Interracial Dating/Couples

[Chun Liroy]

Physical similarities? If you actually look at people, there is a ton of variance. Japanese language, literature, history and culture is my major at my university. Its what I've been studying for four years now. I have been there a few times and plan to go back. So let me tell you something:

Japanese people vary greatly in their physical appearence.

What about Nigerians? I haven't studied them as much, but considering how much variation I can see in my own culture, and those that I study, I can assume that its true too. If you think they look similar, its because your naive and lazy and can't be bothered to observe people. Don't feel bad, all people are like this to some degree because the human mind is limited. (Before you get all "yeah I'm sure you watch every person on this planet too", I obviously do not but I do take great care to observe people in detail, however one person can only do so much.) That's why I understand that 'race' continues to be used, even though it doesn't have real merit. People are limited, and have to generalize somehow. But the reality is that it doesn't actually exist.

So how do you group up all these people? After all, they're all Japanese. They're all Nigerian. They're all Bosnian, American, Vietnamese, Austrailian and Ethiopian. By the country they live and grew up in. By the general culture they grew up with, by the laws that affected them, by the physical landspace from which they came, by the language (or languages if they grew up with more than one) that they first learned. This is nationality.

You essentially described nationality, congratulations. We are talking about physical characteristics, not culture, language, customs, rights or the physical landscape they inhabit(lol...).
You say that there is a ton of difference between individuals, physically (which there are, no doubt), but I bet that you can tell me which "race" these two people are.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_U1DurlWSUC.../PennyWong.jpg
http://nigeriamovies.net/osuofia.jpg

[isladar]

That is the observable genetic trait.

That's not really correct but it's really fucking immaterial to get into, since I see what you're driving at. But genetic variation is not a one-to-one cause of phenotypic variation.

If we want to talk about race in the normal, casual sense of the word, let's parse it: The amount of genetic variation in the human population as a whole is less than genetic variation between different subspecies of chimpanzees. If one insists on using race with regards to humans, then there are three 'races': Hadza, Khoisan, and Ethiopian. We're all (unless you're posting on BG from a computer in a small hunter-gatherer group in Tanzania) Ethiopian. Meaning that a white American is pretty much genetically identical to someone of Japanese descent, as well as a dude in the Amazon, and someone from the Indian subculture. The furthest away someone could be, and again, that's not very far at all when compared to any species with actual subspecies, would be between someone from Ethiopian descent (all of us) and someone from the Hadza.

So yeah. I call those 'differences' phenotypic variation.

[Metah]

Because all blacks/Asians/hispanics/etc. look the same, amirite?

Of course people look different, even within their own race. That doesn't mean there aren't OTHER specific physical similarities between members of a race and physical differences between members of different races.

Like what? Big lips? Small eyes? People of all nationalities can feature these traits. It doesn't mean they are racially the same, does it?

You base your argument completely on predefining race as a tool for racism because you have a predisposition against classification.

And you think I have a predisposition against classification because, why, exactly? You mean like how I classified people by their nationality? Because yeah, then you're right. That totally indicates I have a predisposition against classification. Ad hominem attacks get you nowhere; they only weaken your argument.

Yes, and before human migration was common and prolific, nationality coincided almost perfectly with race because race is nothing more than an amalgamation of genetic physical adaptations to surroundings.

According to who? You?

Also, archibaldane, its very easy to simply say "lol" if you don't actually have a valid point.

[AidenCarby]

I like to mix and match, but I'd never hook up with a black chick.

[Gredival]

It is not racist to say that, for example, that an asian person has a certain skin type, a certain hair colour, behave in a certain way and come from a certain place. Its not racist because that is what the concept of race is saying. You seem to be reading that incorrectly. Being "racist" would be hating or disliking someone for those reasons.

No, assuming that someone acts a certain way based off genetics pretty much is racism.

Not all slave owners actively "hated" black people, but they sure as hell believed they were inferior. Are you going to tell me they weren't racist for that?

Also, I would find it really interesting if anyone could produce a scientific reason to back up the socially-driven concept of race. Really, because its not possible. Biological subclassification? On what grounds? Similar skin colour or physical traits? Like I said, if you really think that's what defines race, you are incredibly naive.

It's only naive because you are reading a subtext so that you can argue it has non basis because you have an agenda in arguing it doesn't exist.

Do you know why there's so much substructure behind races? I.E. there's Asian, but within Asian there's also Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese? Because while those races are distinct, they inhabit a geographically close region and likely descended from common ancestors. As a result they tend to share more characteristics than members of a race from the other side of the world, because evolution would favor the adoption of the same sorts of traits.

[BaneTheBrawler]

Race:
noun
1.
a group of persons related by common descent or heredity.
5.
any people united by common history, language, cultural traits, etc.: the Dutch race.

edit: added an alternate definition

Clearly this needs to be posted again.

[Metah]

I expected more from you Silentleroy. You seem like such a smart, nice guy from the Dark Souls threads.

To answer your question, I wouldn't answer because simply based on the picture I don't have enough information. Moreover, it would be hypocritical to start saying which race people are when I clearly am fighting against the notion. Physical appearence in one or two ways isn't enough to justify classifying someone. I do my very best not to think of anyone as any race, although I don't always succeed since the concept is so prevailent.
(PS: I know who Penny Wong is)

[Chun Liroy]

That's not really correct but it's really fucking immaterial to get into, since I see what you're driving at. But genetic variation is not a one-to-one cause of phenotypic variation.

If we want to talk about race in the normal, casual sense of the word, let's parse it: The amount of genetic variation in the human population as a whole is less than genetic variation between different subspecies of chimpanzees. If one insists on using race with regards to humans, then there are three 'races': Hadza, Khoisan, and Ethiopian. We're all (unless you're posting on BG from a computer in a small hunter-gatherer group in Tanzania) Ethiopian. Meaning that a white American is pretty much genetically identical to someone of Japanese descent, as well as a dude in the Amazon, and someone from the Indian subculture. The furthest away someone could be, and again, that's not very far at all when compared to any species with actual subspecies, would be between someone from Ethiopian descent (all of us) and someone from the Hadza.

So yeah. I call those 'differences' phenotypic variation.

Yes, I understand what you are getting at. My question, however, isn't what you call those differences, but what do you call a group of people that share a relatively large number of the same phenotypic variations. That is, unless, you are talking about a collective set of phenotypes, in which case, carry on.

[BaneTheBrawler]

I expected more from you Silentleroy. You seem like such a smart, nice guy from the Dark Souls threads.

Personal attacks, classy.

[Metah]

Clearly this needs to be posted again.

Clearly not. The definition under 1 says that we are all the same race since we have the same common descent if you get down to the real root of it. Definition under 5 reads as a synonym to nationality, and I would say that the word 'race' is losing its synonymity with nationality.

As for Gredival, then what it comes down to is a differing opinion on the definitions of words. This happens, and I suppose we'll just have to call a draw. I don't want to stand here forever shouting at you, and having you shout at me on semantics because chances are we will never agree on these definitions. But don't forget that a word's meaning can change over time, sometimes very rapidly.

[Metah]

Personal attacks, classy.

Just returning the favour for the rudeness seeping from his post.

[Chun Liroy]

I expected more from you Silentleroy. You seem like such a smart, nice guy from the Dark Souls threads.

Prefacing your entire post with this. Rofl.

To answer your question, I wouldn't answer because simply based on the picture I don't have enough information. Moreover, it would be hypocritical to start saying which race people are when I clearly am fighting against the notion. Physical appearence in one or two ways isn't enough to justify classifying someone. I do my very best not to think of anyone as any race, although I don't always succeed since the concept is so prevailent.
(PS: I know who Penny Wong is)

So then what information do you need? Do you need to know each's cultural influences? What climate they lived in? Their parents' thoughts on abortion?

(PS: That's irrelevent)

[BaneTheBrawler]

Indeed, but the definition doesn't say "traced to the most distant common ancestry" meaning people can draw the line wherever they want. If I want to say I'm my own race because I'm an only child, I can. Doesn't make it any more or less real than nationality. It's exactly the same as any other classification: a method for quickly and accurately describing a group that shares specific traits. If race is made up, so are species, genus, graduating classes, nations, and any other classification you care to think of. You can't just arbitrarily decide that ONE classification isn't real just because some people are dicks.

Edit: oops, dicks aren't real. Sorry.

[Metah]

Their nationality, as a culmination of all those things? Didn't I say this already? Its actually not irrelevant, but you're free to keep saying that. I've got assignments to work on, but have a good time.

Edit: Just had to roll my eyes at "accurately describing a group that shares specific traits" in regards to race.

[Kerberoz]

Calling it "ethnicity" instead of "race" usually quiets the bleeding-hearts.

[Gredival]

Like what? Big lips? Small eyes? People of all nationalities can feature these traits. It doesn't mean they are racially the same, does it?

Skin tone within a certain range. Hair color within a certain range. Eye color within a certain range. Epicanthal folds on your eyelids. Genetic predisposition to certain diseases and conditions.

And you think I have a predisposition against classification because, why, exactly? You mean like how I classified people by their nationality? Because yeah, then you're right. That totally indicates I have a predisposition against classification. Ad hominem attacks get you nowhere; they only weaken your argument.

Yes but why do you seek to define by nationality vs. race?

You insist that "race" is more than a collection of physical traits, that "race" means "a mental image shapes up in their mind of how that person should act, should look like, and should think."

This isn't ad hominem; you're the patronizing one here. You assume that race is, and is used as, an inherently negative and prejudicial system to judge people. You find yourself superior and tell the rest of us "everyone does it to an extent" and that "people are limited, and have to generalize somehow" as if you are better because you've moved on from such archaic classifications of people.

And even if we're using the term differently than you, you say we're naive for not realizing the dark history behind the concept and what race fully entails.

According to who? You?

You're not citing any decisive authority on your conception of race which includes "a mental image shapes up in their mind of how that person should act, should look like, and should think." So why should we prefer your definition?

As for why nationality and race use to coincide? That's basic science. Before people traveled prolifically, they were isolated to certain regions and left to adapt specifically for that area. This resulted in the development of certain favorable genetic characteristics within those groups ("race") that differentiated them from groups that inhabited different regions. The further the distance, the more differences one could expect as the climate would change radically.

Now that travel is common, you can imagine one person genetically descended from an Asian race to live in a completely different location, like Spain. So their child may grow up as a Spanish national despite being Asian. As a result nationality doesn't coincide with race. But before trains, or ships, etc. you could sure as hell bet that the correlation between being a Spanish national and being of Spanish descent was near 100%

[Chun Liroy]

So nationality is needed to group people by physical traits? Ok.
And, actually, knowing who a person is, is irrelevant when determining race and breeds the same stereotypes that you are seeking to avoid.
Ethnicity, Race and Nationality are 3 different things.

[BaneTheBrawler]

No, because ethnicity doesn't exist. Neither do bleeding-hearts. Or even BGers. Because we're all different, right?

[Gredival]

Just returning the favour for the rudeness seeping from his post.

I think the point was moreso to point out the irony. You were so fast to leap to saying I was using ad hominems when you bring this "higher than art thou" attitude calling people here naive, and saying things like you expected better because they seemed smart otherwise.

You want to claim race doesn't exist, then defend that claim. This isn't about bringing yourself down to "our" level, this isn't about opinion. You made a claim that is can be proven wrong or right, now defend it.

[Greatguardian]

My sister (white/indian 50/50) is dating a black guy and was afraid to tell my parents about it for ages for really stupid reasons. That said, my sister can also be a gigantic retard sometimes because neither of my parents gave a shit that he was black and he's a genuinely nice guy. She just liked to pretend that we were a typical, white, middle class, suburban family so that she could "fit in" better in high school - and pretty much all the other typical, white, middle class, suburban families were closet racists so dating blacks was a no-no.

It was fucking sad, though. I'd leave to go out to work and I'd constantly trip over this dude just sitting on our porch because my sister refused to let him come inside the house and in my head I'm just like "holy shit, how do you put up with this?". But deep down I know it's because pretty much every other girl at our high school was either stupid as fuck or suburban white with closet racist parents. Hell, I'm half white and hometown famous. Half the PTA and half the teaching staff wanted me to date their daughters until, you know, I dated their daughters. Then it just became weird. You could see the inner war that was being waged between the closet racist and the need to preserve the dynasty. Which is worse, your daughter dating a successful brown man or a broke, illiterate white man? Round 1, fite.

Personally? I don't care what color someone's skin is, but I would not date someone that I was not physically attracted to because that would just be bad for both parties. I doubt most guys are any different. It's just more common to be generally attracted to women of certain ethnic backgrounds because they share physical traits that we find attractive. That doesn't mean that attractive women of different races need to gtfo.