives as Red Kites, or Banded Salamanders confined to a 200 meter stretch of one of the Colorado River tributaries, is a classic.

But anyway, regarding the hidden agenda of such sites as the Occidental Quarterly.
Because they don't actually mention 'white supremacy' doesn't mean that isn't their mission. Consider the unsolicited email 'Special Offers' you probably receive, they don't usually mention 'scam' or 'blatant rip-off' in their emails but that doesn't mean the offers of the perfect job are genuine, or that someone really does have ten million dollars accidentally trapped in a bank account somewhere that only you can help them retrieve.

Do you need them to actually say they're scams before you realise they are?

Here is the 'Mission Statement' from the Occidental Observer.
(edited for brevity)
Introducing The Occidental Observer
- Kevin MacDonald, Editor

The Occidental Observer will present original content touching on the themes of white identity, white interests, and the culture of the West. Such a mission statement is sure to be dismissed as extremism of the worst sort in today’s intellectual climate—perhaps even as a sign of psychiatric disorder. Yet there is a compelling need for such a site. A great many other identifiable groups in the multicultural West have a strong sense of identity and interest, but overt expressions of white identity and white interests (or European-American identity and interests) are rarely found among the peoples who founded these societies and who continue to make up the majority.
/snip/
Societies in Europe, North America, Australia, and New Zealand that have been controlled by whites for hundreds of years are the only ones to accept their own demise as a moral imperative. We view this outcome as the result of competition over the construction of culture in which the legitimate interests of whites have been compromised.
/snip/
The situation is particularly worrisome because present demographic trends, especially massive non-white immigration into Western countries, threaten to make whites a minority in these societies within the foreseeable future. Most whites have a gut feeling that the present trends do not bode well for their future and for the prospects of their descendants. We predict that whites will develop a stronger sense of their own identity and interests as a natural outcome of becoming a minority. We are simply ahead of the curve—an unsettling harbinger of things to come.
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/mission/
(My bold)

This ^^^ is not a fair-minded and balanced call for the equality of all peoples. It's a distorted and contradictory manifesto no different to that of any other single policy organisation of fanatics. Whether it's religious loonies or racist ones, the impending doom themes, reminiscences about an idyllic but now lost past, righteous entitlement, and overt expressions of persecution are the same.
The same remedies too.

Here's another article from them, in this one they can't hide their admiration for a recent media star who neatly combines the various threads I referred to above. A good christian fellow, proud of his ancestry and somewhat annoyed by foreigners and their (domestic) socialist supporters who he perceived as threats to stability and peace. To restore harmony, and being a man of action, he set off a bomb and mowed down some children.

The Political Ideas of Anders Behring Breivik
July 23, 2011 - Kevin MacDonald

A quite clear picture of Anders Behring Breivik emerges from this collection of his online posts. I thought the following quotes were reasonably representative; they are edited slightly for English usage.

These snippets portray a Geert Wilders-type of cultural conservative, very opposed to ethnocentrism as a strategy, very positive about the Vienna School, staunchly pro-Israel (which he sees as beset by militant Islam), and very hostile toward Islam. Breivik sees Islam as eventually taking over Europe via differential fertility if nothing is done, noting historical data on other areas (e.g., Turkey, Lebanon, Kosovo). Based on his reading of history, he believes that the triumph of Islam would unleash horrific repression and violence against Europeans and against all manifestations of traditional European culture. It would be the end of European civilization based on Christianity and ordered liberty.

He also has a 1500-page book, titled 2083: A European Declaration of Independence, suggesting his actions were intended to call attention to himself as a way of publicizing the book and maximizing its impact. See also the (very powerful) video below which is based on the ideas of the book. The video images strongly suggest that he identifies with historical figures like Charles Martel who fought to prevent the Muslim conquest of Europe in previous centuries. Note the many photos of Christian knights battling Islam (suggesting he sees Christianity [correctly] as a historically powerful force for the preservation of Europe rather than mainly about religious faith) and (at the very end) photos of himself in military dress and armed with automatic weapons.

In general, it must be said that he is a serious political thinker with a great many insights and some good practical ideas on strategy (e.g., developing culturally conservative media, gaining control of NGOs. and developing youth organizations that will confront the Marxist street thugs). (Parenthetically, during a recent lecture tour of Sweden, I was struck by the elaborate security procedures that were taken out of fear of physical beatings by “Communists,” described to me as typically the children of leftist elites. It is no exaggeration to say that racially conscious Scandinavians feel physically intimidated.) It could well be that Breivik’s silence on Jewish hostility toward Europe and the West and his rejection of ethnocentrism (see here) are motivated by his strategic sense.

In the excerpts below, note his hostility toward the Frankfurt School which he identifies with cultural Marxism, but never mentions that the Frankfurt School is a Jewish intellectual movement; nor does he mention the anti-European, anti-Christian attitudes that pervade Jewish elites in the West—as noted in Paul Gottfried’s recent vdare article (http://www.vdare.com/gottfried/110720_j ... dition.htm) and repeatedly emphasized here. He notes the failure of “ethnocentric strategies” but ignores the role of Jewish intellectual elites in pathologizing expressions of ethnocentrism by Europeans since WWII (particularly the Frankfurt School) and in combating the scientific basis of the legitimacy of racial/ethnic interests (Boasian anthropology; the video identifies cultural Marxism with cultural relativism, one of the main thrusts of the Boasian school). He is also highly critical of the media (without noting that the Norwegian media is controlled by a Swedish/Jewish family). In my experience, racially conscious Scandinavians are quite aware of Jewish media control. Again, these may be tactical moves, although I rather doubt it.

In any case, he is certainly right in characterizing multiculturalism as an ideology of hate. Note particularly his anger at the action of the Labour Party (http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/20 ... te-britain) in England in opening the gates of immigration in order “to humiliate the right-wing opponents of immigration.” As he notes in several places, multiculturalism is hatred of Europeans and their culture masked by humanism.

It remains to be seen what the long term effect of his actions will be. There is certainly great revulsion at the murder of young people (1). However, I suppose it is possible that in the long run European elites will understand that the glorious multicultural future will not be attained without a great deal of bloodletting (including themselves and, as in this case, their children) and realize they will have to change their ways. Indeed, one of his insights is that in the long run “the multi-cultural neocolonial regimes will either have imploded or have become very Stalinist.” I agree.

The fear is that Breivik’s actions are more likely to result in Stalinism in the immediate future than to lessen the grip of the forces of evil.
(My bold)

_____________________________________________________________________________________

(1)The Norwegian horror
Kevin MacDonald on July 23, 2011

The story line coming out of the Norwegian attacks is that the perpetrator, Anders Behring Breivik, was oriented to the political right. National police chief Sveinung Sponheim stated that the suspected gunman’s Internet postings “suggest that he has some political traits directed toward the right, and anti-Muslim views, but whether that was a motivation for the actual act remains to be seen.” There is also talk about links to Christian fundamentalism.

We’ll see. But what is shocking about this is the killing of at least 80 young Norwegians. As one analyst noted, “The tactics and actuality of these attacks would be quite striking if carried out by a domestic far-right actor — trying to kill Norway’s PM is one thing and not surprising from any extremist elements, but killing average citizens in this manner is very, very unusual indeed for far-right/supremacists, and certainly for ones in Europe.” (2)

Indeed. Killing people, and especially young people, of one’s own racial/ethnic group is not at all what one expects from someone who is motivated by ethnic nationalism. This is the case despite the fact that the victims were attending a youth camp for the center-left Labor Party. Such young people are simply not appropriate targets; their killing will not be seen by the vast majority of Europeans as legitimate. There is a natural revulsion against the killing of the young, particularly of one’s own ethnic group.

The bottom line is that if the right-wing connection turns out to be correct, this action will certainly not help the cause of those seeking to reclaim Europe for its traditional peoples.
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/20 ... g-breivik/
My bold and italics)

(2) Analysis: Questions over far-right link in Norwegian attacks
By William Maclean - Sat Jul 23, 2011

LONDON (Reuters) - A report that Norway's bomb and gun rampage may be the work of a far-right militant confronts Europe with the possibility that a new paramilitary threat is emerging, a decade after al Qaeda's September 11 attacks.
One analyst called the attacks possibly Europe's "Oklahoma City" moment, a reference to American right-wing militant Timothy McVeigh who detonated a truck bomb at a federal building in Oklahoma City in 1995, killing 168 people.

Police forces in many western European countries worry about rising far-right sentiment, fueled by a toxic mix of anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant bigotry and increasing economic hardship.

But violence, while sometimes fatal, has rarely escalated beyond group thuggery and the use of knives.
That may have changed in Oslo and on the holiday island of Utoeya on Friday. Seven people were killed in a bombing in the capital -- Western Europe's worst since the 2005 London al Qaeda-linked suicide attacks that killed 52 people -- and at least 10 in a shooting rampage by a lake.

Independent Norwegian television TV2 reported on Saturday that the Norwegian man detained after the attacks had links to right-wing extremism.
Police were searching a flat in west Oslo where he lived, TV2 said.

"If true this would be pretty significant - such a far-right attack in Europe, and certainly Scandinavia, would be unprecedented," said Hagai Segal, a security specialist at New York University in London.

"It would be the European/Scandinavian equivalent of Oklahoma City - an attack by a individual (with extremist anti-government views, linked to certain groups) aimed at the government by attacking its buildings/institutions."
"The next key question is whether he was acting alone, or whether he is part of a group."

A report by European police agency Europol on security in 2010 said that there was no right-wing terrorism on the continent in that period.

GROWING PROFESSIONALISM
But it added the far right was becoming very professional at producing online propaganda of an anti-Semitic and xenophobic nature and was increasingly active in online social networking.

"Although the overall threat from right-wing extremism appears to be on the wane and the numbers of right-wing extremist criminal offences are relatively low, the professionalism in their propaganda and organization shows that right-wing extremist groups have the will to enlarge and spread their ideology and still pose a threat in EU member states," it said.

If the unrest in the Arab world, especially in North Africa, leads to a major influx of immigrants into Europe, "right-wing extremism and terrorism might gain a new lease of life by articulating more widespread public apprehension about immigration from Muslim countries into Europe," it added.

Public manifestations of right-wing extremism can often provoke counter-activity by extreme left-wing groups. Such confrontations invariably result in physical violence.
In May 2010, a far-right supporter was assaulted and knifed in Sweden during a demonstration staged by a white supremacist movement. An activist was arrested on suspicion of aggravated assault and attempted murder.

The Swedish Security Service says on its website that the so-called White Power scene is made up individuals, groups and networks with right-wing extremist views prepared to use violence for political gain.

In a speech in September 2010, Jonathan Evans, the Director-General of Britain's MI5 Security Service, cited a notorious far-right militant in a passage describing the security outlook for the country.

"Determination can take you a long way and even determined amateurs can cause devastation. The case of the neo-Nazi David Copeland, who attacked the gay and ethnic minority communities with such appalling results in 1999, is a good example of the threat posed by the determined lone bomber."
Copeland struck three targets in London with nail bombs. Three people were killed and scores were wounded at a gay bar in Soho. It followed attacks against the Muslim community in Brick Lane, east London, and a market in Brixton, south London.

In an unclassified 2011 national security outlook published by the Norway Police Security Service (PST) in February 2011, the service said it saw a picture of "increased uncertainty."
Part of that was due to what it called an expected increased level of activity in 2011 by far-right militants.

"Norwegian far-right extremists are in contact with Swedish far-right extremists, as well as with other far-right extremist groups in Europe. Contact also takes place between Norwegian and Russian far-right extremists," it said.
"An increased level of activity among some anti-Islamic groups could lead to increased polarization and unease, especially during, and in connection with, commemorations and demonstrations."

In Britain, police chiefs and Muslim groups are worried about a rise in attacks by far-right groups, and in 2009 one senior officer, Commander Shaun Sawyer, from London's counter-terrorism unit, told a meeting of the Muslim Safety Forum that senior officers had increased surveillance of suspects to monitor their ability to stage attacks.

"I fear that they will have a spectacular ... They will carry out an attack that will lead to a loss of life or injury to a community somewhere," he said.

An analysis by Michael Whine, the Government and International Affairs Director at the Community Security Trust, an agency of the UK Jewish community, said the willingness to employ extreme violence in defense of European 'values' is apparent in the ideology of several groups, among them the British Patriots of the White European Resistance (POWER), which emerged in 2006, and which claims supporters in Croatia, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Serbia, Switzerland, Slovenia, and Sweden.

Security specialist Segal said of Friday's bombing and shootings: "The tactics and actuality of these attacks would be quite striking if carried out by a domestic far-right actor - trying to kill Norway's PM is one thing and not surprising from any extremist elements, but killing average citizens in this manner is very, very unusual indeed for far-right/supremacists, and certainly for ones in Europe."
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/ ... 9D20110723
(My bold)


And, just in case you're not getting it, here's another comment on the 'cultural pride' phenomenon.

Recognising the threat of far right terrorism
July 24th, 2011 by Dave Rich

The appalling and tragic events in Norway on Friday have served as an horrific reminder that Europe’s far right is capable of producing terrorists, who are just as willing to kill in large numbers as any jihadi terrorist group.

Previously, most attempts by neo-Nazis or other adherents of far right ideologies to perpetrate terrorist attacks have failed for logistical reasons, but there are enough examples that succeeded – for example, David Copeland here in the UK, or the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing in the United States – to dispel any complacency. The growing list of prosecutions and convictions in Britain of would-be terrorists from the far right in recent years shows that this is a real and growing problem.

CST’s Michael Whine has authored a chapter on the trans-European links of far right extremists for a forthcoming book, Mapping the Extreme Right in Contemporary Europe (Berghahn Books, forthcoming). The section of this chapter which addresses far right terrorism is worth repeating here, in particular noting the escalation from street violence to terrorism, and the focus on the Muslims and the state as preferred targets for violence:

"Street violence has always been part of the neo-Nazi scene: it provides a focus for hatred and thereby draws in new adherents, but the emerging trend involves a move beyond the anti-foreigner street violence of the 1990s towards a more focused violence, which includes terrorism, and which is spurred by different reasons (Merkl 1997: 17).

Tore Bjorgo noted in 1995 that the increasing support for xenophobic and radical-right parties enabled the growth of militant neo-Nazi organizations and networks which targeted asylum seekers and visible minorities within Europe. He further observed that groups perceived as ‘right wing’ or ‘racist’ often turned out to have no connections with extreme political organizations, and only a rudimentary idea of any ideology. He suggested that defining the essence of right-wing extremism in terms of one single issue, value or philosophical idea would prove to be a frustrating exercise. Rather, he suggested, that theirs ‘is an anger against perceived outsiders, or the state, which could take a violent path’ (Bjorgo 1995: 2).

At the same time, the late Ehud Sprinzak suggested that violent, extreme right-wing groups are organized around the belief that the object of their intense opposition is a priori illegitimate, that they do not belong to the same humanity as themselves, and should therefore be kept in an inferior legal state, expelled or even eliminated. He further observed that their violence may be directed towards the ‘inferior’ group, or it may be directed against the political authority which has allowed such a situation to develop (Bjorgo 1995: 4).

Evidence in recent criminal trials and security services’ reports suggests that elements within the extreme right are preparing and training for what they perceive to be a coming war for ‘white survival’. Few criminal justice agencies publish data on this specifically, or differentiate it from other forms of violent crime, but the exceptions are the Swedish and German security services (BfV various years; SAPO various years; for background, see Bjorgo 1995).
Their reports note that within established extreme-right bodies there are now individuals, or small groups, who are planning and preparing for acts of terrorism using firearms and improvized explosive devices that are more sophisticated than petrol bombs or other forms of missile previously associated with extreme-right violence. This new trend stands in stark contrast to earlier perceptions when several European security services reported an ambivalence towards the use of violence.

The move to terrorism is not perceived to be a substantive challenge to the state, but rather an attack on symbols of the state and a reaction to the influx of migrants, particularly Muslims. In Sweden, for example, four neo-Nazis were charged in early 2005 in connection with a terrorist plot to attack the parliament building and schools, but for evidentiary reasons were convicted only of causing criminal damage (SAPO 2005: 5).
The Swedish security police therefore noted in 2006 that -
Both the White Power scene and the autonomous scene contain actors who have shown that they are prepared to use threat, violence or force to attain their political objectives. In some cases their actions are directed against authorities or political parties represented in parliament (SAPO 2006: 23).

This new trend is neither widespread nor does it involve large numbers, but is the consequence of a small minority acting out their extreme ideology. It is, however, planned and coordinated at a national and an international level, and it is the Internet that enables and strengthens the processes.
A Europol report noted in 2006 that -
Although violent acts perpetrated by right-wing extremists and terrorists may appear sporadic and situational, right-wing extremist activities are organised and transnational (Europol 2007, p.4).

The inspiration for many is the ‘leaderless resistance’ model of small cells or single individuals (‘lone wolves’) using terror tactics to resist central government suggested by U.S. extreme-right theoretician Louis Beam, and the messages contained in The Turner Diaries and Hunter, two novels written by William Pierce, under the pseudonym of Andrew Macdonald. The former depicts a violent revolution to overthrow the U.S. federal government and to exterminate Jews and non-whites; the latter describes a targeted assassination campaign of couples in inter-racial marriages and civil rights activists carried out by a Vietnam War veteran who is drawn into a white nationalist group planning insurrection (Beam 1992; Macdonald (1978, 1989).


The murder of Theo van Gogh, and the 7 July London bombings galvanized neo-Nazi groups around Europe although the immediate reaction did not lead to the extreme violence that security agencies predicted. There was, however, an increase in low-level violence, and anti-Muslim demonstrations in many countries, especially in the Netherlands and the U.K. The Dutch security service and the annual Dutch Racism and Extremism Monitor both reported a discernible move by activists to ‘tougher, violence-prone neo-Nazi groups’ which are ‘just a fraction removed from terrorism’ (AIVD 2005, 2006, 2007; van Donselaar and Rodrigues 2006).
The acquisition of arms, bomb-making materials and military manuals has been noted in several states, although the degree to which they will use them is another matter, and their possession may be more apparent than their willingness and capability to deploy them.

During April and July 2005, the German authorities confiscated large caches of arms and explosives in raids on the homes of neo-Nazis, but commented afterwards that the intention appeared to have been to stockpile arms rather than use them immediately. They also noted that some right-wing extremists reject terrorist activity which could lead to increased surveillance by the state (BfV 2005: 50).

In the U.K., the police also foiled a succession of terrorist plots initiated by extreme-right activists. Nevertheless, the German authorities report that extreme-right activists are increasingly prepared to resort to violence, to obtain weapons and to engage in paramilitary exercises, as training for terrorism (BfV 2004: 39–41; BfV 2005: 49–50).

The willingness to employ extreme violence in defence of European ‘values’ is apparent in the ideology of several groups, among them the British Patriots of the White European Resistance (POWER), which emerged in 2006, and which claims supporters in Croatia, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Serbia, Switzerland, Slovenia and Sweden.

The British police have reported that -
There is no intelligence to suggest that POWER is instrumental in influencing known or alleged ‘Lone Wolf’ operatives. However POWER is a relatively new group who are difficult to regionalise and who have links to continental Europe (Association of Chief Police Officers 2008).

The POWER website states that -
We began in Great Britain but are a pro European movement with members in all European countries … We were formed as a last chance movement to preserve our individual nations and to unify Europe and build the great nations and Europe we once had… We are not a Political party, and would consider ourselves freedom fighters, not the left wing version of the term freedom fighters, which are called Terrorists, we are defenders of the European culture. However we urge people to support National Socialism … We are firm believers in the policies of Oswald Mosley and strongly support all of his theories on the state of Europe. (http://www.14power88.com/vonherman/vwar/page.php?id=6).

POWER identification of the enemy is shared with like-minded groups:
The western world we feel is under threat from not only Jewish corruption but also from mass immigration, drug imports, religious divide, gun crime, Islamic hatred [/b]and multiculturalism in general[/b], we firmly support all of Europe but refuse to accept that we owe any African anything … We stand alongside every European nation that wishes to remove non whites from their land. (http://www.14power88.com/vonherman/vwar/page.php?id=6).

The Racial Volunteer Force (RVF) is a second trans-European group which emerged from the UK-based Combat 18, with branches in the UK, Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands, and which declares itself to be an international ‘militant Pro White Organisation’, with its own European council. It hints that it will resort to violence and warns its members that they must think long and hard before joining (http://wwwrvfonline.com/house.htm).

The Dutch security service identified its members as ‘strongly ideologically developed’ capable of playing an important role in furthering and cementing contacts (AIVD 2006: 52). The terrorist threat is not perceived to be a substantive challenge to the state, but rather an attack on the symbols of the state and a reaction to the influx of migrants, particularly Muslims. It is not a widespread trend, nor is it coordinated and planned at any central point. Rather, it is the consequence of small groups acting out their extreme ideology.

The 2008 Europol report on terrorist threats within the European Union identified an increasing number of extreme-right terrorist plots in the U.K. during the past ten years by individuals classified as ‘lone wolves’ who share ‘an ideological or philosophical identification with an extremist group, but do not communicate with the group they identify with’ (Europol 2008: 39). They follow the models proposed by Beam and Pierce."


These trends have been apparent for some years. In 2001, just prior to the 9/11 attacks, Michael Whine wrote another paper about two new types of terrorism: far right terrorism and religious terrorism. Both types of terrorism tend towards seeking large numbers of casualties as an end in itself; and both increasingly involve actors who are not part of organised extremist movements, and are therefore much harder for law enforcement to identify and interdict. The shift in the rhetoric of the European far right towards a discourse of protecting their culture, rather than their race, does not change their underlying politics.

How to address the problem of lone actors who are prepared to kill in such large numbers, and who draw encouragement from a wider extremist narrative of grievance and self-defence through violence, is both a political and a policing problem and is not limited to any one kind of terrorism. Matthew Goodwin has some interesting observations here; Raffaello Pantucci’s typology (pdf) of lone terrorist actors is essential reading; Hope Not Hate addresses the wider political milieu from which far right terrorism emerges. There are no simple answers; but as events in Norway have shown, this is not a problem that can be ignored.
http://thecst.org.uk/blog/?p=2777
(My bold)

Bet you're loving this hey? All this information and reading, finding out stuff and suchlike... so here's a final little tidbit for ya.

Second, we need to understand that while activists like Breivik act in isolation, they represent a set of ideas that are shared by many (even if most would not endorse the use of violence). If the internet posts left by Breivik are indeed his, then they reveal an obsession with issues that are of concern to many within what we might term the broader right-wing subculture: a preoccupation with the effects of multiculturalism; the perceived cultural (not only economic) threat posed by immigration and Muslim communities; criticism of a lack of effective responses to these threats from established main parties; and strong emphasis on the need to take radical and urgent action. These motives were similarly evident in cases such as Robert Cottage, a British citizen who was arrested after stockpiling chemical explosives. His move toward planned violence was described by his wife as follows: "He thinks there's a war going to happen with the culture, the Asian culture and the white culture and that Tony Blair and President Bush are scheming against people."


Some of the issues allegedly cited by Brievik have played a prominent role within Norwegian politics in recent years, and for this reason it is important not to examine lone wolves in isolation from the wider context in which they operate. Most voters in Europe go out of their way to distance themselves from violence, but large numbers also express concern over the same issues that are raised by lone wolves. They are certainly not all lone wolves, or would-be wolves. But there is clearly a wider pool of potential recruits should the main parties not respond to their grievances. To some extent, it is perhaps helpful to think of lone wolves as being located at the tip of a triangle. Further down, below the likes of Brievik and McVeigh, are citizens who are active members of anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim parties, then citizens who vote for these parties, then a broader mass of citizens who are sceptical of immigration and rising ethno-cultural diversity. Many of these voters and citizens reject violence, but they are still concerned over these issues and elites need to address their concerns far more effectively than they have been doing until now. We also need far more research on what 'trips' some citizens from expressing their concern via the ballot box into open violence.
http://www.matthewjgoodwin.com/2011/07/ ... we-do.html
(My bold)

Just alert groups of concerned citizens, wanting to 'protect' their 'culture' hey?
These are the individuals, or groups, that support such websites as the Occidental Quarterly. The website Galaxian cites, and the one you defend.
Yet you both claim a noble concern regarding racial identification based solely on pure championing of 'scientific' objectivity.

pfft.
> Insert Witty Signature Phrase Here <
User avatar
lyingcheat
 
Posts: 333
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Is race real?

#3456  Postby pinkharrier » Jul 26, 2011 8:12 pm

Lyingcheat said "Certainly I notice differences, but they're cultural, social, religious, or geographical "


Geographical? From a distance, how does that work? How would you write a police description?

Just alert groups of concerned citizens, wanting to 'protect' their 'culture' hey?


Well is that a crime? Israel is a classic example. As is Japan. Are you as passionately critical or do you discriminate?

As for the Norway stuff etc, perhaps we need a new topic (or a relevant current one).
I'm a rational skeptic. Touch wood.
User avatar
pinkharrier
 
Posts: 797

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Is race real?

#3457  Postby THWOTH » Jul 27, 2011 12:17 am

pinkharrier wrote:
THWOTH said "Have you had a look at the website Galaxian referred to? How would you describe its political agenda?"


I looked and I didn't see anywhere where they stated they were white supremacist.

So what? I described them as such based on the content of the website?

pinkharrier wrote:Show me the link if I missed it.

Why? You've read the content of the site for yourself and have clearly arrived at your own conclusion.

pinkharrier wrote:Otherwise it is just another smear and applying guilt by a (non existing) association.

You don't think there's anything even a little supremacist about claims that 'Jewry' aims to control the US government, and even the world, by manipulating financial markets and promoting a state of perpetual international discord and war? Is this not a classic supremacist claim, one which has been used to justify action to protect and defend 'white' culture and society against an organised Jewish threat for the last 100 years or so?

pinkharrier wrote:As for it political agenda, I see it in much the same way I see the Japanese and Israeli (actually and specifically Jewish) attitudes to immigration.

You're saying there is a specific Jewish political agenda, a specifically Jewish attitude? Please clarify this, we wouldn't want people thinking that all Jews were of a specific type, all having the same attitudes, or all being somehow complicit in Israel's domestic and foreign policy objectives.

pinkharrier wrote:Neither better nor worse. Do you see it as worse? I guess you do.

That's strawmaning and it's completely and wholly irrelevant. So rather than trying to troll me how about getting back on track and dealing with the issues raised before this derail?

"Nothing fixes a thing so intensely in the memory as the wish to forget it."
— Michel de Montaigne, Essais, 1580


Image
User avatar
THWOTH
Senior Moderator
 
Name: Penrose
Posts: 32610
Age: 49

Country: ConDemNation
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Is race real?

#3458  Postby pinkharrier » Jul 27, 2011 6:11 am

THWOTH wrote; You're saying there is a specific Jewish political agenda, a specifically Jewish attitude?


To immigration to Israel? Yes, and it is official (although, no doubt, some would be critical). The point is I don't see too many up in arms because of it, least of all you. Does that mean you give tacit support to a "Jews only" immigration policy to Israel? So I don't feel distressed and any group (including whites) can have their own preferences. I do have a problem when any group can except whites.
I'm a rational skeptic. Touch wood.
User avatar
pinkharrier
 
Posts: 797

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Is race real?

#3459  Postby Agrippina » Jul 27, 2011 8:47 am

Their requirement is not that you be of a particular race but of a particular religion. They don't care what ethnic group you belong to as long as you adhere to their 613 laws.
Nothing is too wonderful to be true, if it be consistent with the laws of nature.
Michael Faraday
User avatar
Agrippina
 
Posts: 33326
Age: 103
Female

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: Is race real?

#3460  Postby THWOTH » Jul 27, 2011 9:01 am

pinkharrier wrote:
THWOTH wrote; You're saying there is a specific Jewish political agenda, a specifically Jewish attitude?


To immigration to Israel? Yes, and it is official (although, no doubt, some would be critical). The point is I don't see too many up in arms because of it, least of all you. Does that mean you give tacit support to a "Jews only" immigration policy to Israel? So I don't feel distressed and any group (including whites) can have their own preferences. I do have a problem when any group can except whites.

You've created a fallacious comparison between members of a religion and people with a certain skin colour there. Israel is a Theocracy in all but name, and Theocracies are predicated on the religious conformity of the population - surely this is not a surprise to you, nor the implications it might have for Israel's domestic and foreign policy? Of course not, you're just using the example to whine that Whites are not being afforded the rights, privileges and/or protection accrued by other groups. This really does need some support to be credible - I won't hold my breath. How distressed are you when any group's 'preference' involves excluding, removing, or otherwise discriminating against non-group members?

Are you going to demonstrate some of that intellectual honesty you bemoan is lacking in the discussion and address those outstanding points?

"Nothing fixes a thing so intensely in the memory as the wish to forget it."
— Michel de Montaigne, Essais, 1580


Image
User avatar
THWOTH
Senior Moderator
 
Name: Penrose
Posts: 32610
Age: 49

Country: ConDemNation
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Anthropology

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest