Trump vs Hillary 2016

I have a Hungarian grandmother (born here), a Spanish grandfather, a Syrian grandfather (born here), and another grandmother with heritage that in the USA goes back to 1750 and is some combination of French and German and more unknowns. The Arabs lobbied hard in the early 20th century to be considered "white" by the US census bureau.

The three largest groups of Arab Americans are Lebanese, Syrians and Egyptians with many Egyptians coming in the last 20 years. My relatives used to say that Syrians and Lebanese are the same people, but Lebanese had better PR. Since my great grandparents lived within 30 miles of the Lebanese border, my relatives say they are Lebanese if they sense trouble.

Quote: AZDuffman

One would think that the same people who yearn for a "post-racial" America would welcome the end of such data collection, but they demanded it be kept. I guess just it just shows what a big business the race industry is and will remain in the USA.

Despite the diverse ethnic background of my ancestors, I am considered racially white. My brother is married to a woman with different ancestry including American Indian, but she identifies as "black" so his marriage is considered biracial.

Scientists since the 1950's have decided that "race" is not scientific term. Or to be proper there is no fundamental subdivision in humanity, only a lot of ethnic groups that we insist on grouping into 3 to 5 "racial groups" since the 18th century. So I imagine post racial America would be the widespread acceptance of that fact. Racial data is nor formally collected in most of Latin America (only first language data). Almost everyone is "mixed". Hispanic Americans are often puzzled by the race and ethnicity question on the US census, although there is a trend to move from "other race" to "white race".

But minority political groups are violently against the cessation of collecting racial data. Without any hard data, most of their industry would flail around in "he said, she said" nebulousness.

Quote: Pacomartin

My relatives used to say that Syrians and Lebanese are the same people, but Lebanese had better PR. Since my great grandparents lived within 30 miles of the Lebanese border, my relatives say they are Lebanese if they sense trouble.

Yeah, Lebanon was always considered some sort of "cut out" of Syria even as Syria dominated them to the point of de facto annexation. I guess Lebanon was sort of more cosmopolitan than Syria until the late-1970s when it imploded.

Quote:

Scientists since the 1950's have decided that "race" is not scientific term. Or to be proper there is no fundamental subdivision in humanity, only a lot of ethnic groups that we insist on grouping into 3 to 5 "racial groups" since the 18th century. So I imagine post racial America would be the widespread acceptance of that fact.

I would say you can divide it into European, Asian, African, and New World with a subset in the Middle East that has a foot in three of the four worlds. If one takes off the PC blinders differences can be seen. But as soon as they are pointed out the cry. "what does skin color have to do with X."

Quote:

But minority political groups are violently against the cessation of collecting racial data. Without any hard data, most of their industry would flail around in "he said, she said" nebulousness.

Big money in it, and it will get bigger. Sadly I see a Balkan future for the USA.

Obviously the concept of a "different group of people" existed long before the 18th century, and to the beginning of history. But, although the word "race" existed in English since the 16th century, the modern meaning of "one of the great divisions of mankind based on physical peculiarities" is from Blumenbach.

The 1775 treatise "The Natural Varieties of Mankind", by Johann Friedrich Blumenbach (German scientist) proposed five major divisions:
the Caucasoid race (including the Abyssinians, later designated as Ethiopid Mediterraneans),
the Mongoloid race,
the Ethiopian race (later termed Negroid),
the American Indian race, and
the Malayan race.

That was the beginning of simple observational differences to the "ideology of race".

Quote: AZDuffman

I would say you can divide it into European, Asian, African, and New World with a subset in the Middle East that has a foot in three of the four worlds.

But you are projecting conventional thinking. Because Africa was inhabited much longer than the other continents, it has a wider range of genetic diversity. Most Europeans would assign pygmies and Watusis or the Tutsi to the same broad subdivision of humanity.



The Tutsi in the 1950 film, "King Solomon's Mines"


There is no scientific reason to support pygmies and Tutsi's as more closely related genetically and belonging to the same subdivision of humankind while pygmies and Italians are in a different broad subdivision.

In the US census bureau, Indians, Indonesians, Chinese, Japanese and Koreans are assigned to one racial group. In other words, roughly 2/3 of the population of the world is one race, and the other races divide up the final third. It's a cultural statement, and not a scientific one.

Quote: Pacomartin

In the US census bureau, Indians, Indonesians, Chinese, Japanese and Koreans are assigned to one racial group. In other words, roughly 2/3 of the population of the world is one race, and the other races divide up the final third. It's a cultural statement, and not a scientific one.

Why is it not "scientific" just because 2/3 make one race? I will not deny there is some culture in the way the census puts it, but the percent of one race vs another does not need to be even. Again I will take the position that in the USA we are so trained to think "everyone is the same" that most people refuse to admit any difference.

Labrador Retrievers and Border Collies are both dogs. They can be interbred. But there are differences between them. Different temperments and attributes. Same in humans, it is just in humans that if you know one Border Collie that chases a stick well then PC demands that we ignore all the similarities lest we "label" people.

But as we pointed out, there is huge money in labeling people from the very people who claim to not want labels.

Quote: AZDuffman

Why is it not "scientific" just because 2/3 make one race?

No of course not. That is just the observation that because Asians make up less than 6% of our population, we group them together and call them a "race". In other places like UK they group South Asians together distinct from East Asians. But they have larger immigrant groups.

World population
60.3% Asia
15.2% Africa
10.5% Europe
8.6% Latin America
5.0% North America
0.5% Oceania

It's an indicator that we have always used simple metrics to define Race. We group them by continent and a few obvious physical characteristics.

Geneticist reasoned that if the human race could be divided into meaningful large subgroups, within one group would be a large percentage of common genes. Then there would be minor genetic differences to distinguish secondary groups (Irish from Italians).

Research in the 1950's and 1960's and in particular this 1972 paper failed to find such a phenomena.
http://www.philbio.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Lewontin-The-Apportionment-of-Human-Diversity.pdf


I am not trying to be politically correct, just scientifically accurate. Obviously different groups of people are genetically different.

Dog breeds were largely developed by human interference, except for the ancient breeds. We organize them into groups like HERDING, HOUND, NON-SPORTING, SPORTING, TERRIER, TOY, and WORKING based partly on physical characteristics, but primarily on how we relate to them. But we don't call them races of dogs.

White people are not a fundamental subdivision of mankind that has a unique genetic structure. It's a group of humans who spent the last few tens of thousands of years in a place without much sunlight, and without enough fish in the diet to provide Vitamin D. Natural selection favored thin skin which allowed them to absorb more Vitamin D from the sun, but then made it much more likely they would die of skin cancer, but only after breeding age. All human beings have a white layer under their skin (as do other primates), it's just that it shows through the thin skin. White people are becoming an increasingly small percentage of the population, but there is no "race" to be preserved.

Fur shaved off a gorilla

Quote: Pacomartin

Scientists since the 1950's have decided that "race" is not scientific term. Or to be proper there is no fundamental subdivision in humanity, only a lot of ethnic groups that we insist on grouping into 3 to 5 "racial groups" since the 18th century.

There are a few genetic traits which show up among some ethnic groups in greater proportion than in others. Other than that, there is no relevance to race or ethnicity.

However:

Quote:

But minority political groups are violently against the cessation of collecting racial data. Without any hard data, most of their industry would flail around in "he said, she said" nebulousness.

When you're part of a group that faces discrimination, harassment, different standards, etc. you kind of want such things to be documented and addressed.

Speaking of race, Hillary has a new attack ad out against Trump hitting him on his racism issues:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4q2oLn8Bmfo

These anti-Trump ads have been so damn effective so far.

Quote: ams288

These anti-Trump ads have been so damn effective so far.

I have a great relationship with "the blacks". An entire ad made of quotes.

Quote: ams288

These anti-Trump ads have been so damn effective so far.

Efficient, too. I don't recall any other presidential candidate so consistently making his own negative publicity like Trump. The closest would be Mondale when he said in a debate he would raise taxes, and even that was rather nuanced.

Quote: ams288

Speaking of race, Hillary has a new attack ad out against Trump hitting him on his racism issues:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4q2oLn8Bmfo

These anti-Trump ads have been so damn effective so far.

In other words she can't come up with something serious or important so back to race baiting?