Pretty much, but I would stress that people understand the way "theory" is being used--it's an explanatory model that can never be "proven"[/b] and the use of the word doesn't hint at it being dubious. The theory emerged at the beginning of the last century when we didn't have access to, say, genetic data that could substantiate it, but as the amount of information available to us has increased, the theory has only been strengthened. It is not a "theory" in the same sense that my various musings on the origins of SoulStrut littledudism are[/b] and a worldview in which black/white/asian reflect biological truth is certainly not a "theory" of comparable validity.
So I take it your final report on SS littledudism will be able to irrefutably prove your thesis?
Pretty much, but I would stress that people understand the way "theory" is being used--it's an explanatory model that can never be "proven"[/b] and the use of the word doesn't hint at it being dubious. The theory emerged at the beginning of the last century when we didn't have access to, say, genetic data that could substantiate it, but as the amount of information available to us has increased, the theory has only been strengthened. It is not a "theory" in the same sense that my various musings on the origins of SoulStrut littledudism are[/b] and a worldview in which black/white/asian reflect biological truth is certainly not a "theory" of comparable validity.
So I take it your final report on SS littledudism will be able to irrefutably prove your thesis?
I look forward to its publication.
It is currently undergoing peer review by a group of definitively big dudes who hang out at my barbershop and seem to have answers to all of life's questions.
Well, I think we're fairly past the point of debate--it's been established for a long time that "race" doesn't reflect biological reality.
Sure, some people have different physical traits from other people, and I think maybe the folks having trouble swallowing the idea that "race isn't real" are misreading it as a suggestion that the physical differences don't exist.
They do--but the attachment of significance to certain combinations of physical traits as forming a "race" is what's arbitrary; "black," "white," "asian," etc. are social constructs--these categories don't represent any sort of scientific truth, and there are an infinite number of alternative systems of categorization based on physical traits that you could come up with.
Sounds like you're a supporter of "cline" theory:
"One of the crucial innovations in reconceptualizing genotypic and phenotypic variation[/b] was anthropologist C. Loring Brace's observation that such variations, insofar as it is affected by natural selection, migration, or genetic drift, are distributed along geographic gradations; these gradations are called "clines"[/b] (Brace 1964). This point called attention to a problem common to phenotypic-based descriptions of races (for example, those based on hair texture and skin color): they ignore a host of other similarities and difference (for example, blood type) that do not correlate highly with the markers for race.[/b] Thus, anthropologist Frank Livingstone's conclusion that, since clines cross racial boundaries, "there are no races, only clines" (Livingstone 1962: 279). In 1964, biologists Paul Ehrlich and Holm pointed out cases where two or more clines are distributed discordantly???for example, melanin is distributed in a decreasing pattern from the equator north and south; frequencies for the haplotype for beta-S hemoglobin, on the other hand, radiate out of specific geographical points in Africa (Ehrlich and Holm 1964)."
Pretty much, but I would stress that people understand the way "theory" is being used--it's an explanatory model that can never be "proven" and the use of the word doesn't hint at it being dubious. The theory emerged at the beginning of the last century when we didn't have access to, say, genetic data that could substantiate it, but as the amount of information available to us has increased, the theory has only been strengthened. It is not a "theory" in the same sense that my various musings on the origins of SoulStrut littledudism are and a worldview in which black/white/asian reflect biological truth is certainly not a "theory" of comparable validity.
what he said. I have heard genetists as well who study DNA, talk about how there is only one race as well, Homo Sapien Sapien.
Well, I think we're fairly past the point of debate--it's been established for a long time that "race" doesn't reflect biological reality.
Sure, some people have different physical traits from other people, and I think maybe the folks having trouble swallowing the idea that "race isn't real" are misreading it as a suggestion that the physical differences don't exist.
They do--but the attachment of significance to certain combinations of physical traits as forming a "race" is what's arbitrary; "black," "white," "asian," etc. are social constructs--these categories don't represent any sort of scientific truth, and there are an infinite number of alternative systems of categorization based on physical traits that you could come up with.
Sounds like you're a supporter of "cline" theory:
"One of the crucial innovations in reconceptualizing genotypic and phenotypic variation[/b] was anthropologist C. Loring Brace's observation that such variations, insofar as it is affected by natural selection, migration, or genetic drift, are distributed along geographic gradations; these gradations are called "clines"[/b] (Brace 1964). This point called attention to a problem common to phenotypic-based descriptions of races (for example, those based on hair texture and skin color): they ignore a host of other similarities and difference (for example, blood type) that do not correlate highly with the markers for race.[/b] Thus, anthropologist Frank Livingstone's conclusion that, since clines cross racial boundaries, "there are no races, only clines" (Livingstone 1962: 279). In 1964, biologists Paul Ehrlich and Holm pointed out cases where two or more clines are distributed discordantly???for example, melanin is distributed in a decreasing pattern from the equator north and south; frequencies for the haplotype for beta-S hemoglobin, on the other hand, radiate out of specific geographical points in Africa (Ehrlich and Holm 1964)."
Pretty much, but I would stress that people understand the way "theory" is being used--it's an explanatory model that can never be "proven" and the use of the word doesn't hint at it being dubious. The theory emerged at the beginning of the last century when we didn't have access to, say, genetic data that could substantiate it, but as the amount of information available to us has increased, the theory has only been strengthened. It is not a "theory" in the same sense that my various musings on the origins of SoulStrut littledudism are and a worldview in which black/white/asian reflect biological truth is certainly not a "theory" of comparable validity.
what he said. I have heard genetists as well who study DNA, talk about how there is only one race as well, Homo Sapien Sapien.
Fascinating stuff.
I read somewhere that indigenous peoples - Oriental, African, Caucasion were defined 50,000 years ago. But we evolved from chimps 350,000 generations ago.
And that through gene analysis of the DNA mitochondria of Australian Aborigines, Danish housewives and Patagonian Indians, they found evidence that sugests that, every single person is descended from one African 'Eve'.
every single person is descended from one African 'Eve'
Et voil??...the thread is closed. It took 7 pages to reach the only sentence that matters. Thank you very much. That will makes me forget all the bullshit that was posted by some indigenous onboard. I was sea-sick when i read some replies. I'm glad to see that it was a minority and that the majority is making sense.
Can anyone provide me with links to pictures or links to sites that point out the differences in bone structure between africans, asians, european and more? Im very interested in this for many different reasons. Cuz I always wondered.
I know im a lazy ass, but honestly I suck when it comes to using a search engine. Or give e some keywords to look for. Thnx/
Pre-American Slavery was WORSE in many ways ranging from 20% of the Roman Empire/Republic being slaves to the Ottoman empire castrating their male slaves, making sex slaves of their female slaves and their entire army was made up of Christian-Born slaves from the Balkans.
I've been reading up on Ottoman slavery. I thought my online searches would bring up mostly stormtrooper.com and other racist websites. What I found out is that there is a lot of new historical information on Ottoman slavery. Ottoman slavery was far more extensive than a lot of people previously were aware of, including myself.
Of course almost everything you said about it is absolutely wrong.
Slaves in the Roman Empire and Republic could buy their way out of slavery, they could marry out of slavery. Most slaves were household servants. There was not an industrial agricultural slavery system supported by race laws that made all people of one race and their descendants forever slaves. While slavery in Roman may have been 20% Slaves in antebellum South slaves out numbered freemen by large numbers. I'm not sure why you think the Roman model is worse.
It is true that Ottoman slaves who were selected for the job of guarding harems were castrated. Captured enemy were also often castrated and often enslaved. Americans were also cruel to their slaves, while the word castration will make you cross your legs, I'm not sure that it is "worse" than what American slaves endured.
As for sex slaves if is true that the Ottoman empire had sex slaves. This is very different from America where a woman who was raped all night by her slave owner was still expected to get up in the morning and pick cotton all day. I'm not sure why you think the Ottoman model is worse.
This line is untrue and idiotic "their entire army was made up of Christian-Born slaves from the Balkans". The Janissaries were an elite military force made up of people from the Balkans. They were not slaves. They were Ottoman citizens and the first army that was paid even during peace time.
Ottoman slaves were freed if they converted to Islam. If they did not convert they could practice Christianity. American slaves were forced to convert to Christianity and their religions were outlawed.
When the Ottoman's started taking European slaves most Europeans were surfs, little more than slaves. They were not freepeople they were subjects of a small noble cast who were under the rule of the Catholic Church.
Later Ottoman slaves were often forced into the Ottoman fleets, navy, merchant or pirate. This is the same method that European countries often used to man their fleets. Most sailors would fit the definition of slaves. Some pirates (those who sailed for no nation) were unique in that they shared all their booty
The American slave trade was unique for a number of reasons. The unbelievable cruel Atlantic crossing. Race laws. The huge number of slaves required for large scale cotton and other agriculture.
There simple is no way that "Pre-American Slavery was WORSE in many ways" as you claim.
[color:red] [/color] For you to come into a thread on a great documentary on racism and then claim "In the last 10,000 years Caucasions have been submitted to all of the same atrocities that any other race has" is questionable. For you to then try to support that claim by saying that pre-American slavery was worse and supporting that claim with false "facts" is very questionable.
In fact I am questioning you now: Why did feel the need to bring these things up in this thread? Does the topic of racism make you feel attacked? Guilty? Insecure? Do you think that our history of racism should be addressed?
Comments
So I take it your final report on SS littledudism will be able to irrefutably prove your thesis?
I look forward to its publication.
It is currently undergoing peer review by a group of definitively big dudes who hang out at my barbershop and seem to have answers to all of life's questions.
what he said. I have heard genetists as well who study DNA, talk about how there is only one race as well, Homo Sapien Sapien.
Fascinating stuff.
I read somewhere that indigenous peoples - Oriental, African, Caucasion were defined 50,000 years ago. But we evolved from chimps 350,000 generations ago.
And that through gene analysis of the DNA mitochondria of Australian Aborigines, Danish housewives and Patagonian Indians, they found evidence that sugests that, every single person is descended from one African 'Eve'.
Et voil??...the thread is closed. It took 7 pages to reach the only sentence that matters. Thank you very much. That will makes me forget all the bullshit that was posted by some indigenous onboard. I was sea-sick when i read some replies. I'm glad to see that it was a minority and that the majority is making sense.
Im very interested in this for many different reasons. Cuz I always wondered.
I know im a lazy ass, but honestly I suck when it comes to using a search engine.
Or give e some keywords to look for. Thnx/
wow Faux mouths off on some shit about which he is totally ignorant.
if you had gone to Cal like me you would (a) realize that Stanfurd is about a bunch of bitches and (b) spell it "Stanfurd".
I've been reading up on Ottoman slavery. I thought my online searches would bring up mostly stormtrooper.com and other racist websites. What I found out is that there is a lot of new historical information on Ottoman slavery. Ottoman slavery was far more extensive than a lot of people previously were aware of, including myself.
Of course almost everything you said about it is absolutely wrong.
Slaves in the Roman Empire and Republic could buy their way out of slavery, they could marry out of slavery. Most slaves were household servants. There was not an industrial agricultural slavery system supported by race laws that made all people of one race and their descendants forever slaves. While slavery in Roman may have been 20% Slaves in antebellum South slaves out numbered freemen by large numbers. I'm not sure why you think the Roman model is worse.
It is true that Ottoman slaves who were selected for the job of guarding harems were castrated. Captured enemy were also often castrated and often enslaved. Americans were also cruel to their slaves, while the word castration will make you cross your legs, I'm not sure that it is "worse" than what American slaves endured.
As for sex slaves if is true that the Ottoman empire had sex slaves. This is very different from America where a woman who was raped all night by her slave owner was still expected to get up in the morning and pick cotton all day. I'm not sure why you think the Ottoman model is worse.
This line is untrue and idiotic "their entire army was made up of Christian-Born slaves from the Balkans". The Janissaries were an elite military force made up of people from the Balkans. They were not slaves. They were Ottoman citizens and the first army that was paid even during peace time.
Ottoman slaves were freed if they converted to Islam. If they did not convert they could practice Christianity. American slaves were forced to convert to Christianity and their religions were outlawed.
When the Ottoman's started taking European slaves most Europeans were surfs, little more than slaves. They were not freepeople they were subjects of a small noble cast who were under the rule of the Catholic Church.
Later Ottoman slaves were often forced into the Ottoman fleets, navy, merchant or pirate. This is the same method that European countries often used to man their fleets. Most sailors would fit the definition of slaves. Some pirates (those who sailed for no nation) were unique in that they shared all their booty
The American slave trade was unique for a number of reasons. The unbelievable cruel Atlantic crossing. Race laws. The huge number of slaves required for large scale cotton and other agriculture.
There simple is no way that "Pre-American Slavery was WORSE in many ways" as you claim.
[color:red] [/color]
For you to come into a thread on a great documentary on racism and then claim "In the last 10,000 years Caucasions have been submitted to all of the same atrocities that any other race has" is questionable. For you to then try to support that claim by saying that pre-American slavery was worse and supporting that claim with false "facts" is very questionable.
In fact I am questioning you now:
Why did feel the need to bring these things up in this thread?
Does the topic of racism make you feel attacked? Guilty? Insecure?
Do you think that our history of racism should be addressed?