Is Reverse Discrimination Justified in Today's Society?

[Carlos Hernandez]

Originally posted by Njorl
Yes, actually, much more racist. It is a site specifically designed to incite hatred toward blacks among whites. I did not see anything that base on the naacp or adl sites.

No, the naawp site is racist for promoting racial hatred, not for denouncing discrimination against whites.

Naacp says White people are hateful people who dislike Blacks, the ADL says White people are hateful people who dislike Jews. The Naawp says Blacks are hateful people who dislike Whites. So, what is the difference?

I couldn't say. It is mostly in Spanish, and I don't read it well..

It's all in English.

Carlos Hernandez

 

[Raven]

Originally posted by Carlos Hernandez
So you agree that all races are racist, not just Whites.

Carlos Hernandez

Being identified as a "racist" does not really have anything to do with one's own race (of course it is a factor but not a necessity). It is in the way that an individual perceives a race that matters.

In my opinion, if an individual perceives another race (even that of their own for this matter) as inferior to other races than that individual is a racist.

This may be a bold definition, but I am not one to forgive even the least subtlety of inferiority beliefs against others when it comes to racism. As I have mentioned before, I do not believe I am innocent of racist thoughts regardless of their subtleties, but I do strive to not only suppress these thoughts but eliminate them altogether. It is more important to understand the strenghts than weaknesses of our differences. It is only then that we will realize that everyone is similar in more ways than we expect, and that "race" in itself is just a term to clasify, categorize and segragate all humans.

If you like to think of it more scientifically, then maybe one should consider this fact. According to DNA structures, every human being is less then a tenth of a percent different from any other human on earth. In other words we are all 99.9% the same in structure regardless of sex or race. It is only in that tenth of a percent that we are different.

 

[Carlos Hernandez]

Originally posted by Raven
If you like to think of it more scientifically, then maybe one should consider this fact. According to DNA structures, every human being is less then a tenth of a percent different from any other human on earth. In other words we are all 99.9% the same in structure regardless of sex or race. It is only in that tenth of a percent that we are different.

From http://home.comcast.net/~neoeugenics/tab.htm

Diamond offered a more colorful version of an argument advanced in 1972 by Richard Lewontin, a Harvard University geneticist. Lewontin had become convinced that virtually all meaningful differences between races are either random or culturally determined. Based on his review of the available data, he concluded that only a tiny fraction of the differences between individuals could be considered "racial." In other words, Lewontin maintained that the differences that separate "races" are little more than what distinguishes two random fans at a World Cup match--statistically nothing, genetically speaking. The article, published in the prestigious journal Evolutionary Biology, amounted to a frontal attack on the concept of race.



For sure genetic differences between any two individuals are extremely small in percentage terms. Coming from a geneticist, rather than a sociologist or anthropologist, Lewontin's article had enormous influence, although not everyone was convinced. Lewontin's finding that on average humans share 99.8 percent of genetic material and that any two individuals are apt to share considerably more than 90 percent of this shared genetic library is on target. Interpreting that data is another issue, however. Lewontin's analysis suffers both scientifically and politically.



Although the politics of a scientist is not necessarily an issue in evaluating their work, in Lewontin's case it is crucial. According to his own account, his sensibilities were catalyzed by the civil rights movement of the 1960s. He made it very clear that his science was in part a mission to reaffirm our common humanity. To geneticists and biologists with less of an avowed agenda, Lewontin appeared to leaven his conclusion with his personal ideology.



From a scientific perspective, Lewontin and those that have relied on his work have reached beyond the data to some tenuous conclusions. In fact the percentage of differences is a far less important issue than which genes are different. Even minute differences in DNA can have profound effects on how an animal or human looks and acts while huge apparent variations between species may be almost insignificant in genetic terms. Consider the cichlid fish, which can be found in Africa's Lake Nyas. The cichlid, which has differentiated from one species to hundreds over a mere 11,500 years, "differ among themselves as much as do tigers and cows," Jared Diamond has noted. "Some graze on algae, others catch other fish, and still others variously crush snails, feed on plankton, catch insects, nibble the scales off other fish, or specialize in grabbing fish embryos from brooding mother fish." The kicker, these variations are the result of infinitesimal genetic differences--about 0.4 percent of their DNA studied.



In humans too, it is not the percentage of genes that is most critical, but whether and how the genes impact our physiology or behavior. Diamond mused that if an alien were to arrive on our planet and analyze our DNA, humans would appear, from a genetic perspective, as a third race of chimpanzees. Although it is believed they took a different evolutionary path from humans only five million years ago, chimps share fully 98.4 percent of our DNA. Just 50 out of 100,000 genes that humans and chimps are thought to possess--or a minuscule 0.3 percent--may account for all of the cognitive differences between man and ape. For that matter, dogs share about 95 percent of our genome; even the tiny roundworm, barely visible to the naked eye, share about 74 percent of its genes with humans.



Most mammalian genes, as much as 70 percent, are "junk" that have accumulated over the course of evolution with absolutely no remaining function; whether they are similar or different is meaningless. But the key 1.4 percent of regulatory genes can and do have a huge impact on all aspects of our humanity. In other words, small genetic differences do not automatically translate into trivial bodily or behavioral variations. The critical factor is not which genes are passed along but how they are patterned and what traits they influence.



Lewontin did collate genetic variability from known genetic markers and find that most of it lay within and not between human populations. Numerous scientists since have generalized those findings to the entire human genome, yet no such study has been done. Now it is believed that such an inference is dicey at best. The trouble with genetic markers is that they display "junk" variability that sends a signal that variability within populations exceeds variability between populations. However, the "junk" DNA that has not been weeded out by natural selection accounts for a larger proportion of within-population variability. Genetic makers may therefore be sending an exaggerated and maybe false signal. In contrast, the harder-to-study regulatory genes (that circumscribe our physical and athletic abilities) signal that between-group variability is far larger than has been believed. In other words, human populations are genetically more different than Lewontin and others who have relied on his work realize.

 

[Raven]

In response to Carlos Hernandez

That was quite a long post.

However, I do not think it's length is necessary to point out the difference that a tenth of a percent makes in our DNA structure. One only needs to take a look at another human being to appreciate the difference and what a wonderful and beautiful difference it is.

My point, however, is to concentrate on the huge amount of similarities we all have. For some reason this 99.9% similarity in our DNA structure seems undervalued, and the 0.1% difference explains all the differences we cannot seem to prove.

Genetic science may complete the human genome and learn all its aspects within our lifetime, but social science will continue to evade our true understanding of human behavior. There are reasons for why people (in general) act in different ways, and I do not believe the answers are within the human genome alone. Social structure, culture, religious beliefs, the media and governmental laws all have strong factors on how individuals act and how individuals react to each other. I truly believe that it is in the social sciences that the answers to the roots of racism exist. In my opinion genetic science only shows how much alike all human beings are, yet some racists might hold onto the minute difference the genome sciences shows as though it were a tool to prove some form of inferiority or superiority among the races.

When will we learn that "difference" does not equate to "inferiority" or "superiority"?

 

[Njorl]

Originally posted by Carlos Hernandez
So you agree that all races are racist, not just Whites.

Carlos Hernandez

Not at all. I agree that there are racists among all races. There is a big difference.

Njorl

 

[Njorl]

Originally posted by Carlos Hernandez


It's all in English.

Carlos Hernandez

This was the first thing I read on the site.


[q]
México en Síntesis
Es un servicio para las comunidades de mexicanos en el extranjero
EDITOR: Andrés Alejandres H. CONSEJO EDITORIAL: Bernardo Méndez Lugo, Araceli Martínez Ortega, Raúl Ross Pineda, Gerardo Albino González, Florencio I. Zaragoza, Carlos Villanueva, Marco A. Gil II, Juan Caceres
===================================================================
Feliz Navidad les desea México en Síntesis

www.mexicanosenelexterior.com

México, D. F., a 22 de diciembre 03
INTERNACIONAL










EMITE EU OTRA ALERTA TERRORISTA Washington . El gobierno estadounidense volvió a elevar ayer el nivel de alerta a "naranja", paso previo al nivel máximo, el "rojo", ante la creciente oleada de amenazas de los últimos días, anunció el secretario de Seguridad Nacional, Tom Ridge. "La información que tenemos indica que extremistas en el extranjero están anticipando ataques inminentes que, según ellos, serán equiparables o mayores a los que ocurrieron en Nueva York, el Pentágono y en los campos de Pennsylvania hace dos años", señaló el funcionario al anunciar la medida. El encargado de la seguridad interior estadounidense precisó que fuentes creíbles mencionaron la posibilidad de que se produzcan ataques alrededor de los días feriados de fin de año. (http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/pls/impreso/noticia.html?id_nota=30053&tabla=internacional ).

OPERATIVO CONTRA LA RESISTENCIA EN IRAK; MUERE UNA MUJER DE 60 AÑOS Tikrit, 21 de diciembre. Dos iraquíes, entre ellos una mujer de 60 años, murieron, y un hombre resultó herido el sábado pasado durante enfrentamientos en el noreste de Bagdad y en la frontera con Siria entre fuerzas estadunidenses y miembros de la resistencia, mientras varios oleoductos en Tikrit fueron incendiados en actos de sabotaje, al tiempo que el estado mayor de Estados Unidos informó que desde la captura de Saddam Hussein han sido arrestadas más de 200 personas, entre ellas algunos líderes guerrilleros. El sábado, durante un enfrentamiento entre 25 hombres armados y soldados estadunidenses al noreste de Bagdad, un iraquí murió y uno más resultó herido, informó este domingo una portavoz estadunidense, quien agregó que 36 personas fueron detenidas. (http://www.jornada.unam.mx/029n1mun.php?origen=mundo.php&fly=1 ).

[/q]

Damn, my English isn't as good as I thought it was.

Njorl

 

[Njorl]

Originally posted by Carlos Hernandez
Argumentum ad hominem. Please learn the rules of debating at http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html

Carlos Hernandez

I use the rules of rational debate with those who deserve such treatment. You do not. As John Cleese once said, "There are some people one should wish to offend." You have come to this forum spouting your racist garbage. You do it in a weaselly indirect manner so as to deflect direct refutation.

I don't know what your motivation is, or why you chose this site to "enlighten" us with your racist propaganda. I have neither the time nor will to argue every little point with you. You seem to have quite a bit of time on your hands, and nothing better to do with it than spread your racism.

You like psychoanalyzing posts, so I'll analyze you. You are of slightly better than average intelligence, but this has given you a feeling of entitlement. You feel you are better than others because of it. Combined with a dissolute character, and non-existant personal skills, you have found yourself a lonely failure in life, and built up a resentment of those around you. Rather than admit your failings, you have attributed them to a personal philosophy of detached analytical rationalism. You now express your deep seeded hatred of others as scientific racism. You divorce emotion from your rhetoric because it would be self defeating. Your painful isolation from society may have been severe enough that you are successfully self deluded, and actually believe the things you post. You appeal to the rules of rational debate to get others to give at least momentary credance to the philisophical basis of your hatred. I will not.

Njorl

 

[Carlos Hernandez]

Originally posted by Njorl
I use the rules of rational debate with those who deserve such treatment. You do not. As John Cleese once said, "There are some people one should wish to offend." You have come to this forum spouting your racist garbage. You do it in a weaselly indirect manner so as to deflect direct refutation.

I don't know what your motivation is, or why you chose this site to "enlighten" us with your racist propaganda. I have neither the time nor will to argue every little point with you. You seem to have quite a bit of time on your hands, and nothing better to do with it than spread your racism.

You like psychoanalyzing posts, so I'll analyze you. You are of slightly better than average intelligence, but this has given you a feeling of entitlement. You feel you are better than others because of it. Combined with a dissolute character, and non-existant personal skills, you have found yourself a lonely failure in life, and built up a resentment of those around you. Rather than admit your failings, you have attributed them to a personal philosophy of detached analytical rationalism. You now express your deep seeded hatred of others as scientific racism. You divorce emotion from your rhetoric because it would be self defeating. Your painful isolation from society may have been severe enough that you are successfully self deluded, and actually believe the things you post. You appeal to the rules of rational debate to get others to give at least momentary credance to the philisophical basis of your hatred. I will not.

Njorl

Argumentum ad hominem. Please learn the rules of debating at http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html

Regards,

Carlos Hernandez

 

[Zero]

Physics Forums is not a forum for racists, or for racist thought...this conversation is over.