quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter:
Steve

Just read carefully. I have not used the term "White people" or similar in attributing cause or reason to the above issues. I have all along said Europeans or Collonials! That means Europeans or colonials of all races! Yes there were diverse ethnic groups within those categories! Nothing more than politically correct claptrap.

The terms "Black" and "white" in this context are themselves wrong and have no scientific basis. They are just used to claim positions of superiority or to denegrate people groups. For example, you are no more "white" than I am or for that matter Mugabe is! You may be a lighter complection but that does not really make you "white". The terms "White" or "Black" or "yellow" etc. are politically flavoured when used to describe ethnicity & race. See my remark above but if it makes you feel better, please feel free to construe my use of the word black to mean as deriving from the local indigenous populations and my use of the word white to imply pale skinned, European derived population that developed the various African countries.

That is why any debate on ethnicity and race gets so emotional and quickly degenerates into a pointless rant. Not by me it doesn't. You can call them anything you like but we all know that the truth is right there in front of you in black and white.

Look back at history and you will see that people of all races raped and plundered all over the world. ....Some more than others or for a longer period. But you will also see that Europeans over the last 500 years were responsibile for institutionalising their domination and oppression. To say nothing of the fact they developed what was nothing more than bush into a country with a thriving economy, roads, railways, infrastructures, schools & hospitals etc that was then handed over to the bla.... ooops, sorry, the local indigenous populations to govern who in turn totally destroyed everything and turned the entire country into a basket case.

When a country gets independent after centuries of domination, I wonder if it is possible to attain modern democratic capitalisitc standards in a few decades? Countries outside of Africa have done it Hence my question - How long did it take the Europeans to come out of the dark ages? That should give you some perspective. If it took Europeans over 1000 years to come out of barbaric civilization, why do you expect African tribals to do so within 30 or 50 years? Further more, you totally deny the residual impact of the domination of one type of civilization over another! How ridiculous! Not ridiculous at all. As I said before, the USA was formed barely half a century before Liberia yet the USA have managed to land a remote controlled vehicle on Mars and the limit of Liberian technology is more or less restricted to the dissassembly and reassembly of the bicycle.

Look at other aspects of history and tell me which are the two current major nations that have recovered from devastation within 50 years? Go and read about the socio economic recovery of Germany & Japan after WW2 and see the reasons the experts attribute to this recovery. You will see the reasons are largely the lack of colonial oppression and the retaining of the same paradigm and technological infrastructure. (You do so love that word paradigm don't you). Their technological infrastructure was entirely destroyed at the end of WWII and yet they managed to rebuild their economies and infrastructures within a few years yet Africa has had more support from the west and not only have failed to improve their economy and infrastructures have totally destroyed what they had when they started.

When there is a major paradigm shift, you cannot predict what the outcome will be. There you go with your favourite word again. As for predicting what would happen in the case of Africa, Smith, virtually every whi, oops, sorry, pale skinned, European derived population member that lived in the country and many who lived outside of the country predicted exactly what would happen and they were exactly right in their predictions. You will get change but it can easily be chaotic change. They got chaotic change. Look what has happened after the Arab Spring! That has been prooved right through history. What has the lack of successful development in zimbabwe got to do with the Arab Spring..... but don't blame me for that. If I had my way, the west would have minded it's own bloody business and let them sort out their shit on their own.

Bye bye! I have better things to do than keep responding to this nonsense!

You really ought to be a professional politician because you avoid answering awkward questions like one but nevertheless, if you feel the need to leave, byeeeeeeee

quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter:


The terms "Black" and "white" in this context are themselves wrong and have no scientific basis.

I was trying to stay out of this discussion but this statement begs for clarification.

What do you mean when you state there is no scientific basis for black people and white people??? And...why is it wrong to use these terms? I lived through the civil rights movement in the US and days of deciding what was appropriate to call an "African American". We changed numerous times as I remember my Mom would have to correct me from time to time but I thought we finally decided that plain ole "black" was fine. I know for a fact that white folks are fine with being called white. Please explain.

I thought I would stop this rubbish but there seem to be some valid questions and so I'll try and answer them by refering you to some scientific material - both biology & anthropology. Yes, you will need to understand the meaning of the word "paradigm" in order to appreciate mindsets, institutionalised prejudices etc.

Lane, you can get answers to your question by reading some of the info here - fficial&client=firefox-a" target="_blank">https://www.google.co.nz/searc...ial&client=firefox-a.

My earlier comments were not just my opinions but well established truths of natural and social sciences. As a vet, you will know something about genetics and genetic characters. You may also know about the so called "science" of racial purification during Hitler & Mangele's time.

The final conclusion is the same - the primary assumptions of the original post and discussions like this one on ethnicity and race are purely political and based on institutionalised prejudices. They have no scientific merit.

_____________________

Neuroscience and Race
By daniel.lende
Posted: August 2, 2012

An initial attempt at outlining a neuroanthropology of race…

Anthropology and Race

Decades of research in biological anthropology have led to one simple conclusion: Race is a biological fiction; human variation is real. People do indeed vary in their biology all around the world. That variation just does not fall into the simple slots imagined by government forms, discussed in locker rooms, and shown on television. Humans are more complex than white, black, red, and yellow.

Decades of research in cultural anthropology have led to one simple conclusion: Race as a social construction is real, and this social reality shapes people’s everyday lives, including their bodies. Some societies do indeed divide up people by color, and those divisions make a difference in people’s lives. The way those divisions make a difference is not just through stereotypes and race-based thinking, but also through how “races” have divided people in economic and historical terms. People’s lives were not and are not the same because of race as a social phenomenon.

Race as a social phenomenon has real biological effects. We understand now from human development that people’s experiences, from being marginalized to expecting discrimination, have definite, often unhealthy outcomes. The converse of this point is also true: race as white is as embodied as race as black or any other color. In the case of white privilege in the United States, this embodied space often has positive biological effects: better nutrition, less stress, less fear, and so forth. This lack of equality because of race also has another name: injustice........

Read the full article here
http://blogs.plos.org/neuroant...uroscience-and-race/

----------------------

Here is another bit of educational info - I have listed 10 of the 50. Look here for the full 50 points. http://facts.randomhistory.com/facts-about-race.html

50 Interesting Facts Facts About . . . Race and Racism

1. The concept of race is a modern concept. In the ancient world, the Greeks, Romans, Jews, Christians, and Muslims did not have racial categories. Rather people were divided according to religion, class, language, etc.

2. While humans differ genetically in some ways, such as blood type and skin pigmentation, most anthropologists and biologists believe categories of race are not biologically grounded because modern humans simply have not evolved into separate subspecies or races.

3. Most anthropologists and biologists view race as a political grouping with roots in slavery and colonialism. The number of races and who belongs in each race have shifted over time and nations—not because of responses to scientific advances in human biology, but rather in response to political purposes.

4. Aristotle’s famous division between Greek and Barbarian was not based on race, but on those who organized themselves into community city-states and those who did not. The ancient Romans categorized people not on biological race or skin color, but on differing legal structures upon which they organized their lives.

5. Samuel George Morton (1799-1851) tried to prove in the 19th century that select “races” were superior to others by measuring the cranial capacity (brain size) of different groups (“whites,” “American Indians,” “blacks”). He also argued that there were different origins and lineages for different races (polygenism), rather than a single creation (monogenism) as found in the Bible.

6. In the medieval era, Muslims and Christians divided humans based on the categories of “believer” and “nonbeliever,” not on biological race. Additionally, the Jews based the differences between “goyim” (non-Jew) and “Jew” on faith rather than on biological differences.

7. The 14th-century Islamic scholar Ibn Khaldun argued against the theory that physical characteristics reflected moral attributes. For example, he explained that dark skin developed because of the hot climate of Africa and not due to the curse of Ham.

8. Most genetic variety is not between races, but rather within races. For example, two random Italians are as likely to be as genetically different as an Italian and a Chinese.

9. The U.S. Census Bureau defines race as a social category recognized by the United States and does not attempt to define race biologically, anthropologically, or genetically. The Census Bureau recognizes five categories of race: White (people with origins in Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa,) Black or African American (Africa), American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander. The census also includes an Hispanic ethnic category. It is an ethnic category rather than a race category because the Latino community includes many races, such as white, black, Native American, Asian, and mixed.

10. Scientists believe that geography and ultraviolet rays cause variation in skin color, not race. Scientists believe that even though darker-skinned natives of Alaska and Canada live in northern regions with long periods of darkness, they receive higher levels of UVR reflected from the surface of snow and ice during the summer. Additionally, their diet is rich in vitamin D (from eating seal and fish), which compensates for the reduced sunshine in the winter. ......

Naki,

Give me your "current" definition of race as you understand it so we can have a common working point.

WHAT EXACTLY DOES ALL THIS ERUDITE DISCUSSION HAVE TO DO WITH MY ADMITTEDLY POORLY STATED ORIGINAL QUESTION? is the average black zimbabwean better off or worse off than 30 years ago? anyone who has ever been there or indeed has at least half a functioning brain should know the answer. apparently some here fall into the less than half a brain category.....

Jdollar - the problem is the question itself - starting off with "Black" versus "white". The question is intinsically divisive and prejudiced and has no hope of being an objectiv one.

As the above articles explain clearly irrespective of ones value base, the terms "black" & "white" to describe ethnicity and race are essentially concepts with roots in slavery & colonialism.

In other words - the earlier societies & civilizations did not make categorizations on such basis but on others such as "believer" or "non believer", or a person from one region versus another or one faith or an other etc.

BTW, there is no such thing as an "average black Zimbabwean". 80% of the population was & still is probably living in rural or small town communties. Technology has changes as much as the social and economic environment. If anything the old tribal boundaries have been made more complex because of relocation and change in power structures.

Before you even start asking the question about being better off you need to define the parameters. Are you using Western / European values or African tribal values to determione this?

Lane - if you read some of those references or any classical British Anthropologists like Radcllife-Brown, Evans Pritchard etc. you will see that "race" is not a valid scientific term among humans. Unlike the animal kingdom - humans cannot be taxonomically separted into races or subspecies.

Again read the references - humans show more differences withing an ethnic group than they do across ethnic groups! See example about Italians showing greater variances among themselves rather than compared to Africans.

"Race" is a socio-political concept with inherrant implications of domination and control or subserviance.

Check the other references - In the US "Hispanic" is not a race as it includes people from European "white", African, Latino (Spanish - which includes Arab & North African heritage), Native American and even Asian ethnic heritage.

Hence my earlier comment that Scientifically Mugabe is as White or Balck as anyone else on earth!

Now here is a question for you.

Is the Native African better off? My argument would be that the Native African includes people of European descent who have been there many generations.

The obvious answer is that they are not better off. Then ask the question Why? What is the cause & reason? Then go back and read my earlier posts.

I hope the paradigm penny has dropped for some people!

Naki, what do you not understand about "bye-bye?" You can go now.

Naki,

Your last few replies suggest you're familiar with the old saying "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, then baffle them with bullshit" - Unfortunately, even your bullshit is as fifth rate as your other arguments and these last ones aren't even worthy of a reply.

Oh, BTW. shame on you, after all you've told me, you've just used the word black when you should have used the phrase 'as deriving from the local indigenous populations.

Getting back to JD's original question which was "is the average black zimbabwean better off or worse off than 30 years ago?"

The answer to me and I'm sure, virtually all here is that he's FAR worse off........... But will you at least answer that question?

Please feel free to replace the word black with the phrase 'as deriving from the local indigenous populations' if you prefer.

Naki:

Out of sheer curiosity - what is your nationality?

quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter:
Lane - if you read some of those references or any classical British Anthropologists like Radcllife-Brown, Evans Pritchard etc. you will see that "race" is not a valid scientific term among humans. Unlike the animal kingdom - humans cannot be taxonomically separted into races or subspecies.

Again read the references - humans show more differences withing an ethnic group than they do across ethnic groups! See example about Italians showing greater variances among themselves rather than compared to Africans.

"Race" is a socio-political concept with inherrant implications of domination and control or subserviance.

Naki,
Race is a word...it DOES have a definition. Let's define it so that we have a reference point from which to work from.

From Dorland's Medical Dictionary:

Pronunciation: \ˈrās\
Function: noun
1 a : an actually or potentially interbreeding group within a species ; also : a taxonomic category (as a subspecies) representing such a group b : breed
2 : a category of humankind that shares certain distinctive physical traits

I believe #2 above is a definition in we can all agree to...can we not?

Naki: This cropped up on the news, reporting by Associated Press, no less......

Black women rally against voter ID laws
By SUZANNE GAMBOA | Associated Press – 5 hrs ago

"We are not going to give back one single inch. We have fought too long and too hard," said Reese, 45, coordinator of the Columbus-based Ohio Unity Coalition, an affiliate of the National Coalition on Black Civic Participation.

Reese is part of a cadre of black women engaged in a revived wave of voting rights advocacy four years after the historic election of the nation's first black president. Provoked by voting law changes in various states, they have decided to help voters navigate the system — a fitting role, they say, given that black women had the highest turnout of any group of voters in 2008."..... "power of black women is one of the themes of this year's four-day event. It will culminate Saturday with a keynote speech from one of the most visible black women in America, first lady Michelle Obama".....and it goes on and on.

It would appear that the word 'black' is not so offensive after all!

quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter:
Jdollar - the problem is the question itself - starting off with "Black" versus "white". The question is intinsically divisive and prejudiced and has no hope of being an objectiv one.

As the above articles explain clearly irrespective of ones value base, the terms "black" & "white" to describe ethnicity and race are essentially concepts with roots in slavery & colonialism.

In other words - the earlier societies & civilizations did not make categorizations on such basis but on others such as "believer" or "non believer", or a person from one region versus another or one faith or an other etc.

BTW, there is no such thing as an "average black Zimbabwean". 80% of the population was & still is probably living in rural or small town communties. Technology has changes as much as the social and economic environment. If anything the old tribal boundaries have been made more complex because of relocation and change in power structures.

Before you even start asking the question about being better off you need to define the parameters. Are you using Western / European values or African tribal values to determione this?

Lane - if you read some of those references or any classical British Anthropologists like Radcllife-Brown, Evans Pritchard etc. you will see that "race" is not a valid scientific term among humans. Unlike the animal kingdom - humans cannot be taxonomically separted into races or subspecies.

Again read the references - humans show more differences withing an ethnic group than they do across ethnic groups! See example about Italians showing greater variances among themselves rather than compared to Africans.

"Race" is a socio-political concept with inherrant implications of domination and control or subserviance.

Check the other references - In the US "Hispanic" is not a race as it includes people from European "white", African, Latino (Spanish - which includes Arab & North African heritage), Native American and even Asian ethnic heritage.

Hence my earlier comment that Scientifically Mugabe is as White or Balck as anyone else on earth!

Now here is a question for you.

Is the Native African better off? My argument would be that the Native African includes people of European descent who have been there many generations.

The obvious answer is that they are not better off. Then ask the question Why? What is the cause & reason? Then go back and read my earlier posts.

I hope the paradigm penny has dropped for some people!

give me a break AND CUT OUT THE PC BS!!!! IS THE average black Zimbabwean better off or worse off than 30 years ago. we know the answer for white Zimbabweans. you sound like Bill Clinton. "define sex" . " i did not have sex with that woman". "what do you mean by sex?" were you born stupid or did you become stupid as you got older? do you really think Mugabe is part white?? of course the question is devisive. THERE IS a difference between black and white, blacks are not better off and the reason why is obvious to anyone with brain- they have made a mess of governing Zimbabwe and the "average" black Zimbabwean has paid dearly for this cock-up. and i bet the many Hispanics i work with would be really interested to know that they are no different from the rest of us Anglos. take a trip down to the nearest barrio, espouse that bullshit, and see how long you stay alive amigo....