[MD]

Truth be told, it's true.

It's not a matter of hatred, or dislike; it's a matter of culture.

I have had business dealings with the following groups over my 55+ year life:

-Whites, Blacks, Browns, Yellows, Oranges, and Grapes.

-Americans, Canadians, Mexicans, every Latino or Island state between there and Brazil, European nations of every sort both East and West, Russians, Chinese, Indians, South East Asians of every sort, Australians, and a mix of the rest.

-Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Cultists, Humanists, Atheists, and Space gazers.

I measure everyone I meet by those and other criteria, and I do my best to understand each perspective.

It's a real pain in the ass, but it's worth the effort.

So yeah, I am a race profiler, and proud of it.

[SeaGypsy]

Again we are on the same page MD, just from your header my thought was addressed in your first sentence.

I find the joint topics of race & culture fascinating, rarely one meets people capable of dispassionate discussion on matters around.

Raw stereotyping is both human nature & often unwarranted viciousness.

So much migration has huge consequences. Controlling migration based on ethnicity has become very un-PC, multiplying effects & fostering nests of folk who could neither give a hoot about the culture pre-existing their arrival, nor having any cultural basis to enjoin in the greater community. The worst results are becoming more common & more evident/ alienated extremist youth, lost sheep wandering becoming wolves by default.

On the flip side i love meeting young people from China, India, Africa, who have arrived with the ability to not only adapt, but fully master the language, accents, manners & mannerisms, without at all alienating their own family or countrymen. There are amazing young leaders emerging in the current crop of youth,.particularly in & probably because of the very PC concept described as multiculturalism.

[basil_hayden]

I always thought of what you describe, when I perceive it within me, to be perhaps prejudice but not racist. And we're all prejudiced - that is we all prejudge to some extent. But when the prejudice does not come with an open mind, and is accompanied by malice, then I consider it racism.

Stereotype on! It leads to some interesting surprises!

[Newfie]

Well said Basil. You have to get through the day, you lean to expect this and that from those types. It's keeping the open mind and facility to adjust that makes the difference. It's difficult at times.

[Plantagenet]

It's been known for years that IQ is highly heritable. But new research shows human personality and character traits are also strongly influenced by genetic inheritance, as encoded in DNA.

It's not PC and it's a little hard to imagine that someone's IQ, personality and character are predetermined by their DNA, but it's easy to see this in action by looking at purebred dogs. When you buy a mellow golden retriever or an alert Doberman pinscher or a Yappy little Pekingese dog, you get a genetically preset dog personality.

I'm not a racist. I'm a DNAist.

[Quinny]

Difficult to understand the prejudice!

It's not a matter of hatred, or dislike; it's a matter of class.

I have had personal & business dealings with the following groups over my 55+ year life:

-Upper, Middle an Working Class

I have found that although people are people whatever class they come from.

In general the Upper class have been great to work with because they basically realise they are safe and secure and whatever happens they will be OK.

In general middle class and middle management are greedy and working to advance their own interests at every opportunity.

In general working class people do what they can to get by and share as much as they can.

Despite this I am not a class profiler, and proud of it.

I have had business dealings with the following groups over my 55+ year life:

-Whites, Blacks, Browns, Yellows, Oranges, and Grapes.

-Americans, Canadians, Mexicans, every Latino or Island state between there and Brazil, European nations of every sort both East and West, Russians, Chinese, Indians, South East Asians of every sort, Australians, and a mix of the rest.

-Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Cultists, Humanists, Atheists, and Space gazers.

I have found that people are people wherever they come from. I have found good and bad in all racial groups!

It's not worth the effort.

I am not a race profiler, and proud of it.

Truth be told, it's true.

It's not a matter of hatred, or dislike; it's a matter of culture.

I have had business dealings with the following groups over my 55+ year life:

-Whites, Blacks, Browns, Yellows, Oranges, and Grapes.

-Americans, Canadians, Mexicans, every Latino or Island state between there and Brazil, European nations of every sort both East and West, Russians, Chinese, Indians, South East Asians of every sort, Australians, and a mix of the rest.

-Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Cultists, Humanists, Atheists, and Space gazers.

I measure everyone I meet by those and other criteria, and I do my best to understand each perspective.

It's a real pain in the ass, but it's worth the effort.

So yeah, I am a race profiler, and proud of it.

[KaiserJeep]

Careful, folks. You need to be specific about which definition of race you are using.

Anthropology recognized three distinct races beginning in the 19th century based on eidonomy (i.e. external gross anatomy). They were the African, Caucasian, and Asian. I remember reading about them in my Health textbook in Junior High School in approximately 1964. ("Health" was a topic you studied in PE class when it was raining and you could not go outside and exercise.)

The human genome project demonstrated from 2001 to 2009 that when one examined the DNA that there were actually between seven and twenty-six or so distinct human races, depending upon how high one set the bar for the number of distinct genes that defined a "race". The distinctions had to be based upon statistical analysis, as there were virtually no examples of human individuals that were pure examples of a single racial group, virtually all living humans are hybrids of two or more races.

The basis for racial divergence made sense when one examined the mitochondrial DNA, the races diverged from one another when physical geologic barriers prevented their interbreeding over varying periods of time - such as for example the disappearance of the Pleistocene land bridge between Siberia and Alaska that caused the Native Americans to diverge from the Asians.

Beginning in 2001 papers that noted observations about the new definitions of human races, such as that there were easily measurable differences between these newly defined races in intelligence, physical strength and endurance, propensity for violence, tolerance for climate extremes, resistance to endemic diseases, and the like, were quietly and quite remarkably "unpublished". The material was deemed unsuitable for public consumption, it was removed from public Internet access and like topics today are published only in hardcopy publications in the journals of Anthropology and Medicine.

The majority of "Scientists" in the world apparently approved of this process, there were almost no protests. The older - and quite erroneous - definitions of human races that are embedded in our cultures and legal codes are slowly being sliced from our laws and our minds via the scalpel of Political Correctness.

Nothing whatsoever is replacing these obsolete concepts of race, because the new understanding of race based upon DNA is simply intolerable, even less PC than the old one, because in fact the human races are measurably different in countless ways, and not at all equal. BTW, I don't really care about racial differences, but I am truly astounded that so much is happening right under our noses with so little public acknowledgment.

[Quinny]

What's wrong with the human one?

[careinke]

What's wrong with the human one?

+1

[Sixstrings]

Average IQ by state:



(I don't really have a point with that, just thought I'd throw that in there since you someone mentioned IQ in the thread)

Okay.. so.. what is this thread about? What is everyone trying to delicately say, this thread? Is it like when I say, "now I'm no nazi or racist, but......"

Let's dig deeper, why was this thread started. MD -- why is this on your mind, lately. Is it about Ferguson? Are you seeing things that you don't like but you're like me, and you don't want to say anything cuz nobody "wants to be a racist?"

I don't know, what's the real bottom line here? Of course we're not racists, just because we don't like ghetto culture.

Not that ghetto culture is all bad, either -- I sure like soul food, mac and cheese and a mess of collard greens. That's some good stuff, there.

There are some positive cultural differences, like how black folks aren't so wound up tight and neurotic like white people are.

Some of the nicest people I've ever known, were black people.

I voted Obama twice, so there's no way I could be a racist, right? That's got to be an oxymoron of some kind.

Bottom line on it --

There's some ghetto type blacks that I do not like and yes if I'm driving through their hood then I'm gonna be scared and locking my door and rolling the windows up and getting back on the correct route out of there ASAP.

Same goes for a Latino gangbanger type area, though some latino areas are okay and I feel fine in.

I don't like "white trash," either.

And I don't like all these white people lately, on drugs, either.

So there. I'm an equal opportunity Archie Bunker.

And I know a black woman that voted McCain, back when I voted Obama. She talks about "the hood" all the time, so maybe it's time for everyone to drop racial perspective. Maybe a hood just needs cleaned up sometimes, and it's not about "racism."

Just a thought.

[Keith_McClary]

Careful, folks. You need to be specific about which definition of race you are using.

How about the Oxford dictionary:

A group of people sharing the same culture, history, language, etc.; an ethnic group
...
Usage

In recent years, the associations of race with the ideologies and theories that grew out of the work of 19th-century anthropologists and physiologists has led to the use of the word race itself becoming problematic. Although still used in general contexts, it is now often replaced by other words which are less emotionally charged, such as people(s) or community.

So, for example, Israel is currently proposing a law making it officially the State of the Jewish People. (That's the word they use in English.)

Beginning in 2001 papers that noted observations about the new definitions of human races, such as that there were easily measurable differences between these newly defined races in intelligence, physical strength and endurance, propensity for violence, tolerance for climate extremes, resistance to endemic diseases, and the like, were quietly and quite remarkably "unpublished". The material was deemed unsuitable for public consumption, it was removed from public Internet access and like topics today are published only in hardcopy publications in the journals of Anthropology and Medicine.
...
BTW, I don't really care about racial differences, but I am truly astounded that so much is happening right under our noses with so little public acknowledgment.

Can we find this information in the Internet Archive:
https://archive.org/index.php
or have they collaborated in it's suppression?

[KaiserJeep]

I don't know the answer to that, I never looked in the internet archive. I did discuss the topic once with my daughter who studied Biology. She thought the material on racial differences was still online, protected by passwords and encryption. She also told me it was there for a reason, to prevent someone from dabbling at the surface of a complex topic and then spreading erroneous conclusions.

[davep]

The thing about culture is that it is not equal to race in the ethnic sense. If, for example, there is a small degree of immigration to a country, then the immigrants tend to take on the cultural traits of their hosts over time. And in any culture there are thoughtful people who go against the worst elements of that culture.

And if you're going to blame culture, you really need to give some examples. For example, I think certain elements of Italian culture are excellent (they are far more laid back about life than the British), but understand how the macho side can genuinely be intimidating for women.

Another problem is the socio-political aspects of religion (not the cultural aspects of certain societies that can be confused with religion, such as arranged or even forced marriages). This problem tends to be immune to cultural assimilation. Religion should be a personal belief system, not a means of gaining or maintaining power.

And then there's the Yanks. I mean, who let this giant toddler have all those nasty weapons?

[MD]

...But when the prejudice does not come with an open mind, and is accompanied by malice, then I consider it racism.

Stereotype on! It leads to some interesting surprises!

Very well said!

[MD]

Average IQ by state:



Just a thought.

IQ testing is culturally biased, and not on topic.

Start a new thread if you want to discuss it, thanks.

[Cid_Yama]

LOL!

I guess the way to end racism in America is to redefine the term racist. America is well known for just redefining the lexicon we think with.

It's like what Fox news has done to their viewers over the years. It's almost like you can't have a conversation with them because the words have different meanings, and different emotive content for them, than they do for the rest of us.

George Orwell was a piker compared to them.

But, of course, redefining the terms among your own little subset doesn't help you, out in the real world.

To everyone else, a racist is still a racist. Even if you've managed to contort it into something else in your own mind.

[KaiserJeep]

How selectively you ignore reality, Cid. This would be the truth, documented in the FBI crime statistics:


The Washington Post, November 25, 2014:

The report found most murders were intraracial, committed by friends or acquaintances of the victim. Stranger homicides were more likely to be interracial, with a lower rate of white-on-black murders than black-on-white murders.

The 2013 FBI Uniform Crime Report, a compilation of annual crime statistics, also shows similar data: 83 percent of white victims were killed by white offenders; 90 percent of black victims were killed by black offenders; 14 percent of white victims were killed by black offenders; and 7.6 percent of black victims were killed by white offenders.

The whole country is focussed on the least important quadrant of such crimes. Not to mention, this was found to not be a murder of any kind.

The real conversation we should be having is why so many blacks kill so many others.

Former NYC mayor Rudolf Giuliani, quoting the 2010 Bureau of Justice Statistics report:

t is true that the rate of black homicide victims and offenders were disproportionately represented compared to the general population, the 2011 BJS report found. The black victimization rate (27.8 per 100,000) was six times higher than the white victimization rate (4.5 per 100,000). Black offending rate (34.4 per 100,000) was almost eight times higher than whites (4.5 per 100,000), according to the report.

I personally do not believe that the racial makeup of various police forces, or the policies they have in place about the use of deadly force, have anything to do with the real problem. One cop justifiably shooting one perp is not the problem. Or at the very least, it's the least important of the four types of crimes, in which Black-on-White homicides occur twice as often as White-on-Black.

[Cid_Yama]

Blah, Blah, Blah, ...

Your racism has already framed the parameters.

How about why so many in abject poverty (not just blacks) are convicted of just about any crime?

Duh.

The system doesn't work for them so why should they participate? When every avenue for a reasonable life within the system is systemically blocked for them, what should be their response?

And the system just continues to get more unfair, more unjust. Eventually it becomes a revolution.

The more you exclude from a reasonable life, the more you recruit to those against the system. Systems deserve to be toppled if they refuse to be inclusive for everyone.

Perhaps the question should be, why is the system we live under so unjust to so great a number of our people.

[KaiserJeep]

People are convicted of crimes when they commit crimes. The inner cities where the poor are found are hellholes of crime, and that is why those in "abject poverty" are convicted of such at a higher rate - because the suburbs and the toney uptown neighborhoods are relatively crime free.

The system is set up to provide equal opportunity for all, nothing else. Many, many poor of all races and ethnicities have found their way out of the inner cities into happy and productive lives. It has been happening for generations. Every time someone musters the effort and willpower to escape such an environment, the gene pool in that place becomes a little poorer.

Equal opportunity plus equal ability would mean equal results. But we do not have equal results, do we? Because people do not have equal abilities, and we made it so.

There is one difference between today and past centuries. The poor used to starve, freeze, and die of malnutrition and disease in great numbers. It was a brutally Darwinian process, and the fittest survived and prospered after moving out of the blighted landscape. Nowadays, we house the losers all still in the inner city and give them money to feed themselves. They reproduce in great numbers, and we feed their offspring. Generations of failure to succeed, and the losers are no longer dying. We even collect those incredible losers who cannot even qualify for welfare, label them "homeless", and feed them, give them health care, and allow them to reproduce.

In effect, we are breeding an inner city population with no ambition, below average intelligence, and fewer and fewer chances to ever escape this terrible environment. They are easy pickings for the race baiters like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.

We can either continue the failed system, or change it. Welfare could be replaced with a system where those who fail to complete their education and find employment are sent to farms where they will study and practice Permaculture, as part of the plan for when the oil runs out.

I have no doubt that such farms would immediately be labelled "plantations" by the race baiters. This attempt to help them will end before it even gets started.

When food gets very expensive after the cheap oil is gone, the inner cities die first. The kindly and well intentioned efforts of those "helping" the inner city poor have pretty well guaranteed that it will be so.

[Quinny]

Naive and quite simply wrong!

People are convicted of crimes when they commit crimes. The inner cities where the poor are found are hellholes of crime, and that is why those in "abject poverty" are convicted of such at a higher rate - because the suburbs and the toney uptown neighborhoods are relatively crime free.

The system is set up to provide equal opportunity for all, nothing else. Many, many poor of all races and ethnicities have found their way out of the inner cities into happy and productive lives. It has been happening for generations. Every time someone musters the effort and willpower to escape such an environment, the gene pool in that place becomes a little poorer.

Equal opportunity plus equal ability would mean equal results. But we do not have equal results, do we? Because people do not have equal abilities, and we made it so.

There is one difference between today and past centuries. The poor used to starve, freeze, and die of malnutrition and disease in great numbers. It was a brutally Darwinian process, and the fittest survived and prospered after moving out of the blighted landscape. Nowadays, we house the losers all still in the inner city and give them money to feed themselves. They reproduce in great numbers, and we feed their offspring. Generations of failure to succeed, and the losers are no longer dying. We even collect those incredible losers who cannot even qualify for welfare, label them "homeless", and feed them, give them health care, and allow them to reproduce.

In effect, we are breeding an inner city population with no ambition, below average intelligence, and fewer and fewer chances to ever escape this terrible environment. They are easy pickings for the race baiters like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.

We can either continue the failed system, or change it. Welfare could be replaced with a system where those who fail to complete their education and find employment are sent to farms where they will study and practice Permaculture, as part of the plan for when the oil runs out.

I have no doubt that such farms would immediately be labelled "plantations" by the race baiters. This attempt to help them will end before it even gets started.

When food gets very expensive after the cheap oil is gone, the inner cities die first. The kindly and well intentioned efforts of those "helping" the inner city poor have pretty well guaranteed that it will be so.