Tweet
iss race more important dan skin color?
-
-
Re: race versus skin color
is your race determined by your skin colour? -
Re: race versus skin color
When whites invented the concept of "race" they hoped it would perpetuate slavery and they knew this concept would tie our minds in intellectual knots for centuries to come.
So far, they have succeeded. Just Google the word "race" (even while excluding usages that could refer to bike races and ball bearings) and you discover that the term "race" has been used 448 million times in the United States in the last year alone. That's a lot of usage for a scientific concept that has no basis in science.
If, instead, you search for the phrase "skin color", you'll discover that it has only been used 4 million times in the United States in the last year. The concept of "race" is used more than one hundred times more often to describe "skin color" than the simple visible fact of skin color is.
What this means is that we are more willing to believe in a hypothesis about the relationship between skin color and DNA ("race"
for which there is "no evidence" than we are willing to believe in and study the sociological, cultural, economic and political importance of "skin color", which is something that we can see with our own eyes!
Comment
-
Re: race versus skin color
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: missus_vegas</div><div class="ubbcode-body">is your race determined by your skin colour? </div></div>
intarestinn qwestian
inn ja yu ave red, yellow, white, brown , blakk, etc. yet sum aff dem red ann iigh yellah wey cawl demself blakkComment
-
Re: race versus skin color
A while ago I thought I read that there are more differences between "individuals" in their DNA than there are between so called "races". I'll seeee if I can find it.
Comment
-
Re: race versus skin color
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: blakkgiant</div><div class="ubbcode-body">When whites invented the concept of "race" they hoped it would perpetuate slavery and they knew this concept would tie our minds in intellectual knots for centuries to come.
So far, they have succeeded. Just Google the word "race" (even while excluding usages that could refer to bike races and ball bearings) and you discover that the term "race" has been used 448 million times in the United States in the last year alone. That's a lot of usage for a scientific concept that has no basis in science.
If, instead, you search for the phrase "skin color", you'll discover that it has only been used 4 million times in the United States in the last year. The concept of "race" is used more than one hundred times more often to describe "skin color" than the simple visible fact of skin color is.
What this means is that we are more willing to believe in a hypothesis about the relationship between skin color and DNA ("race" for which there is "no evidence" than we are willing to believe in and study the sociological, cultural, economic and political importance of "skin color", which is something that we can see with our own eyes! </div></div>
Sounds like something Dr. Joy Leary [looks as if shi got maried] was saying all along, that race is a "racist" concept used by racists to perpetuate slavery and "racism.." and injustice.
<span style="font-style: italic">no basis in science</span>.
Comment
-
Re: race versus skin color
<span style="font-size: 11pt">Skin thickness is more important than skin colour.
Smoothness is good too.</span>Comment
-
Re: race versus skin color
The idea of the concept of race being invented to serve a certain purpose is not as far-fetched as it may sound, as evidenced by the words of Adolf Hitler:
The conception of the nation has become meaningless . . . "the nation" is a political expedient of democracy and liberalism. We have to . . . set in its place the conception of race. . . . The new order cannot be conceived in terms of the national boundaries of peoples of the historic past, but in terms of race that transcends those boundaries. . . . I know perfectly well . . . that in a scientific sense there is no such thing as race . . . but I as a politician need a conception which enables the order which has hitherto existed on historic bases to be abolished and an entirely new and antihistoric order enforced and given an intellectual basis. . . . And for this purpose the conception of races serves me well. . . . With the conception of race, National Socialism will carry its revolution abroad and recast the world (quoted in Rauschning 231-232).
Modern, scientific racial classification began with Carolus Linnaeus in 1735, who classified humans into four races, based mostly on continental separation and, later, on skin color. His four groups were:
1. Americanus: reddish, choleric, and erect; hair black, straight, thick; wide nostrils, scanty beard; obstinate, merry, free; paints himself with fine red lines; regulated by customs.
2. Asiaticus: sallow, melancholy, stiff; hair black; dark eyes; severe, haughty, avaricious; covered with loose garments; ruled by opinions.
3. Africanus: black, phlegmatic, relaxed; hair black, frizzled; skin silky; nose flat; lips tumid; women without shame, they lactate profusely; crafty, indolent, negligent; anoints himself with grease; governed by caprice.
4. Europeaeus: white, sanguine, muscular; hair long, flowing; eyes blue; gentle, acute, inventive; covers himself with close vestments; governed by laws (Smedley 164).
He and others both before and after him used features that we would consider purely cultural today to define races. He held that these races were mutable varieties of man, not species, and that they reflected changes due to climate.
..Comment
-
Re: race versus skin color
Buffon classified humanity into six races. It was he who, in 1745, introduced the term "race" into natural history. Montagu says, "Buffon acknowledged the artificiality of his classification, and warned against it being taken too seriously. But the warning went unheeded" (20). Toward the end of the eighteenth century, Johann Blumembach divided humankind into the five categories--Caucasian, Mongolian, Ethiopian, American, and Malay--that would dominate the educated community thereafter and are still in use today. Though he and others recognized the arbitrariness of such classifications, they still conveyed a sense of permanence and absolute dissimilarity among racial groups that was fostered by the racist attitudes of the time.
krsComment
-
Re: race versus skin color
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Ripton</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style="font-size: 11pt">Skin thickness is more important than skin colour.
Smoothness is good too.</span> </div></div>
mii doan gitt itt
skin thickness ann smoothness
Comment
-
Re: race versus skin color
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: blakkgiant</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Ripton</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style="font-size: 11pt">Skin thickness is more important than skin colour.
Smoothness is good too.</span> </div></div>
mii doan gitt itt
skin thickness ann smoothness
</div></div>
"Skin thickness is more important than skin colour", is a Colin Powell quote.
Skin smoothness, is my attempt at being funny, obviously it didnt work.Comment
-
Re: race versus skin color
yes it did.
Comment
Comment