Joined: 28 Mar 2009 {Posts: 12 } Location: Florida
Posted: Mon 30 Mar 2009 15:36 Post subject: Mediterraneans and the Caucasian "Race"
[This thread was split from the "Ethnicity in America" forum, since it diverged from that topic. -- FWS]
girlfromthenc wrote:
I've seen Wanted photos of Metizo Hispanics classified as just plain White before (not even White/Hispanic). I've always wanted to know what the point of this government classification when very few non-Hispanics (which are the majority) would describe that person as White to the police (I've had to call 911 before and the operator asked me was the victim "Hispanic" 'Black" or White". White and Hispanic was treated separtely and the Asian race question was totally ignored, as if Asians don't get involved in crime).
I think it goes back to the general perception that the Spanish and other Southern Europeans are mostly dark skinned with jet black hair. Many Latinos 'work' under this perception of being darker skinned Southern Europeans. Strange as it is, I've seen many general photos of Spaniards in Spain and I was shocked at the number of blonds they had!!!! I like a lot of people grew up thinking Southern Europeans all looked like this: (lol)
That person in the photo is Mediterranean which is white.
Joined: 02 May 2006 {Posts: 443 } Location: Île-de-France
Posted: Mon 30 Mar 2009 18:11 Post subject:
Quote:
That person in the photo is Mediterranean which is white
Could you please clarify what you mean by "white"? Last time I saw it, the Mediterranean was blue, and the skin tone of those who live around its shores ranged from porcelain to medium brown.
Last time I saw it, the Mediterranean was blue, and the skin tone of those who live around its shores ranged from porcelain to medium brown.
I agree. Skin tone around the Mediterranean averages a bit darker than that of the inhabitants of the the Baltic region. Also, except for the coasts of Egypt and of Marseilles, it is about the same on the northern (European), southern (African) and Eastern (Asian) shores.
[This thread seems to be drifting from U.S. ethnicity (the bullfighter is obviously not working in the United States). We might want to consider splitting it.]
Last edited by fwsweet on Mon 30 Mar 2009 20:12; edited 1 time in total
Joined: 28 Mar 2009 {Posts: 12 } Location: Florida
Posted: Mon 30 Mar 2009 19:33 Post subject:
MisterLawyer wrote:
Quote:
That person in the photo is Mediterranean which is white
Could you please clarify what you mean by "white"? Last time I saw it, the Mediterranean was blue, and the skin tone of those who live around its shores ranged from porcelain to medium brown.
O I'm sorry I meant the Mediterranean race. By white, I mean people that have ancestry exclusively from Europe, or people part of the Caucasian race. Mediterranean can be pink to light brown, Usually they have dark brown or black hair, brown eyes. You know dark features. Not all white people are Nordics. White People are one of the most diverse race. I'm sorry if I'm sounding like a WN lol. But that's how I see it. Example of Meds.
Joined: 28 Mar 2009 {Posts: 12 } Location: Florida
Posted: Mon 30 Mar 2009 19:34 Post subject: Re: Classification
Powell wrote:
I would guess that Hispanic criminals are classified as "white" in order to hide crime problems. Crime victims would be "Hispanic" in order to promote the idea of the eternally victimized "minority." Classifying Hispanic criminals as "white" would also hide the embarrassing problem of frequent black/Hispanic "hate crimes." It perpetuates the ideal of racist whites versus innocent blacks. Classifying Hispanics as "white" in prison statistics would hide the embarrassment of whites as a minority in prisons.
Wrong. Hispanic is not a RACE. I have to keep saying this to people that keep on thinking it is. That girl in the photo is not white, if she is then she is a med. Which I highly, highly doubt. Do I have to give you examples of white people lol. Ok white people from Spanish speaking Countries 101.
... I meant the Mediterranean race ... part of the Caucasian race ... the most diverse race ... Hispanic is not a RACE
Please read 3.6 Introduction to Science-As-Process before continuing to advocate the usefulness of the "race" notion. This site exists to study the belief in "races," not to advocate such a belief. As the following warning explains, if you insist on the reality of human "races," you may be tolerated briefly as a subject of study, but you will eventually be expelled once you have become tiresome.
[If] you sincerely believe in "races" and want to argue that someone is of this or that "race"? Is such a thing allowed? The answer is "no." A moderator might briefly tolerate your presence as a subject of study -- as an example of someone actually suffering from the odd U.S. intellectual pathology. But eventually you will be expelled. The reason is that such a person can contribute nothing. Such a person is either objectively delusional or ignorant of science-as-process. Neither their belief in the reality of their delusion nor their refusal to follow scientific methods can lead anywhere.
Posted: Mon 30 Mar 2009 20:02 Post subject: Re: Classification
Helloeverybody wrote:
Powell wrote:
I would guess that Hispanic criminals are classified as "white" in order to hide crime problems. Crime victims would be "Hispanic" in order to promote the idea of the eternally victimized "minority." Classifying Hispanic criminals as "white" would also hide the embarrassing problem of frequent black/Hispanic "hate crimes." It perpetuates the ideal of racist whites versus innocent blacks. Classifying Hispanics as "white" in prison statistics would hide the embarrassment of whites as a minority in prisons.
Wrong. Hispanic is not a RACE. I have to keep saying this to people that keep on thinking it is. That girl in the photo is not white, if she is then she is a med. Which I highly, highly doubt. Do I have to give you examples of white people lol. Ok white people from Spanish speaking Countries 101.
Powell is pondering the reasons why Hispanics are considered white when they commit crimes in the U.S. by those who compile national crime statistics for the U.S. Dept. of Justice.
She's not making a claim that Hispanics are an actual race.
Joined: 28 Mar 2009 {Posts: 12 } Location: Florida
Posted: Mon 30 Mar 2009 20:33 Post subject:
fwsweet wrote:
Helloeverybody wrote:
... I meant the Mediterranean race ... part of the Caucasian race ... the most diverse race ... Hispanic is not a RACE
Please read 3.6 Introduction to Science-As-Process before continuing to advocate the usefulness of the "race" notion. This site exists to study the belief in "races," not to advocate such a belief. As the following warning explains, if you insist on the reality of human "races," you may be tolerated briefly as a subject of study, but you will eventually be expelled once you have become tiresome.
[If] you sincerely believe in "races" and want to argue that someone is of this or that "race"? Is such a thing allowed? The answer is "no." A moderator might briefly tolerate your presence as a subject of study -- as an example of someone actually suffering from the odd U.S. intellectual pathology. But eventually you will be expelled. The reason is that such a person can contribute nothing. Such a person is either objectively delusional or ignorant of science-as-process. Neither their belief in the reality of their delusion nor their refusal to follow scientific methods can lead anywhere.
O I'm really sorry. Especially since science research have found out that there is a such thing as races, and it's not just a social construct. So why isn't it allowed? I don't want to get expelled for speaking my mind. I think that's dumb, and uncalled for. I'm not advocating racism. I am not speaking hate. I don't see the problem.
Especially since science research have found out that there is a such thing as races, and it's not just a social construct.
You have made an implausible factual claim: "science research have found out that there is a such thing as races". As per The Rules 3.2, you now have 24 hours to either: (1) provide a peer-reviewed scientific source "that there is a such thing as races", (2) retract your factual claim, or (3) have your posting privilege suspended for one week.
Joined: 28 Mar 2009 {Posts: 12 } Location: Florida
Posted: Mon 30 Mar 2009 22:36 Post subject:
fwsweet wrote:
Helloeverybody wrote:
Especially since science research have found out that there is a such thing as races, and it's not just a social construct.
You have made an implausible factual claim: "science research have found out that there is a such thing as races". As per The Rules 3.2, you now have 24 hours to either: (1) provide a peer-reviewed scientific source "that there is a such thing as races", (2) retract your factual claim, or (3) have your posting privilege suspended for one week.
I fear that you do not understand what "peer-reviewed scientific source" means. It means a report published in a scientific journal, whose findings have been checked by others. Your link points to nothing more than an anonymous web-page writer's favorable opinion of a discredited Neil Risch article.
If your claim had merely been that "races exist," then your link would have been acceptable, no matter how badly unsubstantiated or falsified it might be. (See What constitutes substantiation for details.) But you claimed that "science research" had found something. Hence, you must show science research reporting that finding.
I fear that you do not understand what "peer-reviewed scientific source" means. It means a report published in a scientific journal, whose findings have been checked by others. Your link points to nothing more than an anonymous web-page writer's favorable opinion of a discredited Neil Risch article.
If your claim had merely been that "races exist," then your link would have been acceptable, no matter how badly unsubstantiated or falsified it might be. (See What constitutes substantiation for details.) But you claimed that "science research" had found something. Hence, you must show science research reporting that finding.
Well I have to go to work sometime around 11:00AM. You said, " Your link points to nothing more than an anonymous web-page writer's favorable opinion of a discredited Neil Risch article." How is that discredited? Since you made that BS claim, don't you have 24 hours to 1)provide a peer-reviewed scientific source? Saying that its a "discredited Neil Risch article." 2) retract your factual claim, or 3) have your posting privilege suspended for one week. Plus it does not say a peer-reviewed scientific source. It says with a credible (preferably peer-reviewed) sources. I can't wait for that scientific source that you have to display, or are you going to tip toe around the rules? My link points to good findings. In that link it says, "Several scientists who have supported the view of race as a social construct did not respond to requests for comment on the new studies, including officials from the American Anthropological Association and the author of the New England Journal editorial, Robert S. Schwartz." It also says, "However, some other scientists reacted without surprise to the new findings." Doesn't that tell you all you need? Neil Risch, Ph.D. Professor of Human Genetics. The Awards he has gotten are Risch is the 2004 recipient of the Curt Stern Award from the American Society of Human Genetics. He has held faculty appointments at Columbia, Yale, and Stanford Universities, and is a graduate of the biomathematics program at the University of California at Los Angeles. He was described by one of the field's founding fathers as “the statistical geneticist of our time.” Can you or anybody in this forum for that matter, please show me the awards you have gotten in science? This is a description of world-science.net, Founded in 2004, WORLD SCIENCE is an online source for the most exciting news and photos from all fields of science. These appear in World Science often long before they’re in newspapers and magazines.
Many of the most fascinating and significant scientific discoveries never appear in newspapers and other media sources. This is because few scientists have the time and resources to publicize their findings to a wide audience.
At World Science, we dig for these stories and present them to you in plain English, without sacrificing the accuracy or insight needed to understand what they mean. Thousands of scientists and non-scientists alike find World Science an invaluable information source. Reply back.
Neil Risch, Ph.D. Professor of Human Genetics. The Awards he has gotten are Risch is the 2004 recipient of the Curt Stern Award from the American Society of Human Genetics. He has held faculty appointments at Columbia, Yale, and Stanford Universities, and is a graduate of the biomathematics program at the University of California at Los Angeles. He was described by one of the field's founding fathers as “the statistical geneticist of our time.” Can you or anybody in this forum for that matter, please show me the awards you have gotten in science?
In addition to not grasping what "peer-reviewed scientific source" means, Helloeverybody apparently fails to understand what is meant by "science." Risch's reputation is irrelevant. How prominent, well-respected, or admired someone is has no effect--zero--on the findings that he or she presents. None.
Science is concerned only with phenomena that:
(1) have an objective definition,
(2) produce replicable findings,
(3) generate a falsifiable hypothesis
If the lowliest, most despised grade-school dropout comes up with an objective definition of a phenomenon and produces replicable findings about the phenomenon, then scientists will accept those replicable findings as evidence. If such a person then constructs a falsifiable hypothesis based those findings, and repeated diligent attempts to falsify it fail, then the falsifiable hypothesis will be become a scientific theory, no matter its source.
Conversely, if even the most highly respected Nobel prizewinner uses terms that lack objective (measurable) definition, then scientists will ignore opinions based upon those terms. If the same otherwise respected person states an opinion that is not backed up by replicable findings scientists will again ignore it. Finally, if the person forms a hypothesis that is non-falsifiable, then scientists will treat it as an expression of religious or faith-based belief that lies outside the realm of science.
Helloeverybody is making an appeal to authority. That is, "believe what I say because important, powerful, respected people also say it." Appeals to authority are not science. They are the very anathema of science, against which science has fought for centuries. Appeals to authority are not encouraged anywhere in this website. They are forbidden in the technical and scholarly forums. They are a violation of The Rules, paragraph 3.6. This is a first warning. Before continuing to discuss the thread topic, Helloeverybody should read and obey that rules paragraph.
Helloeverybody wrote:
At World Science, we dig for these stories...
Use of first-person plural is a violation of The Rules, paragraph 2.4. As stated there, the reason for this prohibition is that first-person plural is hopelessly ambiguous. (Who is "we" in this case?) This is a first warning. Before posting anywhere else in this website Helloeverybody should read and obey that rules paragraph.
Helloeverybody wrote:
How is [Risch's opinion] discredited?
I would be happy to show Helloeverybody precisely how Risch's terms (1) lack objective definition, (2) are supported by no replicable findings, and (3) are not falsifiable. But first, Helloeverybody must actually read Risch's words. If Helloeverybody cannot or will nor read Risch's own words, then it is pointless to debate those words.
Helloeverybody wrote:
[What constitutes substantiation] does not say a peer-reviewed scientific source. It says with a credible (preferably peer-reviewed) sources.
True. And, as I already wrote, if your claim had merely been that "races exist," then your link would have been acceptable, no matter how badly unsubstantiated or falsified it might be. But you claimed that "science research" had found something. Hence, you must show science research reporting that finding. Look, if your claim was based on the writings of Neil Risch, then all you had to do was post a link (or a checkable citation) to the writings of Neil Risch.
Your 24 hours are up. Helloeverybody's posting privilege is hereby suspended until midnight, 6 April 2009 for violation of The Rules, paragraph 3.2 (unsubstantiated factual claim).
Again, if your claim was based on the writings of Neil Risch, then all you had to do was post a link (or a checkable citation) to the writings of Neil Risch. Do this now (in the "Site Management" forum) and indicate that you have actually read what the man actually wrote, and I shall lift your suspension.
Throughout this exchange, rather than taking my advice seriously in order to preserve posting privilege (rule 3.2), Helloeverybody has violated additional rules (2.4, 3.6) and is now at risk of violating 4.7. I strongly urge the new member to please, please, become familiar with The Rules before returning after the one-week suspension.
If Helloeverybody wants to discuss this site's rules and why they exist, I would be more than happy to continue explaining them (or the scientific method itself, for that matter) in the "Site Management" forum.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
