The name "Opeth" and racism.

[Shadows Skulk]

I'm by no means an expert, but I do know someone whose opinion is this:

"In order to be able to argue that race exists, one would have to 1) define race in terms of heredity, genes 2) show evidence that such an arbitrary division of the human genome actually exists in reality. No one has done this, certainly no genetical evidence of separate subspecies within the human genome exists."

If, as you claim, there are in fact no races, then what are these terms "whites", "blacks", "latino", etc. refering to???

Theory. They are part of race theory that has been accepted, despite its lack of biological support.

 

[deliverance]

@moonlapse, how about in a less civil thread

 

[Ermz]

It's actually agreed by most anthropologists that there are 3 distinct races. The Negroids, Mongoloids and Caucasians. There were actually wondering whether to lump the aborigines that live here in Australia into another seperate race, but I'm not sure how that's faring. I'm no biologist, but from an ordinary person's viewpoint, it's quite obvious that the distinct trademarks between some 'groups' of people are not solely cultural - to suggest as such is absurdity. I also recall reading up on how during a widescale survey it was revelead that the Negroids had a lower average IQ than other races. I'm not sure about the validty of the survey, so I'll have to re-read it. I suggested however that the lower average IQ was a hereditary factor, as it still applied to negroids raised in caucasian cultures/families.

@deliverance: No, not on this forum. Try 'Seriously Off-topic'. They welcome it.

 

[deliverance]

@deliverance: No, not on this forum. Try 'Seriously Off-topic'. They welcome it.

indeed they do.

 

[Shadows Skulk]

bleh I don't care or know enough about the topic to argue with you guys but from what I've heard/researched, race is a cultural/social/historical/etc. concept, but it is not a biological truth.

google to the rescue

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/1998-10/WUiS-GSRD-071098.php
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0835/is_5_117/ai_97177172

 

[sknight]

I'm by no means an expert, but I do know someone whose opinion is this:

"In order to be able to argue that race exists, one would have to 1) define race in terms of heredity, genes 2) show evidence that such an arbitrary division of the human genome actually exists in reality. No one has done this, certainly no genetical evidence of separate subspecies within the human genome exists."



Theory. They are part of race theory that has been accepted, despite its lack of biological support.

Wrong. The evidence is beginning to support the fact that "infertility" due to incompatible sperm and eggs is due to the absence of the complementary receptors on the acrosome that allows it to combine. The correlation seems to be prevalent in racial divisions.

Enough is enough.

 

[Justin S.]

Shadows Skulk, I appreciate your effort to support your argument (unlike deathbearer), but a "source" link-war wont get us any closer to understanding.

My first and biggest objection to any "article" or media piece, whether scientific or not, is that the issue of race is a greatly misunderstood subject and highly political. All sorts of pre-conceived notions and emotions get thrown in the mix. I live with my long time girlfriend here in Hyde Park, Chicago. She is a 3rd year at the University of Chicago and spent 2 years working in a Immunology lab; hers specifically worked on the protein E2A, and she has many interesting stories about how the technology industry operates. They are FAR from the objective force that we like to portray it as. Money is money and all scientist fight for grants and the prestigious journal recognition. Many, id even go so far as to say most, "research" is total garbage. Fudged numbers, flawed experiments, and erroneous statistics are all too common. Also science is continually changing and re-evaluating; to say we have the technology to make a factual statement at this time is incorrect. The "Genetically Speaking" article you linked is total BS. Read it again critically: Who wrote it? What was their agenda? etc. It is hardly unbiased. A quote from the text: "I'm not saying these results don't recognize genetic differences among human populations," Yet the article tries to come to the opposite conclusion and/or claim that the difference is irrelevant. Again, confidence intervals on what is "significantly different enough" is a whole other science and cannot be taken for granted! Only 1% of difference exists between you and a Chimp; is that difference "insignificant"? A proportion, such as a percentage, is meaningless unless the factors and their true impact are understood.

My point is this: A link from one individual or lab is just that; it does not make it fact. You can find an infinite number of contradicting articles all from scientists proclaiming their view as "fact". Rather that get bogged down in that, id like to explain in detail a little more about what im claiming.

About the argument that race is not part of the genome/genetics: Do we all look identical, have the same facial features, skin color, hair type, etc.? The answer is NO. How then do these changes occur? Magic? Nope, genetic expression. To have traits, they must come from somewhere. Are you claiming a Divine Creation?

Clarity on “race”: I want to stress the importance of a previous statement of mine; There are no 100% hard lines regarding race. There is too much random mutation, population mixing, etc, to claim such. You can even see it first hand. We are not all cookie cutter molds; there are many gradations of skin tone and facial features. However, there most certainly are commonalities in population groups, and certainly in ones that are isolated for relatively long periods of time (such as modern Africans and those that migrated some 50,000 years ago). Because there are such distinct differences (that are generally uniform- ie, Africans have darker skin than a Scandinavian) we can make classifications. This does NOT imply any ranking or order. All we are saying is that there are differences in population groups based on observational experimentation and phenotype frequency (there is a recent book “Origins of Man” that deals with tracing genetic markers from older population groups and trying to better understand human migration). Any ordinal judgement is a secondary assessment

Moonlapse: Id be very careful about making such sweeping statements about “race IQ”. That is a very touchy subject and it’s a great way to get yourself lumped in with undesirable ideologies. Many of the older race studies (19th, early 20th centuries) where heavily flawed in their conclusions. That said, I would not be surprised if there was a statistical difference in certain populations intelligence...

About the three distinct races: What about those that are mixed? What are Arabs? They are not Nordics, and their not sub-Saharan Africans? Its too complicated to lump everything into neat categories.

Im tired now... More later if you all want to continue.

.

 

[Rekkr]

Race is one of those issues which could be debated both ways and never be completely solved -- someone will always be unsatisfied with the results. In my understanding, races DO exist. This is clearly evident when comparing physical traits of different races.

This thread could go on forever... I am not sure if I want to see it locked though as I find these debates interesting...

 

[mot-]

Everyone's a racist in here! Fucking racists! Tie them to a tree an burn them!

 

[deathbearer]

Notice I said "ethnicity", not History. There are no degrees in "White Studies" .

I was hunting around for exclusive universities but there are no White Colleges... only Black Universities and they turned me away!!! The fucking racists!!!

Oh, and there is more to European history than the span of 1933-1945.

Actually, at one point in US history, colleges, and schools WERE segregated, seperate but unequal.Brown vs. Board of education changed all of that. Segregated unversities ended when Jim Crow laws were abolished.
BTW, whites are not exlcuded, in the here and now from attending those formley black universities..The only reason that all BLACK univerisities existed in the first place was because of segregation, wich favored whites. Not sure why any college would be segregated now.
As for white studies,of course the degree doesn't SAY "white Studies" but any history degree, comes from a white European historical perspective.
For instance, most high schools students here in the states would have to take an American history course.
Depending on the cirruculum, American history is taught through the eyes of whomever was in power in your government. Native American history, womens, and Black history, up until the mid-late 80's was completely ignored in American high schools.
Here at SUNY New Paltz (State Univeristy of New York at New Paltz) it is a requirement that you take a course called "Modern World" wich is European history in depth. It Is a general eduation requirement.
Since the mid 90's at SUNY New Paltz and other colleges across the country, other courses are now general education requirements, to enrich students pea brains..Those courses are a few credits in black studies, or black history, womens studies, ect.
Why should American and world history ONLY be taught from the point of view of Europeans, as the history of minorities, indigenious cultures, and women are completely ignored.
You don't HAVE to go to college to get a better perspective of world history and other cultures there are books available.

 

[deathbearer]

No, in fact what turns me on even more is how much of the same views I share with Justin S. and more predominantly how hard he seems to be (inadvertently?) plowing deathbearer's arguments into the floor.

I was on the brink of locking this thread, because certain folks *cough* brought it down to a personal level. I feel that this topic, whilst being totally ludicrous when synonymized with Opeth, has opened up an interesting topic of conversation/debate and I feel it should be left open unless or until it turns into a degenerate slander-fest. As long as it doesn't turn into complete bigotry and personal slander, I feel it should be left.

If any of you folks do have a problem with it, just tell me and also give me a few good reasons as to why it should be closed. Right now I feel this has been a more interesting read than the entirety of the front page.

Plowing my arguments into the ground, please check your history books first. Thanks. pfft.

 

[deathbearer]

Shadows Skulk, I appreciate your effort to support your argument (unlike deathbearer), but a "source" link-war wont get us any closer to understanding.

My first and biggest objection to any "article" or media piece, whether scientific or not, is that the issue of race is a greatly misunderstood subject and highly political. All sorts of pre-conceived notions and emotions get thrown in the mix. I live with my long time girlfriend here in Hyde Park, Chicago. She is a 3rd year at the University of Chicago and spent 2 years working in a Immunology lab; hers specifically worked on the protein E2A, and she has many interesting stories about how the technology industry operates. They are FAR from the objective force that we like to portray it as. Money is money and all scientist fight for grants and the prestigious journal recognition. Many, id even go so far as to say most, "research" is total garbage. Fudged numbers, flawed experiments, and erroneous statistics are all too common. Also science is continually changing and re-evaluating; to say we have the technology to make a factual statement at this time is incorrect. The "Genetically Speaking" article you linked is total BS. Read it again critically: Who wrote it? What was their agenda? etc. It is hardly unbiased. A quote from the text: "I'm not saying these results don't recognize genetic differences among human populations," Yet the article tries to come to the opposite conclusion and/or claim that the difference is irrelevant. Again, confidence intervals on what is "significantly different enough" is a whole other science and cannot be taken for granted! Only 1% of difference exists between you and a Chimp; is that difference "insignificant"? A proportion, such as a percentage, is meaningless unless the factors and their true impact are understood.

My point is this: A link from one individual or lab is just that; it does not make it fact. You can find an infinite number of contradicting articles all from scientists proclaiming their view as "fact". Rather that get bogged down in that, id like to explain in detail a little more about what im claiming.

About the argument that race is not part of the genome/genetics: Do we all look identical, have the same facial features, skin color, hair type, etc.? The answer is NO. How then do these changes occur? Magic? Nope, genetic expression. To have traits, they must come from somewhere. Are you claiming a Divine Creation?

Clarity on “race”: I want to stress the importance of a previous statement of mine; There are no 100% hard lines regarding race. There is too much random mutation, population mixing, etc, to claim such. You can even see it first hand. We are not all cookie cutter molds; there are many gradations of skin tone and facial features. However, there most certainly are commonalities in population groups, and certainly in ones that are isolated for relatively long periods of time (such as modern Africans and those that migrated some 50,000 years ago). Because there are such distinct differences (that are generally uniform- ie, Africans have darker skin than a Scandinavian) we can make classifications. This does NOT imply any ranking or order. All we are saying is that there are differences in population groups based on observational experimentation and phenotype frequency (there is a recent book “Origins of Man” that deals with tracing genetic markers from older population groups and trying to better understand human migration). Any ordinal judgement is a secondary assessment

Moonlapse: Id be very careful about making such sweeping statements about “race IQ”. That is a very touchy subject and it’s a great way to get yourself lumped in with undesirable ideologies. Many of the older race studies (19th, early 20th centuries) where heavily flawed in their conclusions. That said, I would not be surprised if there was a statistical difference in certain populations intelligence...

About the three distinct races: What about those that are mixed? What are Arabs? They are not Nordics, and their not sub-Saharan Africans? Its too complicated to lump everything into neat categories.

Im tired now... More later if you all want to continue.

.

Hmm, interesting post. There are LESS genetic differences between races, other than skin color, sometimes hair texture than one might think.
One might have to consider the orgin of races, wether one comes from a warm, hot climate in terms of human evolution, would determine skin color.
Other than that, the differences in some races, is primarily cultural.
CULTURAL like language, customs, dress, food, religion, language.
The only race is the human race really.

 

[Justin S.]

Deathbearer, please stop with the personal attacks/assumptions. You have no way of knowing my age, educational background, or knowledge base. You can spare me your juvenile "history" lessons and adivice on reading material. While we are sharing ideas, i suggest you pick up a book on English grammar and syntax; if you are going to feign superiority, please have the decency to do so in a coherent manner.

 

[deathbearer]

It's actually agreed by most anthropologists that there are 3 distinct races. The Negroids, Mongoloids and Caucasians. There were actually wondering whether to lump the aborigines that live here in Australia into another seperate race, but I'm not sure how that's faring. I'm no biologist, but from an ordinary person's viewpoint, it's quite obvious that the distinct trademarks between some 'groups' of people are not solely cultural - to suggest as such is absurdity. I also recall reading up on how during a widescale survey it was revelead that the Negroids had a lower average IQ than other races. I'm not sure about the validty of the survey, so I'll have to re-read it. I suggested however that the lower average IQ was a hereditary factor, as it still applied to negroids raised in caucasian cultures/families.

@deliverance: No, not on this forum. Try 'Seriously Off-topic'. They welcome it.

Hi Moonlapse nice to met you after all these years. I don't live in Aulstralia but I would love to visit "down under" where it must be warmer than New York, USA this month.
Calling blacks, or African Americans in this country "negroids" would not get you any "politically correct" points here in the USA, btw.
The whole argument that "negroids" have a lower IQ has been disproven eons ago. In fact, Nazi Germany had their scientists doing the same "research" to rationalize the holocoust.
In fact IQ means nothing these days so much as life experience,psychological stability, learning disabilities, and family income,family stability and abuse in the household, and quality of education depending on how much you area code spends on education.
Trying to rationalize intellgence, and civil rights by way of IQ means nothing and is very dangerous indeed.
There is a book about the inqualities in the education system here in the USA called "Savage Inequalities" by Jonathan Kozol.
Your theory of inherited ignorance by way of race is a dangerous concept indeed. I've heard much about the struggle of the Aborigines down under, it is no coincidence that these outdated, disproven IQ tests are used to discredit civil and human rights of indiginous people of colour worldwide.
Also, to say that people of mixed race, or multicultural backrounds and those brought up by Caucasions are "smarter" or "dumber" makes no sense either.
At least here in the USA, so much MORE is factored into intelligence or "inherited IQ". Alot in life is learned, only a few things in life are instinctual.
Mental illness, ,learning disabilities, socialogical backrounds, educational opprotunities, economic backrounds (class) factor into learning and "intelligence".
Also, what classifies RACE here in the USA, seems more evolved than in your country or your point of view.
I briefly worked for the census here in the USA. We interviewed people in different regions (in my case NYC) about thier houshold income, and professions.
So many different races are factored into these survey's and there are some whom are problably left out. Hispanics, whites, Pacific Islanders, Asians, blacks, native americans, not to even mentioned nationalities.
Ugh, i'm a liitle disgusted with your rationality of IQ vs. race.

 

[deathbearer]

Deathbearer, please stop with the personal attacks/assumptions. You have no way of knowing my age, educational background, or knowledge base. You can spare me your juvenile "history" lessons and adivice on reading material. While we are sharing ideas, i suggest you pick up a book on English grammar and syntax; if you are going to feign superiority, please have the decency to do so in a coherent manner.[/QUOTE I'm not attacking YOU personally.I'm attacking your ingorance and concepts, delusions of superiority and assumptions that YOU are so victimized with facts that you CAN'T argue.
If you would in fact stop being so poon hurt, and go to college yourself, you would have already know these facts that I've stated.
I've never said anything about superiority of any race including myself.
in fact, you have the RIGHT here in the USA to belive what you want, and state your opinions, even if I don't agree, even if you are ignorant.
Next time please state facts in your argument.

 

[Justin S.]

Oh, this is too much!

 

[MetalAges]

Locking this thread temporarily. Do NOT start another one on this subject please until this one is (or if) it reopens. I don't think it is fair on Opeth's own board to make assumptions as some have; and then for the thread to evolve like it has. This exact type of thing is why Opeth stopped having off-topic and I'd hate to start that again. Messaging Moonlapse.

 

[Ermz]

[EDITED]

Sorry folks, wrote that reply after the lock, bit too late it seems

I understand MetalAges' concerns regarding this thread. Whilst I've done everything to keep it civil, the guys from the band could interpret all this in the wrong way. I figured it was a given that relating Opeth to 'racism' at a superficial level was pretty ludicrous, but others might not feel the same way. If MetalAges feels the need to close this thread, then he has my support. -- Moonlapse