PDA

View Full Version : What's Your Ethnicity?


Please visit our sponsor:
 

AikiWeb Sponsored Links - Place your Aikido link here for only $10!


Suru
02-20-2007, 07:34 PM
One thing about Aikido that I love is that it's open to people of any ethnicity. For those of you who would like to share, please do. Diversity has always enriched my life. I'm mostly German with a wee tad bit of Scottish. My surname is English because my paternal grandfather was adopted.

Drew

Hebrew Hammer
02-20-2007, 07:50 PM
I have a similar backround German and Russian Jew on my mother's side and Scotthish (Clan MacGregor) on my father's side, he too was adopted.

Interesting post...I wonder how it will be received.

aikidoc
02-20-2007, 08:01 PM
mostly Norwegian

Suru
02-20-2007, 08:12 PM
Kevin, you reminded me that I should also say I'm a Gentile, since religion blends to varying extents with heredity. Do you practice Judaism? I was raised Protestant and still celebrate Christmas, but I don't label myself a Christian. Labels are better suited for cans, but when someone asks now, I usually say Aikido.

Drew

Hebrew Hammer
02-20-2007, 10:06 PM
Kevin, you reminded me that I should also say I'm a Gentile, since religion blends to varying extents with heredity. Do you practice Judaism? I was raised Protestant and still celebrate Christmas, but I don't label myself a Christian. Labels are better suited for cans, but when someone asks now, I usually say Aikido.

Drew

I would say I'm an aspiring Zen/Jew...mostly interested in the history, culture, and philosophy of Judaism...not really a pious man, more of an intellectual Jew. Thats one of the things that drew me to the Japanese arts, are its relationship with Zen. Hard to find schools in America that incoporate Zen or any spirituality for that matter. No Ki Society or Shorinji Kempo around here.

PS I Celebrate Xmas too....how can you not? Its an American tradition born in religion but made magnificent in capitalism.

SeiserL
02-21-2007, 06:12 AM
Swedish/Bohemian
Tiger/scorpian/warlock
Buddhist
Detroit/California/Georgia
An old white man.

Hanna B
02-21-2007, 07:01 AM
One thing about Aikido that I love is that it's open to people of any ethnicity.

Really? I know very few activities that only welcome some ethniticities. What are you comparing with?

stelios
02-21-2007, 07:12 AM
A very traditional man of Crete.

Suru
02-21-2007, 11:50 AM
Really? I know very few activities that only welcome some ethniticities. What are you comparing with?

I wasn't comparing, but the Jerry Springer show might make you more aware that ethnic-based hate groups still exist. I touch on this subject in my book, "The Sands of Erebus."

Drew

Hanna B
02-21-2007, 12:51 PM
I've never watched Jerry Springer, so I am probably completely unaware of our local neonazis. :hypno: My point was, it is kind of meaningless to attach the value "being open to people of any ethnicity" to aikido if it is equally true about boxing or chess - which is my opinion. Does anyone have a reason to believe otherwise?

Maybe your dojo is one of the most ethnically diverse places you hang around at? but that does not make that observation general. The Swedish aikido community contains very few non-European immigrants and children of immigrants; obviously they find other activities or communities more inviting or interesting. In the States, I understand blacks (or African Americans, or whatever) are very underrepresented in aikido. There has been a couple of threads on that subject already. The reason for this might be others than lacking openness on ethnic matters, of course.

I realise I've sounded a bit harsh. You were probably just intending to start a "presentation thread regarding ethnicity" thread. OK, I am a normal Swede with a slight portion of Sami (local original population) blood. Nothing else that I'm aware of, not even any Finnish ancestors.

Mark Freeman
02-21-2007, 01:06 PM
I've never watched Jerry Springer, so I am probably completely unaware of our local neonazis. :hypno: My point was, it is kind of meaningless to attach the value "being open to people of any ethnicity" to aikido if it is equally true about boxing or chess - which is my opinion. Does anyone have a reason to believe otherwise?

Maybe your dojo is one of the most ethnically diverse places you hang around at? but that does not make that observation general. The Swedish aikido community contains very few non-European immigrants and children of immigrants; obviously they find other activities or communities more inviting or interesting. In the States, I understand blacks (or African Americans, or whatever) are very underrepresented in aikido. There has been a couple of threads on that subject already. The reason for this might be others than lacking openness on ethnic matters, of course.

I realise I've sounded a bit harsh. You were probably just intending to start a "presentation thread regarding ethnicity" thread. OK, I am a normal Swede with a slight portion of Sami (local original population) blood. Nothing else that I'm aware of, not even any Finnish ancestors.

Hanna, a 'normal' Swede, are you sure:confused: ;)

You make some good points in your post, though.

While we see categories like ethnicity, there will division. When we see everyone as simply human, we may have a chance of relative harmony. I fear however, that this may be a long way off.:(

regards,

Mark,
a bit of Romany gypsy, a bit of Russian jew, mostly mongrel and happy with it. In reality I just look like a typical middle aged white bloke.

Hanna B
02-21-2007, 01:08 PM
Hanna, a 'normal' Swede, are you sure:confused: ;)

Ethnically, yes. In all other ways, probably no. :p

Kevin Leavitt
02-21-2007, 01:46 PM
Should the discussion center around ethnicity or heritage? You can be ethnic/genetically from a race, but from your family heritage and background be something entirely different than that.

Hanna B
02-21-2007, 02:03 PM
Good point. Not that the concept "ethnicity" isn't blurry in itself.

Ron Tisdale
02-21-2007, 02:13 PM
well, technically, there is only ONE race...

B,
R

grondahl
02-21-2007, 03:46 PM
I think it is intresting that most posters in this thread defines their ethnicity as their extraction while ignoring the fact that they in the eyes of others should be marked as americans or english.

Me, swedish with finnish (tornedalian) and sami heritage.

Don_Modesto
02-21-2007, 03:58 PM
well, technically, there is only ONE race......er, the rat race?

Kevin Leavitt
02-21-2007, 04:05 PM
Within the U.S. you will find many, many more sub cultures and diversities, more so than in some other places
In America these distinctions can be very important for people and their identities.

Qatana
02-21-2007, 04:05 PM
So ethnic now indicates ancestral country of origin? Here's something to think abut. I am Caucasian., I am not white.
White people are Norther European.
Ethnically Caucasian people are Persian, Georgian.Armenian and Turkish.
I am Russian and Persian , without a drop of European blood.Therefore I am not white....

SeiserL
02-21-2007, 04:11 PM
...er, the rat race?
and who ever wins that is still a rat.

Hanna B
02-21-2007, 04:34 PM
I think it is intresting that most posters in this thread defines their ethnicity as their extraction while ignoring the fact that they in the eyes of others should be marked as americans or english.

Within the U.S. you will find many, many more sub cultures and diversities, more so than in some other places
In America these distinctions can be very important for people and their identities.

The interesting things is the people leaving out "I am an Americn of foo bar origin", and only writing "I am of foo bar origin". The phenomenon is known as "ethnocentricity". :D

Hebrew Hammer
02-21-2007, 07:40 PM
...er, the rat race?

Remember the winner of the Rat race is still just a rat. :)

Hebrew Hammer
02-21-2007, 07:43 PM
Drew, I knew this was going to be trouble....but I believe your intent was to be inclusive and to celebrate the diversity and variations in Aikido. Good luck with the symantics.

Steven
02-21-2007, 07:59 PM
>Should the discussion center around ethnicity or heritage?

Well, I'm a New Yorker by birth, so that covers both. Youse knows what I mean?

LOL!

James Davis
02-22-2007, 12:42 PM
I'm part Irish and part Cherokee - to some degree.:D For the most part, I don't know that much about my ancestors.

It's what I am right now that matters to me. I'm a short, pudgy, balding caucasian guy who loves aikido and what it's done for (and to) me.:)

Chuck Clark
02-22-2007, 01:04 PM
James, I'm with you... I'm mostly Irish with a substantial mix of Cherokee (a full headright) and Blackfoot Indian. Haven't lost much hair yet but I match the rest of your discription. I was born in America but am a citizen of the Universe and am still excited to see what comes next...

Luc X Saroufim
02-22-2007, 02:10 PM
i am Lebanese.

Budd
02-22-2007, 02:18 PM
1/4 Venezuelan, 1/8 Hungarian, 1/8 Austrian, 1/16 Cherokee and the rest is a healthy mix of German, Scottish, Irish and French.

Basically, I fit the short, stocky white guy bit as well . . .

Ron Tisdale
02-22-2007, 03:12 PM
Nah, you ain't so white... ;)

B,
R

Chuck Clark
02-22-2007, 03:51 PM
Nah, you ain't so white... ;)

Hi Ron,

That's what a bunch of folks I ran around with when I lived in Paris in the late 60's. The American Center for Students and Artists on Blvd. Raspail was a great meeting place and was started by E. Hemingway. I taught yoga and self-defense there and made friends with an African Drum and Dance group. They said anybody that danced to the drums like I did couldn't be white. It's still hard for me to "not move" when I hear the rythmn. :)

xuzen
02-22-2007, 10:54 PM
Han Chinese. So was my Father, Mother, Grandmother, Grandfather so on and so forth...

Dirk Hanss
02-23-2007, 07:29 AM
This is a funny thread.

to be honest, I know where some of my ancestors come from, mostly Central Europe from Southern Denmark to Poland down to Hungary, Austria and Slovenia.

About ethnicity, I do not know. There was a time when all parts claimed to be German ("Volksdeutsche"). But there were so many mixtures in the last centuries, that I do notr even know, how much of my blood is European, African, Asian, American or Australian.

And my passport just tells about my citizenship.

And heritage? Sorry, but my father did not leave very much, when he died.

Gruß

Dirk

Guilty Spark
02-23-2007, 11:27 AM
Canadian

Being made of up

German/Austrian
Native american (iriquois)
French canadian
scottish

Neil Mick
02-23-2007, 11:46 AM
well, technically, there is only ONE race...

B,
R

I'm with Ron: I'm the same race, as the rest of you.

But, I DO know my family genealogical history, quite well. A great-uncle researched his wife's genealogy and published it, back in the 1920's. We have a family grave in VA that goes back to the 17th C.

Cady Goldfield
02-23-2007, 12:22 PM
Race = Species
There is only one species in our genus, and we're it. Homo sapiens sapiens. We're a subspecies of a genus and species that used to have several subspecies, including Homo sapiens neandertalis, but they're extinct.

There Can Be Only One. :D

What people mistake for "race" differences are the concentrations or absences of a fairly small number of genes that affect phenotype (expressions of genes that you can readily see or note, such as hair texture, melanin cell density of the skin/hair/eyes, epicanthic folds, blood type, body fat distribution, fingerprint pattern). These occur when populations are isolated so that they reproduce only among themselves for as little as a few hundred years or as many as 100,000 years.

The basic components of being human don't change, but you can get dominance of certain superficial gene frequencies. Unlike bacteria, which have generational turnover in a matter of seconds, it takes a lot more, much more time, to create a new subspecies or species among a more slowly mutating, complex organism such as a human. We haven't gotten there yet, and given the mobility and globalism of humans, it's not likely. Even the most isolated human tribes have been turned up in Southeast Asia, out of contact for the rest of humanity for maybe 10s of thousands of years, and I'm 99.999% sure that if given DNA tests, they will prove to be 100% Homo sapiens sapiens. :)

Cady Goldfield
02-23-2007, 12:42 PM
Crap. Editing time ran out. Please ignore previous post. :D
---------------------------

Race = Species
There is only one species in our genus, and we're it. Homo sapiens sapiens. We're a subspecies of a genus and species that used to have several subspecies, including Homo sapiens neandertalis, but they're extinct.

There Can Be Only One. :D

What people mistake for "race" differences are the concentrations or absences of a fairly small number of genes that affect phenotype (expressions of genes that you can readily see or note, such as hair texture, melanin cell density of the skin/hair/eyes, epicanthic folds, blood type, blood cell shape, body fat distribution, fingerprint pattern). When populations are isolated so that they reproduce only among themselves, some such genes (including those with mutations, such as the one that causes breast cancer in populations of Ashkenazic Jews) and genetic combinations will become dominant while others will be suppressed or "bred out," but without changing the more complex underlying genetic makeup of the species. Phenotypic changes can occur wholesale within a population in as little as a few hundred years or as many as 100,000 years. Their speed of change is also shaped by environmental pressures (for instance, sickle cell shape in African and Mediterranean populations, an evolutionary trait that was a response to the malaria carrying parasite).

The basic components of being human don't change, but you can get dominance of certain superficial gene frequencies. Unlike bacteria, which have generational turnover in a matter of seconds, it takes a lot more, much more time, to create a new subspecies or species among a more slowly mutating, complex organism such as a human. We haven't gotten there yet, and given the mobility and globalism of humans, it's not likely. Even the most isolated human tribes have been turned up in Southeast Asia, out of contact for the rest of humanity for maybe 10s of thousands of years, and I'm 99.999% sure that if given DNA tests, they will prove to be 100% Homo sapiens sapiens. :)

Mashu
02-23-2007, 12:53 PM
What about the Chupacabra?

Is it one of us? :)

Cady Goldfield
02-23-2007, 12:57 PM
Didn't you watch that X-Files episode? If you had, you'd know!
;)

Mashu
02-23-2007, 01:00 PM
I guess I picked the wrong decade to stop watching TV. :)

Cady Goldfield
02-23-2007, 01:07 PM
It's the episode El Mundo Gira.
Enjoy. :D

http://www.tv.com/the-x-files/el-mundo-gira/episode/574/summary.html

http://redwolf.com.au/xfiles/season04/4x11.html

PhilMyKi
02-23-2007, 02:56 PM
My mother is English born with German, Irish, Spanish and Scotish blood. My natural father is Italian (from the south). My step-father is 100% paddy. As for over one thousand years all these counrties have fighting and invading each other, I call myself EUROPEAN (it really upsets people who collate application forms when I tick the 'other' box when describing myself!) :)

Hanna B
02-23-2007, 07:47 PM
Race = Species

Not in my dictionary. It says "subgroup within a species, that has visual or physiological caracteristics which distinguishes it from other subgroups within the species". (My translation, all mistakes are probably mine.) See also the English Wikipedia entry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_%28biology%29

Note that there is also an article about "human races"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race
which is probably not a biological concept.

Cady Goldfield
02-23-2007, 07:54 PM
No, Hanna, you're right. I should have stated Race = Subspecies, which is what I meant, and that we humans are both the sole species -and- subspecies in the genus Homo. I was so busy editing the rest of my post that I forgot to fix that glitch! :blush:

As far as we know, what varies among different human populations are the -frequencies- of genes and their expressions.

The Wikipedia entry is in no way accurately reflective of biological definition of "race." As soon as we start dealing with human populations subjectively that way, instead of objectively as we would species of plants or non-human primates, we run into that messy, ugly area of cultural comparison and the "merits" of having one set of physical features over another. Science is a better way to go, IMO.

Dirk Hanss
02-24-2007, 05:19 AM
We're a subspecies of a genus and species that used to have several subspecies, including Homo sapiens neandertalis, but they're extinct.


Are you sure? Sometimes I see people that look as if they show up homo neandertaliensis genes. So I guess, if there was a chance to biologically mix with the homo europeensis, they did. And then there is something left. Maybe not often visible, but sometimes it gets obvious again.

Best Regards

Dirk

Cady Goldfield
02-24-2007, 08:09 AM
There have been notes over the years of people who resembled H. sapiens neandertalis, and a strong possibility that Neanderthals interbred with our subspecies, but no data or proof that any humans today they possess DNA that is from that Neanderthal subspecies. I remember having discussions in one of my grad school paleoanthropology courses about this. (The professor I had for that course, Erik Trinkaus, works mostly with Neanderthal research. Google him for interesting stuff!)

Within our own genepool there is a lot of variation, which is why humans can come in so many shapes, sizes and colors. Frequencies of genes in given populations do not make for different subspecies (races), only for variations on the same subspecies theme.

Think of all of the domestic breeds of chickens there are.
http://www.feathersite.com/Poultry/BRKPoultryPage.html#Chickens (scroll down to table of contents and click on chickens)

Every one of them is the same species and subspecies: Gallus gallus domesticus. They are all directly descended from the red Jungle fowl, Gallus gallus gallus http://www.geocities.com/hs_wong33/RedJungleFowl.html , and http://www.geocities.com/hs_wong33/PROTOCHICKEN.htm , but look at all the variations in body size and shape, color, feather pattern, eye color, comb shape, egg shell color, even number of toes (the Dorking, an ancient breed from Rome, has five, while most other breeds have four). But domestic chickens are all the same -race- (subspecies).

The development by humans of special breeds of animal is from selective breeding that picks and chooses genes that might normally have gotten hidden and suppressed. In nature, breeding is more random. If you were to put all of the breeds of chicken into a big pen and let them interbreed for some generations, the offspring would eventually resemble the ancestral red jungle fowl as those genes gradually came back to dominance. (I don't know whether they would be re-classified as Gallus gallus gallus, but they could become genetically so close to the original subspecies that distinctions might be impossible to make). I keep poultry and have seen this resemblance happen in as short a time as four generations. Chickens can breed at 12 weeks old, so generations come quickly and are easy to follow and observe.

Human generations are a little longer, but I would venture that if we were to take a big bunch of people from every culture and region and let them do what chickens do, we'd be seeing, over time, what our ancestral "Eve" human looked like when she came out of Africa and started the long journey to being fruitful, multiplying and filling the Earth with the rich variety of human genetic expression we have now. :)

Lan Powers
02-28-2007, 04:29 PM
<There is only one species in our genus, and we're it. Homo sapiens sapiens. We're a subspecies of a genus and species that used to have several subspecies, including Homo sapiens neandertalis, but they're extinct>

I am not so sure....my wife's ex-husband had all the classic physical indicators....... hmmmm.

I, myself, am Texas-born and comprised of mostly Scottish (McGregor as well, Keven) as well as a healthy dose of Welsh, English, and a larger than is evident scoop of American Indian(Cherokee, Choctaw)
With just a hint of Black Dutch (whatever that actually is) for flavor.
Butchers blend, so to speak. :)
Lan

Mike Sigman
02-28-2007, 05:15 PM
There have been notes over the years of people who resembled H. sapiens neandertalis, and a strong possibility that Neanderthals interbred with our subspecies, but no data or proof that any humans today they possess DNA that is from that Neanderthal subspecies.Good one, Cady. However, it has to be remembered that chimpanzee's have about 98% overlapping genetic material with humans, so Neanderthalers' genes from those who interbred in the genetic pool may be only barely distinguishable from the population's genetic norm. Think of Down's Syndrome as an example..... even though someone with Down's Syndrome is unable to sustain its own life and thus become a bona fide survivability trait, the gene commonality is such that genetic testing for "differences" can be difficult to do (until recently). It's a tricky subject. I remember having discussions in one of my grad school paleoanthropology courses about this. (The professor I had for that course, Erik Trinkaus, works mostly with Neanderthal research. Google him for interesting stuff!) "Thal" means "valley". The remains of the early hominids under discussion were found in the Neander Valley in Germany. The money in various "valleys" of Germany was in "Thalers", which (the T, Th, sound became a "D") became the precursor to "Thalers" or the American "Dollars". I always wonder if anyone from the Neander Valley gets upset if we call him a "Neanderthaler". ;) Within our own genepool there is a lot of variation, which is why humans can come in so many shapes, sizes and colors. Survivability of a species requires that a lot of alternatives remain at the ready. A species that becomes too specialized can doom itself. Human generations are a little longer, but I would venture that if we were to take a big bunch of people from every culture and region and let them do what chickens do, we'd be seeing, over time, what our ancestral "Eve" human looked like when she came out of Africa and started the long journey to being fruitful, multiplying and filling the Earth with the rich variety of human genetic expression we have now. :)I think that's true. The curved-tail "Dingo" is a good example of the mongrel that reverts to type.

Regards,

Mike

Cady Goldfield
02-28-2007, 06:32 PM
Hi Mike,
If you read my earlier posts, you'll see that I noted that the characteristics people mistake for "racial" differences are due to a relatively small number of genes and gene combinations that contribute to phenotypes (that get categorized as "racial" features) -- such as blood type and fingerprint pattern, skin color, hair texture, etc. I mentioned that the -underlying- complex system of numerous genes that defines us as human does -not- vary from human to human, only the ones in our goody grab-bag additional genes.

By the same idea, that aforementioned underlying complex genetic infrastructure varies, as you noted, only 2% from that of bonobo chimpanzees. What makes us humans human is a thin margin of genetic diverging from our primate relatives. A bit close for comfort, for some folks. ;)

You are absolutely correct that the number and variety of genes we possess in our goody grab-bag are our (and other living things') tool kit to adaptibility and survival. While humans are more passive in their self-selection of genetic traits, we have selectively bred other animals and plants from their wild types to bring out such traits as higher and more frequent egg or milk production, wool density and texture, cold hardiness, muscular strength, and much more. We would not have been able to make these manipulations of animals if those individual species did not already possess a large and varied gene pool from which to pick and choose such traits. You can't make something from nothing, but can only work with the available material. Well, until Monsanto came along, at least. :(

Note that animals with very little genetic variation are seldom domesticated. Those that could not be selectively bred to adapt to certain conditions, as mobile humans moved around to different climates, food sources and terrains, would not be of use to us.

Having too little genetic variation also is the ticket to extinction.
For example, zoologists discovered, a few decades ago that all existing cheetahs today are genetically identical, like twins, or nearly so. The theory is that a catastrophic disease or other factor wiped out nearly all cheetahs at some point (we don't know when), and so the entire population today is descended from a very small number maybe fewer than 100 individuals. The variability of their gene pool is severely reduced, and they live on the brink of extinction, because they lack that genetic-variability toolkit of gene combos that could allow for adaptability should there be changes in climate, or should a new plague come along.

One of the greatest dangers today is monoculture (reduction of all domestic plants/animals to just one breed) because if all animals in a flock are genetically near-identical, a single disease will wipe them all out; no individual will possess different genes that could allow it to survive and reproduce. We are doing this with domestic livestock, as gigantic corporate farms raise only one genetically identical strain of poultry for the egg industry, or swine and beef cattle for meat. Cheetahs came about their monoculture "naturally," but I fear the consequences of not maintaing a very diverse gene pool for our agricultural animals and plants. That's one of the reasons why I raise heritage (ancestral) poultry breeds. You never know.

Survival, via genetic variety, is dependent on genetic mutation that constantly throws either beneficial or detrimental traits to a species. If a genetic trait arises that allows a species to have an edge under certain existing environmental conditions, then it is beneficial -- it allows the species to survive and reproduce more, and better as long as those environmental conditions persist. If the trait confers a disadvantage, it reduces the possessor's chances of survival and thus may reduce its number or contribute to its being wiped it out altogether under certain environmental conditions. It is a passive and continuous process. Evolution is Tao. ;)

By the way, Down's Syndrome is a chromosomal mutation that renders the individual incapable of reproducing; thus, it's not the type of mutation that will reproduce itself and create a different line or subspecies. Many of the genetic mutations individual humans inherit are dead ends because they either render the possessor sterile or they cause mortality before the invididual is old enough to reproduce and pass the gene on. Others, such as propensity toward diseases that occur -after- the age of reproduction (such as Huntington's Disease), are neither positive nor negative from the perspective of Nature, because the individual is able to reproduce and pass his or her genes on before being affected by the genetic disease. Unfortunately, that's why such genetic diseases persist.

And, thanks for the background on the dollar's name origin. I knew the origins of the Neanderthal subspecies' monicker, but not that our almight buck descended from that valley. :)

Cady

Mike Sigman
02-28-2007, 08:35 PM
Hi Mike,
If you read my earlier posts, you'll see that I noted that the characteristics people mistake for "racial" differences are due to a relatively small number of genes and gene combinations that contribute to phenotypes (that get categorized as "racial" features) -- such as blood type and fingerprint pattern, skin color, hair texture, etc. I mentioned that the -underlying- complex system of numerous genes that defines us as human does -not- vary from human to human, only the ones in our goody grab-bag additional genes. Hi Cady:

I'm ambivalent. My perception stems from the idea that people are simply animals that conform to all basic guidelines of animal behavior. Other than that singular view, I look at the arguments about "race" and "equality", etc., as being closely akin to the arguments of old about whether you were a "god-fearin' True Believer" or not. I.e., a lot of these discussions appear to be about everyone trying to impose their religions on everyone else who may be a heretic if they don't conform. ;) By the same idea, that aforementioned underlying complex genetic infrastructure varies, as you noted, only 2% from that of bonobo chimpanzees. What makes us humans human is a thin margin of genetic diverging from our primate relatives. A bit close for comfort, for some folks. ;) Well, those statistics get mis-parlayed a lot in order to make obscure points. We have many genetic components that are shared across the entire animal kingdom, so the statistics you're quoting mean little unless you do a more complete breakdown. :cool: By the way, Down's Syndrome is a chromosomal mutation that renders the individual incapable of reproducing; Nature does that with a number of chromosomal aberrations, Cady. It protects the species. My point is a little more ambiguous than all of this. I recognize "race", as does medical science, because it's a reality in many cases; to not recognize it is to not be able to deal with many issues, particularly medical ones. To pretend we can't spot the Chinaman in the Polka Band is an absurdity of trendy Political Correctness. OTOH, I have no use for anyone who deliberately prejudges based on nothing but race. But there is no easy answer except for everyone to do the best they can in the Now and forget about the Past and the Future, IMO.And, thanks for the background on the dollar's name origin. I knew the origins of the Neanderthal subspecies' monicker, but not that our almight buck descended from that valley. :)"Dollar" derives from "Thaler", but not necessarily the Neaderthal... I didn't mean that one specifically. ;)

Best.

Mike

Cady Goldfield
02-28-2007, 09:11 PM
My point was, really, that the subjective viewing of visible genetic traits (phenotype) as "race" differences is a messy, ugly way to define the variety of humankind. That, because it provides rationale for exclusion, persecution, and the usurping and exploitation of other peoples' resources in the name of "we're superior, so we deserve them."

I agree that organized religions frequently provide the platform from which to launch this approach. Memes mirror genes in their purpose -- to promote ourselves into a position of dominance over others' genes and cultures/ideas. To my chagrin, knowing the objective-scientific reason why we do this doesn't stop it from happening.

"Dollar" derives from "Thaler", but not necessarily the Neaderthal... I didn't mean that one specifically. ;)

Best.

Mike

As in, The Valley of the Doll(ar)s? :D

Mike Sigman
02-28-2007, 09:21 PM
My point was, really, that the subjective viewing of visible genetic traits (phenotype) as "race" differences is a messy, ugly way to define the variety of humankind. That, because it provides rationale for exclusion, persecution, and the usurping and exploitation of other peoples' resources in the name of "we're superior, so we deserve them." I'm not really that interested in the discussion about "racism" as it's commonly perceived. It just doesn't interest me. On the other hand, the clinical part of me says that anyone who doesn't recognize that Bonobo's and Forest Chimpanzee's developed *slightly* different survival strategies based on the geographical niches they occupied is perhaps deliberately blinding themselves for an ideology that is not really any different than a religious belief. :) I agree that organized religions frequently provide the platform from which to launch this approach. Memes mirror genes in their purpose -- to promote ourselves into a position of dominance over others' genes and cultures/ideas. To my chagrin, knowing the objective-scientific reason why we do this doesn't stop it from happening. I personally see no difference between the religious zealots and zealots like Neil... both would force you to accept their own standards if they could get away with it. It's all religion, Cady. ;)

Mike

Dirk Hanss
03-01-2007, 04:00 AM
@Cady about Homo Neanderthalensis:
Wikipedia writes
In November 2006, a paper was published in the U.S. journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, in which a team of European researchers report that Neanderthals and humans interbred. Co-author Erik Trinkaus from Washington University explains, "Closely related species of mammals freely interbreed, produce fertile viable offspring, and blend populations." The study claims to settle the extinction controversy; according to researchers, the human and neanderthal populations blended together through sexual reproduction. Erik Trinkaus states, "Extinction through absorption is a common phenomenon."[27] and "From my perspective, the replacement vs. continuity debate that raged through the 1990s is now dead".

So that is no prove, just a hint to look further. Maybe, if you check the 'Proceediings..' by yourself, you might find something interesting. And maybe we see more in about two years after the test of the Max Planck Institute.

Cheers Dirk

Cady Goldfield
03-01-2007, 07:42 AM
So, what my old professor is saying, Dirk, is "Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" :D

We just don't have the DNA proof. Maybe someday somebody will find the frozen remains of a Neanderthal person, and we'll be able to extract and compare DNA. Till then, we can only hypothesize.

P.S. When I took that paleoanthropology course with Dr. Trinkaus, it was during the mid 1980s (he was a young, untenured assistant prof at Harvard then, full of talent and fresh ideas), so it's nice to see how his theories from back then have been reinforced through research over the course of 20+ years.

Mike Sigman
03-01-2007, 07:56 AM
@Cady about Homo Neanderthalensis:
Wikipedia writes
In November 2006, a paper was published in the U.S. journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, in which a team of European researchers report that Neanderthals and humans interbred. Co-author Erik Trinkaus from Washington University explains, "Closely related species of mammals freely interbreed, produce fertile viable offspring, and blend populations." The study claims to settle the extinction controversy; according to researchers, the human and neanderthal populations blended together through sexual reproduction. Erik Trinkaus states, "Extinction through absorption is a common phenomenon."[27] and "From my perspective, the replacement vs. continuity debate that raged through the 1990s is now dead".

So that is no prove, just a hint to look further. Maybe, if you check the 'Proceediings..' by yourself, you might find something interesting. And maybe we see more in about two years after the test of the Max Planck Institute.

Cheers DirkThanks, Dirk. I was unaware of this one. I assume there is a DNA analysis going on, so I'll wait. What happened to Neanderthalis has always been a strong interest of mine. ;)

Best.

Mike

Cady Goldfield
03-01-2007, 08:03 AM
Mike,
No definitive DNA analysis yet, but Dr. Trinkaus isn't saying anything now that he wasn't saying 23 years ago. As I mentioned earlier, even then he was saying that there was a likelihood that subspecies of Homo sapiens were interbreeding. After all, it's been observed in existing subspecies of other animals, and even in congeners (member of the same genus but different species).

The best potential source of DNA would be frozen or mummified tissue, which hasn't been found yet. But it could happen.

Luc X Saroufim
03-01-2007, 09:41 AM
What makes us humans human is a thin margin of genetic diverging from our primate relatives. A bit close for comfort, for some folks. ;)

and, as usual, people choose one camp over the other: the pro-evolution camp view the religious as naive and ignorant, and the religious view evolution as going against God's word.

true knowledge is yin, conscious knowledge is yang, but enlightenment lies in the line that divides them. as far as i'm concerned, God has to exist and the evidence is inside what we're discovering.

my Structural Analysis professor is one of the top ten structural engineers in the country, but not even he can design a structure that can reproduce, evolve, or regenerate. no one can.

yet in a universe that is 70% hydrogen and 30% "dark matter," only the power of God can create something as awesome as the modern human being: starting with a sliver of bacteria in the ocean, we naturally adapted to our surroundings, evolved in physical and emotional intelligence, and have the ability to regenerate.

fracture my arm and i will heal and learn from it. fire me from my job and starve my kids, i will heal and learn from it. put the world through an ice age, and we will only evolve and grow stronger. God has designed something we simply cannot, and there is strong proof in evolution and science.

i just used science to credit religion, and used religion to marvel at the wonders of science. i think the zealots lie in both camps, and they should all wake up.

after all, a true Aikidoka doesn't see the Uke's attack as malicious, but as an opportunity to merge with it and gain a deeper understanding.

or maybe i'm just talking out of my :)

Dirk Hanss
03-01-2007, 10:09 AM
and, as usual, people choose one camp over the other: the pro-evolution camp view the religious as naive and ignorant, and the religious view evolution as going against God's word.
Hi Luc, here you are totally wrong. Natural science does not deny the existence of God or any superior force. Some scientists do. Science just gives you a model to describe and understand your environment as good as possible. That means you can understand what happens, not why it happens.

I believe myself being religious and pro-evolution at the same time. The explanation of science may not sound exactly, what the Bible says, but science just give us the best model, they have right now. And some 'former scientists' gave then the best model for their audience, they could. And who cares, if seven days are really seven days. It is interesting enough that the order of what occured when, matches pretty well with what our modern scientists say. And that is not the essence of the Bible, but only a simple explanation about what has happened. When the Mosaic laws say: 'Take an eye for an eye', it might have been a good rule a few thousand years ago., now I do not think that that is God's will, even if it is stated as such in the Book. And who cares now, if in 50 years some scientist find out, that evolution functioned totally different from what they say now. At the moment, it is the best model to understand nature, what has happened in the past million of years and what might happen in the next future. And it is good until proven false.

Best regards

Dirk

Luc X Saroufim
03-01-2007, 10:26 AM
Hi Luc, here you are totally wrong. .


on an Aikido forum? never!

my point was that people of all shapes, sizes, and intelligence try to use science as evidence to undermine religion. on the flip side, i think it's just as common for self righteous religious people to use Holy textbooks to undermine science.

i see it everywhere, it bothers me, and i decided to bring my own opinion into it. if you disagree it just means you've had different experiences discussing this issue, or at the very least you live in a more tolerant society.

Mike Sigman
03-01-2007, 10:50 AM
my point was that people of all shapes, sizes, and intelligence try to use science as evidence to undermine religion. on the flip side, i think it's just as common for self righteous religious people to use Holy textbooks to undermine science. Oh, there's a bigger battle than that that goes on... it has to do with secular beliefs among scientists actually prompting them to distort science.

Many of the people in the sciences and academia are heavily swayed by the liberal/socialist slant that dominates the schools in which they have spent so much of their lives. The classic example of where science and secular belief are at odds has to do with the conflict between socialism's theoretical ideal that "everyone is created equal" and some of the blossoming science tangents like sociobiology and its offshoots.

For instance, socialism and feminism joined forces in the late 60's and the 70's to the extent that for a while it was de rigeur to believe that women were exactly like men except for the reproductive aspects. The theory was *prominent* that if females were raised with toy guns, dump-trucks, football, etc., that they would be exactly like males. This theory has now quietly disappeared from most mainstream thought, but it was *taught* as the truth in most liberal universities for decades.

Sociobiology basically says that everything we have evolved into is the result of successful survival strategies. This means that different dogs, cats, humans, turtles, etc., from different geographically stressed areas of the planet will develop in the ways that best ensure survival in a given environment. The "socialism" viewpoint is that this cannot possibly apply to humans.... there can be no innate differences because that goes against the basic tenets of socialism. So in many cases socialism becomes a quasi-religion that forces many scientists to pretend that any data showing sub-species differences must be wrong and a reason for the data to be wrong becomes the object of fervent searching.

The problem with pretending that everyone is really exactly the same is that it's good in some ways (for civilization), but it's bad in others. In too many cases, the pretense that there are no differences has led to obstacles in medical, social, educational, etc., advances.

The point I'm making is that it's not just "religion" agains "science"... there is a third quasi-religion which actually inhabits the supposed "scientific" community. And trust me.... if you look at the data, many people died, became poor, etc., etc., because secular "science" thought that it was bad to point out and allow for differences in the human species. The amazing thing is that so many "scientists" (not all, of course) actually were under the impression that humans weren't simply animals that had to obey the laws of Nature just like everyone else.

Woof. ;)

Mike

Dirk Hanss
03-01-2007, 12:02 PM
my point was that people of all shapes, sizes, and intelligence try to use science as evidence to undermine religion. on the flip side, i think it's just as common for self righteous religious people to use Holy textbooks to undermine science.

i see it everywhere, it bothers me, and i decided to bring my own opinion into it. if you disagree it just means you've had different experiences discussing this issue, or at the very least you live in a more tolerant society.
Now I agree, but the point is, that people with predetermined mind, whatever they think they can use. And they don't bother, if their arguments fit. And whatever evil they do, they claim that the end justifies the means - as long as it is their end.

If I went in a fight that I believe I had to fight with all my heart, I would use, what I have. But my religion, my ration and my aikido tell me, that I can only use those means in such a way, that they could lead to an end, I could live with.

Well, I am not God, so accidents may happen, but the rule is clear.

Best regards

Dirk

Luc X Saroufim
03-01-2007, 02:25 PM
word

Cady Goldfield
03-01-2007, 02:25 PM
and, as usual, people choose one camp over the other: the pro-evolution camp view the religious as naive and ignorant, and the religious view evolution as going against God's word.


Luc,
You can't make it so black-and-white. There are people at each extreme, yes, but the vast majority fall somewhere in the middle. There is, I'd venture, a large portion of the population that can accept that evolution is a tool and gift given by God to allow living things, humankind included, to "roll with the punches" of environmental change.

Luc X Saroufim
03-01-2007, 02:54 PM
Luc,
You can't make it so black-and-white. There are people at each extreme, yes, but the vast majority fall somewhere in the middle

to me, that's impossible. genuine, blind faith in the Bible is a wonderful thing, but it also means believing in the story of Adam and Eve. there are many Christians i know, and don't know, that will not "turn their back" on the Bible. that is the definition of true faith, but it also wipes out any notion of evolution.

so while i may sound conservative minded talking about my faith in God, in reality, my view is extremely liberal considering what i'm supposed to believe in when i call myself a Christian.

i would hardly classify true Christians as liberals, especially in the wake of stem cells and their unfailing love for George Bush.

i think you're right when you say that a lot of people are in the middle, but i also think we're talking about two different camps. hardcore Christians are not a minority.

Cady Goldfield
03-01-2007, 03:42 PM
to me, that's impossible. genuine, blind faith in the Bible is a wonderful thing, but it also means believing in the story of Adam and Eve. there are many Christians i know, and don't know, that will not "turn their back" on the Bible. that is the definition of true faith, but it also wipes out any notion of evolution.

so while i may sound conservative minded talking about my faith in God, in reality, my view is extremely liberal considering what i'm supposed to believe in when i call myself a Christian.

i would hardly classify true Christians as liberals, especially in the wake of stem cells and their unfailing love for George Bush.

i think you're right when you say that a lot of people are in the middle, but i also think we're talking about two different camps. hardcore Christians are not a minority.

Perhaps so. And don't count out "hardcore" Jews, among others who are equally literal in belief in the scriptures. After all, Adam and Eve come from their book. I respect and appreciate your stance. But if genetic evolutionary discussion is out, perhaps we should note that by the time Cain and Abel come along in the story of Adam and Eve, the world is already fully populated with humans. When Cain flees after slaying his brother, he is marked so that all humans he encounters will know who he is. Those humans could not have been the product of Adam and Eve. After all, the Bible doesn't mention any siblings of Cain besides Abel. If we are to interpret the scriptures literally, then if it doesn't mention Eve giving birth to anyone else, we must accept that her only children were Cain and Abel. And yet, Cain flees to the country of Nod and takes a wife there. A wife from...what?

Couldn't that explain where those H. sapiens neandertalensis and Homo erectus, etc. fossils came from, not to mention the carbon- and argon-dated fossils of Cro-Magnon (modern H. sapiens sapiens) that go back tens of thousands of years earlier than the 6,000 (biblical) years that some people think represents the Earth's age?

However literally or symbolically/alleghorically one chooses to interpret the written words of the Tanakh (Torah/Hebrew Pentatuch) or Christian Bible, the physical evidence that lies before us raises more questions than answers. :confused:

Luc X Saroufim
03-01-2007, 09:02 PM
^^ das the troof!

Angela Morton
03-02-2007, 02:32 AM
I'm Northumbrian, (born and raised in Northumberland, England), but i'd also say i'm quater Polish Ukrainian, abouth and 8th Irish, possibly part Scottish and possibly part German. I tend to define myself as quater Polish Ukrainian though, because i'm proud of my Granda and how he came to be in England because of the war. I'm always reluctant to define myself as British, at times i don't feel like English suits, and so i narrow it down to Northumbrian. Officially i'm COE christian, but i don't hold that belief so i sometimes define myself as pagan. Maybe eventually i'll just define myself as 'aiki'.