• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

Racism is baseless

The Sparrow

Graduate Poster
The Sparrow
Joined
Sep 21, 2015
Messages
1,658
Location
Central Canada
At breakfast Friday morning, a co-worker of mine made some 'joking' remark about how soon 1/3 of school children in Manitoba would be indigenous.
He said "we gotta find a way to thin that out". I called him a *********** racist. Then I asked him what part of my wife should be thinned out. He pulled a Trump-esque "just joking" but the damage was done.

So, to add a little context.

Manitoba Canada.

A large population of indigenous/aboriginal/first nations. I'm trying to use a non-offensive term. Basically Cree, Dene, Mowhawk, etc. What those in the states might call native-americans.

Those folks were hoarded into reservations by English and French colonists and generally treated rather poorly.
Add to that the mess of residential schools - basically we'll take your kids and "make them more white".

There is a disproportionate amount of crime, poverty and addiction among those of first nations descent, not too surprising when you consider their history.

My wife is part Cree, earning her a (apparently only Canadian term) designation of Metis. This only added to my outrage.

I've googled around without too much success, so I wanna explore the science behind why racism is based on false premises.

It is so easy for the uneducated to say, "you see so many drunk indians" "indians are all drunks".
I wanna be able to tell more of these folks to **** off, but in an intelligent well argued way. :)
 
Because there is one human race....period full stop. The last of the other human races died out.

There are lots of human sub-populations - they are different genetically and are subject to different disease propensity and also human cultures...some not so "nice".

Taking your example, Europeans have a much higher tolerance to alcohol than many indigenes and a number of subpopulations are prone to diabetes, Askenazi Jews for one - part of that is the shift in the diet ...their insulin response is very different.

Sickle cell anemia, no heart disease ( a very small population in Italy due to a single gene change ) , in medicine more and more what works for one sub-population may not for another.
It's starting to parse down to individual genetic propensity to disease and individual treatment via methods such as Crispr.

Metis is a cultural designation for a distinct group that grew up between the French Canadian fur trappers and the local indigenes...I was quite pleased to see the Metis recognised as a first nation.

Race in terms of humans is a construct to feed Victorian and other fantasies ....ie pygmies were not considered human and the Irish barely so.

Best stay far away from it.

Use the correct language and discuss subpopulations for genetic variance and culture for the differences that are not genetic but rather socialized results. Sometimes they coincide but as in the case of the Metis ....they do not.

You will not get much of an "intelligent" response ....

Here is some reading

http://www.livescience.com/53613-race-is-social-construct-not-scientific.html

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebat...ace-and-racial-identity-are-social-constructs

Bigotry however is very real and needs battling every day..... :(
 
Last edited:
fuelair said:
Start with the fact that we all are descendants of a single woman (mitochondrial DNA proves it) in central Africa and a single man (app 70000 years later) (other/somatic DNA).
Click to expand...
I wonder if the Indians would agree that that is their origin.
 
The Sparrow said:
At breakfast Friday morning, a co-worker of mine made some 'joking' remark about how soon 1/3 of school children in Manitoba would be indigenous.
He said "we gotta find a way to thin that out". I called him a *********** racist. Then I asked him what part of my wife should be thinned out. He pulled a Trump-esque "just joking" but the damage was done.

So, to add a little context.

Manitoba Canada.

A large population of indigenous/aboriginal/first nations. I'm trying to use a non-offensive term. Basically Cree, Dene, Mowhawk, etc. What those in the states might call native-americans.

Those folks were hoarded into reservations by English and French colonists and generally treated rather poorly.
Add to that the mess of residential schools - basically we'll take your kids and "make them more white".

There is a disproportionate amount of crime, poverty and addiction among those of first nations descent, not too surprising when you consider their history.

My wife is part Cree, earning her a (apparently only Canadian term) designation of Metis. This only added to my outrage.

I've googled around without too much success, so I wanna explore the science behind why racism is based on false premises.

It is so easy for the uneducated to say, "you see so many drunk indians" "indians are all drunks".
I wanna be able to tell more of these folks to **** off, but in an intelligent well argued way. :)
Click to expand...

sounds a lot like tha australian indigenous situation, A tragedy extended over generations
 
sounds a lot like tha australian indigenous situation, A tragedy extended over generations
Click to expand...

Even the Australian aborigines have a Torrey Strait subpopulation with very different medical needs as their genetics are different.

Many indigenous cultures have not been accepted by invading cultures and the "conquerors" have not gone out of their way to make for a comfortable co-existence.

40,000 year old cultures and languages are being lost ....the San in S Africa, the Aboriginals and the New Guinea Highlands....not to mention hundreds of South America tribes.

There is balance to be struck and we're nowhere near that even in Canada where mulit-culturalism is part of our identity....our treatment of first nations is nothing less than criminal.
 
@The Sparrow
There seems to me to be a bit of equivocating on the meaning of "race" in the thread. It's certainly the case that race in the context of racism isn't particularly well or uniquely defined... but we all know broadly what is normally meant, surely? At it's loosest, I'd go with something like, "a cluster of traits associated with some population with a common ancestry". By the sound of it, indigenous people would qualify.

The next thing is to unpack what you a specifically meaning by racism when you call him a racist. We need to be specific to know what we are attacking.

Is the accusation of racism, purely on the basis of him having made a joke observing that there is an increasing number of indigenous children in the class. I take it you don't actually think he was saying that you should actually find a way of "thinning them out"? Or do you?

I guess another way that the joke could imply that he is a racist is that, by making that joke, he is clearly not part of program with respect to not making such jokes. That would be kind of a "the personal is political" definition. Is this what you mean?

If the joke isn't important, and the assumption is that the racist in the OP must have some negative views about the indigenous population, then it seems to me important to know the details. You list a bunch of, presumably, socially carried traits that the you view as negative. To refute what ever it is that he believes, I think what you need to do is be very clear on what the difference is between believing that there are a bunch of negative characteristics that are associated with a particular race (what ever their cause), as you do, and being a racist, as he is. There isn't enough information in the OP to understand that difference.
 
Last edited:
Thanks all. I think what I specifically find most objectionable is the "idea" that having a darker skin, higher cheekbones, broader torso, somehow means you are of a defective character. That being first nations means there is a genetic (and therefore irreparable) trait that makes you behave badly or at least substandardy.
And yes, I think this person, and frankly many in my city, wish there were less or ideally no first nations folks around.

Interestingly, where I live, compared to many places in the states, there are very few people of African descent around. It is changing now with immigration, but I remember growing up in elementary school where there were maybe 3 black kids, 2 from the same family. I never saw or heard anything against blacks, it was all focused on the natives. It always puzzled me growing up because I just never saw racism against blacks, except on American TV/news.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Racism is a holdover from the evolutionarily beneficial distrust of strangers. 30,000 years ago, thinking very badly of other tribes was necessary for group survival. Territorialism was necessary when resources were scarce.

I doubt we'll ever be able to breed it out. We can overcome it with rational thought, but that takes effort.
 
The Sparrow said:
Thanks all. I think what I specifically find most objectionable is the "idea" that having a darker skin, higher cheekbones, broader torso, somehow means you are of a defective character. That being first nations means there is a genetic (and therefore irreparable) trait that makes you behave badly or at least substandardy.
And yes, I think this person, and frankly many in my city, wish there were less or ideally no first nations folks around.

Interestingly, where I live, compared to many places in the states, there are very few people of African descent around. It is changing now with immigration, but I remember growing up in elementary school where there were maybe 3 black kids, 2 from the same family. I never saw or heard anything against blacks, it was all focused on the natives. It always puzzled me growing up because I just never saw racism against blacks, except on American TV/news.
Click to expand...
Did these black immigrants when you were at school have disproportionate problems with crime, poverty and addiction?
 
Last edited:
<content deleted because I find my own post unpersuasive>
 
Last edited:
William Parcher said:
I wonder if the Indians would agree that that is their origin.
Click to expand...

What they believe does not matter (and I say that with no offense), since the science is very clear on it. Like Christians, they are free to have beliefs that say or imply otherwise, but that in no way changes or affects the science.
 
Racism is a holdover from the evolutionarily beneficial distrust of strangers. 30,000 years ago, thinking very badly of other tribes was necessary for group survival. Territorialism was necessary when resources were scarce.

I doubt we'll ever be able to breed it out. We can overcome it with rational thought, but that takes effort.
Click to expand...

Try bigotry instead....yes we are tribal ....even as kids the next block is the enemy. But it's learned and kids up to a certain age are colourblind ....then the issues begin and yes they are pervasive. Anti-semitism is alive and well in many areas and profiling on skin colour just a pestilence. :mad:
 
The Sparrow said:
Thanks all. I think what I specifically find most objectionable is the "idea" that having a darker skin, higher cheekbones, broader torso, somehow means you are of a defective character. That being first nations means there is a genetic (and therefore irreparable) trait that makes you behave badly or at least substandardy.
And yes, I think this person, and frankly many in my city, wish there were less or ideally no first nations folks around.

Interestingly, where I live, compared to many places in the states, there are very few people of African descent around. It is changing now with immigration, but I remember growing up in elementary school where there were maybe 3 black kids, 2 from the same family. I never saw or heard anything against blacks, it was all focused on the natives. It always puzzled me growing up because I just never saw racism against blacks, except on American TV/news.
Click to expand...

To clarify, I assume you mean people of recent times (25,000 years to 100,000 years ago or so. But, it is well scienced that ALL of us are descended from dark skinned people who lived in Africa. That is whether our skin is white, reddish, yellowish, olive, brown or black.

Basics the first: http://phys.org/news/2007-05-theory-modern-humans-descended-small.html
 
The Sparrow said:
Thanks all. I think what I specifically find most objectionable is the "idea" that having a darker skin, higher cheekbones, broader torso, somehow means you are of a defective character. That being first nations means there is a genetic (and therefore irreparable) trait that makes you behave badly or at least substandardy.
Click to expand...
Perhaps what you should be pointing out is that statistics only tells you about populations, it tells you nothing about individuals. Even if it's true that the average IQ, say, of one demographic group is higher than that of another, there will still be plenty of individuals in each group who are much smarter than plenty of individuals in the other group. So such differences do not justify making assumptions about, or discriminating against, individuals.
 
Last edited:
macdoc said:
Torrey Strait
Click to expand...

Torres Strait.

And to address only one minor point, in Australia the preferred term is "Indigenous Australians". This is not to say that other terms are wrong, or that you will upset people by using them (though I recommend against calling anyone Koori except for a Koori), but that in general, this term is preferred and appropriate in most situations, especially the formal and academic.
 
macdoc said:
. ....the San in S Africa,......
Click to expand...
Nitpick, if I may. The San cover the whole of the Kalahari region and beyond, and so extend well outside South Africa. Indeed, I think their major populations are in Botswana rather than South Africa. They also live in Namibia and Angola.

It isn't the people themselves who are being destroyed, (there are plenty of San), but it's their way of life and culture which is under attack.
 
I've always held the personal theory that racism was a side effect of the so called "Uncanny Valley."

For obvious reasons humans as social creatures become deeply, intimately familiar with the human "form" how it looks, how it moves, incredibly subtle details of facial features and emotions and we quickly developed aversions to any human that looked "off" as it could be an indicator of sickness or abnormality.

That's why things that look almost human but not quite are so disturbing to us, more so (or at least in a distinct, separate way from) something totally non-human. They don't register as "not human" but "human with a flaw."

And I think racism is an outlier branch of that. In the early formative days of our species we all became extremely tuned to our individual sub-groups which shared similar skin tone, facial features and other totally arbitrary things so when we started encounter people who had different, again totally arbitrary and purely superficial, features it triggered that same response. It's not that they were strangers in the social sense, they were "others" in a biological sense, at least to our primitive minds at the time.
 
I don't know if I can accept that: when looking at people of other races they don't look "off" in the way that, say, someone with a disease or disfiguration looks. They look exotic but everything tends to look like it fits in proportion: the hair goes well with eyes etc. Of course that can be more or less true of each individual, but it is pretty much equally true for people of every ethnicity.

Of course, that's just my personal experience, but I certainly haven't experienced the uncanny valley when looking at other races.
 
I'm inclined to agree with Loss Leader. We know that for much of our evolutionary history our ancestors lived in small, inter-related groups of hunter-gatherers. Likely very territorial.
When other such groups were encountered, it wasn't "Hail brother, well-met!". We know that our cousins, the chimps, react very negatively to such contacts and that a great deal of threat display and hooting and shrieking goes on.

That "fear of the other" seems to be deeply ingrained, and reinforced more strongly if the others look, act, and speak differently.
 
The Sparrow said:
No.
Click to expand...
That seems to me to suggest that, at least in the context of your community, this generalised "fear of the other" may be the wrong explanation. You have two groups of "others", one who has disproportionate problems with crime, poverty and addiction, and one who doesn't. These racists have, or had, a negative opinion of the first group and not the second.

It seems to me that you have two angles of attack.

1. If it is the case, as I think has been suggested, that they believe that ALL indigenous people in Manitoba are criminals, poor, or addicts... or are somehow more inclined that way than anybody in the racists population, then you can certainly refute them. If they are aware of the difference between the characteristics of the population and the characteristics of the individual then this will not work.

2. You could show that their negative view is disproportionate, or incorrect in some way. I have no idea what the figures for poverty, crime and addiction are in this community, so I don't know. Your statements about them makes me think you need to argue that the negative view is disproportionate since apparently it is to some degree grounded in reality.
 
Last edited:
Bikewer said:
I'm inclined to agree with Loss Leader. We know that for much of our evolutionary history our ancestors lived in small, inter-related groups of hunter-gatherers. Likely very territorial.
When other such groups were encountered, it wasn't "Hail brother, well-met!". We know that our cousins, the chimps, react very negatively to such contacts and that a great deal of threat display and hooting and shrieking goes on.

That "fear of the other" seems to be deeply ingrained, and reinforced more strongly if the others look, act, and speak differently.
Click to expand...

The problem with this kind of evolutionary psychology is that it's just intuitive reasoning to explain the society of the time in a very face value manner. We can, for instance, look at how incredibly complex international relations has become in the short time within which free travel and widespread levels of communication has been possible and conclude that actually, lots of people want to emigrate all over the world, societies interact in both exploitative and mutually beneficial manners, individuals are often very accepting of others, and on the whole the global civilisation is based upon a huge amount of co-operation for better or worse. Why not conclude that co-operation is clearly an evolutionary imperative? No one survives to childhood without other people after all.

It doesn't strike me as a very scientific point of view.
 
shuttlt said:
That seems to me to suggest that, at least in the context of your community, this generalised "fear of the other" may be the wrong explanation. You have two groups of "others", one who has disproportionate problems with crime, poverty and addiction, and one who doesn't. These racists have, or had, a negative opinion of the first group and not the second.
Click to expand...
Not to be snarky, but ya, I get that.

shuttlt said:
It seems to me that you have two angles of attack.

1. If it is the case, as I think has been suggested, that they believe that ALL indigenous people in Manitoba are criminals, poor, or addicts... or are somehow more inclined that way than anybody in the racists population, then you can certainly refute them. If they are aware of the difference between the characteristics of the population and the characteristics of the individual then this will not work.
Click to expand...
Ya, I get that too.

shuttlt said:
2. You could show that their negative view is disproportionate, or incorrect in some way. I have no idea what the figures for poverty, crime and addiction are in this community, so I don't know. Your statements about them makes me think you need to argue that the negative view is disproportionate since apparently it is to some degree grounded in reality.
Click to expand...
It is not disproportionate. The statistics are quite plain.
I understand and am firmly convinced this is due to social and environmental issues, not genetics.

What I am looking for is techniques to convince others of this.
 
I took a look at some statistics on Manitoba.
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/89-656-x/89-656-x2016008-eng.htm
Looking mainly at the First Nations single identity category, it looks to be a group with significant problems running at very high rates in the population. The figures for education, unemployment, poverty and single parent households, are dreadful.

If I was a TV psychic with somebody from this community in front of me, I'd be making guesses about poverty, lack of education, unemployment, large families and family breakups.
 
The Sparrow said:
Not to be snarky, but ya, I get that.


Ya, I get that too.


It is not disproportionate. The statistics are quite plain.
I understand and am firmly convinced this is due to social and environmental issues, not genetics.

What I am looking for is techniques to convince others of this.
Click to expand...
Oh, I see... you are certain that they think that the indigenous population's problems are genetic in cause? That wasn't clear to me from the OP. For the benefit of my curiosity, if nothing else... how do you know that the person you mentioned in the OP thinks that their genetic characteristics are at fault?

To unpack then, his negative views about the indigenous population are correct, proportionate and justified. What is racist is not the negative views he holds about this population, but the underlying causes he attributes to the behaviours from which his negative views quite logically stem. He could make the joke you mentioned in the OP, but based on a view that puts the causes as being cultural, and that would be fine and not racist.

My gut tells me that if pushed, many racists will choose to defend some version of culture being a significant element in indigenous people being, as a population, bad people. If they do that, you are sunk because the evidence is apparently on their side.

If they do try to defend a pure genetic cause for these problems, then it seems self evident that culture is part of the problem, so I would be confident that you can win without difficulty. The difference between the first nation people in the reservation and the off reservation first nation people would seem to make the argument of culture being a significant cause pretty well.

The way to win such an argument is to get them to commit to defend the strongest genetics only claim that you can.
 
A clarification just occurred to me. I have being saying "genetics and culture" as an alternative to saying "nature and nurture". There are surely different types of environmental factors that one could consider. There are ones that impact a person while they are exposed to the factor, but once freed from its influence the effect disappears. There are then factors that are more like nurture, that leave their mark. They may even self perpetuate. You are abused as a child, you are apparently more likely to abuse as an adult even after the original environmental cause is removed.

So, we have 5 things:

1. Genetic factors.
2. Environmental factors that are self perpetuating whose effects persist.
3. Environmental factors that are self perpetuating whose effects do not persist.
4. Environmental factors that are not self perpetuating whose effects persist.
5. Environmental factors that are not self perpetuating whose effects do not persist.

I just wanted to confirm that it is only the first one, genetic factors, that we are calling racist here and you want to argue against? It would be fine for the man in the OP to believe that the indigenous population have all sorts of negative properties for reasons 2-5, just not reason 1?
 
Last edited:
The Sparrow said:
At breakfast Friday morning, a co-worker of mine made some 'joking' remark about how soon 1/3 of school children in Manitoba would be indigenous.
He said "we gotta find a way to thin that out". I called him a *********** racist. Then I asked him what part of my wife should be thinned out. He pulled a Trump-esque "just joking" but the damage was done.

So, to add a little context.

Manitoba Canada.

A large population of indigenous/aboriginal/first nations. I'm trying to use a non-offensive term. Basically Cree, Dene, Mowhawk, etc. What those in the states might call native-americans.

Those folks were hoarded into reservations by English and French colonists and generally treated rather poorly.
Add to that the mess of residential schools - basically we'll take your kids and "make them more white".

There is a disproportionate amount of crime, poverty and addiction among those of first nations descent, not too surprising when you consider their history.

My wife is part Cree, earning her a (apparently only Canadian term) designation of Metis. This only added to my outrage.

I've googled around without too much success, so I wanna explore the science behind why racism is based on false premises.

It is so easy for the uneducated to say, "you see so many drunk indians" "indians are all drunks".
I wanna be able to tell more of these folks to **** off, but in an intelligent well argued way. :)
Click to expand...

Native Americans, do have genetic problems with both milk and Alcohol, hybrid vigor can eliminate those in people of combined blood and hybrid vigor can combine good traits of both populations.

I could never get over my European, african, and Asian genetic originated friends being terrified of a small plant, to which do to my heritage I have no allergic reaction to, and find the oily taste quite attractive.

There are great genetic benefits to hybrid vigorish heritages, Although I don't think that's why
My ancestors played around with Neanderthal's.

I you want to get these idiot's, remind them if it wasn't for the first Nations People's, they would be American Not Canadian, Trump would now be their president.
 
Pixel42 said:
Perhaps what you should be pointing out is that statistics only tells you about populations, it tells you nothing about individuals. Even if it's true that the average IQ, say, of one demographic group is higher than that of another, there will still be plenty of individuals in each group who are much smarter than plenty of individuals in the other group. So such differences do not justify making assumptions about, or discriminating against, individuals.
Click to expand...

Very correct and very often forgotten - especially by those who have a foolish emotional bias and cannot accept the truth.
 
Crazy Chainsaw said:
Native Americans, do have genetic problems with both milk and Alcohol, hybrid vigor can eliminate those in people of combined blood and hybrid vigor can combine good traits of both populations.

I could never get over my European, african, and Asian genetic originated friends being terrified of a small plant, to which do to my heritage I have no allergic reaction to, and find the oily taste quite attractive.

There are great genetic benefits to hybrid vigorish heritages, Although I don't think that's why
My ancestors played around with Neanderthal's.

I you want to get these idiot's, remind them if it wasn't for the first Nations People's, they would be American Not Canadian, Trump would now be their president.
Click to expand...

Is the plant poison ivy? And, if not, what???:confused::confused:
 
shuttlt said:
I took a look at some statistics on Manitoba.
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/89-656-x/89-656-x2016008-eng.htm
Looking mainly at the First Nations single identity category, it looks to be a group with significant problems running at very high rates in the population. The figures for education, unemployment, poverty and single parent households, are dreadful.

If I was a TV psychic with somebody from this community in front of me, I'd be making guesses about poverty, lack of education, unemployment, large families and family breakups.
Click to expand...

Any group that is not well situated in the community and it's ways will tend to be looked down on and be prejudiced against by that community or at least a number of it's members. The extant excuse for this is that in the early (very)time of civilization tribes competed for food and other resources so choosing to not associate with other tribes and instead to avoid or fight them was a survival tactic. Now, not so much - but it still happens.
 
Bikewer said:
I'm inclined to agree with Loss Leader. We know that for much of our evolutionary history our ancestors lived in small, inter-related groups of hunter-gatherers. Likely very territorial.
When other such groups were encountered, it wasn't "Hail brother, well-met!". We know that our cousins, the chimps, react very negatively to such contacts and that a great deal of threat display and hooting and shrieking goes on.
Click to expand...

That's complete ********.
 
fuelair said:
Is the plant poison ivy? And, if not, what???:confused::confused:
Click to expand...

Poison Ivy and Poison Oak. I get no grief from either of them. The family speculation is that its thanks to a somewhat distant Native American ancestor. (The founder of our line got booted out of his family for marrying a Native American woman.) But there's actually no foundation for a Native American genetic immunity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom