White or wrong ?

Mark Aspam · Post by **Mark Aspam** » Sun Jun 21, 2015 7:45 pm

Anybody remember Johnny Otis (Ioannis Veliotes, 1921 – 2012) ?

According to his Wikipedia bio: He grew up in a predominantly black neighborhood in Berkeley, California, where his father owned a neighborhood grocery store. Otis became well known for his choice to live his professional and personal life as a member of the African-American community. He wrote, "As a kid I decided that if our society dictated that one had to be black or white, I would be black."

It seems to me that the lady in question made a similar choice. Sadly, she was not as successful as Mr. Veliotes. Whether she can do the Hand Jive is not known.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Jun 22, 2015 12:44 am

FourPart;1481067 wrote: Perhaps one's male, the other's female (I say 'perhaps' as you can't take anything as read these days).If we use genetic differences to define any relationship as mixed then every relationship is a "mixed" relationship, and as more members are added to a family the more mixed it becomes simply because everyone is genetically unique, including identical twins. Focusing on the genetic difference of skin color and dividing us into separate groups based on skin pigmentation is just crazy when you think about it. Though I confess that I didn't always see it that way; I also bought into the race myth.

So racism only hurts when one sees validity in the notion of race. OTOH, if individuals are helped to understand that there really is no validity in race then racism becomes a moot point and it then doesn't hurt anyone. Instead we hear racist insults and shake our heads and understand that the racist person is just uneducated. What the racist person begins to see is more and more people shaking their heads at the ridiculous insults they spew. Eventually some will get it and in other cases the racism will need to die with them. As racism slowly dissipates less people will chose to reproduce with racist individuals and the meme will eventually fade as well. In the mean time, however, instead of feeding into the frenzy of racial discussions on the grounds of validating the notion of race, I think it's a much better idea to begin to change the dialogue in order to introduce the fact that race is a myth. And what better way to do that is there other than what we now know about genetics.

Accusing people with different skin color of being so different that they deserve a separate category is similar to accusing people who are attracted to same sex partners of being immoral or sinners. That doesn't fly that much any longer, and such is the fate of the notion of race.

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Mon Jun 22, 2015 1:47 am

Ahso!;1481062 wrote: What's "mixed" about your marriage?

You talk about ignorance, yet you question the expression mixed marriage? It means a marriage of different "colours or cultures, as you should know, or are you being deliberately provocative, or a PC "dead-head"? How else should you say it without unnecessary preamble?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Jun 22, 2015 2:02 am

Smaug;1481081 wrote: You talk about ignorance, yet you question the expression mixed marriage? It means a marriage of different "colours or cultures, as you should know, or are you being deliberately provocative, or a PC "dead-head"? How else should you say it without unnecessary preamble?

Well then pick one, is it color or culture? Thanks for validating the question. And no, you got it wrong, what my intent was was to point out that if color was the qualifier for "mixed" I was going to point out that there are actually many genetic differences between Bruv and his partner besides skin color that could also qualify as "mixed" My point being that race is a myth.

But then I recalled that Bruv chose not to engage in any definitions of what race is saying it was unimportant, thus my follow up post.

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Mon Jun 22, 2015 2:17 am

Ahso!;1481085 wrote: Well then pick one, is it color or culture? Thanks for validating the question. And no, you got it wrong, what my intent was was to point out that if color was the qualifier for "mixed" I was going to point out that there are actually many genetic differences between Bruv and his partner besides skin color that could also qualify as "mixed" My point being that race is a myth.

But then I recalled that Bruv chose not to engage in any definitions of what race is saying it was unimportant, thus my follow up post.

As you say, there are many different genotypes of humans (5 main ones, I believe). Apparently, there used to be about 20 or so, until Mt Toba erupted in our early history, and reduced the world's population to around 20 thousand world-wide. So defining something by "race" is not inappropriate at all. Why is everyone so sensitive on this issue? Pedantic or PC? Or just "picky"? When PC is in, common sense is out, or so they say!

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Jun 22, 2015 2:26 am

Smaug;1481089 wrote: As you say, there are many different genotypes of humans (5 main ones, I believe). Apparently, there used to be about 20 or so, until Mt Toba erupted in our early history, and reduced the world's population to around 20 thousand world-wide. So defining something by "race" is not inappropriate at all. Why is everyone so sensitive on this issue? Pedantic or PC? Or just "picky"? When PC is in, common sense is out, or so they say!If you stand in the middle of a crowd and glance around, you'll find that no matter how many people you see, no two of them are exactly alike. There are two reasons why we're all so different. All of us have inherited different genes, and all of us have been exposed to different environments. Geneticists describe how these two influences affect who we become in terms of our genotype and phenotype.Do All Humans Have a Unique Genotype & Phenotype? | The Classroom | Synonym

The entire article is short but informative.

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Mon Jun 22, 2015 2:36 am

Ahso!;1481091 wrote: Do All Humans Have a Unique Genotype & Phenotype? | The Classroom | Synonym

The entire article is short but informative.

And if you throw this into the mix also, we see how challenging it would be to re-create the "original"...

Scientists discover some DNA is NOT from our ancestors | Daily Mail Online

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Mon Jun 22, 2015 6:29 am

Ahso!;1481063 wrote: Never mind, forget I asked. Let's not waste each other's time any longer.

Are you still waffling on ?

Anyway........................I have noted in the past how apparently intelligent, and on the face of it, educated people can easily get bogged down in 'logic'.

As a 'for instance'......obvious logic says man cannot walk barefoot on glowing embers, fakirs do it all the time. The same logic applies to bumblebee flight I understand, but bumblebees are too stupid to read or understand the bleeding logic involved, so fly regularly.......I know that for a fact having seen them.

Regardless of scientific proof denying racial differences, I know for a fact, some people don't like blacks, and yet another fact, some blacks are......uneasy......around whites,leading to many misunderstandings in day to day living, causing riots and shootings.......no logic involved.

My 'mixed' marriage involves, different sexes, languages, cultures, weights,cooking skills and skin tone.

As an extra bonus, my black African Shona female wife of fifteen years, when advising her black African born grandchildren about who they should marry, strongly suggests it better to stick to a black spouse.......obviously hasn't read the right books?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Jun 22, 2015 7:05 am

my black African Shona female wife of fifteen years, when advising her black African born grandchildren about who they should marry, strongly suggests it better to stick to a black spouse.......obviously hasn't read the right books? Environmental pressures affect the selection process. In this case you're partner is advising her relatives based on these societal pressures. There's no right or wrong to this in the generic sense, but it's how the selection process of Evolution works.

Do you always assume that any post in threads that you create are responses to you? When I quote another poster it is often to respond to something they posted directly, however, more often than not, I quote text because the text provoked the thought that my post expresses.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Mon Jun 22, 2015 9:05 am

Ahso!;1481111 wrote: Environmental pressures affect the selection process. In this case you're partner is advising her relatives based on these societal pressures. There's no right or wrong to this in the generic sense but it's how the selection process of Evolution works.

Thanks for giving such a full and clear explanation.

It is obvious now after your opening my eyes that my naive protests are misguided.

You clearly have a greater insight into the women I have shared my life with for 15 plus years than I could have imagined.

Do you always assume that any post in threads that you create are responses to you? When I quote another poster it is often to respond to something they posted directly, however, more often than not, I quote text because the text provoked the thought that my post expresses.

Not normally no, only when my post is included in the reply.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Jun 22, 2015 9:17 am

My post was more about selection than it was about your partner. I don't know her at all personally, however, I do understand a little about the forces that drive us.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Mon Jun 22, 2015 3:47 pm

FourPart;1481034 wrote: Once again this is a demonstration of the bastardisation of the English language through the excessive regime of PC. Mullatto is a perfectly valid word for someone of mixed racial parentage. It is only because of the way it began to be used in a derogatory way that it slipped from common usage.

mulatto

[muh-lat-oh, -lah-toh, myoo-]

Word Origin

noun, plural mulattoes, mulattos.

1.

Anthropology. (not in technical use) the offspring of one white parent and one black parent.

2.

Older Use: Often Offensive. a person who has both black and white ancestors.

adjective

3.

of a light-brown color.

(Source Dictionary.com)

Only #2 implies that it has been used offensively, but that doesn't mean the word itself is offensive.

I grew up knowing the deinition of mulatto.

Also grew up knowing the proper way to refer to a person of African decent was

As a *****

So now we censor the words of Martin Luther King Jr.

It is precisely because education is the road to equality and citizenship, that it has been made more elusive for *****es than many other rights. The walling off of *****es from equal education is part of the historical design to submerge him in second class status. Therefore, as *****es have struggles to be free they have had to fight for the opportunity for a decent education.

--Martin Luther King, Jr., 14th March 1964

No longer in fashon, or wHat?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Jun 22, 2015 11:04 pm

tude dog;1481124 wrote: I grew up knowing the deinition of mulatto.

Also grew up knowing the proper way to refer to a person of African decent was

As a *****

So now we censor the words of Martin Luther King Jr.

It is precisely because education is the road to equality and citizenship, that it has been made more elusive for *****es than many other rights. The walling off of *****es from equal education is part of the historical design to submerge him in second class status. Therefore, as *****es have struggles to be free they have had to fight for the opportunity for a decent education.

--Martin Luther King, Jr., 14th March 1964

No longer in fashon, or wHat?You think that with all that's been learned and understood since 1964; that information that King, as well as your elders, was not exposed to, that this is still "the proper" way to refer to individuals with darker skin than yours? You do understand, do you not, that your ancestors came from the same place King's did, only in the more distant past?

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Tue Jun 23, 2015 11:33 am

Words, themselves, are not offensive. It is how they are used - or more to the point, how they are abused. A fairly recent bastardisation is that of the term "Spastic", and the way in which they even ended up having to change the name of "The Spastics' Society" to "Scope" because of it. There is nothing wrong with the term "Spastic". It is a perfectly legitimate medical term for the condition, yet its misuse resulted in it becoming a term of abuse. Another is the term "***", if that's not been censored. It was originally either an acronym for "Worthy Oriental Gentleman" or "Westernised Oriental Gentleman" - both terms of respect. However, its latter misuse turns it around to be one of offence. It doesn't matter what PC term you come up with - it's human nature to turn it around & result in making it the new offensive.

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:52 am

Ahso!;1481127 wrote: You think that with all that's been learned and understood since 1964; that information that King, as well as your elders, was not exposed to, that this is still "the proper" way to refer to individuals with darker skin than yours? You do understand, do you not, that your ancestors came from the same place King's did, only in the more distant past?

If the archaeologists are correct, then "mankind" started in Africa.

If.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Jun 24, 2015 12:12 pm

Smaug;1481213 wrote: If the archaeologists are correct, then "mankind" started in Africa.

If.You mean the accumulation of evidence uncovered, studied and tested by archaeologists, paleontologists, biologists, geneticists, and mtDNA experts? But, you're right that's it's just a theory, you know, like the theory of gravity.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Wed Jun 24, 2015 12:30 pm

Ahso!;1481220 wrote: You mean the accumulation of evidence uncovered, studied and tested by archaeologists, paleontologists, biologists, geneticists, and mtDNA experts? But, you're right that's it's just a theory, you know, like the theory of gravity.
Except that the word "Theory", when used in the Scientific sense has a different meaning to the others (of which there are many). A far cry from #7.

1.

a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena:

Einstein's theory of relativity.

Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.

2.

a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate.

Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation.

3.

Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject:

number theory.

4.

the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice:

music theory.

5.

a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles:

conflicting theories of how children best learn to read.

6.

contemplation or speculation:

the theory that there is life on other planets.

7.

guess or conjecture:

My theory is that he never stops to think words have consequences.

(Dictionary.com | Find the Meanings and Definitions of Words at Dictionary.com)

along-for-the-ride · Post by **along-for-the-ride** » Wed Jun 24, 2015 4:20 pm

An interesting story about another lady:

https://gma.yahoo.com/adopted-woman-rai ... nting.html

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Thu Jun 25, 2015 5:48 am

Ahso!;1481220 wrote: You mean the accumulation of evidence uncovered, studied and tested by archaeologists, paleontologists, biologists, geneticists, and mtDNA experts? But, you're right that's it's just a theory, you know, like the theory of gravity.

The assumption has been thus for a while. I would be interested to see if there was another "cradle of humanity". Steady on, I might have to do some research here, rather than relying on my memory, and accumulated knowledge...:wah:

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Thu Jun 25, 2015 6:33 am

along-for-the-ride;1481260 wrote: An interesting story about another lady:

https://gma.yahoo.com/adopted-woman-rai ... nting.html

This is a border line story, that shows that classification of colour can be random.

Apartheid South Africa could classify members of the same family differently, so by Law they couldn't live as relatives.

A darker skinned person living in and being raised by a black family would behave a black. The same person raised by a white family might get a complex about their skin tone but would probably get to laugh it off with their white mates.

I believe that lack of ambition where black kids fail at school, get into street crime, hip hop, jive talk, drugs, in fact all the stereotypical 'black thangs' are due to nurture, including societies reaction to, and the kids perceived/learned reaction to living in a predominantly white society and the incessant negatives they endure daily.

There are exceptions to prove this can be overcome.

Lee Jasper a UK Black activist could, without his strident blackness, pass as white if re-classified........he might not accept it of course.