Best be careful what we teach

[packsaddle]

Lisabob, Wow, that was some bad experience your son had. I am so sorry that happened to him. I can't say it doesn't happen around here but I've never observed it.

With regard to our SPL, the SM actually stepped in and gave some friendly words to set things back on a more even keel. The SPL knew he'd stepped over the line and he just couldn't figure out how to get back again. Things turned out all right for us.

 

About the South, nah, I'll get too long-winded about the role of the Republican party and its rise from racism. Maybe some other time.

[scoutldr]

I believe there's more than enough racism in BOTH parties.

[packsaddle]

Any at all might be more than enough. To me the concept of racism is interesting because I wonder if it is an unavoidable human characteristic. Not that it is genetic but perhaps it is related to - or perhaps an outcome of our tendency to form social structures. We know that there is no genetic basis for race, at least not that we've been able to find after doing some pretty good looking. So why is it that we insist on viewing each other in racial terms? Interesting.

 

Edited part: In the South, the Republican party explicitly capitalized on the racist reaction to integration. While I don't claim them to be pure at heart because they're not, it's hard for me to identify a similar history for the Democrats. Perhaps you can fill me in.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[OldGreyEagle]

Gee Pack, as a Yankee child of the 60's, the picture of then Governor of Alabama Democrat George Wallace standing in the doorway at the University of Alabama is still pretty sharp.

 

The first time I heard the term "Filibuster" it was when the Democrats did not want the 1964 Civil Rights Act to pass

[Trevorum]

As pack notes, there is no biological basis for the concept of "race". It is a cultural construct that uses gross visual cues in order to identify group outsiders. This behavior may have been adaptive when we were living in small, territorial bands and competing for scarce resources on the African savannah. Like many other behaviors (such as inter-group agression, male dominance, endogamy, etc.), it is no longer adaptive and actually acts to the detriment of the group.

 

Regardless, all humans employ the race concept. What is interesting is the fact that different cultures construct different racial classification systems. Moreover, they literally do not see the "races" that are defined by other cultures.

 

 

As Mr. Spock would say, "Fascinating. But, highly illogical."

 

 

 

(edited typo)(This message has been edited by Trevorum)

[packsaddle]

OGE, aren't you one of the people supposed to keep these things on topic?

Anyway, you could add Lester Maddox and a lot more names to the list. In 1964, Goldwater only won his own state of Arizona outside the South, adding Georgia to the states that Thurmond had taken in 1948. He got their support by opposing the Civil Rights Act. I remember it well because as a child I helped campaign for him. Johnson was likewise reviled in the South because of his support for civil rights.

And then Nixon employed these forces to form the Southern Strategy that allowed the Republicans to take the South. I give them credit, they did a great job.

 

As I noted before, I'm not painting the Democrats as pure. There were plenty of Democrats who embraced civil rights for purely political reasons. But for whatever reasons, they took the high ground on civil rights and lost the South for their trouble. 1948 was a year that started the motion with Thurmond and the Dixiecrats and 1964 sealed the deal. I got to watch it all first hand.

 

Trevorum is right. It is fascinating (oops, that was Spock). But thinking in terms of race seems unavoidable for most people.

 

[OldGreyEagle]

Sorry, I guess I can't leave statements that I disagree with go unchalleneged even if my comment seems off topic. If I see something stated as a fact, or as a viewpoint, and I disagree with it, I will offer an opposing view point even if it seems off topic. Not to do so would imply acceptance of what was said(This message has been edited by oldgreyeagle)

[TheScout]

The Republicans elected after 1964 better represented the views of the South. That is why they won, thats democracy. If people want to vote based on race, segregation policy, etc., isn't that their right?

[packsaddle]

TheScout, back when I was a deputy registrar I had quite a few new applicants inform me that they just wanted to make sure the (n-word) didn't take over the country and therefore they wanted to vote for Reagan. I registered them. You are correct.

I doubt they've changed their views since then either.

[Gold Winger]

" We know that there is no genetic basis for race,"

 

If there's no genetic basis, how can it be inherited?

[packsaddle]

Eye, hair, skin, etc. colors are mostly genetic. If you think those superficial characteristics define race, then for you race is genetic. Happy?

[Gold Winger]

"race (n) a human population considered distinct based on physical characteristics."

 

Just wondering how you define it?

[packsaddle]

I don't define 'race' because I can't identify a scientific basis for it. I side with the null hypothesis. If we look at this from the other direction, with no assumption that 'race' exists, we make a null hypothesis that there are no discernable genetic patterns among humans that we can ascribe to race.

 

For a very long time, many of us made the assumptions you seem to make, that some superficial characteristics seem to occur in patterns that we ascribe to 'race'. There was an implicit assumption that these were sufficient to support the concept of race and that they are genetically determined. In this view, the null is rejected and races, based on phenotypic characteristics, exist as genetic expressions. And therefore we have created definitions such as the one you just quoted.

 

However, now that we have the tools to actually examine the most minute genetic differences between people, right down to individual base pairs, we can apply these tools to test the hypothesis in a truly rigorous manner. What we found is that there is no real pattern out there that can be ascribed to 'race'. And really, this also applies to skin color, eye color, hair, etc. as well. As a social construct we 'see' race. But it is an illusion. I refer you to a three-part series called "Race: The Power of an Illusion" which offers in more detail, some of what I have just written.

 

Another way to look at this is if you take any two of the most phenotypically different people on the planet (say, just for example, an Australian aboriginal and a blonde, blue-eyed Norwegian) and compare their codes...you will find less variation between them than if you compared two microscopically-identical fruit flies from the same parental pair. Human populations have not diverged much genetically over their evolutionary history because it is so short, yet we have ascribe enough importance to phenotypes to concoct some kind of social construct, the concept of 'race'. Fruit flies, on the other hand, have had many millions of years of evolution and therefore time to elaborate larger amounts of genetic variation.

 

If you compared YOUR code to a room full of diverse ethnic backgrounds, you could not predict, on the basis of appearance, who you would be most like, genetically. The null hypothesis is NOT rejected.

 

Incidentally, the implications of this are really powerful. Any random male and female pair from anywhere on the planet will contain over 95% of all the human genetic variability that exists on earth. You can think of them as Adam and Eve.

Another way to look at it is if some cataclysm wiped out every human on the planet except for a small village someplace, anyplace, with maybe 1000 people, nearly ALL of the genetic variability of humanity would remain intact and the species would not yet be endangered. This fact helps me to feel good about the future when stupid people challenge enemies to "bring it on".

 

I am willing to entertain the argument that 'race', as a concept, may support a mechanism for further isolation which, if we allowed it to occur, might have led to identifiable genetic differences. We didn't. It hasn't.

 

In the sense that you learned 'race' from parents and society, then I can accept that you may have inherited the concept socially. But on a genetic basis, there is no evidence yet upon which to establish 'races'. And the more we look, the less likely it seems that we are likely to find any. That said, sadly even today I can walk down the street to the house of the racist, fundamentalist minister who flies the Confederate flag above the American flag and listen to some very, very old ideas. Any time I want to.

 

Edited part; typo, sorry(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[John-in-KC]

Lisa,

 

I wish your son had mentioned that to the Scoutmaster or Camp Scoutmaster.

 

Had I been in those roles, the Camp Director, PD, and I would be having a friendly cup of coffee, while I demanded some counseling for the staffer and some 1/1 "get well" time from the area head.

 

What that camp staffer did was simply inexcusable. Staff serves to support the paying guests, aka "Camper Timmy"!

[gwd-scouter]

Hey Pack, I think we live down the street from the same guy. Sadly, racism still exists. It will likely always exists at some level. Many people are afraid of the what they don't know or something different. Witness the attempts to paint Obama as different, therefore dangerous. People can also allow one bad experience or something they hear on the news paint their view overall.

 

I'm not too concerned about the guy when interviewed who said outright that he could not vote for a black man. That's at least honest and opens the door for discussion. I'm more concerned about the folks that say in public they are voting for Obama, but when in the privacy of the voting booth, will not.