OCUK Forum Racial Makeup Thread

[Dolph]

Dolph you seem to be being ultra pedantic perhaps because you are unwilling to completely accept that race is about far more than just skin colour. Just because the OP used the widely accepted terms like white and black, it doesn't mean he was referring only to skin colour as you have said. You are totally and needlessly overcomplicating the issue.

I'm fully willing to accept that Race is about more than just skin colour, in fact I've made that point several times over in my earlier posts. The reason the two terms should not be used interchangeably is because they aren't equivilent, which is why when someone uses race when they are actually talking about skin colour, it needs bringing up. There is nothing racially similar between two black people from opposite sides of the world, or two white people from opposite sides of the world for that matter, so to group them all together under one banner tends to mean you aren't talking about race.

 

[dirtydog]

I'm fully willing to accept that Race is about more than just skin colour, in fact I've made that point several times over in my earlier posts. The reason the two terms should not be used interchangeably is because they aren't equivilent, which is why when someone uses race when they are actually talking about skin colour, it needs bringing up. There is nothing racially similar between two black people from opposite sides of the world, or two white people from opposite sides of the world for that matter, so to group them all together under one banner tends to mean you aren't talking about race.

But the OP was not doing that.

How is there 'nothing racially similar' between white people from two different sides of the world? Of course there is. They would have originally come from the same place, ie. Europe.

 

[iCraig]

to be English you must be white.

This is what confuses me. Fair enough if that's your opinion, but one skin colour isn't enough to be exclusive to a country. I can imagine people turning around and reversing your logic. If you're white, are you automatically English?

I know it's your viewpoint, but have you considered what that sounds like? What if I told you that to be English you must be Catholic? An unfair and silly requirement wouldn't you say?

 

[Dolph]

I didn't say skin colour, I said white. You know very well I mean race when I say white, I don't mean merely skin colour, yet you keep mischeviously mispresenting my and others' positions

Are you saying that if you were french, you could be english? Or are you talking about a specific subset of 'white'?

You stated if you were non-white, you could not be english, surely that means if you are white, you could be? Again, the use of non-specific terms leaves your position open to interpretation. I would imagine there are a whole number of white races that you would also believe could not be English, but your argument again steers back to one specific issue, whether you intend it to our not.

 

[dirtydog]

This is what confuses me. Fair enough if that's your opinion, but one skin colour isn't enough to be exclusive to a country. I can imagine people turning around and reversing your logic. If you're white, are you automatically English?

People could say that, but they'd be talking nonsense

All English are white, not all white are English.

Do you think the above statement in some way is contradictory? From an English language perspective?

 

[iCraig]

not all white are English.

Would they have the ability to become English then? Seeing as being white is apparently a fundamental requirement.

 

[Dolph]

But the OP was not doing that.

How is there 'nothing racially similar' between white people from two different sides of the world? Of course there is. They would have originally come from the same place, ie. Europe.

Is a norse similar to spaniard? An englishman to a russian? It's possible to isolate and identify DNA from different countries populations in other populations where there have been migration, for example. There are many differences between people that have the same skin colour, as well as many similarities between people who do not. You ask how people can keep confusing your position, yet you seem to believe that there are major differences between some people, and not between others. This is most definitely not the case.

The human genome project found that genetically humans are very similar. The most common polymorphisms (or genetic differences) in the human genome are single base-pair differences. Scientists call these differences SNPs, for single-nucleotide polymorphisms. About 99.9% of the human genome is identical in all humans. On average there is only 0.1% difference, which implies that any the genomes of any two random humans are expected to differ by about 3 million base pairs. Of this 0.1% difference, 85% is found within any given population, 7 % is found between populations within a race and only 8% is found on average between the various races. Thus there is more genetic diversity within a race than between various races. Compared with other species the amount of genetic diversity among humans is relatively small. For example two random chimpanzee are expected to differ by about 500 DNA base pairs, equivalent to double the diversity amongst humans. This indicates that chimpanzees have existed as a species much longer than humans

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_genetics#Human_genetic_variation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancestry-informative_marker is also worth a look.

 

[dun]

1.

 

[cleanbluesky]

you seem to believe that there are major differences between some people, and not between others. This is most definitely not the case.

What you have done here is used your own frame of reference and then decried DD's claim within your own frame of reference. Even if he does think there are 'major differences' he did not say that their soul measure was genetic variation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_genetics#Human_genetic_variation

It's also worth noting that we share about 50% genetic makeup with amoebas and something stupid like 98% with monkeys. Do you think that monkeys are exactly the same as us? Would you call that a 'major difference'?

 

[dirtydog]

Would they have the ability to become English then? Seeing as being white is apparently a fundamental requirement.

Yes, their descendants would, given time. How much time is debatable and not something I want to get into now

 

[Dolph]

Yes, their descendants would, given time. How much time is debatable and not something I want to get into now

Could a non-white become english too given time?

 

[dirtydog]

Could a non-white become english too given time?

Not in my opinion.

 

[cleanbluesky]

Not in my opinion.

Remember, we're One Race. The Human Race.

/obligatory inclusive hand gestures

 

[Dolph]

Not in my opinion.

So what is the difference maker? It can't be genetics or culture, as we've eliminated those two variables. I think we may well only have one left...

 

[dirtydog]

So what is the difference maker? It can't be genetics or culture, as we've eliminated those two variables. I think we may well only have one left...

The difference is race. A component part of that is genetics despite your claim to the contrary What it is NOT however, is merely 'skin colour'.

 

[Dolph]

The difference is race. A component part of that is genetics despite your claim to the contrary What it is NOT however, is merely 'skin colour'.

But there is more genetic variation within races than between them, and it seems you believe that someone with no english genetic or cultural heritage can eventually produce someone who you would class as english given enough time, provided they are white and not non-white.

What part of them being non-white is the problem that only applies to non-whites and not non-english but white? Remember we're talking about culturally identical people here (or identical enough to be potentially classified as english), so it can't be culture.

If you're so adament it's not simply skin colour, can you explain exactly what the other criteria are, to ensure I understand. From the situation above, I cannot see other criteria that fit the two groups, but I don't want to misunderstand your views, or misrepresent them, so please explain.

 

[mrk]

Yeah but this is OcUK, threads like this always degenerate into page after page of arguments over race.

I don't approve of your tone, you're racist

 

[SkScotchegg]

The white race has been the most successful and the most dominant in the history of the world. I'd say that's something to be proud of. What do blacks have to be proud of for example Every country controlled by blacks is in a mess.

Probably the reason why white people have been the top class for so long is because of past wars and slavery...our ancestors did a lot of bad things...And I believe black people have a lot to be proud of, their music, their culture, martin luther king, nelson madela and probably thousands of other black people that have helped to change the world and make it a better place for all of mankind...These days we live in a multi-cultural society, for me and people like me in our world, and our little bubble, racism doesn't exist, unfortunately outside of our world and our little bubble some people are still racist and living in the past.

 

[Tefal]

why the **** did you bump a 4 year old thread for that?

 

[hurfdurf]

To be fair that kind of post is so bad it rallies through space and time