Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

Can interracial include blondes with redheads? Options · View
Dani
Posted: Saturday, May 31, 2014 3:26:02 PM

Rank: Big-Haired Bitch
Moderator

Joined: 12/25/2010
Posts: 7,178
Location: Under Your Bed, United States
DanielleX wrote:
That's just the thing, nothing is.


This isn't true. There are certain physical traits that are unique to just these groups, which is what is used to define these particular groups.

Things like hair texture, facial features (slanted eyes for example), and skin tones (although shades do vary), etc.

P.S. Sorry about fudging up your other post Danny. I hit edit instead of quote and it came out as if you said it. But my timeline had everything you said originally, so I fixed it.



DanielleX
Posted: Saturday, May 31, 2014 3:39:53 PM

Rank: Blonde Bombshell
Moderator

Joined: 11/6/2011
Posts: 3,805
Location: Liverpool, United Kingdom
Dani wrote:


This isn't true. There are certain physical traits that are unique to just these groups, which is what is used to define these particular groups.

Things like hair texture, facial features (slanted eyes, for example, and skin tones (although shades do vary).


Okay, well I have to disagree. There are incontrovertible scientific studies that have shown it to be the case. If I can find the peer reviewed resource with it in, I'll post it.

It was thought a long time ago that there were groups - 'races' which showed unique features, which is why they were classified as races. An eminent physiologist called Johannes Friedrich Blumenbach who studied people's skulls in the 18th Century, eventually determined that that the perceived races didn't follow consistent, diagnosable characteristics, as would be required to make them a race as understood, scientifically.

More recent studies of the human genome project entirely support that view. I just can't put my hands on the literature.



Danny x



The first part of my hot new story is up! Click the photo to read




LadyX
Posted: Saturday, May 31, 2014 5:38:02 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart
Moderator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,804
But I think regardless of the parsings of science one way or the other, we do see each other differently. We notice and experience the differences with regard to race far differently than merely different shades of hair. The "why" of that has much to do with differences of history and culture, and of course generalizations are made, just as with any scenario broader than the individual person.

So if your agenda is to make us all see each other as part of one big group instead of separated into many, then I think the intentions are admirable. But the reality is that different ethnicities do, by and large, view and experience the world differently. Our working assumptions, inherent values, and points of view tend to differ (again, in generalizations, exceptions abound). We don't all share a life experience and we have very real differences. It doesn't have to be a bad thing, either. In fact, I find the idea of "one world, one race, one universal existence" nightmarishly dull.

It could be that I'm way off base; maybe you're not attempting to prove a point about what you feel to be arbitrary designations regarding race, and truly wonder why hair color and skin color don't carry the same weight in terms of classifying different people. If so, then imagine the difference between being the only white person in a town of black skinned people, and being the only brunette in a town full of blondes. Inevitably, the former will be a much more intense experience than the latter. It's how we're built as a species. Skin trumps hair, and the skin comes with it's own history and baggage, for better and worse.
Dani
Posted: Saturday, May 31, 2014 7:26:23 PM

Rank: Big-Haired Bitch
Moderator

Joined: 12/25/2010
Posts: 7,178
Location: Under Your Bed, United States
LadyX wrote:
But I think regardless of the parsings of science one way or the other, we do see each other differently. We notice and experience the differences with regard to race far differently than merely different shades of hair. The "why" of that has much to do with differences of history and culture, and of course generalizations are made, just as with any scenario broader than the individual person.

So if your agenda is to make us all see each other as part of one big group instead of separated into many, then I think the intentions are admirable. But the reality is that different ethnicities do, by and large, view and experience the world differently. Our working assumptions, inherent values, and points of view tend to differ (again, in generalizations, exceptions abound). We don't all share a life experience and we have very real differences. It doesn't have to be a bad thing, either. In fact, I find the idea of "one world, one race, one universal existence" nightmarishly dull.

It could be that I'm way off base; maybe you're not attempting to prove a point about what you feel to be arbitrary designations regarding race, and truly wonder why hair color and skin color don't carry the same weight in terms of classifying different people. If so, then imagine the difference between being the only white person in a town of black skinned people, and being the only brunette in a town full of blondes. Inevitably, the former will be a much more intense experience than the latter. It's how we're built as a species. Skin trumps hair, and the skin comes with it's own history and baggage, for better and worse.


This.



DanielleX
Posted: Sunday, June 1, 2014 12:56:47 AM

Rank: Blonde Bombshell
Moderator

Joined: 11/6/2011
Posts: 3,805
Location: Liverpool, United Kingdom
LadyX wrote:
But I think regardless of the parsings of science one way or the other, we do see each other differently. We notice and experience the differences with regard to race far differently than merely different shades of hair. The "why" of that has much to do with differences of history and culture, and of course generalizations are made, just as with any scenario broader than the individual person.

So if your agenda is to make us all see each other as part of one big group instead of separated into many, then I think the intentions are admirable. But the reality is that different ethnicities do, by and large, view and experience the world differently. Our working assumptions, inherent values, and points of view tend to differ (again, in generalizations, exceptions abound). We don't all share a life experience and we have very real differences. It doesn't have to be a bad thing, either. In fact, I find the idea of "one world, one race, one universal existence" nightmarishly dull.

It could be that I'm way off base; maybe you're not attempting to prove a point about what you feel to be arbitrary designations regarding race, and truly wonder why hair color and skin color don't carry the same weight in terms of classifying different people. If so, then imagine the difference between being the only white person in a town of black skinned people, and being the only brunette in a town full of blondes. Inevitably, the former will be a much more intense experience than the latter. It's how we're built as a species. Skin trumps hair, and the skin comes with it's own history and baggage, for better and worse.


I agree with a lot of what you put, LadyX. Firstly, I don't have an agenda. I chose not to ignore the science, which says that we are really one group rather than a mixture of groups or races.

We have to ask, why do we see other differently? Well people look different, superficially, so it would be silly to suggest that we are all exactly the same. I'm not saying that. The notion of race, like culture does have a historical background. It's not my intention to devalue the sense of belonging or identity that people have to one group or another. I'm not trying to re-write history or make people be something they don't want to be. I just want equality for everyone. While people are artificially categorized, that's not happening.

Being one race, doesn't make us dull. That's just a fact. It's how we interpret that.

For me, the word race seems to be very divisive and the root of a lot of prejudice. It's hammered out every day one way or another. I don't want to be categorized.

Your analogy of the brunette among a town of blondes is interesting. I wonder.

So, to go back to my original question. Why if skin tone is a factor that designates the notion of race, why can't it be that hair colour is an equally valid factor?

As you say, 'skin trumps hair.' That's kind of sad, but I guess from a historical, social and cultural perspective, that's the deal.

The first part of my hot new story is up! Click the photo to read




CleverFox
Posted: Sunday, June 1, 2014 1:27:46 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/25/2012
Posts: 483
Location: United States
CleverFox wrote:
As a Ginger I am not sure if I should stand and applaud the question or be deeply offended. Eh?


I think that I am starting to feel that I should stand and applaud. sunny

I think that DanielleX had hit the nail on the head.
LadyX
Posted: Sunday, June 1, 2014 8:37:36 AM

Rank: Artistic Tart
Moderator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,804
DanielleX wrote:


I agree with a lot of what you put, LadyX. Firstly, I don't have an agenda. I chose not to ignore the science, which says that we are really one group rather than a mixture of groups or races.

We have to ask, why do we see other differently? Well people look different, superficially, so it would be silly to suggest that we are all exactly the same. I'm not saying that. The notion of race, like culture does have a historical background. It's not my intention to devalue the sense of belonging or identity that people have to one group or another. I'm not trying to re-write history or make people be something they don't want to be. I just want equality for everyone. While people are artificially categorized, that's not happening.

Being one race, doesn't make us dull. That's just a fact. It's how we interpret that.

For me, the word race seems to be very divisive and the root of a lot of prejudice. It's hammered out every day one way or another. I don't want to be categorized.

Your analogy of the brunette among a town of blondes is interesting. I wonder.

So, to go back to my original question. Why if skin tone is a factor that designates the notion of race, why can't it be that hair colour is an equally valid factor?

As you say, 'skin trumps hair.' That's kind of sad, but I guess from a historical, social and cultural perspective, that's the deal.


So is it fair to say that your only hang-up is with the use of the word 'race' in order to differentiate groups of people?

I think it's mainly a matter of semantics; nobody can deny that the combination of skin/physical traits and culture does separate and categorize us to some extent. Whether we call that 'race' or not is obviously a matter of personal choice and opinion.

Your point about aiming to make us all see and treat each other as equals is an important one. The good news is, if you look at the history of human civilization, we're clearly trending toward that. At no point in history have so many people of all ethnicities, genders, and orientations enjoyed equal legal and social status. Equality and progressive thought always wins in the end.

That said, (and not necessarily referring to you with this, but) there's something about the campaign for blended culture that rubs many (including me) the wrong way. A statement like "there's only one race: the human race", so often thrown out reflexively whenever the subject of race is brought up, feels like not only a blanket dismissal of the real differences among people but also strident political correctness in action. If we want to do away with the 'race' buzzword that's fine I suppose, but let's not kid ourselves by assuming that we all share a singular experience here on earth, or that the sum of our defining physical traits- such as skin color, hair texture, eye/nose/lips shape, and identification with all who share those- could be substituted with hair color for the same effect. The other component to this has to do with the fact that the suggestion is often made toward people whose ancestry is traditionally subjugated people. And now that nominal, legal equality has been established, we’re supposed to surrender our unique sets of heritage for the sake of “one race: the human race”? No thanks. I realize you’re not suggesting any such thing, but all the same, it needs to be said, since the fallacy that I’m addressing (one race, human race, we’re all the same inside) is expressed so often, as if it’s the only acceptable point of view.

You mentioned that you'd rather see the classification of 'culture' rather than 'race'. The only issue I have with that is that there is an undeniable physical trait component to that. It's not just the physical aspect of course (unless we’re talking about the ‘interracial’ category of porn and erotica, in which case it’s almost 100% physical), but being Han Chinese is always going to be, and appear, very and rightfully different from being Scandinavian. Being a white person raised in Japan by ethnic Japanese parents is far different from being ethnic Japanese raised in Japan by the same parents. My experience as a half-Asian half-Black is quite different from those of different ancestry. These differences should be recognized and celebrated rather than marginalized.

Maybe ethnicity is a more palatable term for some than race.

DanielleX
Posted: Sunday, June 1, 2014 11:04:00 AM

Rank: Blonde Bombshell
Moderator

Joined: 11/6/2011
Posts: 3,805
Location: Liverpool, United Kingdom
LadyX wrote:


So is it fair to say that your only hang-up is with the use of the word 'race' in order to differentiate groups of people?

I think it's mainly a matter of semantics; nobody can deny that the combination of skin/physical traits and culture does separate and categorize us to some extent. Whether we call that 'race' or not is obviously a matter of personal choice and opinion...

That said, (and not necessarily referring to you with this, but) there's something about the campaign for blended culture that rubs many (including me) the wrong way. A statement like "there's only one race: the human race", so often thrown out reflexively whenever the subject of race is brought up, feels like not only a blanket dismissal of the real differences among people but also strident political correctness in action...

Maybe ethnicity is a more palatable term for some than race.



I would say that the term 'race' is what I object to the most. It suggests that peoples are more different from one another than they are. I don't actually believe that it is a semantic issue. The problem is that nearly everyone misunderstands what race means.

At the risk of repeating myself, I think that the language, culture, traditions, music and cuisine of different geographical areas is a wonderful thing. The differences are to be celebrated, shared and enjoyed. I love the Caribbean and its food and music. However, I never got the impression that people there were particularly that different from me. My friend Aisha is from Baluchistan and she's just like me, except she's a bit darker skinned with black hair and hazel blue eyes.

I'm not advocating a one world melange that turns a blind eye to diversity. One race - the human race, is strictly correct from a scientific point of view, but I am definitely not attempting to define or advocate a homogenized 'world race.'

Ethnicity is not a bad word. I don't think it has the same power as race and covers a much larger set of groups, which more nearly describes how the human race is made up.

Just one point, which I find interesting. If you were to line up, all the women in the world, with say a South American Indian at one end and worked up and down and round until you reached an East African in Somalia, then the two women at each ends of the line would look completely different. But if I said, "okay go and find the different 'races' along the line," you never would. Wherever you divided the line, each girl would look almost exactly alike. It's only when we view people in isolation that we 'see' race.

I think this is a really interesting debate. Hope you don't think I'm politically correct, cos I promise, I'm not.

Danny xxx

The first part of my hot new story is up! Click the photo to read




Magical_felix
Posted: Sunday, June 1, 2014 11:34:02 AM

Rank: Wild at Heart

Joined: 4/3/2010
Posts: 7,628
Location: California
Yes because when you mix a blonde with a redhead you get a strawberry blonde proving they were different races from the start.

Science bitch.

She
Posted: Sunday, June 1, 2014 1:47:01 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 3/24/2010
Posts: 2,628
Maybe I am alone in this, but I see no problem with term race. Personally I think the difference between people are beautiful. It says who we are, where we come from, who are our ancestors and tons about DNA history.
Perhaps I am going to be a bit to honest but the problem is how people emotionally react to the word because of the slavery.
As I see it, luckily it is behind us, we have other battles to fight and in few thousands years people are going to be all mixed and there would be no race at all. I wonder how people will look like, if they will survive on this planet.
DanielleX
Posted: Monday, June 2, 2014 1:25:36 AM

Rank: Blonde Bombshell
Moderator

Joined: 11/6/2011
Posts: 3,805
Location: Liverpool, United Kingdom
She wrote:
Maybe I am alone in this, but I see no problem with term race. Personally I think the difference between people are beautiful. It says who we are, where we come from, who are our ancestors and tons about DNA history.
Perhaps I am going to be a bit to honest but the problem is how people emotionally react to the word because of the slavery.
As I see it, luckily it is behind us, we have other battles to fight and in few thousands years people are going to be all mixed and there would be no race at all. I wonder how people will look like, if they will survive on this planet.


DNA, that is to say, mitochondrial DNA, which we inherit from our mother does tell us a lot about our origins. But, if you want to pursue the notion of race, it would take you in completely the opposite direction.

I don't react to the word emotionally, although I can't speak for everyone. I'm not sure about slavery and race. Slavery was an example of man's inhumanity to man and a regrettable illustration of our brutal, uncivilised history.



The first part of my hot new story is up! Click the photo to read




hayley
Posted: Monday, June 2, 2014 2:13:51 AM

Rank: Mad Hatter

Joined: 11/19/2012
Posts: 4,605
Location: NYC, United States
angel7 hello1
CleverFox wrote:
As a Ginger I am not sure if I should stand and applaud the question or be deeply offended. Eh?


Applaud.. :D... and loudly hello1 hello1 hello1

angel7



hayley
Posted: Monday, June 2, 2014 2:20:32 AM

Rank: Mad Hatter

Joined: 11/19/2012
Posts: 4,605
Location: NYC, United States
DanielleX wrote:
If not, why not?

Danielle


It doesn't ????????? crybaby crybaby

I adore redheads Embarassed Embarassed Embarassed .. I always give them 50 yards start then RACE after them....
oh yes I can run Embarassed Shhh

If they r not intoracial starts, I suppose I could walk after them dontknow
giggles... I walk quickly too Embarassed Shhh Shhh

angel7

She
Posted: Monday, June 2, 2014 4:41:57 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 3/24/2010
Posts: 2,628
DanielleX wrote:


DNA, that is to say, mitochondrial DNA, which we inherit from our mother does tell us a lot about our origins. But, if you want to pursue the notion of race, it would take you in completely the opposite direction.

I am not sure about completely the opposite direction, but mtDNA is going to tell us, where our ancestors are coming from, it is telling us about our heritages. Obviously I am not from the field, would you mind explain that a bit more.

DanielleX wrote:
I don't react to the word emotionally, although I can't speak for everyone. I'm not sure about slavery and race. Slavery was an example of man's inhumanity to man and a regrettable illustration of our brutal, uncivilised history.



In one of your previous posts you said that you prefer ethnicity word over race. They are two different words with different meanings. First one is telling us where we live the other one is telling us how we look like, in simple language; right?

I am one of the people who do react emotionally to the world, although I use my common sense. I mentioned slavery because some people (and I am really generalizing this) still have complex of lower race because of it.
Guest
Posted: Monday, June 2, 2014 6:02:32 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 779,301
DanielleX wrote:



I don't know how you define race, Milik. Why can't hair colour be a racial trait?


For the same reason Nail Varnish color isn't. IE, you can alter it. You can't alter a racial trait. (Ask Michael Jackson...) A blonde/red-head story CAN be Interracial IF one of the partners are of a different RACE.

Racial Types are COMMONLY and (not withstanding anomalies, for example Albinism or Dwarfism is NOT a racial type) defined as: Caucasian, Negroid, Oriental, Asian, Arab, Semitic, Aboriginal. (MANY sub-classes exist, ie, Mongol, Slav, Nordic, Polynesian etc...)

But not Ginger.

xx Steph
DanielleX
Posted: Monday, June 2, 2014 6:06:57 AM

Rank: Blonde Bombshell
Moderator

Joined: 11/6/2011
Posts: 3,805
Location: Liverpool, United Kingdom
She wrote:
I am not sure about completely the opposite direction, but mtDNA is going to tell us, where our ancestors are coming from, it is telling us about our heritages. Obviously I am not from the field, would you mind explain that a bit more.


So if you take African Americans as an example. Some people would say they belong to a race, which is different from Europeans. I would dispute that, but never mind.

Anyway, examining their DNA would show that approximately 75% of African Americans have at least one European ancestor. Indeed 25% have more European ancestors than African ones. This fact was established by extensive genealogical referencing by the Church of the Latter Day Saints. More recent DNA sampling has confirmed it.

So, using DNA as a measure, is not a good one if you want to make a case for race.


She wrote:

In one of your previous posts you said that you prefer ethnicity word over race. They are two different words with different meanings. First one is telling us where we live the other one is telling us how we look like, in simple language; right?


Yes, they are quite different. My point was, that ethnicity is more of a valid way of describing the differences between groups of people than race.

I don't think slavery is helpful in this debate. I'm not sure where it comes into it, because the people who started slavery were from a society that didn't accept that Africans were fully human, so I'm not sure how the whole slavery thing progresses the argument, one way or the other. We can all agree I hope that slavery was shameful and abhorrent. Even the legacy of slavery and the way black people have been treated in USA and elsewhere disgusts me to the core.

The first part of my hot new story is up! Click the photo to read




Guest
Posted: Monday, June 2, 2014 6:18:00 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 779,301


"Anyway, examining their DNA would show that approximately 75% of African Americans have at least one European ancestor. Indeed 25% have more European ancestors than African ones. This fact was established by extensive genealogical referencing by the Church of the Latter Day Saints. More recent DNA sampling has confirmed it."

And THIS is where I bow out...

(There is a REASON for that, and it isn't a pretty one... You'll find the same ISN'T true of most Continental Negroid Africans, or indeed most Chinese or indeed Amazonian Indians...)

xx Steph


DanielleX
Posted: Monday, June 2, 2014 6:29:17 AM

Rank: Blonde Bombshell
Moderator

Joined: 11/6/2011
Posts: 3,805
Location: Liverpool, United Kingdom
stephanie wrote:


"Anyway, examining their DNA would show that approximately 75% of African Americans have at least one European ancestor. Indeed 25% have more European ancestors than African ones. This fact was established by extensive genealogical referencing by the Church of the Latter Day Saints. More recent DNA sampling has confirmed it."

And THIS is where I bow out...

(There is a REASON for that, and it isn't a pretty one... You'll find the same ISN'T true of most Continental Negroid Africans, or indeed most Chinese or indeed Amazonian Indians...)

xx Steph




Not in those precise mixtures, obviously. but you find lots of anomalous DNA admixture.

It's interesting that you should use Continental Africa as an example. It's in that area where there is the biggest variation in DNA.

The first part of my hot new story is up! Click the photo to read




DanielleX
Posted: Monday, June 2, 2014 6:38:35 AM

Rank: Blonde Bombshell
Moderator

Joined: 11/6/2011
Posts: 3,805
Location: Liverpool, United Kingdom
stephanie wrote:


For the same reason Nail Varnish color isn't. IE, you can alter it. You can't alter a racial trait. (Ask Michael Jackson...) A blonde/red-head story CAN be Interracial IF one of the partners are of a different RACE.

Racial Types are COMMONLY and (not withstanding anomalies, for example Albinism or Dwarfism is NOT a racial type) defined as: Caucasian, Negroid, Oriental, Asian, Arab, Semitic, Aboriginal. (MANY sub-classes exist, ie, Mongol, Slav, Nordic, Polynesian etc...)

But not Ginger.

xx Steph


Semitic is a linguistic category

The first part of my hot new story is up! Click the photo to read




Mazza
Posted: Monday, June 2, 2014 6:49:27 AM

Rank: Mazztastic

Joined: 9/20/2012
Posts: 3,348
Location: Scotland, United Kingdom
1LovelyKinkyKitsune wrote:



Technically it depends on the "race" to make it "inter-racial"... and the ancestry-lines, not looks or hair colour. If someone British with blonde hair had a sexual relationship with someone Scottish with red hair, I believe that would be "inter-ETHNIC", so I am told and anything similar (just as Chinese with someone Japanese). This is because roots are more closely related from the same early tribes of people.

Now Hispanic and "white" -even if they are from the same country, that is "inter-racial" and let's say hair colour is both black.

Hair colour is a genetic trait that pops up and differs, and sometimes is dormant or more dominate... but if it is in the ancerstry it can resurface. We are not talking about dyed hair colour. Hair colour is irrelevent. It is the genetic code of ancestry behind it.

I think as we become more mixed and we already have races who are mixed European, etc... it will be more and more difficult to define. Hair colour is changing and so will many things. It will factor in and blur lines.

I think people have already answered you to the best of our abilities. If you do not understand DNA and how this works and wish to not take our word for it: Research, Google and go to medical and science sources of definitions. I wish that race was not of speculative personal importance- valued, but not an issue in the world (and that for positive reasons).

Sorry, I am not a scientist or biology or geneology major, and that is just my understanding of what I have learned.


Scottish people ARE British (for now at least)

Nothing to see here...
She
Posted: Monday, June 2, 2014 6:51:58 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 3/24/2010
Posts: 2,628
DanielleX wrote:
So if you take African Americans as an example. Some people would say they belong to a race, which is different from Europeans. I would dispute that, but never mind.

Anyway, examining their DNA would show that approximately 75% of African Americans have at least one European ancestor. Indeed 25% have more European ancestors than African ones. This fact was established by extensive genealogical referencing by the Church of the Latter Day Saints. More recent DNA sampling has confirmed it.

So, using DNA as a measure, is not a good one if you want to make a case for race.


Okay, let me see if I got this.
If you are trying to say and determine race after industrial revolution, specially second one, when world truly become one village, then of course by that logic DNA of people is quite mixed. African Americans have 25% of European DNA because Europeans around 1600 immigrated to America and Africans were emigrated to that territory as well after and after establishing laws that we are all equal, mixed marriages begun. As I said in my first post, I wonder how humans will look like in few thousands years.

But I still don't understand why we cannot determine race or heritage of one person with DNA before all migrations? Is it possible that there is no race anymore? And that is why we cannot use DND to determine it, but just our heritage?

DanielleX wrote:
Yes, they are quite different. My point was, that ethnicity is more of a valid way of describing the differences between groups of people than race.

I don't think slavery is helpful in this debate. I'm not sure where it comes into it, because the people who started slavery were from a society that didn't accept that Africans were fully human, so I'm not sure how the whole slavery thing progresses the argument, one way or the other. We can all agree I hope that slavery was shameful and abhorrent. Even the legacy of slavery and the way black people have been treated in USA and elsewhere disgusts me to the core.


You are right, it is sensitive subject, although I think that I just elaborated it a bit what I wanted to say with.
briank
Posted: Monday, June 2, 2014 7:24:44 AM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 3/3/2014
Posts: 47
Location: United Kingdom
DanielleX wrote:
If not, why not?

Danielle

Because we say it doesn't, rightly or wrongly.
Race is not a recognised word in biological taxonomy. Therefore, scientifically it doesn't exist.
DanielleX
Posted: Monday, June 2, 2014 7:34:16 AM

Rank: Blonde Bombshell
Moderator

Joined: 11/6/2011
Posts: 3,805
Location: Liverpool, United Kingdom
She wrote:


But I still don't understand why we cannot determine race or heritage of one person with DNA before all migrations? Is it possible that there is no race anymore? And that is why we cannot use DND to determine it, but just our heritage?



Because there is too much variation. Also, once you start to group the people into 'races' you see people in other groups that should be in a different group.

When we left Africa all those tens of thousands of years ago, we began to adapt to different climates and environments. Those differences began to shape our DNA and eventually produced the variations we see today.

You say before all migrations. But we've always been migrating. Ever since we left Africa, we've gone to and fro.

The main issue still goes back to classification. However you look at it, no population shows consistent and diagnosable differences with another population so that you can say they're a race. The old terms like Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid etc were arbitrary, made up as we began to understand how humans were made up. Steph has introduced even more categories.

Modern scientists now dismiss those categories, preferring to divide people according to their culture, language and social factors.

Yes, I am challenging the long hold notion of race, but I am far from alone in that. I have just chosen to air the subject here because I believe that race breeds descrimination. I strongly believe in equality. I also celebrate the various customs, skin tones, eye colours, music, food etc that exist in different parts of the world.



The first part of my hot new story is up! Click the photo to read




She
Posted: Monday, June 2, 2014 7:35:25 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 3/24/2010
Posts: 2,628
briank wrote:

Because we say it doesn't, rightly or wrongly.
Race is not a recognised word in biological taxonomy. Therefore, scientifically it doesn't exist.


Do you maybe know how scientist name those physical differences among humans if it is not race, which is fairly new term. But that is pretty much all I know about history of word race.
DanielleX
Posted: Monday, June 2, 2014 7:41:16 AM

Rank: Blonde Bombshell
Moderator

Joined: 11/6/2011
Posts: 3,805
Location: Liverpool, United Kingdom
briank wrote:

Because we say it doesn't, rightly or wrongly.
Race is not a recognised word in biological taxonomy. Therefore, scientifically it doesn't exist.


Yes, taxonomists have always argued about what constitutes race. You definitely get races in animals, like birds and wild animals, where for whatever reasons there are physical barriers that have prevented them from interbreeding, so their DNA has drifted apart.

This hasn't happened in humans, so our gene flow has kept everyone pretty closely related. Like REALLY closely related.

I'm not an expert in genetics so I can't go into a lot of detail. Something else to learn before I'm old.

But I read that all humans only differ by something like 0.02% genetically speaking. Just how similar we are, is actually quite remarkable.

The first part of my hot new story is up! Click the photo to read




She
Posted: Monday, June 2, 2014 7:45:56 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 3/24/2010
Posts: 2,628
DanielleX wrote:



Because there is too much variation. Also, once you start to group the people into 'races' you see people in other groups that should be in a different group.

When we left Africa all those tens of thousands of years ago, we began to adapt to different climates and environments. Those differences began to shape our DNA and eventually produced the variations we see today.

You say before all migrations. But we've always been migrating. Ever since we left Africa, we've gone to and fro.

The main issue still goes back to classification. However you look at it, no population shows consistent and diagnosable differences with another population so that you can say they're a race. The old terms like Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid etc were arbitrary, made up as we began to understand how humans were made up. Steph has introduced even more categories.

Modern scientists now dismiss those categories, preferring to divide people according to their culture, language and social factors.

Yes, I am challenging the long hold notion of race, but I am far from alone in that. I have just chosen to air the subject here because I believe that race breeds descrimination. I strongly believe in equality. I also celebrate the various customs, skin tones, eye colours, music, food etc that exist in different parts of the world.



Now I understand what you meant when said that ethnicity is more palatable word than race.
..the rest of the post was edited because it could be read differently than my thoughts about the subject are.
HotLittleMoments
Posted: Monday, June 2, 2014 8:42:33 AM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 11/24/2013
Posts: 96
Location: Bali, Indonesia
Don't be ridiculous.


Ambrose
briank
Posted: Monday, June 2, 2014 9:09:46 AM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 3/3/2014
Posts: 47
Location: United Kingdom
DanielleX wrote:


Yes, taxonomists have always argued about what constitutes race. You definitely get races in animals, like birds and wild animals, where for whatever reasons there are physical barriers that have prevented them from interbreeding, so their DNA has drifted apart.

This hasn't happened in humans, so our gene flow has kept everyone pretty closely related. Like REALLY closely related.

I'm not an expert in genetics so I can't go into a lot of detail. Something else to learn before I'm old.

But I read that all humans only differ by something like 0.02% genetically speaking. Just how similar we are, is actually quite remarkable.

Kingdom, class, order, family, genus and species. These is the taxonomy classifications.
Everything is laid out as man has decided, our world and our definitions.
The problem with hair colour is that it doesn't take into account albinos and hairlessness. Nor does it include natural colour change. I was blond up to nine years of age and now I have very dark brown/black hair.
No easy answer I'm afraid.
RavenStar
Posted: Monday, June 2, 2014 9:54:00 AM

Rank: Dragon Rider
Moderator

Joined: 2/22/2013
Posts: 3,638
Location: My sexual playground , United States
Biologically and scientifically speaking, the term 'race' has not a foot to stand on.

For the more common concept used today by science to denote groups of people differentiated by DNA characteristics changing over time, see the term 'cline'.

I am Hispanic of Caribbean origin. That means, quite simply, that I am a mutt. A mixture of at least three recognized races. I say recognized because Hispanic is not. I am of White European, Black African, and Caribbean Native American stock. Within each of these classifications, there were and are still numerous branches. I consider myself none of these three separately and am proud of my mixed heritage.

The US government census classifies race by "both racial and national-origin groups". Ethnicity is a different question that only asks if you are Hispanic or Latino. According to them, I am white. If you were to see my brothers in the summer time, after hours spent in the sun, they would probably be classified as black.

Race is a faulty classification system. It's badly defined. However, we all see color, eye, nose, and lip shape. To pretend otherwise is to live in a fantasy world.

The term 'interracial' in erotica and porn is used to describe situations in which people with dramatically different physical features are getting it on. Lots of people get off on it. I don't think the term is going away anytime soon, neither do I think that it makes a significant social statement.

DanielleX
Posted: Monday, June 2, 2014 10:18:47 AM

Rank: Blonde Bombshell
Moderator

Joined: 11/6/2011
Posts: 3,805
Location: Liverpool, United Kingdom
RavenStar wrote:
Biologically and scientifically speaking, the term 'race' has not a foot to stand on.

For the more common concept used today by science to denote groups of people differentiated by DNA characteristics changing over time, see the term 'cline'.

I am Hispanic of Caribbean origin. That means, quite simply, that I am a mutt. A mixture of at least three recognized races. I say recognized because Hispanic is not. I am of White European, Black African, and Caribbean Native American stock. Within each of these classifications, there were and are still numerous branches. I consider myself none of these three separately and am proud of my mixed heritage.

The US government census classifies race by "both racial and national-origin groups". Ethnicity is a different question that only asks if you are Hispanic or Latino. According to them, I am white. If you were to see my brothers in the summer time, after hours spent in the sun, they would probably be classified as black.

Race is a faulty classification system. It's badly defined. However, we all see color, eye, nose, and lip shape. To pretend otherwise is to live in a fantasy world.

The term 'interracial' in erotica and porn is used to describe situations in which people with dramatically different physical features are getting it on. Lots of people get off on it. I don't think the term is going away anytime soon, neither do I think that it makes a significant social statement.


Yes the human race is a classic example of a cline. I came across that term in my research. That's what I was alluding to here:

DanielleX wrote:

Just one point, which I find interesting. If you were to line up, all the women in the world, with say a South American Indian at one end and worked up and down and round until you reached an East African in Somalia, then the two women at each ends of the line would look completely different. But if I said, "okay go and find the different 'races' along the line," you never would. Wherever you divided the line, each girl would look almost exactly alike. It's only when we view people in isolation that we 'see' race.


The first part of my hot new story is up! Click the photo to read




Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.