General Election 2010

I'd go with 'racism' as used in common parlance, a dislike of people with visually obvious characteristic differences, skin colour and facial features being the most obvious, so Arab, black, Asian, Chinese and so on.

But it's definitely visual, and only visual - you can't be racist about somebody who speaks English with a heavy accent, for instance?

I don't know enough about the subject to comment to be honest.

Fair enough. My point is that the concept "racism" is based on the concept "race", which is difficult to accurately define. Therefore "racism" itself is difficult to accurately define. Getting pedantic about whether something is sufficiently "racist" to fill the nebulous definition is kind of pointless.

I'm sorry- I misread (or left out the end of) that quote- I did not read that he was still allowed to continue-
I saw this
as UKIP dropping him like a stone.
Apologies.

But he has been allowed to continue campaigning for the Ilford South seat and also for a ward in the Redbridge council elections."

.

I too, am not happy that the conservatives are in (to all intents and purposes) but I don't dwell on events in the far past that have little bearing on current politics.

Any fool can retrospectively criticise a past government, but it takes something more to form an educated opinion of the current situation. I voted for who I wanted, not who I didn't want.

Yes, the tories might shaft us and possibly will, but we will have the right to vote them out if we think there's a better option.

Sorry RPM.
I also voted for those who did something in my locality not really for their general policies (before Labour and now Lib-Dem, because of their previous record in our area).
In the local elections for example, I don't tick anybody who doesn't live locally, even if I sympathise with their party.

your use of that phrase is suscribing to the idea of Orientalism as outlined by many, notably Said (almost- but in a more complicated way that truthfully i do not fully understand).

back to genetics and race:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/first/gill.html

it is true that all humans are genotypically incredibly close, but there are inherent inherited characteristics that people of the same race- and I suscribe to tynan's description just written- which are significant.

I've read (and I'll find the reference) that viewed from a purely genetic standpoint, the only meaningful way of categorising humans into different races is to say that there are basically two races: pale skinned northern European gingers, and everyone else. There's more actual measurable difference between gingers and other white Europeans, for example, than there is between white Europeans and black Africans.

: )

There is a wonderful device in debate - a person states his position, makes his points within the argument and then closes off any counter argument with " . . . but I am* not arguing about this".*

Not quite; I said I am not arguing with you. And I am not :)

You talk an unbelievable amount of bullshit.

As always, coming from you, I take that as a compliment.

I'd go with 'racism' as used in common parlance, a dislike of people with visually obvious characteristic differences, skin colour and facial features being the most obvious, so Arab, black, Asian, Chinese and so on.

That, if anything, is the way I am using the word. I believe UKIP attracts the sort of people who, in their heads and amongst their like minded friends, use the word Paki, for example. They know well enough not to say it in public. The sort of thing I occasionally hear from certain members of my family; it's unthinking, stupid, ignorant and ill informed. They are not evil people, they are not the thugs of the BNP, but they are racist.

Agreed.

Agreed.

But it's definitely visual, and only visual

It's mainly visual but not only visual .. there definitely are differences between different peoples - significant difference, like height, for example. They are extremely small differences, however.

From Genetic variation, classification and 'race' Nature Genetics 36, S28 - S33 (2004):

Conclusions
Data from many sources have shown that humans are genetically homogeneous and that genetic variation tends to be shared widely among populations. Genetic variation is geographically structured, as expected from the partial isolation of human populations during much of their history. Because traditional concepts of race are in turn correlated with geography, it is inaccurate to state that race is "biologically meaningless." On the other hand, because they have been only partially isolated, human populations are seldom demarcated by precise genetic boundaries. Substantial overlap can therefore occur between populations, invalidating the concept that populations (or races) are discrete types.

When large numbers of loci are evaluated, it is often possible to infer individual ancestry, at least approximately. If done accurately and with appropriate reservations, ancestral inference may be useful in genealogical studies, in the forensic arena and in the design of case-control studies. This should not be confused, however, with the use of ethnicity or race (genetically measured or self-identified) to make decisions about drug treatment or other medical therapies. Responses to these therapies will often involve nongenetic factors and multiple alleles, and different populations will often share these alleles. When it finally becomes feasible and available, individual genetic assessment of relevant genes will probably prove more useful than race in medical decision making.

In the meantime, ethnicity or race may in some cases provide useful information in biomedical contexts, just as other categories, such as gender or age, do. But the potential usefulness of race must be balanced against potential hazards. Ignorance of the shared nature of population variation can lead to diagnostic errors (e.g., the failure to diagnose sickle-cell disease in a European individual or cystic fibrosis in an Asian individual) or to inappropriate treatment or drug prescription. The general public, including policy-makers, are easily seduced by typological thinking, and so they must be made aware of the genetic data that help to prove it wrong.

A particular area of concern is in the genetics of human behavior. As genes that may influence behavior are identified, allele frequencies are often compared in populations67, 68. These comparisons can produce useful evolutionary insights but can also lead to simplistic interpretations that may reinforce unfounded stereotypes69. In assessing the role of genes in population differences in behavior (real or imagined), several simple facts must be brought to the fore. Human behavior is complicated, and it is strongly influenced by nongenetic factors70. Thousands of pleiotropic genes are thought to influence behavior, and their products interact in complex and unpredictable ways. Considering this extraordinary complexity, the idea that variation in the frequency of a single allele could explain substantial population differences in behavior would be amusing if it were not so dangerous.

Race remains an inflammatory issue, both socially and scientifically. Fortunately, modern human genetics can deliver the salutary message that human populations share most of their genetic variation and that there is no scientific support for the concept that human populations are discrete, nonoverlapping entities. Furthermore, by offering the means to assess disease-related variation at the individual level, new genetic technologies may eventually render race largely irrelevant in the clinical setting. Thus, genetics can and should be an important tool in helping to both illuminate and defuse the race issue.

ACC. my SCOPUS (a scientific search engine for papers) search this is the most cited paper on the topic.
citation number often reflects scientific merit. Plus Nature Genetics is one of, if not the foremost, journal on Genetics.

it also has a high google rank- not that that is as important.

If our armed forces were properly equiped then they'd not be killed so often- a good thing surely? I don't know about the 40% figure, I'd have thought that reducing waste would do, likewise with the increase in forces.

I'd not oppose wind farms (let the birds take their chances!) , but the current situation where wind farm operators pay to put their electricity onto the grid so they can claim the government subsidy seems a little barmy?

i do not believe that there are any countries that present as significant a threat to the UK to warrant the large sum spent on the armed forces, which i believe could be put to better use elsewhere.

as for the windfarms, i do not know about the point you raise.

after reading the sun yesturday with that pathetic obama-esque picture on the front and a warning that we must vote tory to save us.. swiftly followed by a picture of a policeman on fire during the greece riots and a line stating how we are soon to follow greece if we don't go tory.. somewhat tainted my views of torys

for the record i didn't buy the rag it was on the table in the waiting room

It's mainly visual but not only visual .. there definitely are differences between different peoples - significant difference, like height, for example. They are extremely small differences, however.

Peoples = races?

From Genetic variation, classification and 'race' Nature Genetics 36, S28 - S33 (2004):

ACC. my SCOPUS (a scientific search engine for papers) search this is the most cited paper on the topic.
citation number often reflects scientific merit. Plus Nature Genetics is one of, if not the foremost, journal on Genetics.

it also has a high google rank- not that that is as important.

A really interesting piece - thanks.

I may be suffering from confirmation bias, but I think that this tends to confirm the point that I was making.

I disagree- but the article is very balanced, and allows for personal bias- undoubtedly the reason it has been cited so often.
IMO-
it says that behaviour based aspects of race are unsupported by race, whereas the physical attributes are supported.
furthermore- allow it allows for and highlighs a blurring of the boundaries- i feel that this sentence sums up the article best:
"When large numbers of loci are evaluated, it is often possible to infer individual ancestry, at least approximately"

loci are lovations of genes on a chromosome, and the individual ancestry- is down to what I would term 'race'- shared ancestral attributes.
therefore- a genetic background to 'race'.

Henry

Peoples = races?

There isn't a proper scientific consensus for what 'race' is, but in the very general sense, yes. Asians are, on average, shorter than both Caucasians and Africans .. that isn't purely visual, like skin colour is, that is something that really is different. From a biological perspective, the difference is incredibly small, however it is fair to say that those are measurable and real, not purely environmental.

You think that the article helps to define the concept of race (genetically or otherwise)?

It alludes to "traditional concepts of race", but I'm not seeing any definition.

Fair enough. My point is that the concept "racism" is based on the concept "race", which is difficult to accurately define. Therefore "racism" itself is difficult to accurately define. Getting pedantic about whether something is sufficiently "racist" to fill the nebulous definition is kind of pointless.

It's not pointless in that it (racism as a term) is not based on the (scientific) concept of race - without a precise agreed definition (nor a need for one) the commonly accepted (if unspoken) definitions fill the void.

I am not getting pedantic about this (as far as I can see), my point is that nothing I see in the UKIP stance would mark them out as racist, even using the hideously distended definition that we have ended up with.

There isn't a proper scientific consensus for what 'race' is, but in the very general sense, yes. Asians are, on average, shorter than both Caucasians and Africans .. that isn't purely visual, like skin colour is, that is something that really is different. From a biological perspective, the difference is incredibly small, however it is fair to say that those are measurable and real, not purely environmental.

Well, to gather data on whether or not Asians tend to be shorter would require a definition of "Asian". We could define Asian people as "people who define themselves as Asian", but I don't think that that gets us much closer to a real answer.

@ seeds-
you questioned my standpoint that race can be defined genetically:
it can and has been shown in my two references.

I have redefined my understanding of race, as instead of blase posting I sat and thought it through for a while (please read my previous post which I edited)....

Peoples = races?

You shouldn't really struggle with this too much, I agree with your general theme that any definition of 'race' might always be circular and vague.

But no one here is using a wholly scientific understanding of the word - when people say 'racist' they simply mean 'you don't like significantly visually different foreigners' (this is the common parlance).

It's not pointless in that it (racism as a term) is not based on the (scientific) concept of race - without a precise agreed definition (nor a need for one) the commonly accepted (if unspoken) definitions fill the void.

I am not getting pedantic about this (as far as I can see), my point is that nothing I see in the UKIP stance would mark them out as racist, even using the hideously distended definition that we have ended up with.

You shouldn't really struggle with this too much, I agree with your general theme that any definition of 'race' might always be circular and vague.

But no one here is using a wholly scientific understanding of the word - when people say 'racist' they simply mean 'you don't like significantly visually different foreigners' (this is the common parlance).

Well, I suppose I was trying to kill two birds with one stone:

1) "Racism" vs. "Discrimination against people who are not like us in some obvious way" is a difficult hair to split.

2) It's easy to monster someone by asking for more and more of their fundamental axioms until they give in and admit that there isn't necessarily a Wikipedia article to substantiate everything they have ever said.

:P

PS I really don't believe that there is a genetic basis for a meaningful concept of "race".

PS I really don't believe that there is a genetic basis for a meaningful concept of "race".

But if you look at it objectively, there must be - otherwise we'd all be roughly the same height as peoples. For example, the lineup on the 100m sprint at the olympics is always exclusively guys of west African origin - do you really think that's a coincidence, purely environmental?

I can't understand how you can't.
Its like saying that you don't believe there is a genetic basis for a meaningful concept of hair color.
Or more fundamentally- a misunderstanding of Evolutionary principles.

Genetics and Epigenetics have developed and fine tuned people to live in different parts of the world, due to different conditions prevalent there. These changes are passed down through generations and form minute- unimportant, but genetically perceivable changes- defined through any of the 4/5 definitions of a 'gene' -which I doubt that most people know- that you wish to subscribe to.

Well, I suppose I was trying to kill two birds with one stone:

1) "Racism" vs. "Discrimination against people who are not like us in some obvious way" is a difficult hair to split.

2) It's easy to monster someone by asking for more and more of their fundamental axioms until they give in and admit that there isn't necessarily a Wikipedia article to substantiate everything they have ever said.

:P

PS I really don't believe that there is a genetic basis for a meaningful concept of "race".

I agree with all that, and still stick to my original point that - as far as I understand it - UKIP are in no way racist and it is troubling that people are willing to call them racist based on what appears to be little more than emotive arguments.

Blacks out !!!

But if you look at it objectively, there must be - otherwise we'd all be roughly the same height as peoples. For example, the lineup on the 100m sprint at the olympics is always exclusively guys of west African origin - do you really think that's a coincidence, purely environmental?

Go back to Turkey you fucking racist - and take your 'Olympic Race Purity' ideal with you.