And here is where you go off the rails and lose.
You can't dismiss the factual statistical correlation, so you just dismiss statistics.
After I just got finished saying that the boundaries for any category must necessarily be somewhat subjective, your reply is that I can't come up with an objective standard. Well, I never claimed I could, since there is no such thing. Taxonomists can't come up with an objective standard either, so I guess by your logic there is no such thing as a species.
Self-selection is what the United States census uses to determine race. Since your throwaway line about skin pigmentation clearly is meant to imply that I am a racist, I guess the United States census is racist too.
Dude, not everybody is a doorbell ringing, five word + smiley poster.
Some of us actually like to string more than a few sentences together, and discuss something a bit more in-depth. You should try it sometime, maybe you might be able to move beyond the mental hobbles you self-impose on yourself.
From what I understand there is.
Some genetic traits are clearly historically grouped by geography. The variations are, for the most part, pretty minor.
Further, they are being eroded by mobility and the inevitable mixing that occurs when populations move around, but there is some good evidence to support various groupings of humans based on shared traits.
Science goes where the evidence leads, not where we wish it to go.
Defining specific races and the criteria for that are very difficult. Fuzzy at best.
It's ok. We know what you do when team blue has a really bad week.
I like chinese food.
I oversimplified my statement of course but the overall point still stands.
It's all about unique geneity within a population. Selection bias aside, there is not significant basis of that for the categorization. The criteria for race is based on 19th century anthropology which is a hodgepodge of geography and plain old phrenology. The comment on skin color is apt. There is also things like shape of nose and slope of head in the descriptions.
Really though its backwards from how population genetics are determined. A geneticist looks at populations that mix and how they migrate. If there is an insular population that does not mix then that bears out but when you look at the US population the geneity breaks down especially betwixt minority populations. It should be absurd to group dominicans, mexicans and peruvian but our phrenology does just that. Basically what US race classification does is set up white and then group migrants into three main groups. Genetic basis is claimed because white line breeding shows up despite it breaking down in migrant populations.
What is really the most telling is that when you look at the haplogroups of the phrenological traits from various geographic regions and the geneity breaks down almost completely. A 'caucasian' from north america to western europe to the caucuses themselves has no significant commonality. This should make sense because they are all isolated populations.
But when you take the concept that white line breeding shows up and then think that has merit when discussing IQ scores from other arbitrary socioeconomic classifications, credibility becomes suspect. Cognitive psychology is grasping at straws as it is and it seems to be a lot of conclusions assuming the premise.
Blacks, Conservatives and Plantations
Why do Republicans keep endorsing the most extreme and hyperbolic African-American voices — those intent on comparing blacks who support the Democratic candidates to slaves? That idea, which only a black person could invoke without being castigated for the flagrant racial overtones, is a trope to which an increasingly geneous Republican Party seems to subscribe.
The most recent example of this is E.W. Jackson, who last weekend became the Virginia Republicans’ candidate for lieutenant governor in the state.
In a video posted to YouTube in 2012 led “Bishop E.W. Jackson Message to Black Christians,” Jackson says:
“It is time to end the slavish devotion to the Democrat party. They have insulted us, used us and manipulated us. They have saturated the black community with ridiculous lies: ‘Unless we support the Democrat party, we will be returned to slavery. We will be robbed of voting rights. The Martin Luther King holiday will be repealed.’ They think we’re stupid and these lies will hold us captive while they violate everything we believe as Christians.”
He continues:
“Shame on us for allowing ourselves to be sold to the highest bidder. We belong to God. Our ancestors were sold against their will centuries ago, but we’re going to the slave market voluntarily today. Yes, it’s just that ugly.”
(Jackson also took swipes at the gay community and compared Planned Parenthood to the Ku Klux Klan.)
The Democrat Plantation theology goes something like this: Democrats use the government to addict and incapacitate blacks by giving them free things — welfare, food stamps and the like. This renders blacks dependent on and beholden to that government and the Democratic Party.
This is not completely dissimilar from Mitt Romney’s “47 percent” comments, although he never mentioned race:
“There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are en led to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that’s an en lement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what.
Star Parker, a Scripps Howard syndicated columnist, failed Republican Congressional candidate and author of the book “Uncle Sam’s Plantation: How Big Government Enslaves America’s Poor and What We Can do About It,” argued in an article in 2009 on the conservative Web site Townhall:
“A benevolent Uncle Sam welcomed mostly poor black Americans onto the government plantation. Those who accepted the invitation switched mind-sets from ‘How do I take care of myself?’ to ‘What do I have to do to stay on the plantation?’"
Mackubin Thomas Owens, a professor at the U.S. Naval War College in Newport, R. I., put it more bluntly in an editorial on the Ashbrook University Web site in 2002:
“For the modern liberal Democratic racist as for the old-fashioned one, blacks are simply incapable of freedom. They will always need Ol’ Massa’s help. And woe be to any African-American who wanders off of the Democratic plantation.”
That last bit hints at the other part of Democrat Plantation theology: that black Democrats and white liberals are equal enforcers of enslavement.
A 2010 unsigned article published on the Web site of the conservative weekly Human Events reads:
“If black Americans wish to be Democrats, that is their choice — or is it? Despite the fact that Democrats enjoy the support of over 90% of black America, the other 10%, those who dare to ‘stray from the plantation,’ have been routinely vilified — by other black Americans.”
The article continued:
“The not-so-subtle message? Support liberal dogma — or face social ostracism.”
Dr. Ben Carson, who delivered a speech blasting the president during the National Prayer breakfast this year and quickly became a darling of the right (The Wall Street Journal declared: “Ben Carson for President”), said of white liberals in a radio interview:
“They are the most racist people there are. Because they put you in a little category, a little box. You have to think this way. How could you dare come off the plantation?”
(Carson also got in trouble for comparing sexuality to pedophilia and bestiality. He later apologized for those comments, “if anybody was offended.”)
Unfortunately, the runaway slave image among many black Republican politicians is becoming ingrained and conservative audiences are applauding them for it.
Herman Cain, for example, built an entire presidential campaign on slave imagery.
C. Mason Weaver, a radio talk show host, failed Republican Congressional candidate from California and author of the book “It’s OK to Leave the Plantation,” said of President Obama at a 2009 Tea Party rally in Washington: “You thought he was saying was ‘hope and change’; he was saying was ‘ropes and chains,’ not ‘hope and change.’ ” Weaver continued: “Decide today if you’re going to be free or slaves. Decide today if you’re going to be a slave to your master or the master of your own destiny.” Weaver would repeat the “rope and chains” line on Fox and Friends that year.
The Rev. C.L. Bryant, a Tea Party member and occasional Fox News guest, even made a movie called “Runaway Slave,” in which he says that America should “run away from socialism, run from statism, run away from progressivism.”
While these politicians accuse the vast majority of African-Americans of being mindless drones of the Democrats, they are skating dangerously close to — if not beyond — the point where they become conservative caricatures.
The implication that most African-Americans can’t be discerning, that they can’t weigh the pros and cons of political parties and make informed decisions, that they are rendered servile in exchange for social services, is the highest level of insult. And black politicians are the ones Republicans are cheering on as they deliver it.
Now who, exactly, is being used here?
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/05/23...antations.html
I've been in Texas my entire life and the most racist people I've ever met - by far - were the east Asian economics students I knew at A&M. I'll cut off any Aggie jokes by saying I was told that everybody hates blacks in their home countries. I hate to rain on boutons' white southern republicans are the worst people in the world narrative, but it's true.
"The Democrat Plantation theology goes something like this: Democrats use the government to addict and incapacitate blacks by giving them free things — welfare, food stamps and the like. This renders blacks dependent on and beholden to that government and the Democratic Party."
Boutons, are you disagreeing with this?
of course.
Tea party Republicans flocking to appear Monday at white nationalist-connected march
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, Iowa Rep. Steve King, former Rep. Allen West and Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions are all planning to appear at an anti-immigration reform rally held by a group with close connections to the white nationalist movement. According to Right Wing Watch, the Black American Leadership Association (BALA) is not the grass-roots organization it purports to be, but rather a longstanding cabal of anti-immigration activists who have “deep connections” to white nationalist John Tanton, a man the Southern Poverty Law Center calls “the racist architect of the modern anti-immigrant movement.”
The march, called the “D.C. March for Jobs,” with its “Just say ‘No’ to Amnesty” theme is slated for Monday and is expected to draw a heavily tea party-affiliated, far-right crowd. Mic e Cottle at the Daily Beast wrote Friday that BALA is believed to be “the latest in a series of minority front groups providing anti-immigration extremists cover from charges of racism.”
Tea party leaders, wrote Cottle, have been “downright giddy” at having a group of activists of color on hand to point to when critics call out the recent anti-immigration reform putsch by conservatives as a display of racial animus.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/07/1...e+Raw+Story%29
lol, southern poverty law center.
next you're going to quote the anti-defamation league?
Funny how liberals are so concerned with a party they won't vote for, trying to appeal to them... There has to be a grinch. Shame we don't have that.
You think party disllusion is a Dem thing? You heard of this thing called the tea party?
I don't understand your statement...
The most outwardly, unabashedly, racist people I have ever met have been Asians.
That Awkward Moment When The Tea Party Rally Gets Overtly Racist
Earlier this week, tea party activists and GOP lawmakers gathered near the Capitol to rail against an immigration reform bill passed by the Senate.
While the event was linked to a number of controversial figures, including an organizer who has argued for eugenics and called African-Americans a "retrograde species," that didn't deter Republicans like Rep. Steve King (Iowa) and Sens. Jeff Sessions (Ala.) and Ted Cruz (Texas) from showing up to join the chorus against a pathway to citizenship for undo ented immigrants.
When Ken Crow -- a co-founder of the Tea Party Community -- stepped up to the microphone, however, George Zornick of The Nation said he was taken aback by the talk of "breeding" and racial purity that followed.
From those incredible blood lines of Thomas Jefferson and George Washington and John Smith. And all these great Americans, Martin Luther King. These great Americans who built this country. You came from them. And the unique thing about being from that part of the world, when you learn about breeding, you learn that you cannot breed Secretariat to a donkey and expect to win the Kentucky Derby. You guys have incredible DNA and don’t forget it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...tent=NewsEntry
our very own fight-me, kill-my-mama John Smith?
If we are going to racistly generalize while talking about races being racist, I would say Indians. In almost every situation I met an Indian (red dot), they were so openly racist towards blacks. I couldn't believe it because most times it was in a professional manner, and I didn't really know them well enough for them to confide that kind of stuff towards me. Also mexicans. Growing up, there were many times I couldn't meet a girl's parents because they didn't want their daughter talking to white boys. Also many cir stances where they drop the n bomb on me because I'm white so they think I wouldn't be offended.
However since I've been in the Army, I met alot of racist white people. Not racist in the fact that they'll deny them raises and promotions. But their ignorance towards black people's culture and using that to talk trash.
Why the GOP is and will continue to be the party of white people
"Who needs Manhattan when we can get the electoral votes of eleven Southern states?" Kevin Phillips, the prophet of "the emerging Republican majority," asked in 1968, when he was piecing together Richard Nixon's electoral map. The eleven states, he meant, of the Old Confederacy. "Put those together with the Farm Belt and the Rocky Mountains, and we don't need the big cities. We don't even want them. Sure, Hubert [Humphrey] will carry Riverside Drive in November. La-de-dah. What will he do in Oklahoma?"
Forty-five years later, the GOP safely has Oklahoma, and Dixie, too. But Phillips's Sunbelt strategy was built for a different time, and a different America. Many have noted Mitt Romney's failure to collect a single vote in 91 precincts in New York City and 59 precincts in Philadelphia. More telling is his defeat in eleven more of the nation's 15 largest cities. Not just Chicago and Columbus, but also Indianapolis, San Diego, Houston, even Dallas—this last a reason the GOP fears that, within a generation Texas will become a swing state.
Remove Texas from the vast, lightly populated Republican expanse west of the Mississippi, and the remaining 13 states yield fewer electoral votes than the West Coast triad of California, Oregon, and Washington. If those trends continue, the GOP could find itself unable to count on a single state that has as many as 20 electoral votes
`the Calhoun revival, based on his complex theories of cons utional democracy, became the justification for conservative politicians to resist, ignore, or even overturn the will of the electoral majority.
This is the politics of nullification, the doctrine, nearly as old as the republic itself, which holds that the states, singly or in concert, can defy federal actions by declaring them invalid or simply ignoring them. We hear the echoes of nullification in the venting of anti-government passions and also in campaigns to "starve government," curtail voter registration, repeal legislation, delegitimize presidents. There is a strong sectionalist bias in these efforts. They flourish in just the places Kevin Phillips identified as Republican strongholds—Plains, Mountain, but mainly Southern states, where change invites su ion, especially when it seems invasive, and government is seen as an intrusive force. Yet those same resisters—most glaringly, Tea Partiers—cherish the en lements and benefits provided by "Big Government."
Their objections come when outsider groups ask for consideration, too. Even recent immigrants to this country sense the "hidden hand" of Calhoun's style of dissent, the extended lineage of rearguard politics, with its aggrieved call, heard so often today, "to take back America"—that is, to take America back to the "better" place it used to be. Today's conservatives have fully embraced this tradition, enshrining it as their own "Lost cause," redolent with the moral consolations of noble defeat.
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/112365/why-republicans-are-party-white-people#
"noble defeat" noble? is there anything "noble" about today's Repugs?
It won't take a generation for TX to go blue. More like two presidential cycles.Why the GOP is and will continue to be the party of white people
"Who needs Manhattan when we can get the electoral votes of eleven Southern states?" Kevin Phillips, the prophet of "the emerging Republican majority," asked in 1968, when he was piecing together Richard Nixon's electoral map. The eleven states, he meant, of the Old Confederacy. "Put those together with the Farm Belt and the Rocky Mountains, and we don't need the big cities. We don't even want them. Sure, Hubert [Humphrey] will carry Riverside Drive in November. La-de-dah. What will he do in Oklahoma?"
Forty-five years later, the GOP safely has Oklahoma, and Dixie, too. But Phillips's Sunbelt strategy was built for a different time, and a different America. Many have noted Mitt Romney's failure to collect a single vote in 91 precincts in New York City and 59 precincts in Philadelphia. More telling is his defeat in eleven more of the nation's 15 largest cities. Not just Chicago and Columbus, but also Indianapolis, San Diego, Houston, even Dallas—this last a reason the GOP fears that, within a generation Texas will become a swing state.
Remove Texas from the vast, lightly populated Republican expanse west of the Mississippi, and the remaining 13 states yield fewer electoral votes than the West Coast triad of California, Oregon, and Washington. If those trends continue, the GOP could find itself unable to count on a single state that has as many as 20 electoral votes
`the Calhoun revival, based on his complex theories of cons utional democracy, became the justification for conservative politicians to resist, ignore, or even overturn the will of the electoral majority.
This is the politics of nullification, the doctrine, nearly as old as the republic itself, which holds that the states, singly or in concert, can defy federal actions by declaring them invalid or simply ignoring them. We hear the echoes of nullification in the venting of anti-government passions and also in campaigns to "starve government," curtail voter registration, repeal legislation, delegitimize presidents. There is a strong sectionalist bias in these efforts. They flourish in just the places Kevin Phillips identified as Republican strongholds—Plains, Mountain, but mainly Southern states, where change invites su ion, especially when it seems invasive, and government is seen as an intrusive force. Yet those same resisters—most glaringly, Tea Partiers—cherish the en lements and benefits provided by "Big Government."
Their objections come when outsider groups ask for consideration, too. Even recent immigrants to this country sense the "hidden hand" of Calhoun's style of dissent, the extended lineage of rearguard politics, with its aggrieved call, heard so often today, "to take back America"—that is, to take America back to the "better" place it used to be. Today's conservatives have fully embraced this tradition, enshrining it as their own "Lost cause," redolent with the moral consolations of noble defeat.
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/112365/why-republicans-are-party-white-people#
"noble defeat" noble? is there anything "noble" about today's Repugs?
Hispanics don't vote. If they did, TX would already be Dem.
I'm not sure how any political analyst in the 60s could have predicted just how much the non-white share of the population would grow in 50 years, given the subsequent immigration explosion, plus the growth in rates of divorce and single motherhood, all of which strongly favors the left. Maybe there was a 20 something back then who called it and now goes around saying, "I told you we'd end up screwed."
And BTW, minorities in the US vote Dem for the same reason that Muslims in the UK vote for Labor ... for abortion, gay and women's rights, of course!!!
It's funny that the left loves to point out that there is this big divide between whites and non-whites in voting habits for the two parties , but in the next breath they will say how great this whole multiethinc, multicultural experiment is going to work out, just as soon as we fix that majority of wrong - thinking whites. I know the masses of left wing voters believe it religiously, but I go back and forth on whether or not the bulk of the leadership actually does. If I had to guess I'd say that I doubt it.
"You start out in 1954 by saying, “******, ******, ******.” By 1968 you can’t say “******”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a of a lot more abstract than “******, ******.” "
”I’ll tell you what’s at the bottom of it,” the president said. “If you can convince the lowest white man that he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. , give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll even empty his pockets for you.”
(TGB: exactly how Repugs get red state/rural whites to vote Repug and against their best financial interests)
While the right wants to focus on black culture and “black-on-black” crime, they refuse to acknowledge that “white-on-white” crime is statistically nearly as common and happens much more often, as white people, who are the vast majority of the population, commit the vast majority of violent crimes in this country.
Negative aspersions on so-called “food stamps,” like Ronald Reagan’s old “welfare queens,” often carry a racial connotation. But government assistance in this country is actually used by ethnic groups pretty much in proportion to their share of the population:
African-Americans, who make up 22 percent of the poor, receive 14 percent of government benefits, close to their 12 percent population share.
White non-Hispanics, who make up 42 percent of the poor, receive 69 percent of government benefits – again, much closer to their 64 percent population share.
http://www.nationalmemo.com/how-the-...ng-about-race/
******* above = n!gg@, a new "auto edit" of ST.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 07-29-2013 at 06:25 AM.
So an IQ test is equivalent to measuring some protein level in the blood?
You don't need genetics, stats, and all to be skeptical of a test designed to measure "intelligence".
What the is intelligence? The ability to see numerical and or language patterns? Number sense? The ability to take objects drawn in 2D, but visually representing objects in 3D, and manipulate them? What the is it?
The fact that people take IQ tests as some God stamped number is disturbing and astounding. IQ tests were intended to find SEVERE inabilities for very specific tasks in people that have supposedly been subjected to in previous training.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
