Discrimination -- the reality

[Toni]

I’m sorry that I don’t have the time to do all the relevant research to provide links that you might/might not read but: You really should do some reading about how slavery was practiced in West Central Africa ( and other parts of the world) compared with how it was practiced here in the US. Those who sold Africans into slavery had no idea nor any way of knowing what horrors would greet the enslaved people in the new world.

What makes you so confident that you know more about the subject than I do?

That I don't agree with you and point out things you post that are nonsensical? Like asking how slavery changed genetics?
Tom

I’m genuinely not trying to be insulting but your posts do not illustrate to me much of a grasp of history beyond what you learned in high school—keep in mind, we are close in age and grew up in the same area—I’m aware of the teachings of the day. Your posts do not seem to grasp how genetic traits are passed or the relation of such to ‘selection’ which has specific meaning in this context.

I could be wrong: perhaps you are a scholar when it comes to history. I’m only making assumptions based on what you write on this forum.

 

[Toni]

I’m sorry that I don’t have the time to do all the relevant research to provide links that you might/might not read but: You really should do some reading about how slavery was practiced in West Central Africa ( and other parts of the world) compared with how it was practiced here in the US. Those who sold Africans into slavery had no idea nor any way of knowing what horrors would greet the enslaved people in the new world.

What makes you so confident that you know more about the subject than I do?

That I don't agree with you and point out things you post that are nonsensical? Like asking how slavery changed genetics?
Tom

I’m genuinely not trying to be insulting but your posts do not illustrate to me much of a grasp of history beyond what you learned in high school—keep in mind, we are close in age and grew up in the same area—I’m aware of the teachings of the day. Your posts do not seem to grasp how genetic traits are passed or the relation of such to ‘selection’ which has specific meaning in this context.

I could be wrong: perhaps you are a scholar when it comes to history. I’m only making assumptions based on what you write on this firum ok

 

[TomC]

No, but your "analysis" about why the average black american less able than immigrants is so bigoted that it does make one wonder.

I've never said that the average black American is inherently less able.

This is the sort of post that makes the conversation difficult to impossible. The tacit assumptions and misrepresentation.
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

No, but your "analysis" about why the average black american less able than immigrants is so bigoted that it does make one wonder.

I've never said that the average black American is inherently less able.

I didn't say that you did.

However, you have defended the racist analysis in post 129 that contains
'Thus slaves and refugees and their descendants would be expected to be average, and thus perform below immigrants. " with your babble about the slave trade.

This is the sort of post that makes the conversation difficult to impossible. The tacit assumptions and misrepresentation.
Tom

The irony on that false accusation is truly overwhelming.

But all of that is nice dodge to avoid answering the question "Why do you think you know about the slave trade than Toni?"

 

[TomC]

I’m sorry that I don’t have the time to do all the relevant research to provide links that you might/might not read but: You really should do some reading about how slavery was practiced in West Central Africa ( and other parts of the world) compared with how it was practiced here in the US. Those who sold Africans into slavery had no idea nor any way of knowing what horrors would greet the enslaved people in the new world.

What makes you so confident that you know more about the subject than I do?

That I don't agree with you and point out things you post that are nonsensical? Like asking how slavery changed genetics?
Tom

I’m genuinely not trying to be insulting but your posts do not illustrate to me much of a grasp of history beyond what you learned in high school—keep in mind, we are close in age and grew up in the same area—I’m aware of the teachings of the day. Your posts do not seem to grasp how genetic traits are passed or the relation of such to ‘selection’ which has specific meaning in this context.

I could be wrong: perhaps you are a scholar when it comes to history. I’m only making assumptions based on what you write on this firum ok

You're doing a good job of being insulting.

From your assumptions about my knowledge of history to your assumptions about my knowledge of genetics, you seem unable to grasp that not everyone who disagrees with you is an ignorant Hoosier. Yeah that's kinda insulting, although in a way that demonstrates to me that I'm more right than y'all.

Now, either I'm a scholar when it comes to history or I don't know who enslaved the black people who wound up in the Charleston slave markets.
Tom

 

[TomC]

I didn't say that you did.

It's right there in your post.
Tom

 

[Toni]

I’m sorry that I don’t have the time to do all the relevant research to provide links that you might/might not read but: You really should do some reading about how slavery was practiced in West Central Africa ( and other parts of the world) compared with how it was practiced here in the US. Those who sold Africans into slavery had no idea nor any way of knowing what horrors would greet the enslaved people in the new world.

What makes you so confident that you know more about the subject than I do?

That I don't agree with you and point out things you post that are nonsensical? Like asking how slavery changed genetics?
Tom

I’m genuinely not trying to be insulting but your posts do not illustrate to me much of a grasp of history beyond what you learned in high school—keep in mind, we are close in age and grew up in the same area—I’m aware of the teachings of the day. Your posts do not seem to grasp how genetic traits are passed or the relation of such to ‘selection’ which has specific meaning in this context.

I could be wrong: perhaps you are a scholar when it comes to history. I’m only making assumptions based on what you write on this firum ok

You're doing a good job of being insulting.

From your assumptions about my knowledge of history to your assumptions about my knowledge of genetics, you seem unable to grasp that not everyone who disagrees with you is an ignorant Hoosier. Yeah that's kinda insulting, although in a way that demonstrates to me that I'm more right than y'all.

Now, either I'm a scholar when it comes to history or I don't know who enslaved the black people who wound up in the Charleston slave markets.
Tom

I can only form opinions based on what you write.

Do you know anything g about the practice of slavery in West Central Africa? Do you know anything about slavery as practiced in the US?

How much do you know about the science of genetics? How much do you know about Darwin’s work or natural selection?

As for ignorant Hoosier? WTF. I grew up where you did. Not a nickle’s difference or 20 miles distance between us.

 

[TomC]

I can only form opinions based on what you write.

Similarly,
I can only from opinions on things you post.

You asked how slavery changed genetics. Remember that?

I'm pretty sure you know enough about genetics to know that you were just being insulting. But you don't seem to know much about history either. You seem to think that European people invented slavery, and Africans were too stupid to understand that selling people to people across the ocean was horrible for the human merchandise.
Tom

 

[Toni]

I can only form opinions based on what you write.

Similarly,
I can only from opinions on things you post.

You asked how slavery changed genetics. Remember that?

I'm pretty sure you know enough about genetics to know that you were just being insulting. But you don't seem to know much about history either. You seem to think that European people invented slavery, and Africans were too stupid to understand that selling people to people across the ocean was horrible for the human merchandise.
Tom

I asked how slavery changed genetics in response to posts that implied that a) intelligence is genetically determined and b) that people from African nations who were kidnapped and sold into slavery were not as high a quality of person as those who voluntarily immigrated. I wondered why the posters thought that to be the case? Did enslaving people alter their genetics?

I’m very well aware that slavery has existed for most of human history, throughout the world. Which would be obvious if you read my actual posts rather than tried to score points about things you really do not seem to understand.

 

[Metaphor]

I can only form opinions based on what you write.

Similarly,
I can only from opinions on things you post.

You asked how slavery changed genetics. Remember that?

I'm pretty sure you know enough about genetics to know that you were just being insulting. But you don't seem to know much about history either. You seem to think that European people invented slavery, and Africans were too stupid to understand that selling people to people across the ocean was horrible for the human merchandise.
Tom

I asked how slavery changed genetics in response to posts that implied that a) intelligence is genetically determined and b) that people from African nations who were kidnapped and sold into slavery were not as high a quality of person as those who voluntarily immigrated. I wondered why the posters thought that to be the case? Did enslaving people alter their genetics?

Toni, it is rather obvious to others that TomC did not claim enslaving people changed their genetics. He is not proposing Lamarckian evolution.

It seems to me that the claim is 'the Africans who were sold into slavery were genetically different to the Africans who sold them', which seems like a plausible claim to me.

 

[Toni]

I can only form opinions based on what you write.

Similarly,
I can only from opinions on things you post.

You asked how slavery changed genetics. Remember that?

I'm pretty sure you know enough about genetics to know that you were just being insulting. But you don't seem to know much about history either. You seem to think that European people invented slavery, and Africans were too stupid to understand that selling people to people across the ocean was horrible for the human merchandise.
Tom

I asked how slavery changed genetics in response to posts that implied that a) intelligence is genetically determined and b) that people from African nations who were kidnapped and sold into slavery were not as high a quality of person as those who voluntarily immigrated. I wondered why the posters thought that to be the case? Did enslaving people alter their genetics?

Toni, it is rather obvious to others that TomC did not claim enslaving people changed their genetics. He is not proposing Lamarckian evolution.

It seems to me that the claim is 'the Africans who were sold into slavery were genetically different to the Africans who sold them', which seems like a plausible claim to me.

It was not clear to me what he ( or Loren) meant. It is clear to me that any assertion that there was a significant or meaningful ( on any level ) difference in the genetic makeup between those who sold Africans and the Africans themselves or that any such difference translated into a difference in intelligence or quality is based upon multiple levels of ignorance. About genetics. Intelligence. The history of slavery. The practice of slavery in West Central Africa. For starters.

 

[TomC]

I can only form opinions based on what you write.

Similarly,
I can only from opinions on things you post.

You asked how slavery changed genetics. Remember that?

I'm pretty sure you know enough about genetics to know that you were just being insulting. But you don't seem to know much about history either. You seem to think that European people invented slavery, and Africans were too stupid to understand that selling people to people across the ocean was horrible for the human merchandise.
Tom

I asked how slavery changed genetics in response to posts that implied that a) intelligence is genetically determined and b) that people from African nations who were kidnapped and sold into slavery were not as high a quality of person as those who voluntarily immigrated. I wondered why the posters thought that to be the case? Did enslaving people alter their genetics?

Toni, it is rather obvious to others that TomC did not claim enslaving people changed their genetics. He is not proposing Lamarckian evolution.

It seems to me that the claim is 'the Africans who were sold into slavery were genetically different to the Africans who sold them', which seems like a plausible claim to me.

It was not clear to me what he ( or Loren) meant. It is clear to me that any assertion that there was a significant or meaningful ( on any level ) difference in the genetic makeup between those who sold Africans and the Africans themselves or that any such difference translated into a difference in intelligence or quality is based upon multiple levels of ignorance. About genetics. Intelligence. The history of slavery. The practice of slavery in West Central Africa. For starters.

I don't remember anyone but you suggesting that genetics plays any role in any of the important issues being talked about. You brought up genetics. Not me.

And I said, a few times, I see no reason to think genetics plays any part in this.
Tom

 

[Metaphor]

I can only form opinions based on what you write.

Similarly,
I can only from opinions on things you post.

You asked how slavery changed genetics. Remember that?

I'm pretty sure you know enough about genetics to know that you were just being insulting. But you don't seem to know much about history either. You seem to think that European people invented slavery, and Africans were too stupid to understand that selling people to people across the ocean was horrible for the human merchandise.
Tom

I asked how slavery changed genetics in response to posts that implied that a) intelligence is genetically determined and b) that people from African nations who were kidnapped and sold into slavery were not as high a quality of person as those who voluntarily immigrated. I wondered why the posters thought that to be the case? Did enslaving people alter their genetics?

Toni, it is rather obvious to others that TomC did not claim enslaving people changed their genetics. He is not proposing Lamarckian evolution.

It seems to me that the claim is 'the Africans who were sold into slavery were genetically different to the Africans who sold them', which seems like a plausible claim to me.

It was not clear to me what he ( or Loren) meant.

It was clear to me, but perhaps I am wrong. Nothing TomC wrote caused me to think he thinks or said or implied that being enslaved changed your genetics.

 

[Politesse]

So, am I correct in thinking 'racial (self) identity' is meaningless in terms of the 'job interview' situation, and that any discrimination by race operates off 'apparent race'?

How much importance and respect do you attach to somebody's racial (self) identity? Do you hesitate to call people whose apparent race is white, 'white'?

I generally do avoid categorizing other people by race if at all possible. But what has that got to do with the thread?

I would not consider racial self-identification irrelevant to the issue of job interviews. For one thing, most employers see an application well before they see a face. While apparent race is also a significant factor in employment discrimination cases, it is seldom the only factor.

 

[Metaphor]

So, am I correct in thinking 'racial (self) identity' is meaningless in terms of the 'job interview' situation, and that any discrimination by race operates off 'apparent race'?

How much importance and respect do you attach to somebody's racial (self) identity? Do you hesitate to call people whose apparent race is white, 'white'?

I generally do avoid categorizing other people by race if at all possible. But what has that got to do with the thread?

It surely has everything to do with it?! Especially since, as I pointed out, you spoke about self-identity and then perceived identity in the same post.

But you have not really answered my question, so I will ask again in a different way. If I checked my race as 'black' on a form, does that make me black?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Or cultural... which makes one ponder why alcoholism became "a thing" for the Indigenous in the United States... when it wasn't as much an issue before the assimilation.

Actually, I think this is genetics.

In the old world alcohol was available year-round, this provided more opportunity for people to take themselves out of the gene pool. The new world didn't have this and thus there was less evolutionary pressure against alcoholism. It's the same thing as how diseases devastated the new world--the same thing must have happened in the old world but so long ago we aren't aware of it.

This is extremely ill-thought out and not born out by actual data/facts.

Problems with substance abuse are partially determined by genetics but also even more so by circumstances/stresses/poverty/lack of social and emotional supports. Such as are found in pockets of impoverished populations—on reservations, for example.

I think that no one disputes that Asian immigrants have faced some very ugly racism in the US. However, they were allowed to maintain their cultural heritage: family structure, language, religion, history, etc. I’m not suggesting that there were not terrible injustices—but generally speaking, there was no effort to exterminate the Chinese or Japanese immigrants. More recent groups from Asia have faced varying degrees of discrimination, depending on the circumstances.

In the US, the worst discrimination has been against Indians and African Americans descended from enslaved peoples.

You say the data doesn't support it but you provide no evidence of this.

I'm not saying circumstances don't matter, they certainly do. I'm saying that both factors are at work.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I can only form opinions based on what you write.

Similarly,
I can only from opinions on things you post.

You asked how slavery changed genetics. Remember that?

I'm pretty sure you know enough about genetics to know that you were just being insulting. But you don't seem to know much about history either. You seem to think that European people invented slavery, and Africans were too stupid to understand that selling people to people across the ocean was horrible for the human merchandise.
Tom

I asked how slavery changed genetics in response to posts that implied that a) intelligence is genetically determined and b) that people from African nations who were kidnapped and sold into slavery were not as high a quality of person as those who voluntarily immigrated. I wondered why the posters thought that to be the case? Did enslaving people alter their genetics?

I’m very well aware that slavery has existed for most of human history, throughout the world. Which would be obvious if you read my actual posts rather than tried to score points about things you really do not seem to understand.

You seem to have ignored where I pointed out that you have it backwards--it's the immigrants whose genetics differ.

 

[TomC]

You seem to have ignored where I pointed out that you have it backwards--it's the immigrants whose genetics differ.

Differ from what?

I don't see how genetics are important in this discussion. There are indigenous peoples and immigrant peoples. Here in the Americas, we're nearly all immigrants.

Why people immigrated has a bunch of cultural implications. But I don't see how genetics becomes important.
Tom

 

[Politesse]

So, am I correct in thinking 'racial (self) identity' is meaningless in terms of the 'job interview' situation, and that any discrimination by race operates off 'apparent race'?

How much importance and respect do you attach to somebody's racial (self) identity? Do you hesitate to call people whose apparent race is white, 'white'?

I generally do avoid categorizing other people by race if at all possible. But what has that got to do with the thread?

It surely has everything to do with it?! Especially since, as I pointed out, you spoke about self-identity and then perceived identity in the same post.

But you have not really answered my question, so I will ask again in a different way. If I checked my race as 'black' on a form, does that make me black?

Nothing can "make you Black". Your situation would no doubt become complicated if you reached the stage of a personal interview and your interviewer had a conflicting perception of your race. But that doesn't necessarily make them "right" to pigeonhole you, if you are asking for my personal opinion on such things.

 

[Metaphor]

So, am I correct in thinking 'racial (self) identity' is meaningless in terms of the 'job interview' situation, and that any discrimination by race operates off 'apparent race'?

How much importance and respect do you attach to somebody's racial (self) identity? Do you hesitate to call people whose apparent race is white, 'white'?

I generally do avoid categorizing other people by race if at all possible. But what has that got to do with the thread?

It surely has everything to do with it?! Especially since, as I pointed out, you spoke about self-identity and then perceived identity in the same post.

But you have not really answered my question, so I will ask again in a different way. If I checked my race as 'black' on a form, does that make me black?

Nothing can "make you Black".

I'm confused. There are people who are black, correct? Is being black an uncaused quality? Or do you mean nothing can make me (Metaphor) black? If so, it appears to me you believe race is not a self-identity and cannot be changed. Is that correct?

Your situation would no doubt become complicated if you reached the stage of a personal interview and your interviewer had a conflicting perception of your race. But that doesn't necessarily make them "right" to pigeonhole you, if you are asking for my personal opinion on such things.

I'm even more confused by this response than I could have anticipated. Are you saying it is not "right" to perceive somebody's race as different to their self-perception of it?