Nothing says America like racist election swag:

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Manchu**

Melissia wrote:Whichi s both sad and amusing considering as far as ethnic groups go they're a pretty strong and reliable voting block, only exceeded by the elderly I think.

Never underestimate the power of your opponent underestimating your power.

**Melissia**

I think, though I could be wrong, the colloquial term is "mocha",

It's becoming more common amongst parents (at least in my experience) to believe that mixed race children are actually considered quite beautiful because they reach across racial divides. Then again, this could coincide with more people openly identifying as multiracial as well.

**Grakmar**

When you get down to it, we're all multiracial.

There's been plenty of interracial children born over the past few thousand years that effectively everyone is the world (except a few small isolated tribes in the Amazon or other complete remote places) is a mixture of all the different races. We only differ in how much Black/White/Hispanic/Asian/American Indian/Pacific Islander/etc we are.

I can only look forward to the day when the color of a person's skin is viewed as no more important than their eye color, hair color, height, or any other cosmetic difference between us. (I'd also throw sex in there, but that's another discussion.)

**streamdragon**

All we need is a voluntary, free-spirited, open-ended program of procreative racial deconstruction. Everybody just gotta keep f***in' everybody 'til they're all the same color.
-Warren Beatty - Bulworth

Horribly under rated movie, that.

**Polonius**

Grakmar wrote:When you get down to it, we're all multiracial.

There's been plenty of interracial children born over the past few thousand years that effectively everyone is the world (except a few small isolated tribes in the Amazon or other complete remote places) is a mixture of all the different races. We only differ in how much Black/White/Hispanic/Asian/American Indian/Pacific Islander/etc we are.

I can only look forward to the day when the color of a person's skin is viewed as no more important than their eye color, hair color, height, or any other cosmetic difference between us. (I'd also throw sex in there, but that's another discussion.)

I dunno man.

I like the sentiment, but the races have been pretty seperate since they've developed. We all share common ancestry, but I can assure you nobody was making the trip to my ancestor's dirt farms in poland and Ireland from polynesia to get a little.

Virtually all slave descendents in the US are multi-racial, as are nearly all hispanics.

But there are plenty of people whose bloodlines go exclusively to Europe or Asia and stay there for dozens of generations.

**Lint**

Interesting learnings...

http://newsreel.org/guides/race/pressreleasecredit.htm

Yet recent scientific evidence suggests that the idea of race is a biological myth, as outdated as the widely held medieval belief that the sun revolved around the earth. Anthropologists, biologists and geneticists have increasingly found that, biologically speaking; there is no such thing as "race." Modern science is decoding the genetic puzzle of DNA and human variation - and finding that skin color really is only skin deep.

My wife is studying anthropology atm and she came home with something along these lines. I got in a big debate over it with her, but the more I think about it the more sense it seems to make. YMMV of course.

**Manchu**

There is clearly such a thing as race. Whether it has anything to do with biology is a separate matter.

**Grakmar**

Polonius wrote:
Grakmar wrote:When you get down to it, we're all multiracial.

There's been plenty of interracial children born over the past few thousand years that effectively everyone is the world (except a few small isolated tribes in the Amazon or other complete remote places) is a mixture of all the different races. We only differ in how much Black/White/Hispanic/Asian/American Indian/Pacific Islander/etc we are.

I can only look forward to the day when the color of a person's skin is viewed as no more important than their eye color, hair color, height, or any other cosmetic difference between us. (I'd also throw sex in there, but that's another discussion.)

I dunno man.

I like the sentiment, but the races have been pretty seperate since they've developed. We all share common ancestry, but I can assure you nobody was making the trip to my ancestor's dirt farms in poland and Ireland from polynesia to get a little.

Virtually all slave descendents in the US are multi-racial, as are nearly all hispanics.

But there are plenty of people whose bloodlines go exclusively to Europe or Asia and stay there for dozens of generations.

Not directly. But, someone traveled to your ancestor's dirt farm from the neighboring village. And, one of his ancestors traveled there from the neighboring city. And, one of his ancestors got it on with someone visiting from Russia. And, one of his ancestors got pregnant from a trader on the silk road. And, that guy's ancestors were displaced from Malaysia years before. And, one of that guys ancestors met a nice boy who survived his fishing boat being swept up in a storm from Polynesia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_recent_common_ancestor

We can all trace back our ancestry the same person, between 2000 and 5000 years ago.

**Polonius**

Fair enough, but as Manchu points out, there is not real biological definition of race.

If a person has pale white skin, green eyes, red hair, and freckles, she's white.

That race is impossible to precisely define is trivially true.

I mean, many hispanics consider themselves a seperate race from whites, blacks, and native americans. Are they? Are they all mult-racial? Except the white ones, of course.

I think Race is more subjective than we think. Jews were cosnidered a seperate race until recently, as were the Irish. The idea of a "white people" is actually very recent. And still inconsistent, as we rarely consider fully europeaon Argentineans to be white.

**streamdragon**

Really the issue is that people like to equate "race" with "ethnicity".

**Lint**

Manchu wrote:There is clearly such a thing as race. Whether it has anything to do with biology is a separate matter.

If not biology then what? It is simply a matter of opinion. Which makes it a fallacious argument. You could say "culture" instead of race, but you'd still use cosmetic differences as the definining element. "Black Culture" "White Culture" "Hispanic Culture" But what happens when a black child is raised in a white culture? He remains under the label of "black." I happen to be a white man who was adopted by a black family. You might say I had just as much experience in the "black culture," yet I don't identify myself as black.

So yes the concept of race exists, but only because we make it so. In actuality there are no seperate "races" as we use the term to define other species. For humans the term race is simply a broken generalization, and ignorant concept.

**Polonius**

streamdragon wrote:Really the issue is that people like to equate "race" with "ethnicity".

Not really. I think the concept of race arose primarily when it became clear that there were groups of people that shared more in terms of skin tone, religion, and culture with each other than with other groups.

A Dutch sailor in Nagaski in 1650 had to realize that he had far more in common in terms of culture, language, rligion, and appearance with an Italian or Englshman than with a Japanese person.

They'er loose groups, but not totally without merit.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lint wrote:So yes the concept of race exists, but only because we make it so. In actuality there are no seperate "races" as we use the term to define other species. For humans the term race is simply a broken generalization, and ignorant concept.

Since I'm a human, the classifications humans use for humans has relevance to me.

**Lint**

Polonius wrote:
Since I'm a human, the classifications humans use for humans has relevance to me.

It doesn't mean it isn't a false classification. If everybody jumped off a bridge etc...

**Manchu**

Why would you consider "science" more relevant than "culture"?

**Grakmar**

Manchu wrote:Why would you consider "science" more relevant than "culture"?

Because if you are defining race as culture, then plenty of people will need to re-define what race they are.

**Polonius**

Lint wrote:
Polonius wrote:
Since I'm a human, the classifications humans use for humans has relevance to me.

It doesn't mean it isn't a false classification. If everybody jumped off a bridge etc...

What do you mean by false? I think you mean arbitrary, which is very different.

Nobody seriously denies that white people treat white peole better than, say, black people.

You can argue that it's arbitrary. You can't argue that it's false.

So, discerning how people define race is still useful.

**Manchu**

@Grakmar: And that accounts for part of the meaning of race.

**Polonius**

Grakmar wrote:
Manchu wrote:Why would you consider "science" more relevant than "culture"?

Because if you are defining race as culture, then plenty of people will need to re-define what race they are.

I think he's saying that culture, not science, defines race.

**Manchu**

Polonius wrote:I think he's saying that culture, not science, defines race.

Spot on.

**Lint**

Manchu wrote:Why would you consider "science" more relevant than "culture"?

My sarcasm radar seems to be broken so I'll just answer the question.

Simply put: Science is generally based upon facts and ineffable truths. Culture is a concept generally based on opinion, which is certainly relevant in some regards but not when it comes to defining race, which has a completely different definition when speaking about any species other than our own. What I'm saying is when humans use race in relation to humanity it is a bastardized use of the word, and misleading.

To better explain how I define culture as an opinion I again offer the example of my own childhood. To say that I was raised in a black culture is offensive to me, and I don't choose to define my culture according the skin color of my family. Even if I were it wouldn't make sense because I am not a black person. In my opinion the culture has nothing to do with how we define race.

**Ahtman**

Manchu wrote:
Polonius wrote:I think he's saying that culture, not science, defines race.
Spot on.

Why bring the spots into this? Filthy spottist!

**Manchu**

@Lint: Science based on "ineffable truths"? I'd say it's your irony meter that's broken

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, culture is not an opinion.

**Polonius**

Lint wrote:
Manchu wrote:Why would you consider "science" more relevant than "culture"?

My sarcasm radar seems to be broken so I'll just answer the question.

Simply put: Science is generally based upon facts and ineffable truths. Culture is a concept generally based on opinion, which is certainly relevant in some regards but not when it comes to defining race, which has a completely different definition when speaking about any species other than our own. What I'm saying is when humans use race in relation to humanity it is a bastardized use of the word, and misleading.

To better explain how I define culture as an opinion I again offer the example of my own childhood. To say that I was raised in a black culture is offensive to me, and I don't choose to define my culture according the skin color of my family. Even if I were it wouldn't make sense because I am not a black person. In my opinion the culture has nothing to do with how we define race.

It sounds like you're obsessing over the use of the word race, which admittedly does have a biological definition. Of course, lots of words have both vernacular and technical definitions. I don't increase the potential energy of a lot of mass, yet I still say I do a lot of work.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote: Also, culture is not an opinion.

Culture is no more an opinion than a flood is a cloud.

Floods are caused by rain, which are caused by many clouds releasing rain. In much the same way, millions of opinions and tastes combine to form culture.

**Manchu**

There's some value in that cloud analogy but culture is also directed and self-referential.

**Polonius**

Manchu wrote:There's some value in that cloud analogy but culture is also directed and self-referential.

I'm getting the feeling Lint is of the idea that if there's not a hard and fast rule, there is no rule.

Which is not a terrible view, but pretty antethetical to nearly every human persuit outside of the hardest sciences.

**Lint**

Polonius wrote:
It sounds like you're obsessing over the use of the word race, which admittedly does have a biological definition. Of course, lots of words have both vernacular and technical definitions. I don't increase the potential energy of a lot of mass, yet I still say I do a lot of work.

You're mostly right, and I'm being too wordy in my posts.

I just find it misleading to use the word race when it should be culture. And I find it offensive to identify culture by skin color.

I'm getting the feeling Lint is of the idea that if there's not a hard and fast rule, there is no rule.

I kind of like this, I might have to toss it around a bit in the old gulliver..

**Manchu**

Race is not the same thing as culture.

**Polonius**

Yeah. Race isn't culture, because, well, culture is culture.

as a general rule, most cultures in the same race will have more in common with each other than with other cultures. Or did before industrialization.

Things are also more complicated in the US, because black americans are denied an ethnicicty, as so much of their ancestry and culture was lost during slavery.

**Lint**

Manchu wrote:Race is not the same thing as culture.

Correct. And it has been/is being proven that seperate races do not exist in humanity.

**Grakmar**

Manchu wrote:There is clearly such a thing as race. Whether it has anything to do with biology is a separate matter.

Manchu wrote:Why would you consider "science" more relevant than "culture"?

Manchu wrote:
Polonius wrote:I think he's saying that culture, not science, defines race.
Spot on.

Manchu wrote:Race is not the same thing as culture.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand your position. I thought you were saying culture is race, but then you said it isn't.