DNA Evidence Rocks the Boat

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

I must apologize for implying it took mental retardation to miss the point, but i was a bit aback from that...

 

It's not ractist to catagorize the human genepool, but to restrict certain catagories from basic humanity or human rights.

 

This is nothing in relation to racism. Discrimination, maybe, but not by racist proportions.

 

To categorize the human genepool simply relies on basic characteristics. The shape of bone structure, commonlky shared features, like nose size and shape, hair color, eye color, and skin color, and the microscopic DNA. These are what categorize human beings.

 

YES, they can be integrated and shared! This is as anti racist as it gets! Nature isnt racist, per se, but DOES have a way of preserving the original lineages. If Humans did not have "catagorical race", we wouldnt have any distinguishing features as eye shape, nose size, skin color, or immunities.

 

Find anyone who is by no means related to any human beings of the orient who has "oriental eyes".

 

 

Find someone who has absolutely no ancestory of black persons, who is born black. Or red, or yellow, or white, or brown.

We ARE distinguished by, for lack of a better term, race. No different than desert versus mountain mantis. No different than polar or grizzly bear. No different than any species of cat, from leopard to cheetah, lion to housecat.

 

Nature, man. It's not racist, just diverse.

 

 

Diversity and categorization are not racist, but inhibiting one particular characteristic, weather politically or personally, is. Prejudice is to judge before knowing. Distinguishing the diverse human characteristics is almost a necessary ("evil") practice to eliminate prejudice. Almost.

[Apech]

I must apologize for implying it took mental retardation to miss the point, but i was a bit aback from that...

 

It's not ractist to catagorize the human genepool, but to restrict certain catagories from basic humanity or human rights.

 

This is nothing in relation to racism. Discrimination, maybe, but not by racist proportions.

 

To categorize the human genepool simply relies on basic characteristics. The shape of bone structure, commonlky shared features, like nose size and shape, hair color, eye color, and skin color, and the microscopic DNA. These are what categorize human beings.

 

...

 

OK thanks for answering ... although you didn't answer my specific question. Before we knew much about the science of genetics it was easy and natural for people in the Victorian era say, to look round the world and say there's white people over here, black people over there and yellow people ... and produce a list of types of peoples on the basis that by identifying superficial characteristics of appearance such as skin colour, they were categorising groups of people into different types or races. But we also know that the Victorians were racist in that they assumed that those not like them were also not equal ... possibly less intelligent and so on. They were imperialists after all. But what genetics discovered was that the apparent differences between the supposed races were so little, superficial and actually quite vague because there are whole spectra of shades of skin colour and so on that it was not possible to define people by race in this way. The variations within each group far outweighed the differences between groups. Obviously this is different to cultural differences which do exist. So although for instance in giving a description of a man to the police ... 'he was white caucasian' ... this is purely descriptive of appearance and does not denote any other characteristics.

 

If you, or anyone, believes that there are five, or whatever number of 'root races' - which is what I was being told - then for this to have any meaning they must believe that there are real differences between those races. If they do, then they should be able to list those differences beyond say colour of skin and shape of eyes. If they cannot what they are actually saying is that there is only one 'race' or species 'homo sapiens' with superficial variations within which gives no basis for racism or discrimination in the sense of making assumptions about someone beyond the level of saying for instance, their hair is blond, brown, red and so on.

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

Not really... If the 5 races have unique and distinguishing features, it is safe to say that those features are the catagorical distinguishment for that particular race.

 

 

Same as a polar bear versus a grizzly bear.

[Apech]

Well I don't agree - those distinguishing features are just adaptations to different climates and environments.

 

If you want to believe in five root races that's up to you I guess. I don't. I've made my point so I suppose we'll just agree to disagree.

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

Fair enough, but i would like to ask then, what definition of "race" do you have? you almost seem to suggest "species".

Just a thought in wonderment.

 

But i will leave it with that. Im not here to argue, but to try to clairify as well as possible.

[Apech]

An interbreeding, usually geographically isolated population of organisms differing from other populations of the same species in the frequency of hereditary traits. A race that has been given formal taxonomic recognition is known as a subspecies.

Maybe this one I don't know ... that's why I was asking you what the distinguishing features were.

 

Maybe I'm just and old wet liberal at heart ... I've seen racism do a lot of damage in the world and I hate it with a vengeance. Ah well.

 

PS. Just found this from Scientific American ....

 

Can genetic information be used to distinguish human groups having a common heritage and to assign indi- viduals to particular ones? Do such groups correspond well to predefined de- scriptions now widely used to specify race? And, more practically, does divid- ing people by familiar racial definitions or by genetic similarities say anything useful about how members of those groups experience disease or respond to

drug treatment? In general, we would answer the first

question yes, the second no, and offer a qualified yes to the third.

 

Just Google "Does Race Exist pdf" and you can get the article.

Edited October 21, 2011 by Apech
to add quote and link

[Patrick Brown]

Pity this thread has been moved to the, err pit, as it raises many interesting questions. I'm fairly familiar with Blavatsky and Theosophy although I never really bought into it unlike my ex wife who used to go to meetings etc. It's worth remembering that most Theosophical ideas come from the worlds religions together with science and philosophy. The idea, it seems, was to build a coherent system available for all to study yet every individual is biased unconsciously to one view or another. Theosophy does emphasise again and again that the individual must test every assertion / idea until the breakthrough to some higher understanding is achieved.

 

Now I never really had much interest in all the "root race" stuff but here's what I think they were trying to say:

 

There is an unfolding of consciousness which migrates through different bodies of experience. So if we talk of a subset of races say the seven races of the fifth "root race" then the seventh race will become the first race of the six "root race. Something like that! Anyway the point is that we all must travel through all the "root races" as well as all the sub races. It's not possible to jump races just as a cat doesn't suddenly give birth to a dog.

 

So what does this all mean? Well it seems that we fall into self consciousness in the human sphere through our desires and then through a process of gradual understanding disentangle ourselves so that we can move out of this human realm and into a different one. It may well be that our consciousness moves back into the animal sphere, yet desire-less, and then to the plant kingdom and then beyond the mineral to the consciousness of air and the elements? Of course all things are relative and most people will accept that there are worlds without human life just as there are worlds without animal life.

 

I actually think all this "root race" stuff came from Hinduism was further refined in Jainism and then perfected in Tibetan Buddhism. Of course the idea of rounds of existence and different races does appear in other cultures and religions not least with the race of Adam and then Eve which might be seen as the first and second "root races".

Edited October 23, 2011 by Patrick Brown

[thelerner]

Pity this thread has been moved to the, err pit, as it raises many interesting questions.

I think we may all be mature enough to have this thread moved to off topic. It may have dabbled in 'Pit stuff', but I don't think it belongs there.

 

Others??

[Apech]

I think we may all be mature enough to have this thread moved to off topic. It may have dabbled in 'Pit stuff', but I don't think it belongs there.

 

Others??

 

OK I'll hold my hands up and say that I may be very sensitized to racism and 'the Pit' may have been a step too far. I am quite concerned though that in researching for replies on here to the questions about race that the stuff on youtube is almost entirely based on aryan supremacy or similar. However reading Blavatsky on the Root Races I see this is a completely different thing (although slightly odd/crazy in my opinion).

 

Anyway it seem to be the will of the TBs that this goes to Off Topic ... so there it goes .

[Patrick Brown]

Can't see it doing any harm as there's nothing explicitly racist going on with this thread. I've set out the rough idea, well at least as far as I can see it, above so people can argue that if they want.

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

I dont suppose we can dig this out of the pit, if it hasnt already been rephrased in a new thread?

[michael245]

The point of the diagram in this context is clear. It is to demonstrate the existence of the 5 peoples in the history of the development of humankind. The point is that there were 5. The positioning of the 5 peoples in the diagram has no meaning here and does not indicate any one of the 5 is more important than the other.

 

Therefore, NOT racist.

 

Out of all of your threads this is the worsest one I've seen.How dare you! : (