Re: MD Cosmotheism: Questions and Answers- for the Record

From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Wed Jun 16 2004 - 18:43:42 BST

  • Next message: johnny moral: "Re: MD Notes on Beauty, Art and DQ"

    On 16 Jun 2004 at 15:12, Paul Vogel wrote:
    msh:
    Now, here's the
    >definition of "Racism" from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
    >
    >Main Entry: rac·ism
    >Pronunciation: 'rA-"si-z&m also -"shi-
    >Function: noun
    >1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits
    and
    >capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent
    >superiority of a particular race.

    pv:
    The first half of the definition given above is just a scientific
    fact as "race" or "genetic stock" is the actual primary determinant
    of both Human and of non-Human life's traits and capacities.

    msh:
    You are apparently unable to understand a simple dictionary
    definition. SCIENCE does not support the idea that race is the
    primary determinant of human capacity, RACISTS do. Your equating
    "race" with "genetic stock" is simply, scientifically, wrong. What
    we normally think of as racial features, dark skin, blond hair, blue
    eyes, are determined by a miniscule portion of the human genome. So
    when you and your cosmotheistic brethren claim that such features are
    indications of a person's "inherent potential to serve as being the
    actual means of the COSMOS own SELF-ACTUALIZATION in GODHOOD,"
    (whatever THAT means), you are being racist.

    There is SO MUCH evidence against your racist views, it would be
    impossible to provide all of it in a reasonable frame of time. I've
    already wasted enough of mine, but I'll leave you with the American
    Anthropological Association's Statement on "Race" (May 17, 1998).

    In the United States both scholars and the general public have been
    conditioned to viewing human races as natural and separate divisions
    within the human species based on visible physical differences. With
    the vast expansion of scientific knowledge in this century, however,
    it has become clear that human populations are not unambiguous,
    clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups. Evidence from the
    analysis of genetics (e.g., DNA) indicates that most physical
    variation, about 94%, lies within so-called racial groups.
    Conventional geographic "racial" groupings differ from one another
    only in about 6% of their genes. This means that there is greater
    variation within "racial" groups than between them. In neighboring
    populations there is much overlapping of genes and their phenotypic
    (physical) expressions.

    Physical variations in any given trait tend to occur gradually rather
    than abruptly over geographic areas. And because physical traits are
    inherited independently of one another, knowing the range of one
    trait does not predict the presence of others. For example, skin
    color varies largely from light in the temperate areas in the north
    to dark in the tropical areas in the south; its intensity is not
    related to nose shape or hair texture. Dark skin may be associated
    with frizzy or kinky hair or curly or wavy or straight hair, all of
    which are found among different indigenous peoples in tropical
    regions. These facts render any attempt to establish lines of
    division among biological populations both arbitrary and subjective.

    Historical research has shown that the idea of "race" has always
    carried more meanings than mere physical differences; indeed,
    physical variations in the human species have no meaning except the
    social ones that humans put on them. Today scholars in many fields
    argue that "race" as it is understood in the United States of America
    was a social mechanism invented during the 18th century to refer to
    those populations brought together in colonial America: the English
    and other European settlers, the conquered Indian peoples, and those
    peoples of Africa brought in to provide slave labor.

    From its inception, this modern concept of "race" was modeled after
    an ancient theorem of the Great Chain of Being, which posited natural
    categories on a hierarchy established by God or nature. Thus "race"
    was a mode of classification linked specifically to peoples in the
    colonial situation. It subsumed a growing ideology of inequality
    devised to rationalize European attitudes and treatment of the
    conquered and enslaved peoples. Proponents of slavery in particular
    during the 19th century used "race" to justify the retention of
    slavery. The ideology magnified the differences among Europeans,
    Africans, and Indians, established a rigid hierarchy of socially
    exclusive categories underscored and bolstered unequal rank and
    status differences, and provided the rationalization that the
    inequality was natural or God-given. The different physical traits of
    African-Americans and Indians became markers or symbols of their
    status differences.

    As they were constructing US society, leaders among European-
    Americans fabricated the cultural/behavioral characteristics
    associated with each "race," linking superior traits with Europeans
    and negative and inferior ones to blacks and Indians. Numerous
    arbitrary and fictitious beliefs about the different peoples were
    institutionalized and deeply embedded in American thought.

    Early in the 19th century the growing fields of science began to
    reflect the public consciousness about human differences. Differences
    among the "racial" categories were projected to their greatest
    extreme when the argument was posed that Africans, Indians, and
    Europeans were separate species, with Africans the least human and
    closer taxonomically to apes.

    Ultimately "race" as an ideology about human differences was
    subsequently spread to other areas of the world. It became a strategy
    for dividing, ranking, and controlling colonized people used by
    colonial powers everywhere. But it was not limited to the colonial
    situation. In the latter part of the 19th century it was employed by
    Europeans to rank one another and to justify social, economic, and
    political inequalities among their peoples. During World War II, the
    Nazis under Adolf Hitler enjoined the expanded ideology of "race" and
    "racial" differences and took them to a logical end: the
    extermination of 11 million people of "inferior races" (e.g., Jews,
    Gypsies, Africans, homosexuals, and so forth) and other unspeakable
    brutalities of the Holocaust.

    "Race" thus evolved as a worldview, a body of prejudgments that
    distorts our ideas about human differences and group behavior. Racial
    beliefs constitute myths about the diversity in the human species and
    about the abilities and behavior of people homogenized into "racial"
    categories. The myths fused behavior and physical features together
    in the public mind, impeding our comprehension of both biological
    variations and cultural behavior, implying that both are genetically
    determined. Racial myths bear no relationship to the reality of human
    capabilities or behavior. Scientists today find that reliance on such
    folk beliefs about human differences in research has led to countless
    errors.

    At the end of the 20th century, we now understand that human cultural
    behavior is learned, conditioned into infants beginning at birth, and
    always subject to modification. No human is born with a built-in
    culture or language. Our temperaments, dispositions, and
    personalities, regardless of genetic propensities, are developed
    within sets of meanings and values that we call "culture." Studies of
    infant and early childhood learning and behavior attest to the
    reality of our cultures in forming who we are.

    It is a basic tenet of anthropological knowledge that all normal
    human beings have the capacity to learn any cultural behavior. The
    American experience with immigrants from hundreds of different
    language and cultural backgrounds who have acquired some version of
    American culture traits and behavior is the clearest evidence of this
    fact. Moreover, people of all physical variations have learned
    different cultural behaviors and continue to do so as modern
    transportation moves millions of immigrants around the world.

    How people have been accepted and treated within the context of a
    given society or culture has a direct impact on how they perform in
    that society. The "racial" worldview was invented to assign some
    groups to perpetual low status, while others were permitted access to
    privilege, power, and wealth. The tragedy in the United States has
    been that the policies and practices stemming from this worldview
    succeeded all too well in constructing unequal populations among
    Europeans, Native Americans, and peoples of African descent. Given
    what we know about the capacity of normal humans to achieve and
    function within any culture, we conclude that present-day
    inequalities between so-called "racial" groups are not consequences
    of their biological inheritance but products of historical and
    contemporary social, economic, educational, and political
    circumstances.

    Mark Steven Heyman (msh)
    --
    InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors
    Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983
    Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com

    "Thought is only a flash between two long nights, but this flash is
    everything." -- Henri Poincare'

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jun 16 2004 - 18:39:52 BST