Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [OriginsTalk] Re: we're all Africans...was: Various topics

Expand Messages
  • Dave Oldridge
    ... Skin colour correlates very poorly (probably not at all if you remove cultural biases) with intelligence. There is very little variation in humans at all
    Message 1 of 10 , Sep 1, 2003
      On 31 Aug 2003 at 14:24, pk4_paul wrote:

      > --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, piasan@a... wrote:
      > > In a message dated 8/29/03 12:00:59 PM Central Daylight Time,
      > > jdasen@j... writes:

      > this is to handicap them. As for science and racism teachers and
      > those with science backgrounds ought to emphasize that scientific
      > evidence indicates that no group of human beings enjoy special
      > genetic advantages over the rest of the human race.

      Skin colour correlates very poorly (probably not at all if you
      remove cultural biases) with intelligence. There is very little
      variation in humans at all and most of that is uncorrelated with
      skin colour or ethnic origin of any kind. Our ancestral population
      seems to have interbred pretty thoroughly.

      Even the isolation between the Eurasian land mass and its peoples
      and North America was never really complete. The Inuit to this day
      exist from Greenland to northern Siberia (and fade into the
      northern tribes of Scandinavia at the far end).
    • Eric
      ... This is one of the many results ... less evolved than others. I have no idea what Dave O. s prejudices- if any- are, or exactly what prompted him to
      Message 2 of 10 , Sep 1, 2003
        > > > Jem:
        > > >
        This is one of the many results
        > of evolutionary thinking - If we've all evolved from common
        > ancestors, then we necessarily should find some groups more or
        less 'evolved' than others. >>

        I have no idea what Dave O.'s prejudices- if any- are, or exactly
        what prompted him to make the comments he did, so I will leave his
        explanations to him. But it seems to me that since Dave is a
        Christian priest as well as an 'evolutionary thinker,' his perceived
        prejudice could be as easily be ascribed to his theological thinking
        as his 'scientific' thinking. Perhaps the fact that Jeremy
        immediately ascribed it to Dave's scientific thinking instead belies
        a certain prejudice on Jeremy's behalf?

        It should be kept in mind that many Christians have supported their
        racist beliefs with the Bible, by, for instance, claiming the Negro
        race to the descendants of Ham, etc.

        As has been pointed out by others, a true scientific (evolutionary)
        view of human racial differences would show that no race is 'more
        evolved' than any other and that the concept of race in humans is a
        very superficial take on the situation to start with. All human
        groups have been evolving and adapting to their environments for
        exactly the same length of time, it's just that in some environments
        light skin and hair is more advantageous than dark, and vice versa.
        There is no scientific basis for believing one group is superior to
        another in any meaningful way- including intellectually. This
        concept that 'evolutionary thinking' leads to racism is, I think, yet
        another attempt by the religious right, anti-science crowd to smear
        the idea of evolution in any way they can. I think you are smarter
        and more sophisticated than this Jeremy.


        JEM:
        << I have observed that museum displays and television shows about
        > evolution almost always
        > show the 'less evolved' ape-men as darker than the 'more evolved'
        humans, which are usually quite light skinned. >>


        Again, this is usually the fault of the artistic interpreters of
        science and the designers of museum and popular media presentations
        rather than the direct input of evolutionary biologists. However-
        there is sound reason to believe that direct human ancestors probably
        DID have dark skin, since ALL of the living African apes- gorillas,
        chimpanzees and bonobos- tend to have dark skin as well. This tends
        to give good protection from UV damage by the equatorial sun. Since
        recent human ancestors were likely to have even thinner hair than
        gorillas and chimps, it is very likely that they had dark skin as a
        sunblock. There is nothing racist or prejudicial about it. It's
        simply the way it was, like it or not.

        If museum displays and television shows presented australopithecines
        and early Homo species with white skin we could expect a HUGE outcry
        that the depictions were strongly 'Europeanized' - suggesting that
        White Europeans were 'higher' or 'more evolved' than other 'darker'
        races. This would be perceived- and rightly so- of being extremely
        racist, reflecting the sort of beliefs common amongst Europeans some
        150 or more years ago, and since discarded due to our deepening
        understanding of evolutionary biology, among other things.



        Paul pk4:
        >> I find the notion that it is unfair for Black students to have to
        be tested in standard English very condescending and destructive. It
        is unfair to teach students in anything other than standard
        English.... Their mastery of the English language is an excellent
        barometer of their future success in life. To ignore this is to
        handicap them. >>

        I agree with you here, Paul. Though I hasten to add that I am
        against the concept of an 'official language' for the U.S. If in the
        future the U.S.A. winds up with a majority Spanish population or
        Portugese or French- so be it. But for now, the smartest choice for
        anyone trying to make it in mainstream America (and, incidentally,
        the world at large) would be English. I would love it if each of us
        learned a couple languages to fluency. But we should certainly
        teach at least one, teach it well and test rigorously for proficiency.



        Paul pk4: << As for science and racism teachers and
        > those with science backgrounds ought to emphasize that scientific
        > evidence indicates that no group of human beings enjoy special
        > genetic advantages over the rest of the human race. >>

        Exactly. It seems to be only those with a philosophical
        predisposition opposing evolution labor under the misconception that
        evolutionary thinking leads to racist attitudes. Certainly in the
        past racists have attempted to use evolution to further their
        ideology, but so have they misused the Bible for the same purpose.
        Like all people with a deeply held mission, they will use whatever
        powerful tool they can to further their agenda. Science and religion
        are always good bets.


        ~~~~~~~~~~~
        Paul, it has been four days since I posted my reply to your
        challenge/accusation about Gentry. You are now responding to posts
        sent in after that response. Please be so kind as to respond to my
        post #4992 at your earliest convenience.
        ~~~~~~~~~~~

        Take care,

        Eric
      • pk4_paul
        ... perceived ... thinking ... belies ... environments ... versa. ... yet ... smarter ... pk4 I can t speak for either Dave or Jeremy but do not believe Jeremy
        Message 3 of 10 , Sep 1, 2003
          --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, "Eric" <NewSipapu@a...> wrote:
          >
          > > > > Jem:
          > > > >
          > This is one of the many results
          > > of evolutionary thinking - If we've all evolved from common
          > > ancestors, then we necessarily should find some groups more or
          > less 'evolved' than others. >>
          >
          > I have no idea what Dave O.'s prejudices- if any- are, or exactly
          > what prompted him to make the comments he did, so I will leave his
          > explanations to him. But it seems to me that since Dave is a
          > Christian priest as well as an 'evolutionary thinker,' his
          perceived
          > prejudice could be as easily be ascribed to his theological
          thinking
          > as his 'scientific' thinking. Perhaps the fact that Jeremy
          > immediately ascribed it to Dave's scientific thinking instead
          belies
          > a certain prejudice on Jeremy's behalf?
          >
          > It should be kept in mind that many Christians have supported their
          > racist beliefs with the Bible, by, for instance, claiming the Negro
          > race to the descendants of Ham, etc.
          >
          > As has been pointed out by others, a true scientific (evolutionary)
          > view of human racial differences would show that no race is 'more
          > evolved' than any other and that the concept of race in humans is a
          > very superficial take on the situation to start with. All human
          > groups have been evolving and adapting to their environments for
          > exactly the same length of time, it's just that in some
          environments
          > light skin and hair is more advantageous than dark, and vice
          versa.
          > There is no scientific basis for believing one group is superior to
          > another in any meaningful way- including intellectually. This
          > concept that 'evolutionary thinking' leads to racism is, I think,
          yet
          > another attempt by the religious right, anti-science crowd to smear
          > the idea of evolution in any way they can. I think you are
          smarter
          > and more sophisticated than this Jeremy.
          >
          pk4
          I can't speak for either Dave or Jeremy but do not believe Jeremy is
          anti-science or that he had you, or most others in mind for that
          matter, when he made his remarks. I agree with your point about
          science backing the view that no race is superior but think that
          geneticists are able to make a case for this without resorting to
          evolutionary concepts.

          <snip>
          >
          > Paul pk4:
          > >> I find the notion that it is unfair for Black students to have
          to
          > be tested in standard English very condescending and destructive.
          It
          > is unfair to teach students in anything other than standard
          > English.... Their mastery of the English language is an excellent
          > barometer of their future success in life. To ignore this is to
          > handicap them. >>
          >
          > I agree with you here, Paul. Though I hasten to add that I am
          > against the concept of an 'official language' for the U.S. If in
          the
          > future the U.S.A. winds up with a majority Spanish population or
          > Portugese or French- so be it. But for now, the smartest choice
          for
          > anyone trying to make it in mainstream America (and, incidentally,
          > the world at large) would be English. I would love it if each of
          us
          > learned a couple languages to fluency. But we should certainly
          > teach at least one, teach it well and test rigorously for
          proficiency.
          >
          >
          >
          > Paul pk4: << As for science and racism teachers and
          > > those with science backgrounds ought to emphasize that scientific
          > > evidence indicates that no group of human beings enjoy special
          > > genetic advantages over the rest of the human race. >>
          >
          > Exactly. It seems to be only those with a philosophical
          > predisposition opposing evolution labor under the misconception
          that
          > evolutionary thinking leads to racist attitudes. Certainly in the
          > past racists have attempted to use evolution to further their
          > ideology, but so have they misused the Bible for the same purpose.
          > Like all people with a deeply held mission, they will use whatever
          > powerful tool they can to further their agenda. Science and
          religion
          > are always good bets.

          pk4
          Clearly, selfish individuals bent on getting their way at the expense
          of others will be able to "justify" their ends by misusing concepts
          as has been done throughout history. I'm agreeing with most of what
          you say. I think it's time for my yearly check-up. Where's Andrew?

          >
          >
          > ~~~~~~~~~~~
          > Paul, it has been four days since I posted my reply to your
          > challenge/accusation about Gentry. You are now responding to posts
          > sent in after that response. Please be so kind as to respond to my
          > post #4992 at your earliest convenience.

          pk4
          Eric, I think you have me confused with Harris.
          Paul

          > ~~~~~~~~~~~
          >
          > Take care,
          >
          > Eric
        • Eric
          Eric:
          Message 4 of 10 , Sep 1, 2003
            Eric:<<... This
            > > concept that 'evolutionary thinking' leads to racism is, I think,
            > yet
            > > another attempt by the religious right, anti-science crowd to
            smear
            > > the idea of evolution in any way they can. I think you are
            > smarter
            > > and more sophisticated than this, Jeremy.


            > pk4:
            > I can't speak for either Dave or Jeremy but do not believe Jeremy
            is
            > anti-science or that he had you, or most others in mind for that
            > matter, when he made his remarks. I agree with your point about
            > science backing the view that no race is superior but think that
            > geneticists are able to make a case for this without resorting to
            > evolutionary concepts. >>


            I completely agree that neither Dave nor Jeremy seem anti-science. I
            think Jeremy, though in this case, may be repeating what some who ARE
            anti-science have said about evolution and racism.

            And yes, I also agree that geneticists CAN make a case for racial
            equivalency without using evolutionary concepts- however, they will
            have to remain quite superficial in their analyses when they do so.



            Eric:
            > > Paul, it has been four days since I posted my reply to your
            > > challenge/accusation about Gentry. You are now responding to
            posts
            > > sent in after that response. Please be so kind as to respond to
            my
            > > post #4992 at your earliest convenience.
            >

            Paul pk4:
            > Eric, I think you have me confused with Harris. >>



            Yes, that is exactly what I've done. Please excuse my error, I
            should have been more careful.

            Harris, are you out there????

            Take care,

            Eric
          • Jeremy Dasen
            ... From: piasan@aol.com [mailto:piasan@aol.com] Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2003 9:43 PM To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com Subject: [OriginsTalk] we re all
            Message 5 of 10 , Sep 1, 2003
               
              -----Original Message-----
              From: piasan@... [mailto:piasan@...]
              Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2003 9:43 PM
              To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: [OriginsTalk] we're all Africans...was: Various topics

              In a message dated 8/29/03 12:00:59 PM Central Daylight Time, jdasen@... writes:

              Dave O:
              And when thou hast finished learning the meaning of this passage,
              go thou to the corner of the street and ask thou the same
              question I have asked of thee, to one of the darker-skinned
              bretheren standing about there.  Or perhaps thou mayest need to
              "axe" thy question. 

              Jem:
              Oh my, do some of Dave's racial biases based on evolution come out for us to see?!  That type of talk really isn't appropriate, Dave.  We are all one creation and one race.  Perhaps you'd like to go repeat these racist remarks on the street yourself?  What does the shade of one's skin have to do with their ability to understand English?  This is one of the many results of evolutionary thinking - If we've all evolved from common ancestors, then we necessarily should find some groups more or less 'evolved' than others.  I have observed that museum displays and television shows about evolution almost always show the 'less evolved' ape-men as darker than the 'more evolved' humans, which are usually quite light skinned
              .

              Pi:
              I will let Dave speak for himself on that point, but I suspect that it was in jest.
               
               
              Jem:
              And spoken he has.  :D hee hee

              As far as "one's ability to understand English", apparently Jeremy is not aware of the Ebonics movement.  In Oakland, California, a few years ago, there was an effort to have Ebonics taught in class and provide standardized tests in Ebonics because it was "unfair" to the students in Black dominated schools to test them in "standard American" English.
               
              Jem:
              Oh, I'm aware of 'Ebonics' alright, I just don't see its relevance to someone with dark skin understanding the KJV or not.  Dave rather plainly asserted that someone with more melanin than himself or q would not be able to understand the English of the KJV, which I saw as a rather racist statement.  I find the notion that students with dark skin need to have tests in 'Ebonics' to be able to do well equally racist.  The underlying assertion with both of these statements is that people with dark skin don't have the mental capacity to learn or compete on the same level as lighter skinned people, which is obviously a bunch of baloney.
               
              BTW, evolution holds that the human race originated in and migrated from Africa.  You should see the looks on the faces of the kids at school when I tell them that we are all Africans.

              Jem:
              As Pi has points out here, whether one believes in the currently fashionable version of evolutionary theory, or in the truth as recorded in the bible, all people are of the same origin, rendering meaningless the shade of melanin present in our skin.  Of course we may recall that in previously in vogue versions of evolutionary theory, people with darker shades of skin, especially aboriginal peoples from Tasmania, were displayed in 'museums' as missing links.  And at the time, why should anyone have thought this odd?  After all it was 'science' that had told them these people were less than human.
               
              We know also that Darwin, who subtitled 'Origin of Species' with the phrase "Preservation of favored races", had written that the more "civilized" races" (that would be us lighter folk) would eventually "exterminate" and replace the "savage races" (that would be "the darker-skinned brethren [sic]" as Dave called them).  I am seeing now that this type of attitude may be alive and well today, even in our 'scientific' and p.c. culture. 

              God Bless,

              Jeremy
              <}}><


            • piasan@aol.com
              In a message dated 9/1/03 7:02:27 PM Central Daylight Time, ... Pi: This is by way of comment to all the responses involving Ebonics recently. I agree with
              Message 6 of 10 , Sep 1, 2003
                In a message dated 9/1/03 7:02:27 PM Central Daylight Time, jdasen@... writes:

                Dave O:
                And when thou hast finished learning the meaning of this passage,
                go thou to the corner of the street and ask thou the same
                question I have asked of thee, to one of the darker-skinned
                bretheren standing about there.  Or perhaps thou mayest need to
                "axe" thy question. 

                Jem:
                Oh my, do some of Dave's racial biases based on evolution come out for us to see?!  That type of talk really isn't appropriate, Dave.  We are all one creation and one race.  Perhaps you'd like to go repeat these racist remarks on the street yourself?  What does the shade of one's skin have to do with their ability to understand English?  This is one of the many results of evolutionary thinking - If we've all evolved from common ancestors, then we necessarily should find some groups more or less 'evolved' than others.  I have observed that museum displays and television shows about evolution almost always show the 'less evolved' ape-men as darker than the 'more evolved' humans, which are usually quite light skinned

                .

                Pi:
                I will let Dave speak for himself on that point, but I suspect that it was in jest.

                 
                Jem:
                And spoken he has.  :D hee hee
                Pi:
                As far as "one's ability to understand English", apparently Jeremy is not aware of the Ebonics movement.  In Oakland, California, a few years ago, there was an effort to have Ebonics taught in class and provide standardized tests in Ebonics because it was "unfair" to the students in Black dominated schools to test them in "standard American" English.

                Jem:
                Oh, I'm aware of 'Ebonics' alright, I just don't see its relevance to someone with dark skin understanding the KJV or not.  Dave rather plainly asserted that someone with more melanin than himself or q would not be able to understand the English of the KJV, which I saw as a rather racist statement.  I find the notion that students with dark skin need to have tests in 'Ebonics' to be able to do well equally racist.  The underlying assertion with both of these statements is that people with dark skin don't have the mental capacity to learn or compete on the same level as lighter skinned people, which is obviously a bunch of baloney.

                Pi:
                This is by way of comment to all the responses involving Ebonics recently.  I agree with everything that has been said.  However, it wasn't whites who proposed teaching Ebonics.  Fortunately, there was a large outcry from the educational community and the public ... as well as a number of leading blacks and the idea was killed quickly.


                  Pi:
                BTW, evolution holds that the human race originated in and migrated from Africa.  You should see the looks on the faces of the kids at school when I tell them that we are all Africans.

                Jem:
                As Pi has points out here, whether one believes in the currently fashionable version of evolutionary theory, or in the truth as recorded in the bible, all people are of the same origin, rendering meaningless the shade of melanin present in our skin.  Of course we may recall that in previously in vogue versions of evolutionary theory, people with darker shades of skin, especially aboriginal peoples from Tasmania, were displayed in 'museums' as missing links.  And at the time, why should anyone have thought this odd?  After all it was 'science' that had told them these people were less than human.

                Pi:
                First, I would point out that evolution holds that diversity of  a species is what works best to assure the success of that species over time.  Anyone who truly understands evolution would know that.  It is exactly the opposite of racism.

                I suggest extreme caution before you accuse evolution of causing racism.  Some of the most racist people I can think of are adamant creationists who loudly proclaim their "Christianity".  For centuries before Darwin, racism and slavery were justified based on a Biblical reference to the "curse of Ham".

                People who live in glass houses .....


                  Jem>
                We know also that Darwin, who subtitled 'Origin of Species' with the phrase "Preservation of favored races", had written that the more "civilized" races" (that would be us lighter folk) would eventually "exterminate" and replace the "savage races" (that would be "the darker-skinned brethren [sic]" as Dave called them).  I am seeing now that this type of attitude may be alive and well today, even in our 'scientific' and p.c. culture

                Pi:
                Yep.  And we find people on both sides of the issue who are racist... as we find people on both sides of the issue who are not.

                Both sides seem to agree that, with respect to origins, all of us have a common ancestry.

                I suggest we leave it at that and put this issue to rest.

              • Jeremy Dasen
                ... From: piasan@aol.com [mailto:piasan@aol.com] Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 9:37 PM To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [OriginsTalk] we re all
                Message 7 of 10 , Sep 1, 2003
                   
                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: piasan@... [mailto:piasan@...]
                  Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 9:37 PM
                  To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: Re: [OriginsTalk] we're all Africans...was: Various topics

                  Pi:
                  I suggest extreme caution before you accuse evolution of causing racism.  Some of the most racist people I can think of are adamant creationists who loudly proclaim their "Christianity".  For centuries before Darwin, racism and slavery were justified based on a Biblical reference to the "curse of Ham".

                  People who live in glass houses .....
                    

                  Jem:
                  This is very true.  We should all remember that we are truly a fallen people in a fallen world.  None of us is free from the curse of sin, and none of us can claim that their 'side' is without fault throughout history.  Many great evils have been done in the name of the church, the name of God, and the name of evolution.  Going the route of blaming the current state of any of the above based on past history is a dead-end road.  I'm happy to focus on the current state of things and the truths of God's word as we know them, rather then the past mistakes of fallen humans. Thanks for pointing that out before we went too far down that road, Pi.
                   
                  For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God [Romans 3:23]
                   

                  God Bless,

                  Jeremy
                  <}}><

                   
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.