Liam Neeson involved in race row Watch

Axiomasher
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#241
Report 1 month ago
#241
(Original post by Dandaman1)
...Racism quite literally relies on the existence of races in order to be a thing...
[sigh] No, no it doesn't. I even gave an example of how people have been persecuted for being 'witches' even though most of us today wouldn't accept they really were witches. So, persecution for being a witch didn't mean you had to be a witch or even that there had to be actual witches. See how your logic fails? Racism does typically rely in the idea, the belief, that a person is of a certain 'race' even if that race, or 'races' generally, aren't real. Advances in science, genetics in particular, being responsible for the general abandonment that humans can be neatly fitted into a small number of distinctively separate racial 'boxes' or types. What exists is geographic ethnic variations but 'races' are today recognised as arbitrary because they can be constructed in any number of ways you choose, depending on how many 'races' you'd prefer there to be. Here endeth the lesson.
Last edited by Axiomasher; 1 month ago
0
reply
Dandaman1
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#242
Report 1 month ago
#242
(Original post by Axiomasher)
[sigh] No, no it doesn't. I even gave an example of how people have been persecuted for being 'witches' even though most of us today wouldn't accept they really were witches. So, persecution for being a witch didn't mean you had to be a witch or even that there had to be actual witches. See how your logic fails? Racism does typically rely in the idea, the belief, that a person is of a certain 'race' even if that race, or 'races' generally, aren't real. Advances in science, genetics in particular, being responsible for the general abandonment that humans can be neatly fitted into a small number of distinctively separate racial 'boxes' or types. What exists is geographic ethnic variations but 'races' are today recognised as arbitrary because they can be constructed in any number of ways you choose, depending on how many 'races' you'd prefer there to be. Here endeth the lesson.
My logic doesn't fail. You're just misusing an analogy.

Racism is a prejudicial response to phenotypical characteristics that correlate with things like origin or ethnicity (and these correlations aren't completely arbitrary). That's what "race" is. We don't base racial categorisations on imaginary things like magic powers. We base them on real, distinguishable factors that can be sorted into relatable groups. Races aren't always clear, and there is plenty of disagreement about how many there are and how to define them, but even an alien from Mars could see the difference between a black African and a white Caucasian (and not just visually.) We regularly divide animals into groups within the same species based on things like appearance and geography. Race exists in humans as much as it does in anything else - it just has no formal system of categorisation.

"Here endeth the lesson." Perhaps you should hold off on the teaching career for now.
1
reply
Axiomasher
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#243
Report 1 month ago
#243
(Original post by Dandaman1)
My logic doesn't fail. You're just misusing an analogy...
Yes it does and not so. Despite the fact that witches are not real people have been identified as such and persecuted for it. It's clear from this fact that identifying an individual as a member of a group or type does not depend ont that group or type being a real thing, it only has to be an imagined thing. This is why your logci fails - regardless of whether or not human 'races' are real they don't have to be in order for racism to be real.
1
reply
pe-goose
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#244
Report 1 month ago
#244
Why still talking about this, it's pathetic and taking your minds off real matters ?
0
reply
Dandaman1
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#245
Report 1 month ago
#245
(Original post by Axiomasher)
Yes it does and not so. Despite the fact that witches are not real people have been identified as such and persecuted for it. It's clear from this fact that identifying an individual as a member of a group or type does not depend ont that group or type being a real thing, it only has to be an imagined thing. This is why your logci fails - regardless of whether or not human 'races' are real they don't have to be in order for racism to be real.
You don't understand my point. Racism is an attitude towards real (not make believe) characteristics which we use to categorise and define racial groups. If none of these things existed, neither would racism. You've completey misunderstood that to mean prejudice against witches relies on witches existing (and therefore witches not existing 'disproves' my point.) But it's not the same thing.
0
reply
Captain Haddock
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#246
Report 1 month ago
#246
(Original post by Dandaman1)
You don't understand my point. Racism is an attitude towards real (not make believe) characteristics which we use to categorise and define racial groups. If none of these things existed, neither would racism. You've completey misunderstood that to mean prejudice against witches relies on witches existing (and therefore witches not existing 'disproves' my point.) But it's not the same thing.
The physical characteristics may be real but our decision to use those characteristics to sort people into discrete 'races', and all the social significance we attach to them, is a product of history and culture. Nobody really had much use for such categories before the Atlantic slave trade.
0
reply
Dandaman1
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#247
Report 1 month ago
#247
(Original post by Captain Haddock)
The physical characteristics may be real but our decision to use those characteristics to sort people into discrete 'races', and all the social significance we attach to them, is a product of history and culture. Nobody really had much use for such categories before the Atlantic slave trade.
Throughout history people have divided each other into ethnic categories or 'blood' groups. Words like ethnos and genos are Greek, for example, and various societies had cast systems were based around how you looked and where you were from. People would regularly hate each other over stuff like this, just as we unfortunately do now. So this idea that we didn't have much use for racial categories "before the Atlantic slave trade" is false, especially when when we consider that our concepts of race both before and after don't even uniquely concern black Africans.

How we define racial categories, and the importance we place upon them, has changed over the centuries, that is for certain. But there is still a rationale behind how we group people into races. As I've been saying, we base it upon factors that correlate. It's not just arbitrary nonsense.

Obviously you can say 'race' is our own invention, but the same could be said about recognised phylogenetical concepts. Some of these didn't exist until recently, either (not that how long we've done something should really matter.) Heck, this applies to just about any system of categorisation.
1
reply
Captain Haddock
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#248
Report 1 month ago
#248
(Original post by Dandaman1)
Throughout history people have divided each other into ethnic categories or 'blood' groups. Words like ethnos and genos are Greek, for example, and various societies had cast systems were based around how you looked and where you were from. People would regularly hate each other over stuff like this, just as we unfortunately do now. So this idea that we didn't have much use for racial categories "before the Atlantic slave trade" is false, especially when when we consider that our concepts of race both before and after don't even uniquely concern black Africans.

How we define racial categories, and the importance we place upon them, has changed over the centuries, that is for certain. But there is still a rationale behind how we group people into races. As I've been saying, we base it upon factors that correlate. It's not just arbitrary nonsense.

Obviously you can say 'race' is our own invention, but the same could be said about recognised phylogenetical concepts. Some of these didn't exist until recently, either (not that how long we've done something should really matter.) Heck, this applies to just about any system of categorisation.
But that's precisely the point. The fact that past societies have tended to define 'races' along the lines of religion, language, custom, and so forth - and attached their own meanings and values to these things - just goes to show our present preoccupation with skin colour is arbitrary. There is no inherent need for these clumsy, poorly defined groupings. They're just a cultural artefact; a relic of the slave trade and the outpouring of pseudo-scientific racism that attended it. The science behind them was debunked long ago. These correlations you speak of sound like a post hoc attempt to preserve their place in our culture. They have nothing to do with why the exist in the first place.
1
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#249
Report 1 month ago
#249
(Original post by Underscore__)
Silly me, I assumed that people are capable of seeing bad people but understanding that not all people from the same country are bad
It's the way it's portrayed in those films. In the first one in particular, there is a definite racist tone to all of the interactions. The clear message is that only Americans (and probably only white Americans, with the possible inclusion of white Irish people who sound a bit American) are basically sound and everyone else (the 'overseas' people) are filthy perverted deviants.
0
reply
Dandaman1
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#250
Report 1 month ago
#250
(Original post by Captain Haddock)
But that's precisely the point. The fact that past societies have tended to define 'races' along the lines of religion, language, custom, and so forth - and attached their own meanings and values to these things - just goes to show our present preoccupation with skin colour is arbitrary. There is no inherent need for these clumsy, poorly defined groupings. They're just a cultural artefact; a relic of the slave trade and the outpouring of pseudo-scientific racism that attended it. The science behind them was debunked long ago. These correlations you speak of sound like a post hoc attempt to preserve their place in our culture. They have nothing to do with why the exist in the first place.
Again, 'race' is not a relic of the slave trade.

From a person's skin colour and facial structure we can make reasonable approximations about things like their ancestral origin, the diseases and disorders they are prone to, and even the age they hit puberty. These factors tend to correlate (hence the sorting people into groups). When members of an animal species have different outward appearances and various geographical, environmental, genetic or even behavioural factors that are associated with those, we have no shame in sorting them into groups based on what we observe.

Yes, how we define race and racially categorise people has changed over time, and we haven't always included things that make a whole lot of sense, but that doesn't mean dividing people into races is based on pure arbitrary nonsense or some desire to perpetuate 18th century pseudoscience. It's not. It is a fact that humans are far from a homogeneous species and various populations share certain traits, and race is one of the ways we have come to sort people based on our observations.

When people say things like "race doesn't exist" or "there is no scientific proof of race" they don't often explain what the conditions of race 'existing' would actually be. What are you looking for? Some sort of black person gene?
Last edited by Dandaman1; 1 month ago
0
reply
Captain Haddock
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#251
Report 1 month ago
#251
(Original post by Dandaman1)
Again, 'race' is not a relic of the slave trade.

From a person's skin colour and facial structure we can make reasonable approximations about things like their ancestral origin, the diseases and disorders they are prone to, and even the age they hit puberty. These factors tend to correlate (hence the sorting people into groups). When members of an animal species have different outward appearances and various geographical, environmental, genetic or even behavioural factors that are associated with those, we have no shame in sorting them into groups based on what we observe.
The way we think of race in today's society is quite obviously still heavily influenced by the racial theories that were drawn up around the time of the slave trade. You say yourself that our definition of race has changed over time - well, where do you think our present definition comes from?

Yes, how we define race and racially categorise people has changed over time, and we haven't always included things that make a whole lot of sense, but that doesn't mean dividing people into races is based on pure arbitrary nonsense or some desire to perpetuate 18th century pseudoscience. It's not. It is a fact that humans are far from a homogeneous species and various populations share certain traits, and race is one of the ways we have come to sort people based on our observations.
Except we now know that terms like 'white' and 'black' are unfit for this purpose. Two black people might be a millions genetic miles away from each other, yet to us they are still the same 'race' because we, as a society, have decided that skin colour is somehow significant.


When people say things like "race doesn't exist" or "there is no scientific proof of race" they don't often explain what the conditions of race 'existing' would actually be. What are you looking for? Some sort of black person gene?
Uh, yeah I guess? Isn't that what we would expect to find if race was a scientific reality?
1
reply
Underscore__
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#252
Report 1 month ago
#252
(Original post by Fullofsurprises)
It's the way it's portrayed in those films. In the first one in particular, there is a definite racist tone to all of the interactions. The clear message is that only Americans (and probably only white Americans, with the possible inclusion of white Irish people who sound a bit American) are basically sound and everyone else (the 'overseas' people) are filthy perverted deviants.
Strange message you took from that film
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
Axiomasher
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#253
Report 1 month ago
#253
(Original post by Dandaman1)
You don't understand my point. Racism is an attitude towards real (not make believe) characteristics which we use to categorise and define racial groups. If none of these things existed, neither would racism. You've completey misunderstood that to mean prejudice against witches relies on witches existing (and therefore witches not existing 'disproves' my point.) But it's not the same thing.
But you argued that racism could only exist if 'races' were a real thing and I've shown, with the example of 'witches', that such logic is deeply flawed, unless you're going to argue that witches must have been real because they were actually identified and persecuted!
0
reply
Axiomasher
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#254
Report 1 month ago
#254
(Original post by Dandaman1)
.... How we define racial categories, and the importance we place upon them, has changed over the centuries, that is for certain...
And the fact that it can be changed, the fact that racial categorisations are arbitrary, is why modern science rejects it. Human geographic variation is real but the process of picking features and drawing lines around populations and calling them this 'race' or that 'race' is an imaginative act, not a scientific discovery.
0
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#255
Report 1 month ago
#255
(Original post by Underscore__)
Strange message you took from that film
I'm hardly the only one.
https://minimediabites.com/2014/07/1...st-and-insane/
0
reply
Dandaman1
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#256
Report 1 month ago
#256
(Original post by Captain Haddock)
The way we think of race in today's society is quite obviously still heavily influenced by the racial theories that were drawn up around the time of the slave trade. You say yourself that our definition of race has changed over time - well, where do you think our present definition comes from?



Except we now know that terms like 'white' and 'black' are unfit for this purpose. Two black people might be a millions genetic miles away from each other, yet to us they are still the same 'race' because we, as a society, have decided that skin colour is somehow significant.



Uh, yeah I guess? Isn't that what we would expect to find if race was a scientific reality?
Two white people are (generally) going to have more genetic similiarity with each other than they will with a pair of black people (unless one has recent black ancestors, which is relatively infrequent). Caucasians and black Africans evolved on different continents. It's a similar story for humans all over the world where there has been a degree of separation over the millenia. That's how we've ended up with populations that appear different and tend to share a lot of traits.

A species of butterfly could exist in multiple environments and develop populations with different colour patterns, feeding habits, frequency of genetic disorders, and so on. We would probably give them different names to identify the races/verities of the butterflies within that species. There is no objection to this, but people are uncomfortable with the fact the same principle applies to humans. They start having flashbacks to the days of transatlantic slavery and of black people being thought of as inferior, separate animals, and the denial starts to set in.

Racial categorisation may be something that gets extremely difficult when we consider the constant flow of genes and the amount of blending and migration that occurs between human populations, and there are no hard boundaries nor a single, exclusive gene that defines a 'white' person. It's even messier when ethnicity gets involved. However, we can still identify tribes of humans that share a lot correlating traits, often just by looking at them, and that's essentially what race is. It's informal, and it's not entirely consistent, but it exists - just not in the way you seem to think it's supposed to; like entirely distinct, defined species or something.
0
reply
Underscore__
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#257
Report 1 month ago
#257
(Original post by Fullofsurprises)
I'm hardly the only one.
https://minimediabites.com/2014/07/1...st-and-insane/
Sorry, your interpretation must be the only correct one seeing as a random website agrees
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How old were you when you first saw porn?

I've never seen it (77)
22.13%
Before I was 12 (124)
35.63%
13 (50)
14.37%
14 (46)
13.22%
15 (23)
6.61%
16 (9)
2.59%
17 (2)
0.57%
18 (3)
0.86%
Between the ages of 19 - 24 (4)
1.15%
Over 25 (0)
0%
12 (10)
2.87%

Watched Threads

View All