DAFNz are Genetically Defined *Mutantz*

Well, as I said, it is only a matter of time that they
DO find ways to definitively define what we see and
consider "races."

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Hey Bob! The DAFN race is *NOT* a "social construct,"
rather it is genetically defined, identifiable from
mutant DNA:

projo.com1082218906.htmOpen ↗
************************ exZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZerpt
*********************
04.17.2004 -- Testing confirms African-American burial
ground

PORTSMOUTH, N.H. (AP) - DNA testing has confirmed that
bodies uncovered at a grave site are African-American and
confirmed a genetic trait that will make it easier to
identify Africans, a researcher said. Last fall, crews
digging a new sewer line found 13 coffins with human
remains.

Samples from four coffins were sent to the Boston
University School of Medicine, where Dr. Bruce Jackson
works on the DNA African-American Roots Project, trying to
link African-Americans to their ancestral heritage.

The tests backed up historical research which found the
site on city maps dating back to 1705 identified as a
"Negro Burying Ground." Jackson said scientists found what
is known as a "deletion" of two base sequences in the DNA,
which is found in about 95 percent of African- Americans
and Caribbean blacks.

"It implies that the *MUTATION* existed among Africans
even two or three centuries ago," he said. "Its a true
marker. What we see in modern African-Americans is a
marker that has been passed down. Its going to make it a
lot easier to identify Africans now." [....]
*********************************************************-
***************

Do you suppose genes actually define intellectual/behavior
differences between whites/Asians and DAFNz????!

Supreme Court 1954, Brown vs DNA, a total LOOZer....

P.Comm said:

Well, as I said, it is only a matter of time that they
DO find ways to definitively define what we see and
consider "races."

You can say it all you want, but any such definition will
NOT match either the "one-drop rule" or the "known by the
community to have been raised by black parents rule" or the
"subjective he-looks-black rule" or the "self-defined culturally-
black rule" which are the four mutually contradictory
definitions that are commonly in play. The set of people
considered "black" by each definition differs widely.

In all likelihood, such a definition likely would not
consider the Xhoisian blacks and other African blacks to be
the same "race".

Thus any such definition would not define "what we see and
consider" races, but would define some new kind of race. And
the definition will be rendered worthless within a few
generations as racial mixing continues to increase now that
no corner of the world is truly isolated from the rest.

lojbab
--
lojbab [email hidden] Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The
Logical Language Group (Opinions are my own; I do not speak
for the organization.) Artificial language Loglan/Lojban:
lojban.orglojban.orgOpen ↗

(E Kurtz) said:

Quoted message said:

.... the concept of race is meaningful and useful only
when located in space and time, eg the contemporary US.

Bob LeChevalier <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

In other words, race is socially defined.

The notion that human understanding proceeds from definition
is one of the most common mistakes of the present age, and a
great impediment to clear thinking. In rational discourse,
definition is endlessly recursive unless there is mutual
understanding at a level that defies definition.

Race, like most concepts, is not defined at all, but is
based on recognition of systematic physical differences. The
concept arises from unconscious pattern recognition, not
definition.

Race is usually described as "socially constructed" as
though that were a refutation of the concept. But all
taxonomies are socially constructed, in that there must be
mutual agreement (possibly implicit) on which elements of
reality are relevant in the given domain and which are not.
And all taxonomies, folk or specialist, once constructed,
have a social element, in that different individuals
employing the taxonomy must broadly agree on where each
target entity fits in the classification scheme. The
existence of rare ambiguous cases and outliers does not
affect the utility of the classification; all such schemes
relating to living things will have such anomalies.

Absent such broad agreement, the taxonomy will be abandoned,
as being more trouble than it is worth. The durability and
universality of race in non-specialist everyday language in
the US implies that it has an objective basis in physical
regularities in the real world. The underlying genetic
correlates of this objective basis have not yet been
discovered, but that is also true of most human physical
(and behavioral) phenotypes.

In mixed-race interbreeding communities, a point could be
reached where hybridization has eliminated systematic
racial differences in appearance, or reduced them to the
point where ambiguity is the rule. Brazil has gone farther
down this road than the US; the US may some day be where
Brazil is now; if that happens, race in the US will have
lost much of it's utility. Thus, as I said, race is located
in space and time.

(E Kurtz) said:

Race is usually described as "socially constructed" as
though that were a refutation of the concept. But all
taxonomies are socially constructed, in that there must be
mutual agreement (possibly implicit) on which elements of
reality are relevant in the given domain and which are not.

The elements used in defining races are arbitrary and
irrelevant.

Quoted message said:

Absent such broad agreement, the taxonomy will be
abandoned, as being more trouble than it is worth. The
durability and universality of race in non-specialist
everyday language in the US implies that it has an
objective basis in physical regularities in the real world.

The durability and universality has to do with the fact that
discrimination based on race was enshrined in law for 300+
years, ending only 40-50 years ago. The definitions of race
used for that discrimination varied by state, however.

Quoted message said:

The underlying genetic correlates of this objective basis
have not yet been discovered, but that is also true of most
human physical (and behavioral) phenotypes.

The most noteworthy physical correlates are found in all
races to varying degrees.

A person who has one black grandparent is considered black,
even though he may be more white than black and have little
or no physical resemblance to native Africans.

lojbab
--
lojbab [email hidden] Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The
Logical Language Group (Opinions are my own; I do not speak
for the organization.) Artificial language Loglan/Lojban:
lojban.orglojban.orgOpen ↗

"E Kurtz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

(E Kurtz) said:

Quoted message said:

.... the concept of race is meaningful and useful only
when located in space and time, eg the contemporary US.

Bob LeChevalier <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

In other words, race is socially defined.

The notion that human understanding proceeds from
definition is one of the most common mistakes of the
present age,

EXACTLY. The RECOGNITION (a brain function) happens first.
Next come the definitions.

and a great impediment to

Quoted message said:

clear thinking. In rational discourse, definition is
endlessly recursive unless there is mutual understanding
at a level that defies definition.

Race, like most concepts, is not defined at all, but is
based on recognition of systematic physical differences.
The concept arises from unconscious pattern recognition,
not definition.

THANK YOU. And it is definitely systematic and definitely a
function the brain has to recognize that must serve some
purpose in human survival.

Quoted message said:

Race is usually described as "socially constructed" as
though that were a refutation of the concept. But all
taxonomies are socially constructed, in that there must be
mutual agreement (possibly implicit) on which elements of
reality are relevant in the given domain and which are
not. And all taxonomies, folk or specialist, once
constructed, have a social element, in that different
individuals employing the taxonomy must broadly agree on
where each target entity fits in the classification
scheme. The existence of rare ambiguous cases and outliers
does not affect the utility of the classification; all
such schemes relating to living things will have such
anomalies.

Absent such broad agreement, the taxonomy will be
abandoned, as being more trouble than it is worth.
The durability and universality of race in non-
specialist everyday language in the US implies that
it has an objective basis in physical regularities in
the real world.

YES, well said!

The

Quoted message said:

underlying genetic correlates of this objective basis have
not yet been discovered, but that is also true of most
human physical (and behavioral) phenotypes.

In mixed-race interbreeding communities, a point could be
reached where hybridization has eliminated systematic
racial differences in appearance, or reduced them to the
point where ambiguity is the rule. Brazil has gone farther
down this road than the US; the US may some day be where
Brazil is now; if that happens, race in the US will have
lost much of it's utility. Thus, as I said, race is
located in space and time.

The problems, as noted by people in the field before, are
that the blacks seem to be very willing to mix. The whites
are 99% resistent to it, even today. Ethnic groups from
Europe - then South and East Europe, who were originally
thought of as non-white - "became white" in the social
recognition scheme of things. As long as a person has the
"black features" no matter the skin color - they are
considered black by blacks and by everyone else. Getting
back to the "willing to mix" and the "unwilling to mix or
accept it" categories: The blacks seem very inclusive and
have even spoken on this on documentaries - they accept
these people into their fold. The whites are exclusive -
they do not accept them - despite what they may say to the
person's face. Whites are also notoriously two-faced - in
other words: THEY LIE. You can more reaily see what they
feel by simply observing what they DO.

"Bob LeChevalier" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

P.Comm said:

Quoted message said:

What is an example, again in the US, where the
"subjective he-looks-X rule" is true for one observer
while the "subjective he-looks-Y rule" is true for
another?

No one seems to disagree on the subjective "he looks
black" thing - especially blacks. They can see it
right away.

You yourself disagreed with another poster who said that
Carey and Abdul were black.

Blacks agree with me. Those two women were hashed out on the
Howard Stern show awhile back. They are white - trying to
get "street" acceptance.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Thus any such definition would not define "what we
> see and consider" races, but would define some new
> kind of race. And the definition will be rendered
> worthless within a few generations as racial mixing
> continues to increase now that no corner of the world
> is truly isolated from the rest.

Which means that the concept of race is meaningful and
useful only when located in space and time, eg the
contemporary US.

Maybe, maybe not. Bob has an opinion and he doesn't think
genes matter

in

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

this issue at all.

Not to the categories that the racists divide people into.

You don't know that.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

For one thing, there is no way on earth to test this
"genes make you what you are" hypothesis because humans
are RAISED with a lot of influences

all

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

around them. EG If black kids raised by white parents
start to act

black -

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

they must be picking up on it from outside the home. And
so forth.

I can cite what suburban blacks themselves said on
documentaries and interviews - that they were fine
playing with white kids as kids - but

then

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

they entered puberty and teenaged years and they felt
like they were in a sea of white faces - and they felt
FELT isolated - OUTSIDE.

Most teenagers go through that phase. They don't usually
attribute it to race.

These black adults definitely DID attribute it to race - tho
none said that any of the whites were racist or anything
like that. They FELT "odd man out." Feelings are real - they
are NOT irrelevant. I posted on the show before, named the
show and details (forgot them now). The blacks wanted their
own suburban community and HAD it. That's that. What they
wanted to make is not irrelevant. That they preferred NOT to
have non-blacks there is not irrelevant. Freedom of choice.
No one would ever think to call that discrimination - though
technically IT IS. I feel that ALL groups should have the
freedom to choose amongst whom to live and associate daily.
Not just blacks. Right now, blacks DO have that freedom to
do that. Whites definitely do not.

Bob, you don't seem to grasp how racist [your definition] -
even innately racist, at least KNEE JERK racist, blacks ARE.
You just don't seem to grasp that orr want to know about
that reality. Even a statement as innocent as "HEY, oh HI!
you are Tuffy, I recognize your voice." answer: "Yeah, I
thought I recognized you." Reply, "Well I couldn't really
recognize anyone on sight out there since it was so dark."
Even THAT is an innocent heart-felt statement that has to be
avoided, ON-GUARD. NO one wants to be ON GUARD when they
speak on their own time. It's repressive in the extreme,
suffocating - or what I call TOO MUCH BOTHER.

Quoted message said:

(E Kurtz) said:

Race is usually described as "socially constructed" as
though that were a refutation of the concept. But all
taxonomies are socially constructed, in that there must
be mutual agreement (possibly implicit) on which
elements of reality are relevant in the given domain and
which are not.

Bob LeChevalier <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

The elements used in defining races are arbitrary and
irrelevant.

Again you make the mistake of supposing that races are
"defined". A child growing up in the US does not learn of
the existence of races and how to distinguish them by being
presented with a definition. The distinctions are implicit
in the culture; human pattern recognition does the rest.

Race and ancestry are obviously linked, so racial
characteristics are not "arbitrary".

Ancestry is important to some Americans, black and white.
Who are you to tell them that their ancestry is
"irrelevant"?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Absent such broad agreement, the taxonomy will be
abandoned, as being more trouble than it is worth.
The durability and universality of race in non-
specialist everyday language in the US implies that
it has an objective basis in physical regularities in
the real world.

The durability and universality has to do with the fact
that discrimination based on race was enshrined in law for
300+ years, ending only 40-50 years ago.

This idea is wrong for the following reasons:
1. Racial distinctions similar to our own are observed in
Great Britain (to give just one of many examples);
Britain never had Jim Crow laws or Plessy v. Ferguson or
anything like them. Black emigration to Britain started
in the 1950's.
2. In the last 50 years (and particularly in the last 15)
black racial self-consciousness in the US has
*increased* rather than lessened, particularly on the
university campuses.

Quoted message said:

The definitions of race used for that discrimination
varied by state, however.

Quoted message said:

The underlying genetic correlates of this objective basis
have not yet been discovered, but that is also true of
most human physical (and behavioral) phenotypes.

The most noteworthy physical correlates are found in all
races to varying degrees.

But within the US they cluster. That is the point. If they
did not, discrimination based on appearance would be
impossible.

Quoted message said:

A person who has one black grandparent is considered
black, even though he may be more white than black and
have little or no physical resemblance to native Africans.

The "black" designation derives from appearance (as I said
earlier and you snipped), not from genealogy or the
examination of genetic markers. The racial designation is
accepted not only by US society but by the individual
himself, as part of his essential identity. The designation
"black" is not a resented white imposition on a helpless
subset of the US population; it is embraced by those to whom
it is directed, almost without exception.

Indeed, the clumsy and infelicitous term "African American"
was invented by blacks to describe themselves, and to set
themselves apart from the majority. Black Americans are
proud of their African ancestry
- though with reference to an absurdly idealized fantasy
Africa, not the backward, squalid and hopeless reality.

"Bob LeChevalier" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

P.Comm said:

You mean, race MIGHT BE just a socially defined thing.

Race as used by the posters in this discussion is a
socially defined thing.

How do you know that?

Quoted message said:

If scientists eventually come up with some other version
of race (unlikely), it will not conform to the
stereotypes. All the racists' silly statistics will be
instantly invalid unless they can prove that every
individual is of the race attributed to them in the
statistics, which of course is impossible.

I'd be willing to bet money that there is perhaps some SMALL
thing that forensics guys or geneticists or whoever - know
about that can literally tell them what "race" you are - and
by that I mean, including the general appearance thing
everyone in society uses to identify race. I'd bet on that.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Those kids would be called "black" by any black in the
country - whether they identified as black or not - and
whether they liked it or not.

Not necessarily. But so what? You just called Abdul and
Carey non-black, when the poster that mentioned them said
they were black.

They both tried to "put on the black act" and well, in the
streets the blacks say they are white. Blacks ought to
know, eh? Claiming to be "part black" in the music
industry is trying to get street acceptance (that's what
blacks call it).

Quoted message said:

This reduces them to subjective labels, and subjective
labels are not the basis for intelligent discussion.

Quoted message said:

And how old are they? Are they dating yet?

One adult, dating and almost married once. So far as I
know he never has dated a black person and has no friends
who are black. He doesn't look especially black unless he
tries to, and he doesn't try to.

One preteen, not dating yet; more black in appearance, but
"hangs" primarily with whites.

One teen, of dating age, attending a school with few
blacks, so if he is dating it likely is not black girls.
"Hangs" primarily with whites.

Quoted message said:

Blacks are the people who define "acting black." Not
anyone else.

The racists in these newsgroups define "acting black", and
seem to do so rather differently than the blacks do. They
go around labeling people as "whiggers" for example, and
define that word as white people who act black.

Uh, blacks were the ones who invented the term whigger. And
yeah, they are whites that "act black." Acting black is what
"forgot his name actor" critisized when some black singer
started doing it when he handed her an award.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I know what blacks call blacks who don't act black: TOMS.

Some, perhaps. Others might not call anyone any names.

But see - you've just defined a particular behavior as
"acting black".

The definitions are defined by blacks. Simple as that. You
can pretend you don't know what it is all you like. It's not
easy to demonstrate it in an email - but I could if you
asked me to in person. Or better yet - just bring you to
Dunbar to talk to anyone there, LMAO.

I see blacks that way all the time, I'd say 99.999% of the
time that's the way they are. You could blind fold me and
I'd know the person talking is black. FAST too. Even over a
phone. The few that don't do that "act white" (as the blacks
call it) - well - I don't know ANYONE that acts like that
unless they are pretentious snobs.

Blacks have defined acting white - and that's the way these
blacks that don't act black act. Yet I know of NOT ONE white
that acts that way - unless again, it's a pretentious snob.

Apparently you don't seem to relize that it was BLACKS - not
white or anyone else, that invented this [censored] called
"acting black" and "acting white." NO white would think up
something as absurd as "acting white" because Italians just
DO NOT act like Germans - the two can't even seem to TRY to
act like each other, tho they CAN sort of mock each other
out in fun and exagerrate behavior. Neither of those two act
like Cubans or Slavs - and so forth. So whites didn't invent
the concept "acting white or black" at all. BLACKS DID - and
I remember WHEN they did it. They are the ones forever
obsessed with PASSING, you know. I could count the examples
I've run into of blacks trying to be ANYTHING BUT black -
Hispanic, Amerindian, whatever. Always trying.

If you want to know what acting black is - there are TONS of
good movies out there produced by blacks, black actors, all
black made - modern movies about life - Janet Jackson made
one - there are TONS of them. Just get them and watch them -
and consider that black writers, black producers and so
forth made these for a black audience - and the audiences
RELATE to these movies. TONS of them. All modern. Go watch.
THAT is "acting black" as THEY define
it. Barber Shop I and II are two noted examples of these.
Very modern.

You know, Bob, I don't care how many generations American an
Italian is - and standing next to him is a Jewish fellow and
they really look so similar to each other that they could be
brothers. They can each open their mouths and talk for 5
minutes and I KNOW which one is Italian and which one is
Jewish. The Jew might be from Germany or Poland - but he
most definitely does not ACT like any Germans or Polish
people. That easy. That fast. You'd have to be half dead
walking around or "blocking out info" to NOT know what I
mean - or else you are terribly non-exposed to cultural
behavioral norms - even when the people are Americanized.

Quoted message said:

lojbab
--
lojbab [email hidden] Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The
Logical Language Group (Opinions are my own; I do not
speak for the organization.) Artificial language
Loglan/Lojban: lojban.orglojban.orgOpen ↗

"Bob LeChevalier" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

(E Kurtz) said:

Race is usually described as "socially constructed" as
though that were a refutation of the concept. But all
taxonomies are socially constructed, in that there must
be mutual agreement (possibly implicit) on which
elements of reality are relevant in the given domain and
which are not.

The elements used in defining races are arbitrary and
irrelevant.

No they aren't. They fit into a pattern that the brains of
everyone can recognize, Bob. They are not ireelevant when
the ones that fit into tht "black" group want to mix and the
ones that fit into the "white" group (or "yellow group) do
NOT want to mix. That' not irrelevant. That's a recipe for
Big Trouble.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Absent such broad agreement, the taxonomy will be
abandoned, as being more trouble than it is worth.
The durability and universality of race in non-
specialist everyday language in the US implies that
it has an objective basis in physical regularities in
the real world.

The durability and universality has to do with the fact
that discrimination based on race was enshrined in law for
300+ years,

Get off it. He's talking about TAXONOMY in general, for
hell's sakes. And identifying people by in-general physical
appearance is not new with the Americans. Even the Egyptians
defined 4 types of humans. Hellenes also had definitions
that agreed with the Egyptian ones.

Quoted message said:

ending only 40-50 years ago. The definitions of race used
for that discrimination varied by state, however.

Quoted message said:

The underlying genetic correlates of this objective basis
have not yet been discovered, but that is also true of
most human physical (and behavioral) phenotypes.

The most noteworthy physical correlates are found in all
races to varying degrees.

SO FAR.

Quoted message said:

A person who has one black grandparent is considered
black, even though he may be more white than black and
have little or no physical resemblance to native Africans.

Nope. A person that is 1/4 black that looks in all ways
white - is the type that PASSES for white - and is
considered white by anyone who sees him or her. That's the
way it was and is. The point is, that a person 1/4 black and
3/4 white usually looks pretty black to anyone that sees
him/her. I'm not talking about skin color - get off that
focus. It's FEATURES. And yes, the BRAIN recognizes this
very clearly in most cases - and THEN the mouth defines it.
Not the other way around.

Quoted message said:

lojbab
--
lojbab [email hidden] Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The
Logical Language Group (Opinions are my own; I do not
speak for the organization.) Artificial language
Loglan/Lojban: lojban.orglojban.orgOpen ↗

"P.Comm" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

The problems, as noted by people in the field before, are
that the blacks seem to be very willing to mix.

Blacks mix with other blacks irrespective of their degree of
white ancestry, but this is because they are regarded as
black, not because of a commitment to integration. You have
only to consider the hostility blacks show to Koreans who
open grocery stores in the 'hood to realize that blacks can
be as exclusive as whites.

snip

Quoted message said:

As long as a person has the "black features" no matter the
skin color - they are considered black by blacks and by
everyone else.

exactly, so the issue of blacks being indifferent to racial
differences does not arise.

Getting back to the "willing to mix" and the "unwilling to

Quoted message said:

mix or accept it" categories: The blacks seem very
inclusive and have even spoken on this on documentaries -
they accept these people into their fold. The whites are
exclusive - they do not accept them - despite what they
may say to the person's face. Whites are also notoriously
two-faced - in other words: THEY LIE. You can more reaily
see what they feel by simply observing what they DO.

Suppose you are a white middle manager who wants to hold
onto his job; one thing you must always do in public is to
pay lip-service to the benefits of diversity and
multiculturalism, whatever you feel about them in private.
Even a hint of publicly-uttered reservation and your
career is toast.

But when it comes to hiring blacks you might legitimately
suppose that their qualifications and history of promotion
are in part the result of racial preference rather than
merit, so (looking over your shoulder to see whether the
EEOC is onto you) you do what you can to avoid hiring them.
And when it comes to sending your kids to an integrated
school, you might legitimately wonder whether the presence
of underperforming and disruptive black kids will hold them
back, so you relocate to the suburbs, inventing some other
reason for doing so.

This is not lying, it is hypocrisy, but it is hypocrisy that
the dominating paradigm - egalitarianism - forces on whites.
You might term it "obligatory hypocrisy".

(E Kurtz) said:

Quoted message said:

(E Kurtz) said:

Race is usually described as "socially constructed" as
though that were a refutation of the concept. But all
taxonomies are socially constructed, in that there must
be mutual agreement (possibly implicit) on which
elements of reality are relevant in the given domain and
which are not.

Bob LeChevalier <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

The elements used in defining races are arbitrary and
irrelevant.

Again you make the mistake of supposing that races are
"defined". A child growing up in the US does not learn of
the existence of races and how to distinguish them by being
presented with a definition. The distinctions are implicit
in the culture; human pattern recognition does the rest.

Nonsense. The distinctions are NOT inherently present in the
culture, but are taught by racists.

Quoted message said:

Race and ancestry are obviously linked, so racial
characteristics are not "arbitrary".

If you are going by ancestry, then a person who is half
African, half European is as much a white person as they are
a black person. The racists don't think this way, however.

Quoted message said:

Ancestry is important to some Americans, black and white.

Only racists.

Quoted message said:

Who are you to tell them that their ancestry is
"irrelevant"?

An anti-racist.

If their ancestry is important to them personally as part of
their family history, that is one thing.

If they wish to generalize and assume that people of a
certain ancestry share certain traits, then they'd better a)
be sure that genetics backs them up, because it usually
doesn't and b) keep it to themselves, because it isn't
important to the rest of us.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The durability and universality has to do with the fact
that discrimination based on race was enshrined in law
for 300+ years, ending only 40-50 years ago.

This idea is wrong for the following reasons:
1. Racial distinctions similar to our own are observed in
Great Britain (to give just one of many examples);
Britain never had Jim Crow laws or Plessy v. Ferguson or
anything like them. Black emigration to Britain started
in the 1950's.

When our slave trade started, we were part of Great Britain.
There were blacks in Britain before 1950.

Quoted message said:

2. In the last 50 years (and particularly in the last 15)
black racial self-consciousness in the US has
*increased* rather than lessened, particularly on the
university campuses.

Cite, please. 50 years ago, racial self-consciousness could
not be exceeded, since most campuses were segregated.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The underlying genetic correlates of this objective
basis have not yet been discovered, but that is also
true of most human physical (and behavioral) phenotypes.

The most noteworthy physical correlates are found in all
races to varying degrees.

But within the US they cluster. That is the point.

It is not an acceptable point.

The "clustering" based on physical appearance is only
loosely correlated to ancestry. As has been noted in prior
threads, Xhoisian African blacks are genetically closer to
Swedes in some traits than they are to West African blacks.
And we haven't talked about Aboriginal Australians and other
black-skinned Polynesians.

Quoted message said:

If they did not, discrimination based on appearance would
be impossible.

Discrimination based on appearance is always possible
unless we all look like clones of each other.
Discrimination by race based on appearance is NOT
accurately possible, as evidenced by the cultural concept
of some blacks "passing as white".

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

A person who has one black grandparent is considered
black, even though he may be more white than black and
have little or no physical resemblance to native
Africans.

The "black" designation derives from appearance (as I said
earlier and you snipped), not from genealogy or the
examination of genetic markers.

False. The "black" designation in this country has multiple
sources, including self-identification, appearance, and
having a known ancestor who was classified as black. These
different criteria give different answers as to whether a
certain person is "black" or not.

lojbab
--
lojbab [email hidden] Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The
Logical Language Group (Opinions are my own; I do not speak
for the organization.) Artificial language Loglan/Lojban:
lojban.orglojban.orgOpen ↗

P.Comm said:

"Bob LeChevalier" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

P.Comm said:

You mean, race MIGHT BE just a socially defined thing.

Race as used by the posters in this discussion is a
socially defined thing.

How do you know that?

Because I can never get them to define any scientific
definition of the races they are using. Because they are
posting statistics based on reported race, which is a
socially defined thing.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If scientists eventually come up with some other version
of race (unlikely), it will not conform to the
stereotypes. All the racists' silly statistics will be
instantly invalid unless they can prove that every
individual is of the race attributed to them in the
statistics, which of course is impossible.

I'd be willing to bet money that there is perhaps some
SMALL thing that forensics guys or geneticists or whoever
- know about that can literally tell them what "race" you
are - and by that I mean, including the general
appearance thing everyone in society uses to identify
race. I'd bet on that.

I'll bet not. The reason is that the general appearance
thing means that some blacks who can "pass for white" DO
pass for white socially, whereas others socially and
culturally emphasize their African roots, and are
considered black, even though in appearance they would be
classed alike.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Those kids would be called "black" by any black in the
country - whether they identified as black or not - and
whether they liked it or not.

Not necessarily. But so what? You just called Abdul and
Carey non-black, when the poster that mentioned them said
they were black.

They both tried to "put on the black act" and well, in the
streets the blacks say they are white. Blacks ought to
know, eh?

No more than anyone else.

In particular, one of the two named, per the cited website,
has a black parent, and moved to this country to escape
racial hatred.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Blacks are the people who define "acting black." Not
anyone else.

The racists in these newsgroups define "acting black",
and seem to do so rather differently than the blacks do.
They go around labeling people as "whiggers" for example,
and define that word as white people who act black.

Uh, blacks were the ones who invented the term whigger.

The racists are the ones who use it.

Quoted message said:

Apparently you don't seem to relize that it was BLACKS -
not white or anyone else, that invented this [censored]
called "acting black" and "acting white."

I don't much care. Racism is racism, regardless of what
color skin they have.

Quoted message said:

NO white would think up something as absurd as "acting
white" because Italians just DO NOT act like Germans

Nonsense.

Quoted message said:

You know, Bob, I don't care how many generations American
an Italian is - and standing next to him is a Jewish fellow
and they really look so similar to each other that they
could be brothers. They can each open their mouths and talk
for 5 minutes and I KNOW which one is Italian and which one
is Jewish.

You'd have real problems with someone who has both Italian
and Jewishh ancestry. %^)

Quoted message said:

The Jew might be from Germany or Poland - but he most
definitely does not ACT like any Germans or Polish people.
That easy. That fast. You'd have to be half dead walking
around or "blocking out info" to NOT know what I mean - or
else you are terribly non-exposed to cultural behavioral
norms - even when the people are Americanized.

You seem to think that even 2nd generation immigrants
practice their ancestral culture here. Most of them don't.
By 3rd generation almost none of them do, and in any case
most of them have married cross-culturally. We are all
mongrels, here.

My kids were born in Russia. NO ONE who does not know that
they were adopted into this country can tell that they
aren't native born, except possibly some Russians.

lojbab
--
lojbab [email hidden] Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The
Logical Language Group (Opinions are my own; I do not speak
for the organization.) Artificial language Loglan/Lojban:
lojban.orglojban.orgOpen ↗

P.Comm said:

"Bob LeChevalier" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

(E Kurtz) said:

Race is usually described as "socially constructed" as
though that were a refutation of the concept. But all
taxonomies are socially constructed, in that there must
be mutual agreement (possibly implicit) on which
elements of reality are relevant in the given domain and
which are not.

The elements used in defining races are arbitrary and
irrelevant.

No they aren't. They fit into a pattern that the brains of
everyone can recognize, Bob.

Not always, or there would not be blacks who can "pass".

They are not irrelevant when the ones that fit into that

Quoted message said:

"black" group want to mix and the ones that fit into the
"white" group (or "yellow group) do NOT want to mix. That'
not irrelevant. That's a recipe for Big Trouble.

In this country, you mix. It is the law. Don't wanna
mix? Leave.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Absent such broad agreement, the taxonomy will be
abandoned, as being more trouble than it is worth. The
durability and universality of race in non-specialist
everyday language in the US implies that it has an
objective basis in physical regularities in the real
world.

The durability and universality has to do with the fact
that discrimination based on race was enshrined in law
for 300+ years,

Get off it. He's talking about TAXONOMY in general, for
hell's sakes. And identifying people by in-general physical
appearance is not new with the Americans. Even the
Egyptians defined 4 types of humans. Hellenes also had
definitions that agreed with the Egyptian ones.

We're talking SCIENCE. Science defines NO types of humans.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The underlying genetic correlates of this objective
basis have not yet been discovered, but that is also
true of most human physical (and behavioral) phenotypes.

The most noteworthy physical correlates are found in all
races to varying degrees.

SO FAR.

Not likely to change.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

A person who has one black grandparent is considered
black, even though he may be more white than black and
have little or no physical resemblance to native
Africans.

Nope. A person that is 1/4 black that looks in all ways
white - is the type that PASSES for white - and is
considered white by anyone who sees him or her.

But any genetic definition of "black" will probably call
them "black" (and will probably also call some people
who have no ancestors from Africa in the last thousand
years "black"😉

Quoted message said:

That's the way it was and is. The point is, that a person
1/4 black and 3/4 white usually looks pretty black to
anyone that sees him/her.

Nope.

lojbab
--
lojbab [email hidden] Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The
Logical Language Group (Opinions are my own; I do not speak
for the organization.) Artificial language Loglan/Lojban:
lojban.orglojban.orgOpen ↗

"E Kurtz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"P.Comm" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

The problems, as noted by people in the field before,
are that the

blacks

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

seem to be very willing to mix.

Blacks mix with other blacks irrespective of their degree
of white ancestry, but this is because they are regarded
as black, not because of a commitment to integration.

I pretty much said that. They are inclusive - they see them
as black - period.

You have only to consider the

Quoted message said:

hostility blacks show to Koreans who open grocery stores
in the 'hood to realize that blacks can be as exclusive
as whites.

Uh, heh, I doubt that black men would say NO to a
Korean girl. Korean men would say NO to a black girl -
99% of the time.

Quoted message said:

snip

Quoted message said:

As long as a person has the "black features" no matter
the skin color - they are considered black by blacks and
by everyone else.

exactly, so the issue of blacks being indifferent to
racial differences does not arise.

I said that too - the point is that black men would have
no problem being with Asian or White women. Vice versa
can't be said.

Quoted message said:

Getting back to the "willing to mix" and the "unwilling to

Quoted message said:

mix or accept it" categories: The blacks seem very
inclusive and have

even

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

spoken on this on documentaries - they accept these
people into their

fold.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The whites are exclusive - they do not accept them -
despite what they

may

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

say to the person's face. Whites are also notoriously
two-faced - in

other

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

words: THEY LIE. You can more reaily see what they feel
by simply

observing

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

what they DO.

Suppose you are a white middle manager who wants to hold
onto his job; one thing you must always do in public is to
pay lip-service to the benefits of diversity and
multiculturalism, whatever you feel about them in private.
Even a hint of publicly-uttered reservation and your
career is toast.

Uh, you are almost saying what I'm saying. Sure, they'd hire
who they have to hire. But would they form heart-felt
friendships with them - as they usually DO with other whites
on the job? Blacks have noticed that their white co-workers
do not do this. Hey, freedom of choice when it comes to off
the job. That's YOUR time.

Quoted message said:

But when it comes to hiring blacks you might legitimately
suppose that their qualifications and history of
promotion are in part the result of racial preference
rather than merit,

Yes, most people do think and assume this, in fact, blacks
even assume it (witnessing blacks bleeding half to death at
the ER at Martland Med - black doctor comes and the patient
yells "get the hell out of here and bring me a real
doctor." !!! That's the problem with quotas and racial
preference [censored], affirmative action and all that bilge.
Even the ones who got there by REAL MERIT - are assumed not
to have earned it.

so (looking over your shoulder

Quoted message said:

to see whether the EEOC is onto you) you do what you can
to avoid hiring them.

Most do.

Quoted message said:

And when it comes to sending your kids to an integrated
school, you might legitimately wonder whether the presence
of underperforming and disruptive black kids will hold
them back, so you relocate to the suburbs, inventing some
other reason for doing so.

People do that. Have been doing that. Went to extremes to
get out of the forced busing for integration [censored]. Hold them
back? How about brutalize and terrorise them. That's what
produced so many skin heads and OVERT racists, btw. I know
this. I saw it all transpire over the years. Everyone I know
that relocates to other areas for such reasons says, "Well,
the area turned BAD." No need to be specific.

Quoted message said:

This is not lying, it is hypocrisy, but it is hypocrisy
that the dominating paradigm - egalitarianism - forces on
whites. You might term it "obligatory hypocrisy".

Yeah, it's lying, but then - do I OWE anyone other than
myself The Truth? Heh - NO. Rational racism is another way
of seeing it, according to De Souza - tho I'd not call it
racism or hypocricy at all. I'd call it FREEDOM OF CHOICE
and FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION. Now, heh, when the NAACP
spokespeople came out and said the absurd "We always knew
that racists would hide behind the slogan "freedom of
choice." That SERIOUSLY made them look bad - or rather, it
EXPOSED their real hearts for all to see and know (not that
anyone didn't already know it).

You know, heh, I merely state a truth in a casual convo -
that nowhere that I go to enjoy myself - are there any black
people. I'm immediately called a racist (as if I'd care
about the labels?) - but the truth of the matter is - blacks
are 100% free to go to these places that I go. They just
don't TEND to go there at all. I have no reason, no motive,
to go where they go - and I'm not even sure WHERE they go -
nor do I care to find out. I don't go out of my way for
things that are just WAY too much trouble.

Of course, I prefer to go to places where, in 20 years, not
a single fight ever broke out - where I can leave my purse
at my seat and get up for hours dancing or wandering and not
one single thing will be stolen from me. Where I can leave
my stuff on the sand while I'm in the water and nothing gets
touched or stolen. Where I can leave my drink at my seat and
no one touches it or messes with it. Who would NOT prefer
that kind of place? Well, a masochist?

"Bob LeChevalier" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

(E Kurtz) said:

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] (E Kurtz) wrote:
>Race is usually described as "socially constructed" as
>though that were a refutation of the concept. But all
>taxonomies are socially constructed, in that there
>must be mutual agreement (possibly implicit) on which
>elements of reality are relevant in the given domain
>and which are not.

Bob LeChevalier <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

The elements used in defining races are arbitrary and
irrelevant.

Again you make the mistake of supposing that races are
"defined". A child growing up in the US does not learn of
the existence of races and how to distinguish them by
being presented with a definition. The distinctions are
implicit in the culture; human pattern recognition does
the rest.

Nonsense. The distinctions are NOT inherently present in
the culture, but are taught by racists.

THAT is a provable lie. The distinctions can be noticed, for
instance, when anyone moves into an area where two very
obviously different-looking groups are there - one white and
the other black. You'd have to be blind not to notice it.
It's not easy to notice it if there isn't a LOT of these two
types around to look at, talk to, interact with and see
everyday. Hispanics merely LOOK at me and assume I'm
Hispanic - they have no idea wherefrom, but they think in-
general Hispanic. Europeans have to only LOOK at me to
assume I'm East European - they definitely know I'm not west
European. Both are wrong - but I can EYEBALL RECOGNIZE AND
SEE WHY they assume these things. And they are also using
eyeball recognition that no one taught them at all. You
know, I can recognize red from purple from pink from magenta
from blue. I could easily SEE the differences long before I
ever learned the NAMES of these colors. I can recognize a
circle from a square and I can instantly see that a
pentagonal object is not a circle or a square. I could SEE
this long before I knew what to LABEL these shapes. THIS is
what you refuse to get. And yeah, you are refusing to
acknowledge a part of reality that is NOT irrelevant at all
- because you choose to live in an idealized fantasy world.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Race and ancestry are obviously linked, so racial
characteristics are not "arbitrary".

If you are going by ancestry, then a person who is half
African, half European is as much a white person as they
are a black person. The racists don't think this way,
however.

Depends on how that person LOOKS. Let's say the person LOOKS
black. Blacks would accept that person as black immediately
because they are inclusive and not opposed to mixing. Whites
would NOT accept that person as white because they are
exclusive and opposed to mixing. Tiger Woods - to quote the
Thailander natives "Oh, his mother is Thai - but he? He is
NOT Thai. Not at all. He's not Thai. He's black." Unanimous.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Ancestry is important to some Americans, black and white.

Only racists.

That is a whopping arrogant statement on your part there.
It's judgemental as hell. Ancestry is very important to
people in MANY places - I'd say moreso in ALL patriarchal
societies.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Who are you to tell them that their ancestry is
"irrelevant"?

An anti-racist.

No, you are an arrogant lunatic. You'd impose your idealism
on people - most people in the WORLD come from patriarchal
societies - and in all such societies, ancestry is ALL.

Quoted message said:

If their ancestry is important to them personally as part
of their family history, that is one thing.

If they wish to generalize and assume that people of a
certain ancestry share certain traits, then they'd better
a) be sure that genetics backs them up, because it usually
doesn't and b) keep it to themselves, because it isn't
important to the rest of us.

Far more people feel that way than people who do not. You
are in the minority here. And I mean int he world. People of
Italian ancestry share certain traits to the extent that I
can immediately TELL if a person is Italian if they talk for
5 minutes to me in a relaxed, social setting. THAT EASY. And
it is THAT EASY for them to equally know that I am NOT
Italian at all. But they always know that my husband is
Italian. Actually, my husband is Italian and German. But he
doesn't ACT GERMAN in his natural, relaxed state of being.
Odd thing tho, as soon as his intelligence comes out - and
he is SERIOUSLY smart - and he gets all professorial and egg
heady such - people think "Are you Jewish." LMAO!! OH,
that's too much!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The durability and universality has to do with the fact
that discrimination based on race was enshrined in law
for 300+ years, ending only 40-50 years ago.

This idea is wrong for the following reasons:
1. Racial distinctions similar to our own are observed in
Great Britain (to give just one of many examples);
Britain never had Jim Crow laws or Plessy v. Ferguson
or anything like them. Black emigration to Britain
started in the 1950's.

When our slave trade started, we were part of Great
Britain. There were blacks in Britain before 1950.

The distinctions were immediately reocgnized in Viet Nam
also - where mothers of black/Viet babies 99% of the time
bashed their heads in. Can we redefine UNWANTED? They looked
at the baby - and well, "NOT US." That's that.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

2. In the last 50 years (and particularly in the last 15)
black racial self-consciousness in the US has
*increased* rather than lessened, particularly on the
university campuses.

Cite, please. 50 years ago, racial self-consciousness
could not be exceeded, since most campuses were
segregated.

Afrocentrism. Citations? You gotta be kidding.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>The underlying genetic correlates of this objective
>basis have not yet been discovered, but that is also
>true of most human physical (and behavioral)
>phenotypes.

The most noteworthy physical correlates are found in
all races to varying degrees.

But within the US they cluster. That is the point.

It is not an acceptable point.

Whether or not YOU accept reality is not a point at all. You
are a reality denier to the point of psychosis, imo.

Quoted message said:

The "clustering" based on physical appearance is only
loosely correlated to ancestry. As has been noted in prior
threads, Xhoisian

Here you go with that. There aren't any Xhoisian blacks in
the USA. They aren't an issue. Many Nigerians and Ethiopians
in the USA want nothing to do with american blacks either -
that doesn't change the fact that they are seen and
recognized as BLACK. And what of their kids, if they have
them here and they are exposed to the culture? They aren't
going to get that heart-felt warm reception among non-black
peers - but they will be accepted by other blacks. And so
that goes. There is no way that anyone would see a Xhoisian
and think it was a Swede.

Quoted message said:

African blacks are genetically closer to Swedes in some
traits than they are to West African blacks.

And you might be genetically closer to a dog in some traits,
than you are to any chimp. Dogs certainly get the same
DISEASES humans get (chimps do not) and dogs recognize human
body language way better than any chimps can do it.

And we haven't talked about

Quoted message said:

Aboriginal Australians and other black-skinned
Polynesians.

They aren't here. But if they were, they'd be absorbed into
the black population soon enough.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If they did not, discrimination based on appearance would
be impossible.

Discrimination based on appearance is always possible
unless we all look like clones of each other.

Yet that strangely never happened in homogenous societies
and countries. Think about WHY IT DID NOT happen. You won't.

Discrimination by race based on

Quoted message said:

appearance is NOT accurately possible, as evidenced by the
cultural concept of some blacks "passing as white".

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

A person who has one black grandparent is considered
black, even though he may be more white than black and
have little or no physical resemblance to native
Africans.

The "black" designation derives from appearance (as I
said earlier and you snipped), not from genealogy or the
examination of genetic markers.

False. The "black" designation in this country has
multiple sources, including self-identification,
appearance, and having a known ancestor who was classified
as black.

That's why 2 Irish brothers claimed their grandmother was
black to get hired during affirmative acgtion frenzy. Later,
it was discoverd that they LIED. The black designation in
society (forget census bureau) is based on eyeball sight and
facial recognition.

These different criteria give different

Quoted message said:

answers as to whether a certain person is "black" or not.

Rarely.

Quoted message said:

lojbab
--
lojbab [email hidden] Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The
Logical Language Group (Opinions are my own; I do not
speak for the organization.) Artificial language
Loglan/Lojban: lojban.orglojban.orgOpen ↗

"Bob LeChevalier" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

P.Comm said:

"Bob LeChevalier" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"P.Comm" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
>You mean, race MIGHT BE just a socially defined thing.

Race as used by the posters in this discussion is a
socially defined thing.

How do you know that?

Because I can never get them to define any scientific
definition of the races they are using.

They don't have that information. You know that if anyone
DID have it in the field - they'd not so easily come forth
with it. Or perhaps you don't want to know that.

Because they are posting statistics based

Quoted message said:

on reported race, which is a socially defined thing.

I'm not so sure they are doing that. Jensen certainly didn't
use "reported race" at all. Neither did Carleton S. Coon.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If scientists eventually come up with some other
version of race (unlikely), it will not conform to the
stereotypes. All the racists' silly statistics will be
instantly invalid unless they can prove that every
individual is of the race attributed to them in the
statistics, which of course is impossible.

I'd be willing to bet money that there is perhaps some
SMALL thing that forensics guys or geneticists or whoever
- know about that can literally tell them what "race" you
are - and by that I mean, including the general
appearance thing everyone in society uses to identify
race. I'd bet on that.

I'll bet not. The reason is that the general appearance
thing means that some blacks who can "pass for white" DO
pass for white socially,

Perhaps whatever genes make them "look" other than white -
are just GONE by then. You know, heterozygocity,
homozygocity? A person with blue eyes, for instance, ONLY
has genes to make more blue eyes - not anything else. It
doesn't matter if BOTH his parents had brown eyes - the
ability for that blue eyed person to make brown eyed kids is
GONE - unless he mates with a person with brown eyes. If
there is no one left in his mating pool except blue eyed
people - then the kids will only be born with blue eyes. Got
it? Traits (genes) can be bred out - and thus they are gone.
So, let's say that there was a brown and blue race - decided
upon eye color. A blue person would forever be blue race -
and if breeding with other blues, he'd get nothing but
blues. Got it? Therefore, he'd be blue. Period. All traces
of brown would have been bred out - gone. You have no idea
if it works like that or not. No one does.

Quoted message said:

whereas others socially and culturally emphasize their
African roots, and are considered black, even though in
appearance they would be classed alike.

Jensen and Coon didn't rely on that kind of thing.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>Those kids would be called "black" by any black in the
>country -

whether

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>they identified as black or not - and whether they
>liked it or not.

Not necessarily. But so what? You just called Abdul and
Carey non-black, when the poster that mentioned them
said they were black.

I might have one of them confused with Brittany. I'm not
exactly UP on pop culture.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

They both tried to "put on the black act" and well, in
the streets the blacks say they are white. Blacks ought
to know, eh?

No more than anyone else.

In particular, one of the two named, per the cited
website, has a black parent, and moved to this country to
escape racial hatred.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>Blacks are the people who define "acting black." Not
>anyone else.

The racists in these newsgroups define "acting black",
and seem to do so rather differently than the blacks
do. They go around labeling people as "whiggers" for
example, and define that word as white people who act
black.

Uh, blacks were the ones who invented the term whigger.

The racists are the ones who use it.

Then you are a racist of another sort if you call a person a
BUM for "acting like a bum."

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Apparently you don't seem to relize that it was BLACKS -
not white or

anyone

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

else, that invented this [censored] called "acting black"
and "acting

white."

Quoted message said:

I don't much care. Racism is racism, regardless of what
color skin they have.

Quoted message said:

NO white would think up something as absurd as "acting
white" because Italians just DO NOT act like Germans

Nonsense.

Quoted message said:

You know, Bob, I don't care how many generations American
an Italian is - and standing next to him is a Jewish
fellow and they really look so

similar

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

to each other that they could be brothers. They can each
open their

mouths

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and talk for 5 minutes and I KNOW which one is Italian
and which one is Jewish.

You'd have real problems with someone who has both Italian
and Jewishh ancestry. %^)

You know, I'm sick of YOU saying what I can or can't do. I
know a few people specifically who could say "THAT is a
Jewish person" from seeing the BACK of the person walking
down a street. 100% accuracy. Some people are quite GOOD
at that kind of thing. I have met Italian Jews. I also
know an Italian that converted to Jew. The first one acts
Jewish. The second one acts Italian - but his wife acts
Jewish. It's not hard to tell this. And stop telling me
what I can or can't tell. I'm sick of it. You remind me of
people that insisted I was using MAGIC because I wrote
down the god damned notes and chords to a song that I
heard on TV and "couldn't see the person playing it." Oh,
how could I do that. DUH. Children, even babies and from
then on, PICK UP on cultural/behavioral/expressional norms
from generation to generation. THAT is how that works.
Heh, put a newborn Israeli baby in an Italian home and
sure, it will grow up acting Italian. Sheesh. You want to
knwo what acting Jewish is? Watch THE NANNY and behold the
mother, grandmother and the nanny. (I love The Nanny).
I'll say this much, ISRAELIS DO NOT act that way: AT ALL!
It's European and American Jews that "act Jewish." Heh.
Want a lesson in Hebonics, next? Royco wrote the article,
I was on the FLOOR laughing in tears.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The Jew might be from Germany or Poland - but he most
definitely does not ACT like any Germans or Polish
people. That easy. That fast. You'd have to be half dead
walking around or "blocking out info" to NOT

know

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

what I mean - or else you are terribly non-exposed to
cultural behavioral norms - even when the people are
Americanized.

You seem to think that even 2nd generation immigrants
practice their ancestral culture here.

Nothing to do with ancestral culture. Has to do with facial
expressions, body language, gesturing, intonation, phrasing,
etc. - a very "intuitively seen/perceived" thing that some
folks are very very good at spotting - way better than I am,
too! It is FAMILIAL inheritance (not genetic).

Most of them don't. By 3rd generation almost

Quoted message said:

none of them do, and in any case most of them have married
cross-culturally. We are all mongrels, here.

My kids were born in Russia. NO ONE who does not know that
they were adopted into this country can tell that they
aren't native born, except possibly some Russians.

Except possibly some Russians? Heh. It's an intuitive thing
people do pick up on - some do it very very well. You
apparently have quite a few adopted kids. Do you have any
of your own?

Quoted message said:

lojbab
--
lojbab [email hidden] Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The
Logical Language Group (Opinions are my own; I do not
speak for the organization.) Artificial language
Loglan/Lojban: lojban.orglojban.orgOpen ↗

"Bob LeChevalier" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

P.Comm said:

"Bob LeChevalier" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] (E Kurtz) wrote:
>Race is usually described as "socially constructed" as
>though that were a refutation of the concept. But all
>taxonomies are socially constructed, in that there
>must be mutual agreement (possibly implicit) on which
>elements of reality are relevant in the given domain
>and which are not.

The elements used in defining races are arbitrary and
irrelevant.

No they aren't. They fit into a pattern that the brains
of everyone can recognize, Bob.

Not always, or there would not be blacks who can "pass".

They are not irrelevant when the ones that fit into that

Quoted message said:

"black" group want to mix and the ones that fit into the
"white" group

(or

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"yellow group) do NOT want to mix. That' not irrelevant.
That's a

recipe

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

for Big Trouble.

In this country, you mix. It is the law. Don't wanna
mix? Leave.

LMAO - there is NO SUCH THING as "mixing" unless you MATE.
Bottom line, baby. Otherwise, it's nothing but lip service,
it's putting on an act! Eat that.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>Absent such broad agreement, the taxonomy will be
>abandoned, as being more trouble than it is worth. The
>durability and universality of race in non-specialist
>everyday language in the US implies that it has an
>objective basis in physical regularities in the real
>world.

The durability and universality has to do with the fact
that discrimination based on race was enshrined in law
for 300+ years,

Get off it. He's talking about TAXONOMY in general, for
hell's sakes.

And

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

identifying people by in-general physical appearance is
not new with the Americans. Even the Egyptians defined 4
types of humans. Hellenes also

had

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

definitions that agreed with the Egyptian ones.

We're talking SCIENCE. Science defines NO types of humans.

Not as far as YOU KNOW - and as far as I know - NOT YET. Key
words, babe.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>The underlying genetic correlates of this objective
>basis have not yet been discovered, but that is also
>true of most human physical (and behavioral)
>phenotypes.

The most noteworthy physical correlates are found in
all races to varying degrees.

SO FAR.

Not likely to change.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

A person who has one black grandparent is considered
black, even though he may be more white than black and
have little or no physical resemblance to native
Africans.

Nope. A person that is 1/4 black that looks in all ways
white - is the

type

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

that PASSES for white - and is considered white by anyone
who sees him or her.

But any genetic definition of "black" will probably call
them "black" (and will probably also call some people who
have no ancestors from Africa in the last thousand years
"black"😉

Not necessarily. Hey, I'm not the one that "knows" there is
genetics for all this. I'm the one saying I don't know if
there is. You are the one with the religion on here. OK -
two races: blue and brown - designated by eye color. Blue
is a blue. Brown might be a blue too, but we don't know. He
is classed with browns. He marries brown. He has blue kid.
That kid is a blue. That kid marries blue. That can ONLY
produce more blues. Got it? The brown is BRED OUT. Whatever
genes there MAY OR MAY NOT be - that define that
"appareance" noted as "black" might work like the blue and
brown eyes work. You don't know. I don't know. But let's
look at the part blacks that become white, look white,
breed white. They forever breed white, Bob. They marry
white, their kids are white. The "black" doesn't show up
anymore. Apparently, it's BRED OUT. Heh, oddly, that's what
the black Moslems say, LMAO.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That's the way it was and is. The point is, that a person
1/4 black and 3/4 white usually looks pretty black to
anyone that sees him/her.

Nope.

lojbab
--
lojbab [email hidden] Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The
Logical Language Group (Opinions are my own; I do not
speak for the organization.) Artificial language
Loglan/Lojban: lojban.orglojban.orgOpen ↗

P.Comm said:

"Bob LeChevalier" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

P.Comm said:

"Bob LeChevalier" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
> "P.Comm" <[email hidden]> wrote:
> >
> >You mean, race MIGHT BE just a socially defined
> >thing.
>
> Race as used by the posters in this discussion is a
> socially defined thing.

How do you know that?

Because I can never get them to define any scientific
definition of the races they are using.

They don't have that information. You know that if anyone
DID have it in the field - they'd not so easily come forth
with it. Or perhaps you don't want to know that.

I know that it is false. While there might be political
pressure against it, we have innumerable examples of science
ignoring or overcoming political pressure. If nothing else,
racist scientists like Jensen would come out with such a
thing if it existed.

There is lots of evidence that scientific results are
PHRASED in politically correct manner. But the science still
comes out.

Quoted message said:

Because they are posting statistics based

Quoted message said:

on reported race, which is a socially defined thing.

I'm not so sure they are doing that. Jensen certainly
didn't use "reported race" at all. Neither did
Carleton S. Coon.

Since he had no scientific definition of race, then of
course he used reported race. There simply is no other
choice. All of the non-scientific methods of determining
race (which is all there is) rely on someone making a
subjective decision based on limited information, and
reporting it.

The closest alternative is to use the new DNA test, which
are probabilistic and determine if one particular ancestor
has genes similar to current people living in Africa (who
are *defined* by reference standard to be "black"😉 But this
is one-drop-rule-ism carried to its extreme - if
mitochondrial DNA is used it is being based on the "race" of
your mother's mother's mother, and if it is based on the Y
chromosome, it is being based on the race of your father's
father's father, etc. If other sites are used, and a person
is mixed race, then some genes will presumably be "black"
genes and some "European" genes. The typical American
"black" who is mixed race does not have ancestors that come
from one particular village in West Africa as the people who
concoct such tests advertise, so that if they get such a
result, they are really testing one particular member of a
person's ancestry.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'd be willing to bet money that there is perhaps some
SMALL thing that forensics guys or geneticists or
whoever - know about that can literally tell them what
"race" you are - and by that I mean, including the
general appearance thing everyone in society uses to
identify race. I'd bet on that.

I'll bet not. The reason is that the general appearance
thing means that some blacks who can "pass for white" DO
pass for white socially,

Perhaps whatever genes make them "look" other than white -
are just GONE by then.

Not usually. If they marry "black", their offspring will
cover the gamut of appearances from coal black to light
skinned, etc.

Quoted message said:

You know, heterozygocity, homozygocity? A person with blue
eyes, for instance, ONLY has genes to make more blue eyes -
not anything else.

That trick works because eye color is determined by only 1
or 2 genes, and has a strict dominant/recessive trait. Skin
color, I believe, has 4 genes involved, and there is no
strict dominance, so the number of possible skin colors is
very large. Other traits we associate with "looking black"
have at least that many, and some of them arise in non-
blacks (a friend of mine, as Irish as can be for many
generations, has hair as kinky as it comes. He wears an
Irish Afro %^)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

whereas others socially and culturally emphasize their
African roots, and are considered black, even though in
appearance they would be classed alike.

Jensen and Coon didn't rely on that kind of thing.

They had no choice. It was based either on the person's self-
reported race, or on their own self-reported judgement of
racial appearance, or on the race of the parents (also self-
reported, with the added possibility of illegitimacy).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >Those kids would be called "black" by any black in
> >the country -

whether

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >they identified as black or not - and whether they
> >liked it or not.
>
> Not necessarily. But so what? You just called Abdul
> and Carey non-black, when the poster that mentioned
> them said they were black.

I might have one of them confused with Brittany.

Heavy backpedal there. Neither of the two in question looks
in the least like Britney Spears.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >Blacks are the people who define "acting black." Not
> >anyone else.
>
> The racists in these newsgroups define "acting black",
> and seem to do so rather differently than the blacks
> do. They go around labeling people as "whiggers" for
> example, and define that word as white people who act
> black.

Uh, blacks were the ones who invented the term whigger.

The racists are the ones who use it.

Then you are a racist of another sort if you call a person
a BUM for "acting like a bum."

Judging people based on behavior is not racism. Judging
people based on presumed ancestry is racism.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You know, Bob, I don't care how many generations
American an Italian is - and standing next to him is a
Jewish fellow and they really look so

similar

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

to each other that they could be brothers. They can each
open their

mouths

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and talk for 5 minutes and I KNOW which one is Italian
and which one is Jewish.

You'd have real problems with someone who has both
Italian and Jewishh ancestry. %^)

You know, I'm sick of YOU saying what I can or can't do. I
know a few people specifically who could say "THAT is a
Jewish person" from seeing the BACK of the person walking
down a street. 100% accuracy. Some people are quite GOOD at
that kind of thing. I have met Italian Jews. I also know an
Italian that converted to Jew. The first one acts Jewish.
The second one acts Italian - but his wife acts Jewish.

How do their kids act? They are both Italian AND Jewish (by
ancestry). And they probably act "American".

Quoted message said:

It's not hard to tell this. And stop telling me what I can
or can't tell. I'm sick of it. You remind me of people that
insisted I was using MAGIC because I wrote down the god
damned notes and chords to a song that I heard on TV and
"couldn't see the person playing it." Oh, how could I do
that. DUH.

That's ear training.

Quoted message said:

Heh, put a newborn Israeli baby in an Italian home and
sure, it will grow up acting Italian.

If it is a Jewish (or Palestinian) baby, then you will guess
wrong by calling him Italian.

Quoted message said:

Sheesh. You want to knwo what acting Jewish is?

I know what "acting Jewish" is. I also know many non-
practicing Jews who don't act that way. And I know that
the kids of non-practicing Jews who marry non-Jews really
don't act that way. I'm married to an at-least-3rd
generation non-practicing Jew who knows less about Jewish
culture than I know.

Quoted message said:

Watch THE NANNY and behold the mother, grandmother and the
nanny. (I love The Nanny). I'll say this much, ISRAELIS DO
NOT act that way: AT ALL! It's European and American Jews
that "act Jewish."

Yet more than 90% of Israeli Jews are either European or
American Jews or the kids of at least one European or
American Jew. Yet you now admit that you can't look at how
they act and tell they are "Jewish".

Quoted message said:

Most of them don't. By 3rd generation almost

Quoted message said:

none of them do, and in any case most of them have
married cross-culturally. We are all mongrels, here.

My kids were born in Russia. NO ONE who does not know
that they were adopted into this country can tell that
they aren't native born, except possibly some Russians.

Except possibly some Russians?

I haven't asked any lately who didn't already know my kids
were Russian. Several years ago, they still recognized
Russian well enough that they would instinctively react to
certain Russian phrases as a Russian would, which would be
revealing of their linguistic background, but I'm not sure
that they still would do so.

My kids don't look especially Russian in appearance.

lojbab
--
lojbab [email hidden] Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The
Logical Language Group (Opinions are my own; I do not speak
for the organization.) Artificial language Loglan/Lojban:
lojban.orglojban.orgOpen ↗

P.Comm said:

"Bob LeChevalier" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

(E Kurtz) said:

> [email hidden] (E Kurtz) wrote:
> >Race is usually described as "socially constructed"
> >as though that were a refutation of the concept. But
> >all taxonomies are socially constructed, in that
> >there must be mutual agreement (possibly implicit) on
> >which elements of reality are relevant in the given
> >domain and which are not.

Bob LeChevalier <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> The elements used in defining races are arbitrary and
> irrelevant.

Again you make the mistake of supposing that races are
"defined". A child growing up in the US does not learn
of the existence of races and how to distinguish them by
being presented with a definition. The distinctions are
implicit in the culture; human pattern recognition does
the rest.

Nonsense. The distinctions are NOT inherently present in
the culture, but are taught by racists.

THAT is a provable lie. The distinctions can be noticed,
for instance, when anyone moves into an area where two very
obviously different-looking groups are there - one white
and the other black. You'd have to be blind not to notice
it. It's not easy to notice it if there isn't a LOT of
these two types around to look at, talk to, interact with
and see everyday. Hispanics merely LOOK at me and assume
I'm Hispanic - they have no idea wherefrom, but they think
in-general Hispanic. Europeans have to only LOOK at me to
assume I'm East European - they definitely know I'm not
west European. Both are wrong - but I can EYEBALL RECOGNIZE
AND SEE WHY they assume these things.

So what. They label you wrong, and that proves that the
distinctions are subjective.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If you are going by ancestry, then a person who is half
African, half European is as much a white person as they
are a black person. The racists don't think this way,
however.

Depends on how that person LOOKS. Let's say the person
LOOKS black. Blacks would accept that person as black
immediately because they are inclusive and not opposed
to mixing.

Nor necessarily.

Quoted message said:

Whites would NOT accept that person as white because they
are exclusive and opposed to mixing.

Maybe the whites you know, who all seem to be like the
racists posting here. But I am white, and accept pretty much
anything, and am not opposed to mixing. Thus, by
counterexample, your statement is false. "Whites" do not
such thing, because "whites" don't exist except as a
stereotype. (And remember that you said above that "whites"
accept you as "white" so don't give me any [censored] about their
exclusivity; racism in this country is really a surrogate
for social class).

Quoted message said:

Tiger Woods - to quote the Thailander natives "Oh, his
mother is Thai - but he? He is NOT Thai. Not at all. He's
not Thai. He's black." Unanimous.

Not unanimous. To me, he is American.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Ancestry is important to some Americans, black and
white.

Only racists.

That is a whopping arrogant statement on your part there.

It is a true statement.

Quoted message said:

It's judgemental as hell.

Tough.

Quoted message said:

Ancestry is very important to people in MANY places - I'd
say moreso in ALL patriarchal societies.

Ours isn't one.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Who are you to tell them that their ancestry is
"irrelevant"?

An anti-racist.

No, you are an arrogant lunatic. You'd impose your idealism
on people - most people in the WORLD come from patriarchal
societies - and in all such societies, ancestry is ALL.

In this country, we are an egalitarian society.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If their ancestry is important to them personally as part
of their family history, that is one thing.

If they wish to generalize and assume that people of a
certain ancestry share certain traits, then they'd better
a) be sure that genetics backs them up, because it
usually doesn't and b) keep it to themselves, because it
isn't important to the rest of us.

Far more people feel that way than people who do not.

I don't give a [censored] what people "think". That is social
definition; society can and will change, and is changing
as we speak.

And I notice you have abandoned the pretense that race isn't
entirely social.

Quoted message said:

You are in the minority here.

Right is right and wrong is wrong. Racism is wrong.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The "clustering" based on physical appearance is only
loosely correlated to ancestry. As has been noted in
prior threads, Xhoisian

Here you go with that. There aren't any Xhoisian blacks
in the USA.

Wanna bet.

But the issue is not just blacks in the US.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

African blacks are genetically closer to Swedes in some
traits than they are to West African blacks.

And you might be genetically closer to a dog in some
traits, than you are to any chimp. Dogs certainly get the
same DISEASES humans get (chimps do not) and dogs recognize
human body language way better than any chimps can do it.

I suspect that you are wrong.

Quoted message said:

And we haven't talked about

Quoted message said:

Aboriginal Australians and other black-skinned
Polynesians.

They aren't here.

Wanna bet.

Quoted message said:

But if they were, they'd be absorbed into the black
population soon enough.

Then the black population doesn't have the genetic traits
that are claimed for it.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Discrimination based on appearance is always possible
unless we all look like clones of each other.

Yet that strangely never happened in homogenous societies
and countries.

We are not a homogenous society.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The "black" designation derives from appearance (as I
said earlier and you snipped), not from genealogy or the
examination of genetic markers.

False. The "black" designation in this country has
multiple sources, including self-identification,
appearance, and having a known ancestor who was
classified as black.

That's why 2 Irish brothers claimed their grandmother was
black to get hired during affirmative acgtion frenzy.
Later, it was discoverd that they LIED. The black
designation in society (forget census bureau) is based on
eyeball sight and facial recognition.

These different criteria give different

Quoted message said:

answers as to whether a certain person is "black" or not.

Rarely.

If it ever happens, then the definition is subjective.

lojbab
--
lojbab [email hidden] Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The
Logical Language Group (Opinions are my own; I do not speak
for the organization.) Artificial language Loglan/Lojban:
lojban.orglojban.orgOpen ↗