Racism is baseless

[MikeG]

. ....the San in S Africa,......

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.

 

[caveman1917]

Racism is a holdover from the evolutionarily beneficial distrust of strangers.

That's complete ********.

 

[JoeMorgue]

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.

 

[Roboramma]

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.

 

[The Sparrow]

Did these black immigrants when you were at school have disproportionate problems with crime, poverty and addiction?

No.

 

[Bikewer]

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.

 

[shuttlt]

No.

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.

 

[Bladesman87]

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 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.

 

[The Sparrow]

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.

Not to be snarky, but ya, I get that.

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.

Ya, I get that too.

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.

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.

 

[shuttlt]

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.

 

[shuttlt]

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.

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.

 

[shuttlt]

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?

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

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.

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.

 

[fuelair]

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.

Very correct and very often forgotten - especially by those who have a foolish emotional bias and cannot accept the truth.

 

[fuelair]

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.

Is the plant poison ivy? And, if not, what???

 

[fuelair]

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.

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.

 

[fuelair]

Think of gangs in big cities marking their territories.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Is the plant poison ivy? And, if not, what???

My favorite salad additive poison Ivy, unfortunately my Girl friend doesn't allow me to eat it any more.

 

[caveman1917]

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's complete ********.

 

[Apathia]

Is the plant poison ivy? And, if not, what???

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.