TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Obama's "race" on the Cobert Report
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Obama's "race" on the Cobert Report

In the Steven Cobert report tonight, he had a discussion with this host black chick (forgot her name). The debate was what to call Senator Obama's race. She was trying to explain that since Obama was a descendent of a father who moved directly from Africa and not a descendent of a slave in America, she referred to him as an "African African-American" rather than as a black person. What the hell?

Is there any other group of people who sub-classifies each other based on an experince in the past? There's no Jews I know of that call other Jews who aren't direct descendents of holocaust victims as something else. A Jew is a damn Jew.

But according to this chick, you are not black if you don't share the common suffrage of slavery? I don't get it.

So yeah, I guess Obama isn't black, but some sort of half African black American African white black beige.

Obama is half "white" anyway, so his race is mixed no matter what you wish to call it.

Can I call him a "mutt" or is that not P.C.?

to her black people form a group of people that share a common ancestry. That ancestry is formed of people taken from africa to become slaves. That is her definition of black people.


now she forms a distinction between those forced into slavery and subsequently started a new life in america, and those who willingly migrated to america.


I dont see the complication here. colbert almost crossed a line there, but he was hilarious.

Race is rather hard to define without looking at ancestry, which means looking at genetic markers.

Hard to define in any useful way, that is. We can always do the "quick and dirty" method of looking at physiology.

quote:

Originally posted by Boomer187 to her black people form a group of people that share a common ancestry. That ancestry is formed of people taken from africa to become slaves. That is her definition of black people. now she forms a distinction between those forced into slavery and subsequently started a new life in america, and those who willingly migrated to america.

I understand the distinction but I don't understand what the purpose is.

I guess there might be some point if one wanted to implement affirmative action only for those people who had slaves as ancestors. But that would be extremely tricky as well, since slavery was also practiced very widely in Africa. Perhaps only people who had American slaves as ancestors.

Very rational criterion, don't you think?

its time for another round of racial draft !

Re: Obama's "race" on the Cobert Report

quote:

Originally posted by Jake Benson In the Steven Cobert report tonight, he had a discussion with this host black chick (forgot her name). The debate was what to call Senator Obama's race. She was trying to explain that since Obama was a descendent of a father who moved directly from Africa and not a descendent of a slave in America, she referred to him as an "African African-American" rather than as a black person. What the hell? Is there any other group of people who sub-classifies each other based on an experince in the past? There's no Jews I know of that call other Jews who aren't direct descendents of holocaust victims as something else. A Jew is a damn Jew. But according to this chick, you are not black if you don't share the common suffrage of slavery? I don't get it. So yeah, I guess Obama isn't black, but some sort of half African black American African white black beige.

this is exactly the kind of stuff we talk about in my race and ethnicity class.

you can call a jamaican black "African-American," but yell at a white South African for claiming the same title.

all these categories, - black, white, hispanic, asian....they're socially constructed and have no meaning. why would you base an identification system on the amount of melanin present in someone's skin? it's absurd.

there is no biological backing for the "race" categories. the only "race" we should be worried about is that HUMAN RACE, because that's really the only thing we can biologically CALL "race."

if you're talking ethnicity, just say where you're from. all this "i'm 1/8th cherokee..." YOUR BLOOD DOESN'T SHOW DIVISIONS IN ETHNICITY. ethnicity should be something like "I am American, I am of German decent, I am Texan," ...etc.

sorry to rant, but we talk about this shit every day. in sum, that woman is a retard. i bet she can't even trace her lineage back to slavery.

why can't he just be an American??

Like - people from Russia are Russians, Canada are Canadians. Why can't this bitch just be American?

quote:

Originally posted by Aristronica why can't he just be an American?? Like - people from Russia are Russians, Canada are Canadians. Why can't this bitch just be American?

Yeah, i think americans have a severe identity crisis. People from alot of other places that i know, from europe, africa, latin america, none of them go around saying oh my grandfather was spanish so im not dominican im spanish, or my grandfather was african im not english im african, they go im dominican, im english, etc..

it happens everywhere i think, but not nearly as militant as in the us. most of my friends with italian names refer to themsleves as italian... i just call them "concrete workers" or "bricklayers" but to each his own. i consider myself french canadian or quebecois which is quite common in quebec, you would never find someone in ontario call themselves ontarian....

Re: Re: Obama's "race" on the Cobert Report

quote:

Originally posted by prolikewhoa there is no biological backing for the "race" categories. the only "race" we should be worried about is that HUMAN RACE, because that's really the only thing we can biologically CALL "race."

This is untrue. A "race" is just a very extended family with some level of inbreeding, which has led to clustering of certain genetic traits. The analogue from the animal kingdom would be "breed."

A genetic / cladistic concept of race can be useful in determining risks for certain diseases and medical conditions.

And the old canard about "total percentage of shared genetic code" is not relevant. There is indeed more genetic variation within extended families ("races") than between them, but the concept of "race" is based on recently shared ancestry and clusters of certain genes that result from this ancestry, and is still meaningful.

That's what happens when people believe races exist: non-sense.

Whether races exist depends on whether we give the term "race" a meaningful and coherent definition.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles And the old canard about "total percentage of shared genetic code" is not relevant. There is indeed more genetic variation within extended families ("races") than between them, but the concept of "race" is based on recently shared ancestry and clusters of certain genes that result from this ancestry, and is still meaningful.

Well, just so you know, the people actually doing the research disagree.

quote:

Our evidence for clustering should not be taken as evidence of our support of any particular concept of �biological race.� In general, representations of human genetic diversity are evaluated based on their ability to facilitate further research into such topics as human evolutionary history and the identification of medically important genotypes that vary in frequency across populations. Both clines and clusters are among the constructs that meet this standard of usefulness: for example, clines of allele frequency variation have proven important for inference about the genetic history of Europe, and clusters have been shown to be valuable for avoidance of the false positive associations that result from population structure in genetic association studies.

Rosenberg, N. A., Mahajan, S., Ramachandran, S., Zhao, C., Pritchard, J. K., Feldman, M. W. (2005) Clines, Clusters, and the Effect of Study Design on the Inference of Human Population Structure. PLoS Genet 1(6): e70 (emphasis mine)

Although clines and clusters are certainly interesting genetic topics with significant implications in medicine and evolutionary biology, they don't lend themselves to use in any kind of taxonomic classification, in large part because there are simply too many of them, and probably many more that we have yet to discover. It would certainly be unscientific to define our taxonomy based upon those clines and clusters which happen to be relevant to a particular, seperate, field of inquiry, such as medicine, while ignoring all others. But any taxonomic classification of race based upon these genetic markers is going to be just as arbitrary - except perhaps splitting at all or none of these points. But neither of those methods will result in a meaningful taxonomy of human biological race: according to one, we are all the same race, and according to the other, the races multiply exponentially. And certainly, in none of these cases will our hypothetical taxonomy correlate strongly with any of the many different lay interpretations of race, or self-identification.

The utility of classifying people according to certain genotypes and phenotypes for specific purposes in medicine or other fields of inquiry is unquestionable. However, taking these classifications outside of the scope which they are expressly created for and attempting to use them as a definition for "race" lacks both utility and integrity.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter But any taxonomic classification of race based upon these genetic markers is going to be just as arbitrary...

Of course it will be arbitrary. "Species" works in much the same way; we come up with different boundaries depending what we use as a criterion for separation. This does not mean that all discussion of "species" is meaningless.

quote:

The utility of classifying people according to certain genotypes and phenotypes for specific purposes in medicine or other fields of inquiry is unquestionable. However, taking these classifications outside of the scope which they are expressly created for and attempting to use them as a definition for "race" lacks both utility and integrity.

I agree; the definition should vary according to its utility in the field in question. I would not propose giving just one definition to "race" and then using it in all fields.

To take a non-medical example, it is a fact that people with a certain trait, that of having mostly Ashkenazi Jews as ancestors within a certain stretch of time, score significantly higher on IQ tests than a group with the opposite trait, that of mostly lacking Ashkenazi Jews in their ancestry during the same time period. Why is this so? I do not know, but it is an interesting question that will not be elucidated by saying that there really is no meaningful difference at all between the two groups.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles To take a non-medical example, it is a fact that people with a certain trait, that of having mostly Ashkenazi Jews as ancestors within a certain stretch of time, score significantly higher on IQ tests than a group with the opposite trait, that of mostly lacking Ashkenazi Jews in their ancestry during the same time period. Why is this so? I do not know, but it is an interesting question that will not be elucidated by saying that there really is no meaningful difference at all between the two groups.

This is a very complex question. You would have to trace where the trait bifurcates and then qualify how those people reproduced and with whom. You would also have to factor in their SES and other environmental circumstances. After you have all that then you would have to compare both groups. You would also need to control for cultural bias in the IQ test. In a nutshell, this question would not be answered just by genetics. Everyone has a development curve, and environmental factors affect if you develop to your full potential or not. I would bet that the people with this particular gene you talk about either had a higher less sensitive curve when it comes to environmental influences or they simply had access to better environments.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles Whether races exist depends on whether we give the term "race" a meaningful and coherent definition.

It can only exist as a social construct, not as a biological pattern.

quote:

It can only exist as a social construct, not as a biological pattern.

Patterns of biological ancestry exist regardless of our social constructs; and patterns of ancestry are all I mean when I speak of "race."

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles Patterns of biological ancestry exist regardless of our social constructs; and patterns of ancestry are all I mean when I speak of "race."

Even in the case that there are patterns of biological existence the real issue is how relevant is race for social interactions. It is certainly useful for drug metabolization differences and the like as Arbiter said, but in a social context is it really useful?

Sure, for some sociological issues like education. If it is the case that people of different ancestry have different outcomes for both standardized tests and finished level of formal schooling, then it may be useful or at least interesting to investigate why that pattern occurs.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.