Asperger's Confused for Racism?

What I meant to say is that race does not determine our genetic differences. A white man can have DNA that is completely similar to a yellow man or black man. Or completely different. The point is that race tells you nothing of genetic traits like different breeds of dog might (but sometimes don't). It can be generally assumed that a pitbul has above average fighting ability, or that a bloodhound will generally have a better sense of smell. Breeds can often determine genetic differences in doge. Thing is, the external appearance of human beings does not. You can't really say that black men are automatically better at sports than white men, for example. These kind of generalizations are not only hurtful, they are wrong. Yes, there seem to be more blacks in sports, but a big reason for that has to do with the social economic situation that a disproportionate number of blacks are put into. And structural racism also prevents many blacks from obtaining white collar jobs.

Anyway, I was miscommunicating when I said that there are no genetic differences between people. There are differences, of course, but the point is that race does not determine them.


Here, check out this documentary if you want proof and just want to see something interesting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0Iw8PCl-ho&feature=related

sitar85 wrote:What I meant to say is that race does not determine our genetic differences. A white man can have DNA that is completely similar to a yellow man or black man. Or completely different. The point is that race tells you nothing of genetic traits like different breeds of dog might (but sometimes don't). It can be generally assumed that a pitbul has above average fighting ability, or that a bloodhound will generally have a better sense of smell. Breeds can often determine genetic differences in doge. Thing is, the external appearance of human beings does not. You can't really say that black men are automatically better at sports than white men, for example. These kind of generalizations are not only hurtful, they are wrong. Yes, there seem to be more blacks in sports, but a big reason for that has to do with the social economic situation that a disproportionate number of blacks are put into. And structural racism also prevents many blacks from obtaining white collar jobs.

Anyway, I was miscommunicating when I said that there are no genetic differences between people. There are differences, of course, but the point is that race does not determine them.


Here, check out this documentary if you want proof and just want to see something interesting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0Iw8PCl-ho&feature=related

Your proof is moot - I never saw "races" of people as anything other than differing physical appearances, and actually use the word "race" interchangeably with "ethnicity." The reason I used "breeds of dog" as a comparison is because dogs really don't give a damn what other dogs look like depending on temperament, and all of them can still safely mate with one another provided literal anatomical compatibility: Male St. Bernard + Female Teacup Poodle = Horror.

I never meant that if people look differently they do certain things better, though it is possible for there to be a breed of human with the same myostatin inhibitor gene as bully whippets and double lean cattle, should they be forced to only reproduce with each other for a specific purpose.

You've based your argument on the assumption that I'm a racist (by my use of "race"), and I'm not. There are real genetic differences between ethnicities to the point that people of the same ethnicity will be more likely to have similar genes than when compared to someone not of the same genotype, and specific ethnicities appear to be more vulnerable to certain diseases, as well as women being more vulnerable to certain diseases than men and vice versa. There is indeed random mutation in the mix of all of this, but more often than not, if you happen to have all Scottish ancestors, you're more related to other people with similar ancestry than you would be to someone with all French, Spanish, Russian or Japanese ancestors - but even among the Japanese, the majority population is more related to Mongolians (and a great number of people throughout the world happen to be related directly to Genghis Khan) than they are to the indigenous Japanese, the Ainu. I never meant it as more than a "different genes result in a different outward appearance" idea, and I said right away that the difference in dogs is quite extraordinary in scope, which has lead to, at least, the most varied physical appearance seen in any known species on the entire planet.

Have I dealt with aggression from other people? Of course. Not any more than the aggression I've received from people more externally similar to me if I relate it to compared total populations of each, so I really wouldn't have a reason to think different people are better or worse at anything. Though random chance could have allowed for a disproportionate amount of hate from one specific group, I don't think it's reasonable to consider certain people lesser under those circumstances - but possibly because I'm fortunate. I have friends (and I use that term loosely) from a wide range of ethnicities, but the proportion of each representative is dependent solely on the amount of any one ethnicity in any area I happen to go, and whether or not I have similar interests to any of these people. However, I myself am a "mutt" of 7 different ethnicities, as well are any of my friends more likely to be "mixed."

Bear in mind that I don't use the term ethnicity to delineate skin tone, I mean people from specific ethnic groups that may very well have differing skin tones. My last name literally means "dark skinned" in Old French, but you wouldn't know that by looking at me or nearly everyone else with my last name.

Our disagreement seems to stem from our differed uses of the word "race." I use it in a broader sense not in line with the former sense of the word relating to eugenics, which appears to be how you're using it. However, given how my use of the word looks inappropriate given the original meaning, I would definitely feel less comfortable using it now than I had been in the past. I would hope I've satisfactorily explained myself, and after watching that video I understand why you're so opposed to the word I used and comparisons I've made.

sickle cell would be an example I suppose. Predominately shows up in African bloodlines, rarely in other races.

I cannot believe anyone would want to discuss racism in such length -- or dog breeds.

As for the original question asked last summer, no, I don´t project myself as racist nor anything opposite to it. What point is there in saying how very open-minded you are when it should not even be worth mentioning?

Camelidae wrote:I cannot believe anyone would want to discuss racism in such length -- or dog breeds.

As for the original question asked last summer, no, I don´t project myself as racist nor anything opposite to it. What point is there in saying how very open-minded you are when it should not even be worth mentioning?

Because I didn't know I was arguing about me being a racist for my comparison until my most recent post.

A few years ago, I was working as a health inspector and a fellow health inspector, of African American descent, confided in me that she thought I was a racist for several months because I never made eye contact with her.

It's not you it's her. I'm going to be very blunt, straightforward, and racist about this, and make a sweeping generalization:

In my experience living in a city where the majority of the population is African American, I can say with some confidence that most African Americans will pull the "race card" at the drop of a hat. Educated, well-off African Americans won't so much. The others will constantly blame the white man and the system that they are leeching off of instead of seeing that the blame is their's. Every ethnicity has been a slave and has been persecuted at one point in history, and the Jews had it worse than the African Americans did. Everyone else has moved on.

^ I think I´ll have to correct myself and make me a racist then, because that´s what I thought when reading the OP.

EBR wrote:I wouldnt say racist; I am frequently told I am stuck up and think I am better than everyone, which I do not think...

Same here, although I know I'm right a lot and don't get why others think so differently. What I think seems so right. It's weird.

neal88 wrote:It's not you it's her. I'm going to be very blunt, straightforward, and racist about this, and make a sweeping generalization:

In my experience living in a city where the majority of the population is African American, I can say with some confidence that most African Americans will pull the "race card" at the drop of a hat. Educated, well-off African Americans won't so much. The others will constantly blame the white man and the system that they are leeching off of instead of seeing that the blame is their's. Every ethnicity has been a slave and has been persecuted at one point in history, and the Jews had it worse than the African Americans did. Everyone else has moved on.

It's easy to make the judgment that people under stereotype threat are just being oversensitive, coming from the standpoint of someone with a more privileged background. But, statistically speaking, prejudice is still a very real and very serious phenomenon. Blacks still get paid substantially less for equal work than whites, on a level comparable to women, and with similar difficulties with job advancement. Discrimination has taken a covert, rather than overt, form, but it's still very prevalent.

It's understandable that the woman OP was talking about might feel the way she did. In this case it's just an unfortunate misunderstanding, but I don't doubt there are a lot of people who genuinely have trouble respecting black/female coworkers, so I wouldn't hold it against someone for being on guard for that sort of thing.