Forum Klix.ba

The Grasshopper's Tale treats of the vexed and sensitive topic of race...

"Race" is not a clearly defined word. "Species" is different. There really is an agreed way to decide whether two animals belong in the same species: can they interbreed? The interbreeding criterion gives the species a unique status in the hierarchy of taxonomic levels... The interbreeding criterion works pretty well, and it delivers an unequivocal verdict on humans and their supposed races. All living human races interbreed with one another. We are all members of the same species, and no reputable biologist would say any different. But let me call your attention to an interesting, perhaps even slightly disturbing, fact. While we happily interbreed with each other, producing a continuous spectrum of inter-races, we are reluctant to give up our divisive racial language. Wouldn't you expect that if all intermediates are on constant display, the urge to classify people as one or the other of two extremes would wither away, smothered by the absurdity of the attempt, which is continually manifested everywhere we look? But this is not what happens, and perhaps that very fact is revealing. People who are universally agreed by all Americans to be "black" may draw less than one eighth of their ancestry from Africa, and often have a light skin colour well within the normal range for people universally agreed to be "white."

Many people - probably more than most of us realise - have both black and white ancestors. If we are going to use colour terminology, many of us are presumably somewhere in between. Yet society insists on calling us one or the other. It is an example of what, in the "Salamander's Tale" chapter of my new book, I have called the "tyranny of the discontinuous mind." Americans are regularly asked to fill in forms in which they have to tick one of five boxes: Caucasian (whatever that means - it certainly doesn't mean from the Caucasus), African-American, Hispanic (whatever that means - it certainly does not mean, as the word seems to suggest, Spanish), Native American or Other. There are no boxes labelled "half and half." But the very idea of ticking boxes in this way is incompatible with the truth, which is that many, if not most, people are a complex mix of the offered categories and others. My inclination is irritably to refuse to tick any boxes, or to add my own box labelled "human."

In the particular case of "African-Americans," there is something culturally equivalent to genetic dominance in our use of language. When Mendel crossed wrinkled peas with smooth peas, all the first generation progeny were smooth. Smooth is "dominant," wrinkled is "recessive." The first generation progeny all had one smooth allele and one wrinkled, yet the peas themselves were indistinguishable from peas with no wrinkled genes. When a white man marries a black woman, the progeny are intermediate in colour and in most other characteristics. This is unlike the situation with peas. But we all know what society will call such children: "black." Blackness is not a true genetic dominant like smoothness in peas. But social perception of blackness behaves like a dominant. It is a cultural or memetic dominant.

Bodkin wrote: A druga stvar, imam osjecaj da se bojite da vas ljudi gledaju kao to sto jeste jer zelite svigdje biti uklopljeni bez da se razlikujete. Ne znam uopste jesi ti medju tom grupom ali imam osjecaj da je svojstveno ljudima koji emigriraju.

Ok je biti drugaciji.

madner wrote:

Mislim da se broj nije mjenjao od 1945, obicno se radilo o 7 ako se posmatra cijeli svijet.

Dawkins je establishment, ali vi imate cudan argument. Ljudsko genetsko stablo je drvo, prvo veliko racvanje su rase. Pogledamo genetiku svih ljudi, imamo 7 velikih grupisanja. Zoomiramo blize, svako veliko grupisanje se djeli na manje clustere.

Kakva je prakticna razlika izmedju bjele rase i Evropskog porijekla predaka?

Bodkin wrote:
A druga stvar, imam osjecaj da se bojite da vas ljudi gledaju kao to sto jeste jer zelite svigdje biti uklopljeni bez da se razlikujete. Ne znam uopste jesi ti medju tom grupom ali imam osjecaj da je svojstveno ljudima koji emigriraju.

Ok je biti drugaciji.

jeza u ledja wrote:

Bodkin wrote: A druga stvar, imam osjecaj da se bojite da vas ljudi gledaju kao to sto jeste jer zelite svigdje biti uklopljeni bez da se razlikujete. Ne znam uopste jesi ti medju tom grupom ali imam osjecaj da je svojstveno ljudima koji emigriraju.

Ok je biti drugaciji.

Ponavljas ovu tezu vrlo cesto. Ubacujes licne pretpostavke , cesto pogresne, tako da se stice dojam da si ti taj koji ima neki kompleks?

Ovako da ti kazem iskreno - ja sam svoje vidjenje drustva i podjela u njemu na osnovu porijekla stekao u periodu od 92-95. Meni je to iskustvo, znaci ne samo rat, mrznja, netrpeljivost, zlocini, vec i politicke podjele, granice, osjecaj pripadnosti nekom stadu, bilo dovoljno da shvatim svu apsurdnost podjela koje su u danasnjem drustvu i dalje mainstream. Kroz svoje iskustvo, a i kroz iskustva drugih.

I tako vidim i cijeli zivot od tada, kroz politicka desavanja, kroz ratove, granice, kroz podjele medju ljudima koje postoje iskljucivo radi gazenja jednih i koristi drugih.

Ja nemam nista protiv osjecaja pripadnosti nekoj grupi i isticanja razlicitosti, ali to je u granicama perifernih stvari tipa sport, jezik, kuhanje, i takve gluposti.

Stoga ne imputiraj drugima stvari koje tebe samog tiste.

jeza u ledja wrote:Ti to sam sa sobom razgovaras?

Frajera jasno pitam da mi navede definiciju rase vise puta i onda lik kojeg on sam citira kaze da takva definicija ne postoji. Pocela cijela prica oko moje tvrdnje da pojam rase ne postoji kao geneticka kategorija i doslovce svaki citiran izvor i sa moje i sa njegov strane potvrdjuje isto. On i dalje uvjerava sebe.

Naravno, 7-8 citiranih naucnih radova i clanaka koje sam ja postavio preskace.

Dajem ti posljednju priliku - definisi pojam pojam rase i opisi nam koje rase postoje i kako se definisu. Daj ti eto odgovor, ne moras nam nista citirati.

Btw, to sto si citirao, kao ni raniji citat, se ni pocemu ne sukobljava sa onim sto ja govorim. Ostaje nejasno kako si ti izvukao drukciji zakljucak.

madner wrote:Ono kada citas sto bi volio da pise.

Paragraf prije:

Human beings are the other way round. It requires an almost superhuman feat of political zeal to overlook the conspicuous differences between our own local populations or races. Yet we happily interbreed across races and are unequivocally and uncontroversially defined as members of the same species.

pa poslje

There is a useful technique called 'inter-observer correlation'. It is a measure that is often used in science to establish that there really is a reliable basis for a judgement, even if nobody can pin down what that basis is. The rationale, in the present case, is this. We may not know how people decide whether somebody is 'black' or 'white' (and I hope I have just demonstrated that it isn't because they are black or white!) but there must be some sort of reliable criterion lurking there because any two randomly chosen judges will come to the same decision.
The fact that the inter-observer correlation remains high, even over a huge spectrum of inter-races, is impressive testimony to something fairly deep-seated in human psychology. If it holds up cross-culturally, it will be reminiscent of the anthropologists' finding about perception of hue. Physicists tell us that the rainbow, from red through orange, yellow, green and blue to violet is a simple continuum of wavelength. It is biology and/or psychology, not physics, that singles out particular landmark wavelengths along the physical spectrum for special treatment and naming. Blue has a name. Green has a name. Blue-green does not. The interesting finding of anthropologists' experiments (as opposed to some influential anthropological theories, by the way) is that there is substantial agreement over such namings across different cultures. We seem to have the same kind of agreement over judgements of race.

If there is no taxonomic or genetic significance, the only other way to get a high inter-observer correlation would be a worldwide similarity in cultural bias, and I do not think Lewontin would want to predict that either. In short, I think Edwards is right and Lewontin, not for the first time, wrong.

insomnia78 wrote:Ovi libertarijanci su cudo. Fakat samo kme, kme

daddy-kool wrote:

madner wrote:Ono kada citas sto bi volio da pise.

Paragraf prije:

Human beings are the other way round. It requires an almost superhuman feat of political zeal to overlook the conspicuous differences between our own local populations or races. Yet we happily interbreed across races and are unequivocally and uncontroversially defined as members of the same species.

pa poslje

There is a useful technique called 'inter-observer correlation'. It is a measure that is often used in science to establish that there really is a reliable basis for a judgement, even if nobody can pin down what that basis is. The rationale, in the present case, is this. We may not know how people decide whether somebody is 'black' or 'white' (and I hope I have just demonstrated that it isn't because they are black or white!) but there must be some sort of reliable criterion lurking there because any two randomly chosen judges will come to the same decision.
The fact that the inter-observer correlation remains high, even over a huge spectrum of inter-races, is impressive testimony to something fairly deep-seated in human psychology. If it holds up cross-culturally, it will be reminiscent of the anthropologists' finding about perception of hue. Physicists tell us that the rainbow, from red through orange, yellow, green and blue to violet is a simple continuum of wavelength. It is biology and/or psychology, not physics, that singles out particular landmark wavelengths along the physical spectrum for special treatment and naming. Blue has a name. Green has a name. Blue-green does not. The interesting finding of anthropologists' experiments (as opposed to some influential anthropological theories, by the way) is that there is substantial agreement over such namings across different cultures. We seem to have the same kind of agreement over judgements of race.

If there is no taxonomic or genetic significance, the only other way to get a high inter-observer correlation would be a worldwide similarity in cultural bias, and I do not think Lewontin would want to predict that either. In short, I think Edwards is right and Lewontin, not for the first time, wrong.

Ja opet ponavljam i ova analogija sa bojama u spektru je sasvim ok.
Ti vidiš RGB ili još plus sekundarne boje, i kako autor veli to je u oku posmatrača, jer je stvar biologije i /ili psihologije.
Fizika vidi kontinualni spektar, sa fizičkog stanovišta razlika u bojama je razlika u valnoj dužini svjetlosti. Tj samo zato što nekoj boji nismo dali ime ne znači da ona ne postoji.


Znači, nije problem vidjeti morfološke ili genetske razlike između Engleza, Nigerijca i Tibetanca, niti ih je problem vezati geografski. Stvar je da između ovih grupa postoji mnogo nijansi koje ne potpadaju finom i lakom kategoriziranju, da ne govorimo o mnoštvu vrlo sličnih ali ipak distinktnih etničkih grupa ili njihovih mješavina.
Po onoj gornjoj slici su Arapi Caucasians?
Da li ih tako i vi smatrate?
Kako ti definišeš bijelu rasu?

madner wrote: Ako je rezolucija velika, velika vecina Arapa su bjelci. Manja rezolucija bi vecinu svrstala u posebnu grupu, ali opet kao podvrstu bijele rase.
Inace ne znam ko je vi

Upućeno ne tebi per se, no ovim što u migrantima vide ljude druge rase.

madner wrote:
Pa samo neko ko je maliciozan moze procitati poglavlje i tvrditi da nije dobio odgovor.

Dawkins tvrdi da je rasa bioloski fakt, daje ti definiciju rase, dokazuje da je stvarno informacija a ne socijalna konstrukcija i onda ti probas od toga napraviti ovo. Nema veze sa onim sto mislis da si procitao.

Nisi citirao ni jedan naucni rad. Citirao si vise misljenja, naucni radovi imaju strozije kriterije. Sto se nauke tice, odgovorio sam na rad koji je jedini tvrdio to sto tvrdis. Ako te zanima, a ne zanima te, niti kontas sta to znaci, ima formula koja odredjuje koliko alela trebas posmatrati da bi dobio trazenu tacnost odgovora.

jeza u ledja wrote: Taking race out of human genetics

We believe the use of biological concepts of race in human genetic research—so disputed and so mired in confusion—is problematic at best and harmful at worst. It is time for biologists to find a better way.

jeza u ledja wrote: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/8209210_Genetic_variation_classification_and_'race'

Clustering of individuals is correlated with geographic origin or ancestry. These clusters are also correlated with some traditional concepts of race, but the correlations are imperfect because genetic variation tends to be distributed in a continuous, overlapping fashion among populations. Therefore, ancestry, or even race, may in some cases prove useful in the biomedical setting, but direct assessment of disease-related genetic variation will ultimately yield more accurate and beneficial information.

jeza u ledja wrote: https://genome.cshlp.org/content/12/6/844.full.html

Debates about race and ethnicity have changed in one important respect—today nearly all geneticists reject the idea that biological differences belie racial and ethnic distinctions

Genetic interpretations of existing social distinctions and population histories are not without risk, having the potential for unintended uses in political and legal settings, as well as nationalist and racist reinterpretations by nonscientists.

Treating social populations as though they are essentially genetic in nature can lead to a number of harms.

Conclusion
The need for diversity in genomic resources is compelling, but the use of social classifications as a proxy for biological heterogeneity can be problematic.

jeza u ledja wrote: Biological Aspects of Race

3. There is great genetic diversity within all human populations. Pure races, in the sense of genetically homogenous populations, do not exist in the human species today, nor is there any evidence that they have ever existed in the past.

"Race" is not a clearly defined word.

daje ti definiciju rase

jeza u ledja wrote:Usput, mislim da je tema itekako povezana sa ovim sto pricamo, jer se na osnovu ovakvih stvari stvaraju mitovi i legende o nacionalnoj pripadnost, samo smo mi otisli u detalje jbg.

jeza u ledja wrote:Desnica je nabrijana na one koji izgledaju drukcije.

Na neke su nabrijani manje, na neke su nabrijani vise. Poenta je u tome da se na osnovu gena, a ne doprinosa drustvu ili integrisanosti, dodjeljuje privilegija pripadnosti, odnosno prava na zivot u toj zemlji. Ljudi se tako onda u ocima drugih kategorisu na osnovu vrlo proizvoljnih karakteristika, iako se individualno mogu drasticno razlikovati kao osobe. Ako se na taj nacin ljudi kategorisu - u striktno definisane skupine koje obavezno imaju zajednicki set svih istih karakteristika, to upravo vodi do racionalizacije institucionalizirane diskriminacije.

Pitam se samo kako ekstremni desnicari znaju razaznati crnca iz Brazila sa crncem iz Afrike ili Libanca iz Brazila sa Sirijcem, Tibetanca od Nepalca.... Desnicari su nabrijani na sve. Neki su nabrijani i na ljude iz susjednih zemalja.

jeza u ledja wrote:Indijci sa turbanom nisu hindusi.