Babies Born Racist?

[Willamena]

Some people actually think it is.

Must be the atheist babies who think so.

 

[bobhikes]

Here's from eyewitness to history.com where actual eyewitnesses describe history.

When the Negroes, whom the black traders have to dispose of, are shown to the European purchasers, they first examine them rela*tive to their age. They then minutely inspect their persons, and inquire into the state of their health, if they are afflicted with any infirmity, or are deformed, or have bad eyes or teeth; if they are lame, or weak in their joints, or distorted in the back, or of a slender make, or are narrow in the chest; in short, if they have been, or are afflicted in any manner, so as to render them incapable of much labor; if any of the foregoing defects are discovered in them, they are rejected. But if approved of, they are generally taken on board the ship the same evening. The purchaser has liberty to return on the following morning, but not afterwards, such as upon re-examination are found exceptionable.

You may have underestimated the cruelty and shrewdness of the European purchasers.

Racism is about the only thing that can upset me greatly. It took me time to cool down to compose a response.

So as I read it from this and your last post, you are inferring that all the US blacks are decendents of slaves that were A1 quality and that have been mixed with their white masters. This is why their (size, muscularity and co-ordination)your words, are so good for sports. This is all based on eye witnesses of more than 100 years ago.

#1 Didn't other African's and dark skin nations immigrate to the US in the Last 100 years. I assure they have and my bet is today they outnumber the descendents of slaves.

#2 Do you believe all the Black player's in Basketball and Football are only descendents of slaves? I assure you I know quite a few that are not.

#3 You believe eye witnesses and information from more than 50 years ago is more vauable then DNA and Genetics information today.

You say my explanation is a desperate attempt to prove my point. All you have is desperation. At least my explanation doesn't hurt others, yours insure's racism will exist. Good work.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Don't need luck hurricanes are natural, race isn't even real thing.

I wonder if yelling at the sky could help you understand analogies.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Before I find that research significant, I would like to see it repeated in different countries with different mixes of ethnicities.

It is fairly obvious that children very soon know their parents preferences. By the time they are toddlers they are no longer a clean palette.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Before I find that research significant, I would like to see it repeated in different countries with different mixes of ethnicities.

It is fairly obvious that children very soon know their parents preferences. By the time they are toddlers they are no longer a clean palette.

The following study (Three-month-olds, but not newborns, prefer own-race faces) would indicate that newborns have no racial/ethnic preference. However, they do by the time they are 3-months old.

Also, from the study: "Overall, the results from Experiments 1 and 2 demonstrate that preferential selectivity based on ethnic differences is not present in the first days of life, but is learned within the first 3 months of life. The findings in turn imply that adults' perceptions of ethnic differences are learned and derived from differences in exposure to own- versus other-race faces during early development. Also, in concordance with earlier findings (Quinn et al., 2002; Pascalis et al., 2002; Pascalis et al., 2005), the current data support the notion of a broad and unspecified face processing system at birth that becomes tuned through facial input at a very early stage in life."

"To summarize, this study has provided the first direct evidence in support of an ethnically unspecified face processing system at birth, which can become tuned to certain facial dimensions that specify race within the first 3 months of life. We believe that preference for own-race faces observed in 3-month-olds represents the perceptual beginnings of categorization based on ethnic differences and may provide a basis for the ‘other-race effect’."

 

[George-ananda]

Racism is about the only thing that can upset me greatly. It took me time to cool down to compose a response.

If anyone that doesn't agree with you is a 'racist' then you must get upset often.

So as I read it from this and your last post, you are inferring that all the US blacks are decendents of slaves that were A1 quality and that have been mixed with their white masters.

Where did I say all I said there was a selective preference for strong and healthy and such preference coincides also with common sense.

This is why their (size, muscularity and co-ordination)your words, are so good for sports. This is all based on eye witnesses of more than 100 years ago.

Certainly eyewitnesses are an important part of history. And it's more like 300 years ago actually.

#1 Didn't other African's and dark skin nations immigrate to the US in the Last 100 years. I assure they have and my bet is today they outnumber the descendents of slaves.

Your facts are wrong. Slave descendants of the western hemisphere far outnumber willing black immigrants from Africa in the United States.

#2 Do you believe all the Black player's in Basketball and Football are only descendents of slaves? I assure you I know quite a few that are not.

I would never say 'all' just overwhelmingly.

#3 You believe eye witnesses and information from more than 50 years ago is more vauable then DNA and Genetics information today.

They're both valuable if one wants to objectively study something.

You say my explanation is a desperate attempt to prove my point. All you have is desperation. At least my explanation doesn't hurt others, yours insure's racism will exist. Good work.

Nature doesn't always co-operate with what you think would be best. The only way my explanation would hurt others is if people do stupid things. And they will do so with or without any intelligent analysis.

 

[dust1n]

Study: Babies Show Racial Bias « CBS Seattle
People love to say that racism is a learned thing, perhaps hoping that it
might be cured completely some day by our just becoming more advanced.
Does the above linked study dash such hope?

No. And the children in question were like a year old. Behaviors are learned quickly. EDIT: Three months, apparently.

 

[Penumbra]

Several studies (examples 1, 2, 3) have indicated that babies are also more drawn to attractive faces than unattractive faces (with attractiveness being defined as what a consensus of adults also found to be attractive, like a balanced bright well-defined face). The earliest was done within the first few days of birth while the infant was still in the hospital, as early as day 1 for some of the infants. And the studies show it extends to non-humans, so like if you show a picture of a tiger with nice eyes and sharp color contrast of fur, or a sort of dull looking tiger (even when both are black and white images), they prefer the first tiger.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

No, race isn't made up, it's a biological reality. That doesn't mean we can't get past our differences and move on. As far as I know, "race is only a social construct" isn't the full truth and is something people use when desperate to extinguish racism and instead try to extinguish race.

It's true that all humans are of the same species, there is definitely evolutionary differences in our species. Ethnicity is a very real thing, different evolutionary paths in different climates pre-globalization. Humans have variety, we're no special, superspecies with absolute homogeneous genetics. And of course there is genetic differences in race, each individual has a unique set of genetics, a white guy and a black guy isn't going to be the same. There's too much physiological differences in races to ignore, check this out: Boas, Bones, and Race | Penn State University

At the same time there is a socially constructed myth around races formed of stereotypes. Not all dark skinned people are criminals, not all white skinned people are greedy/rich. Struggle in life isn't based on skin color, it is based on who you are.

The point is; we're all different, and that's what makes us the same.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

No, race isn't made up, it's a biological reality. That doesn't mean we can't get past our differences and move on. As far as I know, "race is only a social construct" isn't the full truth and is something people use when desperate to extinguish racism and instead try to extinguish race.

It's true that all humans are of the same species, there is definitely evolutionary differences in our species. Ethnicity is a very real thing, different evolutionary paths in different climates pre-globalization. Humans have variety, we're no special, superspecies with absolute homogeneous genetics. And of course there is genetic differences in race, each individual has a unique set of genetics, a white guy and a black guy isn't going to be the same. There's too much physiological differences in races to ignore, check this out: Boas, Bones, and Race | Penn State University

At the same time there is a socially constructed myth around races formed of stereotypes. Not all dark skinned people are criminals, not all white skinned people are greedy/rich. Struggle in life isn't based on skin color, it is based on who you are.

The point is; we're all different, and that's what makes us the same.

Define "race". Provide genetic evidence of these "races". How many "races" are there? If "race" is a biological reality, then those questions should be answered with ease. However, there are numerous ways of defining "race" and different racial models, some of which posit dozens of different races and subraces.

"White" and "black" are biologically meaningless social constructs, by the way. There is no "white race" or "black race". There's humans who have lighter skin and darker skin due to environmental adaptations. But to lump them together is just laziness, dishonest and offensive. A San tribesmen from South Africa is not the same as a West African Yoruba person and neither is the same as a Somali, an Ethiopian or a Papua New Guinean. And that's just "black people". Look at how many different ethnic groups that are found just within the indigenous Papua New Guinean population: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papuans Are all of those different "races"? The idea of biological race is a nonsense that isn't borne out in reality.

 

[Revoltingest]

Define "race". Provide genetic evidence of these "races". How many "races" are there? If "race" is a biological reality, then those questions should be answered with ease. However, there are numerous ways of defining "race" and different racial models, some of which posit dozens of different races and subraces.

"White" and "black" are biologically meaningless social constructs, by the way. There is no "white race" or "black race". There's humans who have lighter skin and darker skin due to environmental adaptations. But to lump them together is just laziness, dishonest and offensive. A San tribesmen from South Africa is not the same as a West African Yoruba person and neither is the same as a Somali, an Ethiopian or a Papua New Guinean. And that's just "black people". Look at how many different ethnic groups that are found just within the indigenous Papua New Guinean population: Papuan people - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Are all of those different "races"? The idea of biological race is a nonsense that isn't borne out in reality.

It seems you're using a different definition of "race" from those who see that it exists.
Such strident certainty with accusations of laziness & dishonesty is unwarranted.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

It seems you're using a different definition of "race" from those who see that it exists.
Such strident certainty with accusations of laziness & dishonesty is unwarranted.

Which definition? Has anyone defined it yet? What evidence is there for "race"? What is it supposed to be? The people who support theories of biological "race" are the ones who need to define the concept so that we all know what we're talking about.

Yes, "white" and "black" are lazy and dishonest ways of categorizing people. They came about as social constructs to uphold the institution of racism by creating boundaries between people. People may not realize it, but when you look into it, it becomes apparent.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Define "race". Provide genetic evidence of these "races". How many "races" are there? If "race" is a biological reality, then those questions should be answered with ease. However, there are numerous ways of defining "race" and different racial models, some of which posit dozens of different races and subraces.

"White" and "black" are biologically meaningless social constructs, by the way. There is no "white race" or "black race". There's humans who have lighter skin and darker skin due to environmental adaptations. But to lump them together is just laziness, dishonest and offensive. A San tribesmen from South Africa is not the same as a West African Yoruba person and neither is the same as a Somali, an Ethiopian or a Papua New Guinean. And that's just "black people". Look at how many different ethnic groups that are found just within the indigenous Papua New Guinean population: Papuan people - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Are all of those different "races"? The idea of biological race is a nonsense that isn't borne out in reality.

Keep in mind I'm defining this myself so it might be a little off, but this is just my picture and understanding of race:

A race is a group within a species that share similar traits from ancestry. White-skin usually is more northern or European while dark-skin is usually more southern or African.

 

[psychoslice]

I think we all have our likes and dislikes, I prefer white skin to black skin, I prefer round eye's to narrow eye's, I prefer a black jacket to a white jacket, it doesn't mean I hate the person wearing the white jacket, this racism is ridiculers in my way of thinking.

 

[Breathe]

Keep in mind I'm defining this myself so it might be a little off, but this is just my picture and understanding of race:

A race is a group within a species that share similar traits from ancestry. White-skin usually is more northern or European while dark-skin is usually more southern or African.

What about this definition of race?

"Race is a classification system used to categorize humans into large and distinct populations or groups by anatomical, cultural, ethnic, genetic, geographical, historical, linguistic, religious, and/or social affiliation."​

- From Wiki​

So, I suppose if this definition would be used, there'd be, well, a lot of races. North African, East African, West African, Sub-Saharan African, Northern European, etc? Possibly then further characterized as "European", "African", etc, and then by things that ultimately would boil down to... appearance, I guess?
Kind of sad, but like anything, the more generalized it becomes, the more diluted the definition becomes.



This is to nobody in particular, but still, I feel this must be said:

Guys, this is a sensitive issue, but like everything, should be on the table for intelligent, respectful discussion. I feel that creating something as a taboo and getting to emotionally involved in the discussion is unhelpful in the long run. Pointing of fingers, accusing others of bigotry, and storming off may make people feel good in the short-term, but long-term, it is not helpful.

Sometimes you have to speak about things you don't want to.

The avoidance of speaking about race and whether or not it exists risks, in the long-term, encouraging racial discrimination because it is off the cards for intelligent discussion, and ignorance will set in. Ignoring something does not make it go away in the real world, even if mama told you otherwise when you were in school; it'd be nice to think otherwise, but it isn't the case, sadly. The current rise of nationalism in Europe is testament to that.
We're all grown-ups here, after all, we can discuss this like adults. Right?

My thoughts, anyway.

 

[oldbadger]

People love to say that racism is a learned thing..................................
Does the above linked study dash such hope?

............. only if one is a complete buffoon.
Honestly, I'm surprised that the OP chose such a weak example of so-called 'science'.
The trouble with psychology is that it's just about the most inexact science on the planet, as shown by these very strange test conditions.

The dress of the adults seems to have been random. What a joke!
Two uniforms, one colored (say) bright yellow, the other (say) dark-blue should have been worn by all the adults who distributed the toys. Then they needed to all change into the other colour of uniform for the test to be repeated.

The toy distributors needed to be smiling or scowling in the first tests, then change expression in the second....

Oh, the list of variables goes on, and on....... and the only random selection should have been the races of the distributors.

To pick such a pathetic example of a controlled test can only suggest a very heavy agenda linked to the OP, surely?

Pathetic opening post, there. laughable.

Sad

 

[Revoltingest]

Which definition? Has anyone defined it yet? What evidence is there for "race"? What is it supposed to be? The people who support theories of biological "race" are the ones who need to define the concept so that we all know what we're talking about.

Even without an explicit definition, for you to not recognize differences which others see points to a different definition. Even though there are demonstrable genetic differences resulting in differences in appearance, maladies, & response to treatments, you still see no race where I do.

Yes, "white" and "black" are lazy and dishonest ways of categorizing people. They came about as social constructs to uphold the institution of racism by creating boundaries between people. People may not realize it, but when you look into it, it becomes apparent.

One could say that denying the existence of race is a lazy & dishonest way to achieve a multicultural utopia. A problem is that such venomous pronouncements don't advance discussion. Some thoughts are best left unsaid.

 

[Revoltingest]

............. only if one is a complete buffoon.
Honestly, I'm surprised that the OP chose such a weak example of so-called 'science'.

Feel free to start your own thread about it then, ya lotion slather'n tea sip'n doily presser!

 

[oldbadger]

Feel free to start your own thread about it then, ya lotion slather'n tea sip'n doily presser!

What on Earth is a doily presser?

Come on........... that so called scientific experiments was b-ll-cks. That's a technical term for pretentious idiots playing at being investigators.

And........ (shut up a sec...I ain't finished yet)......... and...... they might have tried disabled distributors, or ones wearing various scents, or tall and short distributors, etc.....

It goes on........ the placing of each baby in a totally neutral environs before the test is presented ..... that would need to be looked into as well..

The fact that these psychologists wanted to play with this kind of experiment is, in itself, a proper doctorate holding psychiatrist's field day.

And don't forget............ what is a doily?

 

[Revoltingest]

So yer not just dense, yer ignant too?
Doily - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have no idea why you press these things...maybe to flatten'm?\