Jump to content

Actually Troy.....


Pioneer1

Recommended Posts

 

Troy
 

But I give. I'm convinced there is nothing I can show you or tell you to convince you of the fallacy of any genetic basis for "race."


Now I know people like to use the term "race" to describe the way people look, but even that is a slippery slope and I rather simple describe people rather than pinning a racial label on them -- especially if don't know how they define themselves.


Since you admit you can't produce hard evidence-
And since you admit it's no longer a matter of SCIENCE, but a matter of personal PREFERNCE-

Lol, do you realize that you have henceforth basically forfeited your right to argue against my belief that there are multiple races?

 

 

Blackness is about culture not genetics.


If Blackness is about culture and not genetics......

Do you think those dark skinned people who were enslaved because they were Black could have gained their freedom simply by becoming White by changing their culture?

And do you believe those dark skinned people who were lynched for being Black....could have avoided their fate if only they had practiced a non-Black culture that made them no longer Black?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I said, "I give" Pioneer. You win. There is too much that you don't know or are willing to accept for me to convince you otherwise. The science, which is crystal clear on this issue, is irrelevant you.

 

The questions you asked are based on how people look.  I just gave you an opposite example of a white person who is culturally Black and accepted as such by the community. You've ignored my example, because it conflicts with your argument. You don't see how my example actually demonstrates the flaws in your argument.

 

Again you win.  The prize...well I guess that would be ignorance of the science, a racist world view, and misinformation.  Congratulations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Troy

Well since I won.....then LISTEN to me!

Lol.....

No one is "culturally Black" because Blackness is not a culture.

There are Black people in Africa who's culture is 180 degrees different from AfroAmericans.
And there are Black people in Brazil who's culture is different from Blacks in Haiti.
But we're all called "Black" despite those cultural differences.
So how do you explain?

You're mixing race...which is based in genetics...with ethnicity....which is based on culture.

Your roommate's mother was culturally AFROAMERICAN....not "culturally Black", because Black has no solid culture.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

{Why am I even having this conversation?}

 

@Pioneer1, genetically there is only one race. It is dumb to talk about humans in this context.  That is why I gave up. 

 

This is also why I wrote "Black" is cultural; because there is no genetic basis for it.  But if I'll accept the term "Afro-American" for people who confirm to "Black culture" in the United States.  I use "African American" myself hence the name of the website--which address culture, not the color of someone skin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Troy

 

This is also why I wrote "Black" is cultural; because there is not genetic basis for it. But if I'll accept the term "Afro-American" for people who confirm to "Black culture" in the United States. I use "African American" myself hence the name of the website--which address culture, not the color of someone skin.


Listen to me, let us use pure simple logic.

You said that Black is cultural.

That means if a person PRACTICES a particular culture...then they can become Black.

And if they DON'T practice a particular culture...they will no longer be Black.

 

 


Going by you logic,

1.If the people who were enslaved because they were Black could have changed their culture and turned White...they would have freed themselves.

2.Those people who were forced to sit at the back of the bus during segregation because they were Black, could have sat up front with the rest of the Whites had they only changed their culture.

Wouldn't those 2 assumptions be correct?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No.

 

It is hard to have this discussion because you're mixing up race, with phenotype, and culture.

 

Dark skinned people were enslaved.  If someone's skin color was light enough they would not have been enslaved in the American system.  Although white people have been enslaved only America's "peculiar institution" made permanent bondage based solely upon skin color. Light skinned "Black People" could also escape the imposition of  jim crow laws.  History tells us that many so called "Black" people got away with this--it was called passing....but you know these things. 

 

Indeed it was during skin color based slavery when racists promulgated false theories about race, and the associated levels of racial superiority. Those racist theories has been dispensed with by educated people.  The only ones holding onto them are ignorant and/or racists. Why do you hold onto these old racist ideas?  

 

It is the 21st century man we are all human, members of the same race.  Some have dark skin, some have light skin, and some are even homosexual (that last bit did not come out of left field but is part of another conversation).  None of these differences make any one superior or inferior to anyone else.

 

These old ideas only hold us back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sally Hemings was a light-skinned mulatto.  All  her descendants from her liaison with Jefferson  must've forgiven him because, in the present, members of this clan are very proud of their heritage and even fought to be recognized and accepted by the other descendants of him and his white wife. I know one of these descendants who wrote a book about this.      d4fc72159aef962c3ca900a2e0a03930.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you think Sally could have passed for white and avoided being enslaved.  I know you don't agree with my take on Jefferson abuse of Sally @Cynique, based upon a previous exchange. 

 

I really don't care how the descendants of this enslaved woman feels about her mistreatment. This does not change that fact the she was Tommy's property and he could do anything he wanted to do with her -- whether she liked it or not.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who said i didn't agree with your take on Sally Hemings? Why wouldn't i?   She was, after all, the involuntary, enslaved mistress of  a plantation master.  I merely note that her descendants apparently don't hold any hard feelings against Jefferson. 

No, i don't think she could've passed for white.  She has black people's hair.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh for some reason I thought you felt Tommy and Sally were in love with each other.  I seem to remember mansplaining ;) that "love" was unlikely given the master/slave relationship. More like I'd rather lay up under TJ rather than work those fields....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Troy

It is hard to have this discussion because you're mixing up race, with phenotype, and culture.


Lol......
How am I the one mixing all these subjects up when YOU are the one who said:  Black = Culture


 

You said a lot about light skin and dark skin, but it really is getting away from your original statement that Black is a CULTURE.
So I want to get back to it......



Since Black is a CULTURE.....according to you.

Since your roommate's mother you met in college was so acquainted with Black culture that you considered HER to be just a light-skinned Black.

Do you believe that YOU/TROY can stop being Black simply by changing your culture?

And do you believe that Steve Bannon or Trump can BECOME Black.....if they sincerely adopted "Black culture"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes Pioneer the conversation is beyond nonsensical.  I made the mistake of trying to speak in terms I thought you'd understand but I see that did not work.  You only see people in terms of your antiquated understanding of race (and gender) and the stereotypical baggage that goes along with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Troy said:

Yes Pioneer the conversation is beyond nonsensical.  I made the mistake of trying to speak in terms I thought you'd understand but I see that did not work.  You only see people in terms of your antiquated understanding of race (and gender) and the stereotypical baggage that goes along with it.


I said:

Since Black is a CULTURE.....according to you.

Do you believe that YOU/TROY can stop being Black simply by changing your culture?

And do you believe that Steve Bannon or Trump can BECOME Black.....if they sincerely adopted "Black culture"?




:( I'm sorry, but.....was the above post an answer to the questions???????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Del it's not really clear what you're asking? Are you suggesting that my previous claims to understand pioneers point of view is no longer valid? 

 

If so I would disagree. I still believe I know exactly where Pioneer is coming from. I just believe is factually incorrect and I disagree with them on that basis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I figured I'd give it a try since speaking in my language failed.  You know I've learned a couple of things over the years here.  I don't mean just facts and ideas, but about communicating with people.

 

I gave a talk last week about Facebook, Amazon, and Google, rather than bombarding the audience with facts and figures I decided to  tell more of my story to connect with people on a more human (emotional level).  Afterward the organizer told me what she really liked about my talk was that it was informative but I also made it "personal."

 

Communicating in a language people understand is a worthy goal.

 

Thanks everyone.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think any concept can be explained.  It just some concepts may take more time as a foundation of more basic knowledge may need to be laid.

 

A sign of intelligence is the ease at which one can explain a seemingly complex concept in a way anyone can understand. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Mel Hopkins said:

@Delano You can't.   Without  comprehending a subject you can't explain it.  You can only give facts and details. 


This is basically the same thing I said to Cynique in THIS thread:

https://aalbc.com/tc/topic/4876-comprehension-is-intimately-intertwined-with-knowledge/?page=2

My argument against Cynique's was that there is a difference between KNOWING someting and simply repeating facts and details.....mere information.

This proves to me that you AGREED with my assesment but refrained from admiting such.

I wonder why.....lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Pioneer1Oh, quit taking bows and cherry pickin.  Long before you insisted on equating knowledge with comprehension and subsequently offering your example, i gave the example of me knowing all the exponents of Einstein's E=MC2,  but went on to say that i did not understand it!  I contended from the beginning that having knowledge about or being aware of something does not necessarily means that you comprehend its implications. And i noted that a mystery is an example of this.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/14/2018 at 9:09 PM, Delano said:

How is it you can explain something you don't know? 


@Delano that was a typo... I will go correct it now...

13 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

This proves to me that you AGREED with my assesment but refrained from admiting such.

 

@Pioneer1  I don't remember joining in on that discussion between you and Cynique..  I remember your discussion with @Cynique being more nuanced.  

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cynique

https://aalbc.com/tc/profile/5568-pioneer1/Oh, quit taking bows and cherry pickin. Long before you insisted on equating knowledge with comprehension and subsequently offering your example, i gave the example of me knowing all the exponents of Einstein's E=MC2, but went on to say that i did not understand it! I contended from the beginning that having knowledge about or being aware of something does not necessarily means that you comprehend its implications. And i noted that a mystery is an example of this.


That wasn't Mel's point....or mine.

OUR point was....lol.....that simply having information and facts doesn't mean you KNOW something.
Your point was the opposite.


 



Mel

I don't remember joining in on that discussion between you and Cynique..  I remember your discussion with @Cynique being more nuanced.  

No you didn't join the discussion (if you want to call it that) between me and Cynique; nor were you obliged to.
I was just making an observation about how you actually agreed with my position (that you can have information about something but still not "know" it)  but for some reason refrained from stating it.

You commented on a lot in the thread, but when it came to our particular discussion...you mysteriously "got lost", lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/15/2018 at 9:14 PM, Cynique said:

...I contended from the beginning that having knowledge about or being aware of something does not necessarily means that you comprehend its implications.

 

3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

OUR point was....lol.....that simply having information and facts doesn't mean you KNOW something.
Your point was the opposite.

this is a good example of how your mind works. if you can't see that what i said is not the opposite of what you said, then you can't think straight.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Knowledge Facts, information, and skills acquired through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.

 

information

 
 

NOUN

mass noun
  • 1Facts provided or learned about something or someone.

     

    knowledgeable

    (also knowledgable)
     

    ADJECTIVE

    • Intelligent and well informed.

       

      1Having or showing knowledge of a subject or situation.

     

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@DelI don't know that the definitions you supplied supported your assertion any more than they do mine, and that's an example of you supplying me with facts and info and me not being able to apply this knowledge when it comes to how it is supposed to prove your point.  A lot of this debate is about interpretation, etymology, and semantics.  Anyway, I am burnt out from going back and forth on the subject which seems destined to remain at an impasse, so I will simple quote what i said to Pioneer in another post about this subject.     "In my book,  knowledge per se is not comprehension; it's being aware of, or knowing the components(facts and info) about a subject, and this may or may not lead to comprehending what this data indicates. So you can have knowledge without comprehension, but you can't have comprehension without knowledge. (Wisdom is how wisely you apply what you comprehend.)"  And i will sign off by saying we have to agree to disagree.  

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎1‎/‎18‎/‎2018 at 8:37 AM, Delano said:

Knowledge is different from information and facts. 

 

 


Absolutely!

 

 

 

Cynique

 

"In my book, knowledge per se is not comprehension; it's being aware of, or knowing the components(facts and info) about a subject,

This is "redundant logic".

You can't say the definition of knowledge is "knowing" anything....let alone facts and info....because you can't use the same word to define itself.

Your "book" is inaccurate.
Perhaps you should consider RECALLING it.....lol.

Again, you can't KNOW anything without understanding or comprehending it....to a degree.

You don't have to understand EVERYTHING about it, but you do have to have a measure of comprehension of what you're aware of.


Here's some information for you:

der mezliach bon houverr

Now that I've given you the information, you have it.....but do you KNOW what it means?

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Pioneer1 Oh give it a rest! You can't tell me what i can't do or have to do  in your effort to support your argument which is dependent upon  how you personally define information and knowledge. i  can likewise tell you what you can't do when i am interpreting  my pov.  (The first rule of a debate is to never argue with anyone who supplies their own definitions or criteria.)  Knowledge has many definitions as Del illustrated, and it all boils down to debaters cherry-picking which definition  applies to their contention.  As obvious as this is, you can't even figure that out.  

 

 In answer to the same old stupid  repetitive example you persist in giving is:  I am aware that what you have written  is a series of letters which i cannot translate. This is comparable to having knowledge about what i see.   i do not know what the foreign words mean because knowledge is not necessarily synonymous with comprehension.   Knowledge is a multi-faceted word. That's my final say on the subject.   So take it or leave it.  Sheeze.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Actually YOUR stance on "race" is illogical.

Knowing that race is a CATEGORY, logically speaking there MUST be more than one option.

So for you to take the position that there is only ONE race....the human race.

Is like saying that there is only ONE flavor of soda pop....the "soda pop" flavor.

See my point?"

 

 

No I don't. Did you know in 1950, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) issued a statement asserting that all humans belong to the same species and that “race” is not a biological reality but a myth. This was a summary of the findings of an international panel of anthropologists, geneticists, sociologists, and psychologists? And I'm sure you are aware the Journal of Science produced an article entitled, "Taking Race out of Human Genetics". They are not the only group of scientists and geneticists to advocate the same position. But of course your scientific research and verifiable documentation can and will prove them wrong. Correct? I am very curious to hear your argument that clearly debunks and proves their advocation flawed and unacceptably incorrect. Please give us a reference for your body of research and documentation. I'm very open minded and curious as to what your particular counter-science has produced....

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Xeon, You'll discover none of this will matter to @Pioneer1.  Once my man believes something, he does not change his mind.  He will never accept the what modern science tells us if it conflicts with his world view.

 

But he is not alone, many people are comfortable with the racial categories and the stereotypes that go alone with them... it helps them make sense of the very nuanced beings humans are.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Xeon

I'm very open minded


Yeah, it's TOO open....and that's part of the problem.


Your mind is open to whatever claims WHITE scientists make and you're easily influenced by whatever they publish as fact.

The problem is, the SAME people (Western scientific body) who defined race in the first place.....now say it's does not exist.
And instead of questioning how they arrived at their conclusions you just go along with it.

Which means you don't have a mind of your OWN to do your OWN research and come up with your OWN findings.....all you can do is quote theirs like an elementary school child seeking a sticker to put on his forehead.

You act as if the sources you mentioned had their information handed down to them from the heavens.

Pathetic......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Troy
 

I believe both.

But that belief is "weak"....meaning I don't give full confidence to it because those conclusions along with the evidence that supports them were PRESENTED to me by Western science.
Niether I nor anyone I personally know has verified the existence of them with personal observation.

I think I know why you asked me those questions.....
To establish a basis of belief as if to say, if I believe in THAT aspect of Western science then why wouldn't I believe in the current racial claims of Western science.

And if that WAS your reason, the answers are simple:
1. Unlike galaxies and electrons that I haven't seen yet to either accept or reject, I actually SEE various races so I KNOW they exist....despite what SOME scientists claim.
2. Unlike the various racial theories where some claim race exists and others claim race doesn't....no one that I know of is running around claiming that electrons and galaxies DON'T exist. So I have little reason NOT to believe that the scientists are right on their existence.

Black people should get into a habit of verifying things for THEMSELVES instead of relying on White people....scientists or non-scientists....to do all of the work and hands on research.

How many Black archeologists are actually digging in the grounds of Africa or South America finding things?
Too many Black people JUST go to school, sit up in the class, and let those who REALLY KNOW tell them what they should know instead of verifying it for themselves so that they can KNOW what they believe.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually asked the questions to point out inconsistencies in your reasoning.

 

True, you cannot see electrons or galaxies with the naked eye, but you can't see chromosomes either.

 

You state that you don't trust so-called "Western science" (is this code for "white science") and extol the virtues of one doing their own research. But I don't believe that you've done any research in genetics, astronomy, or  particle physics.

 

It is fascinating  that you have no trouble dismissing science and feel comfortable promoting what you believe.

 

Again, this not at all unusual; most people do it everyday; albeit not to the same extent as you.  People are usually comfortable shrugging their shoulders and saying "I dunno."

 

Do you believe the world is flat? I assume you have never been to outerspace to observe this on your own. 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



Troy

My thinking isn't inconsistent.
It's quite reliable, I just have my OWN way of accepting, processing, and categorizing information instead of the way typically taught in Western academia.

When information is presented to me I classify it as:

1. Information I KNOW to be true based on experience or observation.
2. Information I don't actually know but just BELIEVE based on the evidence.
3. Information that I don't know nor have enough information to have an opinion on
4. Information that I don't actually know and DON'T BELIEVE based on the evidence.
5. Information that I KNOW NOT to be true based on experience or observation


When you ask me about electrons and whether the Earth is round or flat, questions like this fall into the 2nd category because I'm not in a position to verify the information I'm given on these subjects but they make logical sense to me based on the evidence.

But that's the best I can give you.

How can I or anyone else who haven't actually seen the planet with their own eyes from a distance sit up and claim they KNOW what shape the Earth is?

All you're going by is what other's TELL you.....and you believe them.

It doesn't mean they're wrong, it's just a more accurate way of relating information.

For me, knowledge has to be POSTERIORI.....not simply priori.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

See this is what I mean:

 

1. Information I KNOW to be true based on experience or observation.
Experiences and observations are what we call anecdotes and you have a long history of using this method to argue. What you know using the method can be utterly wrong.  Is this how you know there is a genetic basis for race?


2. Information I don't actually know but just BELIEVE based on the evidence.
This seems reasonable (assuming by "evidence" you mean your own experience or observations).

3. Information that I don't know nor have enough information to have an opinion on
Information you don't know would just be called ignorance. Most of us, I suspect, don't realize how much we don't know about a given subject.


4. Information that I don't actually know and DON'T BELIEVE based on the evidence.
How can you not believe something you don't know?


5. Information that I KNOW NOT to be true based on experience or observation

Again you can't know anything based upon your experiences.  Unless you are suggesting that you've been conducting experiment in lab and have had others have replicated your findings.  

 

I simply read, watch documentaries, consume information on the web and a variety of other places to draw conclusions -- I HAVE to rely others.  I believe our own personal observations and experiences are just the beginning of acquiring knowledge -- not the end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man, I had to re-do this post because I saw so many mistakes........


 

 

Troy

Experiences and observations are what we call anecdotes and you have a long history of using this method to argue. What you know using the method can be utterly wrong. Is this how you know there is a genetic basis for race?


The same method of observation that you are attempting to trivalize is actually what most scientists use in their experiments to GAIN THEIR KNOWLEDGE....and give it to you.

If a person's mind is sound, they don't abuse alcohol/drugs, and aren't prone to hallucinations or delusions...how can what they witness or experience be "wrong"?


And to answer your question, ofcourse.
With my sense of sight I can clearly see the physical features between human beings that allow them to be classified into different races and sexes.
 

 

 

How can you not believe something you don't know?


Because I'm using MY definition of "knowledge".
Which is information that has been VERIFIED by either personal experience or personal observation.

And just like there are many things I don't KNOW but I believe based on evidence, there are many things that I don't know OR BELIEVE because of a lack of evidence.

An example of how you can not believe something you don't know is this......

If I'm sitting in a room with no window but with a tin roof, and you come in the room and tell me it's hailing outside.
If I don't hear any hail hitting the roof, I'm not going to believe you.

I DON'T KNOW that it's hailing, meaning....
I haven't been outside to experience the hail.
I don't have a window to see out of and observe the hail.

So I don't KNOW it's hailing.

Now add to that the fact that I didn't hear it hitting the tin roof....no evidence either.

So I don't know it NOR do I believe it.

 

Again you can't know anything based upon your experiences. Unless you are suggesting that you've been conducting experiment in lab and have had others have replicated your findings.


Do you have to do experiment in a laboratory to KNOW that you have no hair on the top of your head?

Do you have to do experiments in a laboratory to KNOW that your skin is brown?

Do you have to do experiments in a laboratory to know that women typically have higher pitched voices than men?

Nah brother, you don't need a laboratory and do extensive research to verify these facts.
Just your basic observation skills are enough to confirm them.


simply read, watch documentaries, consume information on the web and a variety of other places to draw conclusions -- I HAVE to rely others.


And this is part of the problem of why so many Black people remain in the condition we are in.

We rely too much on the information OTHERS are giving us instead of getting the information we need OURSELVES.

Is there any wonder why Black people are disproportionately affected with diabetes, certain forms of cancers, HIV, and other diseases.....when they rely on OTHERS to give them information and treat them instead of doing their own research to treat themselves????


We don't HAVE TO rely on others for most of the information we get...we just CHOOSE TO out of laziness and lack of confidence in our own abilities.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...