Why is racism still an issue in a civilized, globalized world?

@CaptainHook : You make some great points. I have to respond to a couple of them...
Don't try to tell me that IQ tests favor white culture.
They don't... technically. It's a lot more about upbringing and early education than it is about culture/race (and this, of course, varies from family to family). The one thing most Asian American and Jewish American families have in common is they are -on average- far more demanding towards their children academically speaking than any other group. Having gone to high school in a multicultural city, I can tell you that all the Jewish and Asian kids (along with a few Haitian and Indian kids) were forced by their families into taking all AP classes, even when they were clearly having trouble and hated it. Because of their exposure to these challenges, these kids ended up developing remarkable problem solving, analytic, and time management skills when compared to the rest of the school. And of course, this results in higher IQ scores.

It's also important to note that these are average scores for each ethnicity, and when the majority of people in one group are in poverty, education is compromised (you need to get a job to support your family and can't finish school, you can't afford college, you work all day long so you can't dedicate much time to your children, etc) so of course IQ averages are skewed and favor wealthier groups.

So no, of course IQ scores don't favor certain cultures, but they do favor conditions under which intelligence can better develop (and certain races are born under these conditions more often than others because of historic reasons).

There's also this and, more importantly, this.
To be quite honest I also think the concept of breeds in dogs and cats to be equally silly, as evidence shows that trying to maintain "pure" breeds only results in inbreeding and genetic disorders. Mutts in general are far, FAR healthier and more intelligent.
It's funny because this -aside from being absolutely true- encapsulates how our perceptions of race have changed over the past couple of centuries. Sure, having different breeds of dogs makes little sense now that they're just pets, but do you know why we have different kinds of dogs? If you look at the domestication of the wolf and the eventual creation of the dog, you can see that certain traits were favored over others, creating a type of evolution called artificial selection (aka: survival of what's most useful to humans). Nowadays these breeds, which were once designed with specific uses in mind, are all treated the same, so suddenly they stop being useful and the problems of inbreeding become more evident. This leads us to the desire to mix races, and eventually, to the loss of all breeds in favor of a "post-racial" dog, which resembles the proto-dogs of human prehistory but come with all the advantages of several centuries of selective breeding (increased intelligence, improved behavior, etc).

I, like you, feel that humanity is headed down this path as well. Traits that were once crucial to our survival (resistance to heat and drought in Africans, body hair in Europeans who lived in colder climates, better stamina in low-oxygen climates in Peruvian mountain Indians, etc) are now rendered meaningless by globalization and the modern way of life. As the more developed countries lose their xenophobic stances and religion continues to decline in importance, I can totally see an amalgamation of races forming over time. This has already been happening in South America for over a century, and North America is next. I'm not too sure about the rest of the world just yet (especially with the way Muslim immigration is reshaping popular European opinion on the topic) but it's bound to happen eventually.
 
It's just the culture of a certain domain in a social setting.

Meaning it isnt how the world totally functioms (null in terms of macrocosm). I mean in socal, especially oxnard, you will see a lot of prejudice toward african americans. As a guy coming from sacramento area in norcal it is very surprising since i was raised around many different cultures and races.

But i will say that socal is has a high majority of homosexuals. I have no idea why. Actually what i mean is santa barbata to oxnard vs sacramento and lincoln
 
Slightly off topic but still interesting:

I just found out the other day that geneticists have conclusively proven that modern whites and Asians have traces of Neanderthal DNA! The conclusion is that there must have been some interbreeding. So, does this mean that Neanderthals were in fact a different race instead of a different species? I don't see any other explanation. Also, Neanderthal DNA is apparently 99.8% percent the same as modern homo-sapiens. Putting this into perspective, Chimpanzee DNA is roughly 98% the same (the closest living relative).

The only race of people with ZERO neanderthal DNA is the African race.

You know, I had suspected this years ago in Anthropology class and actually suggested this to the instructor. He kinda chuckled at me and said it was "completely ridiculous". Looks like I got the last laugh :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal_genome_project
 
I just found out the other day that geneticists have conclusively proven that modern whites and Asians have traces of Neanderthal DNA! The conclusion is that there must have been some interbreeding.
Yeah, my mom is close friends with an anthropologist and he often talks about this stuff, and I find it fascinating. East Asians also have tons of cro-magnon DNA, even more so than Europeans have Neanderthal DNA.
So, does this mean that Neanderthals were in fact a different race instead of a different species? I don't see any other explanation. Also, Neanderthal DNA is apparently 99.8% percent the same as modern homo-sapiens. Putting this into perspective, Chimpanzee DNA is roughly 98% the same (the closest living relative).
This is actually a somewhat controversial question in the scientific community at this point.

There's tons of misconceptions surrounding human evolution, and one of them is that evolution was just one straight line: from monkey to homo erectus to cro-magnon to neanderthal to homo sapiens... but this couldn't be further from the truth. There were several hominid (human-like) species coexisting in the same areas for a very long time, and we were simply so much smarter and better at sex that we out-competed them all (or in some cases we just had sex with them :3).

Once the early hominids in Africa began to cook their foods, they began migrating north in several waves. The first were the Neanderthals (who moved to Europe) and soon after the Australoids (who moved to India and later to Indonesia and Australia). It actually took a long time for the ancestors of most modern humans to begin leaving Africa, and by the time they did they had become incredibly smart, to the point where they either killed off every other human-like species or integrated them into their gene pool through sex, and as soon as 10,000 years later they sparked the agricultural revolution.

The reason why this is controversial is because the evidence of successful cross-species hominid interbreeding with fertile offspring is so overwhelming that it calls into question the very definition of humanity/the human species. For instance, we think of Neanderthals as a separate species from us, and there certainly are many differences: larger heads, bulkier bones, their inability to digest lactose (which seems to explain why lactose intolerance is so prevalent in white people when compared to other races, but that's just speculation from my side), but we still had fertile offspring with them. Sure, some (or maybe even most) of that offspring might have been infertile, there's no way to know for sure, but the fact that we have their genes says a lot. We also have no way of knowing how advanced they were, other than the fact that they could speak just like we do, they buried their dead, and wore clothes.

This gets even more complicated when you factor in Australian aborigines, the "purest" living decedents of Australoids. They are considered their own race because even though genetically they are very far from the rest of us, they still have the same internals as us and are perfectly capable of mating with other homo sapiens and creating fertile offspring. Does this mean modern human races are simply the result of a speciation process interrupted by the rise of agriculture and civilizations? Could Neanderthals simply be an inferior, genetically isolated race of our own species? It's difficult to answer questions like this, especially when you're labeled a racist the moment you ask them.

FUN FACT#1: Both Neanderthals and modern humans developed genes for light skin, light eyes, and red hair independently as soon as they reached Europe, with a 50,000 year gap in between the two groups. Neanderthals were never blonde though, that mutation came as late as 10,000 years ago.
The only race of people with ZERO neanderthal DNA is the African race.
FUN FACT #2: Because of this ^, a lot of people are starting to claim blacks are the most evolved and pure of all races (while ignoring that modern humans have barely evolved at all in the last 50,000 years). What is true is that they're the most genetically diverse of all the races, to the point where many are saying we should call South Africans a different race, since they're just as genetically different from the blacks of central and western Africa as Asians and Europeans.

TL;DR: Drawing the line between human and Neanderthal is very difficult, mostly because killing and sex.

EDIT: I can't spell for shit.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top