For those who accept the concept of "Race"

by TD 23 Replies latest jw friends

  • John Doe
    John Doe

    I'm not sure I follow what you're not buying into. Do you not buy into race even existing, or do you not buy into race being a measurable trait? First off, I think we need to look at the definition:

    • Main Entry: 3 race
    • Function: noun
    • Etymology: Middle French, generation, from Old Italian razza
    • Date: 1580

    1: a breeding stock of animals
    2 a: a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock b: a class or kind of people unified by shared interests, habits, or characteristics
    3 a: an actually or potentially interbreeding group within a species; also: a taxonomic category (as a subspecies) representing such a group b:breedc: a category of humankind that shares certain distinctive physical traits
    4obsolete: inherited temperament or disposition
    5: distinctive flavor, taste, or strength

    I don't see how you can argue against definition 2 and 3(c). Is that what you're doing?


    There are 4 ways to "Start" people from Eastern Countrys..

    Push Start,Pull Start,Clapper and Breakfast..

    This Gentleman is a Pull Start..

    You Grab the end of the Towel he has on his Head and Pull it..

    He will start after only a few Pull`s and be able to carry on his day..

    Do you See the Dot,on this Ladys forehead?..

    That Dot,is really a Button..

    This Lady is a Push Start..

    Push the Dot,and she starts up Instantly!

    The Clapper

    This Gentleman is a Clapper..

    Those bushy eye-brow`s pick up Sound..

    You simply Clap twice,to turn him on or off..

    The Newer Models get started,by having Breakfast in the Morning..


  • TD

    John Doe:

    Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged gives even more --10 separate definitions for the term. By and large, these fall into two catagories; the quasi-scientific and the perceptual. The first catagory represents attempts to scientifically catagorize different variations of the human species into finer divisions within Linnaean hierarchy. (e.g. An additional name you could clap on to the binomial designation for humans, like Homo sapiens v. euorpaeus) Anthropologists today have by and large rejected that idea as unscientific.

    Perceptual definitions are less reminscent of eugenics, but when it becomes a matter of perception, the term "Race" loses all meaning because every minor variation in skin tone and facial structure becomes a separate "Race." For example, the lady in picture #3 is from Greece. The lady in picture #4 is from Spain. One race or two?

    If it helps to clarify things, I'm not denying either that ethnic groups exist or that the people in the pictures above are different in appearance. I'm curious if anyone really thinks there is a rational basis for attempting to catagorize those differences in appearance as racial divisions. --Hence the challenge to try and do it.

  • SixofNine
    I'm questioning whether there is any rational basis for attempting to catagorize those differences in appearance as racial divisions.

    I guess I don't understand the premise. "racial divisions" as opposed to what other "divisions"?

    In case I do understand you, then I would say a rational for catagorizing into "race" would be for indentification purposes in law enforcement, or, in my case, because I find it fascinating to guess where people come from based soley on physical differences. Anyone who isn't curious about other people's ethnic background probably just isn't curious.

  • purplesofa

    Pretty interesting show, we put far too much emphasis on race

    The Human Family Tree

  • I quit!
    I quit!

    I don't know about race but the women are all pretty hot and the guys look kind of goofy. I'm not sure what to conclude from my observation.

  • TD


    Sorry if I'm not communicating clearly. I understand the rationale for classifying people by appearance for purposes of law enforcement, demographic studies, etc.

    I'm asking if there is a rational (i.e scientific) basis for such a classification. In other words, is it an arbitrary system that ultimately rests on personal perception or is it a system based on conditions that can be tested and proven that does not at some point, contradict itself?

    For example, the original concept of race was based on phrenology, not skin color. There were only four (Or five depending on what you read) races. Under that system, all eight of the people above are Caucasian. The term covered people living in almost all of Europe, and most of the Middle and Near east as far as India.

    But that is not, what I think people mean when they use the term today. I honestly don't know for sure what they mean, which is why I would love for somebody to try and explain it via demonstration.

  • SixofNine
    But that is not, what I think people mean when they use the term today. I honestly don't know for sure what they mean, which is why I would love for somebody to try and explain it via demonstration.

    Ah, I see where you're going with this. I think it (the use of "race") really is about as loose as my listed answer. You're right, it doesn't mean anything specific anymore. I suppose it's more defined by the "ism" the color/culture/origin differences inspire as much as it is the actual difference. e.g., Obama is obviously a mix of black and white, but when someone calls him a nigger, we know exactly what they mean and what they are.

  • Open mind
    Open mind

    Great thread TD.

    You'll have a PM shortly.

    I think most people when they're honest with themselves acknowledge that "race" doesn't exist.


  • Heaven

    A couple of years ago, at work, they began the 'Inclusion Program' whereby we were all to login to a website and update our 'Diversity Profiles'. This was a voluntary initiative which they 'encouraged' us to participate in. The very first question is whether or not you're 'Homosexual/Transexual/Bisexual/Transvestite'. The next question was what race you considered yourself. I logged off without completing it. No one on my team put in their information. We were all offended. My Technical Advisor asked the question "What are the 'right' answers so I can keep my job?"

    They have no need to know any of the information in that profile about me.

    Later on we started joking about it saying we should put totally bogus information in. It wouldn't surprise me if some have done this.

    What I don't understand is how can you really know what 'race' you are? I mean, how many of us truly know our complete heritage? For all I know, I have a mixed background. For example someone may look 'white/caucasian' but if you have a mixed background (like Amanda Marshall), how do you identify yourself? Would she put Black or White? In this profile it was an 'or' situation... not an 'and'.

    As far as I'm concerned, we're all people with varying backgrounds, experiences, ideas, and beliefs. Asking me to put this info. in a 'profile' so you can sell more contracts to clients rubs me the wrong way.

Share this