Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Watch the video before reading anything below. It has sound but takes a few seconds to come up.

ypIbTpnuNgg







Is this video racist?



My coworker (Johnny Demonic on KMC) says the video is not racist. He sees two people that were given jobs by a successful family. He says it would be racist if it could somehow show that those two black people were slaves. He says that even at the end, the black dude was smiling and cheesing it up indicating no slavery and great working conditions.


I say it's racist because of the history behind the confederacy and how long that organization has been around which was shortly after the Civil War. The fact that the only two people working for the white people are black further solidifies my point that it's racist. It's almost not subtle but overt racism, imo.



He said that I'm treating it like they lynched the black dude for smiling at the family and that I'm going too far by looking for racism in everything. He said that if it was Michael Richards (Kramer) playing the father, I may have a point.

If the black girl had said 'Here you go massah!' while delivering the lemonade as the black guy was picking cotton in the background would definitely make this racist.

The company that the commercial promotes may be a racist folks, but just off what the commercial shows, I don't see any racism.

I feel like its definitely an unfortunate implication... i'm not sure if it was intended that way or not.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I feel like its definitely an unfortunate implication...
Reminds me of the movie CSA.

My understanding of racism is if someone is being denied equal accces.

One would assume these are paid positions or some sort of live ins in exchange for labor of some sort.

We don't know if the tried to hire white servants. But yeah, with the music and the company name, I could see how some folks could be uspset with it. Wonder with many athletes making millions from the south that are blacks, do they have servants and are the same race as the millionaires or different?

I didn't think it was racist at first, then the word "Confederate" came up. So not sure.

Originally posted by -Pr-
I didn't think it was racist at first, then the word "Confederate" came up. So not sure.

Myself, as well.


I would not have called it racist if it did not come up with "Conderate Families". It would have just been an unfortunate advertising setup if it was some other type of organization.

It's quite taboo to show black people serving white people in advertisements. In movies, too...but it has to be done tactfully or be a period piece if done in a movie.

It clearly racist in obvious undertones; how anyone can't see this is beyond me. You don't have to yell "n!gger, pick that cotton" to be racist.

The fact that the black guy showed up right as it said and their property made me lol

Originally posted by jalek moye
The fact that the black guy showed up right as it said and their property made me lol




I did not notice that.


I feel that white people are blind to some forms of racism because we simply have not walked in those shoes.

crylaugh


Yes.

It seems like a joke


But yeah...showing the family with "Confederate People: Protecting a people..." then cutting to their gardener and writing "...and their property", has very unfortunate, racist, implications. May not be intentional, but to me it does seem like it was done on purpose, but trying to cover it a bit, with "plausible deniability". Either way, unfortunate, and they should do the right thing and can that commercial as I am sure it will be offensive to many people that view it.

The horrible worry is that it was directly aimed at those people that would like to go back to the "good old days".

Commercials are fiendishly constructed: every detail is considered, nothing (or virtually so) is by chance. My guess is, they're trying to slip in a subtle dig. I mean, why even show a gardner at the last second?

Either that...the way the gardner smiled at the end...I felt the commercial could've been an SNL skit.

Originally posted by Mindship
Commercials are fiendishly constructed: every detail is considered, nothing (or virtually so) is by chance. My guess is, they're trying to slip in a subtle dig. I mean, why even show a gardner at the last second?

Either that...the way the gardner smiled at the end...I felt the commercial could've been an SNL skit.

Yeah, same, it seems very outlandish to me. A striking example of Poe's law in action.

Maybe I'm mistaken, but isn't that a clip from this movie? I'm 80% sure that it is, making the racism moot because that's the point

If not, ignore everything I said atop

Originally posted by Lestov16
Maybe I'm mistaken, but isn't that a clip from this movie? I'm 80% sure that it is, making the racism moot because that's the point

If not, ignore everything I said atop

Yes, that sounds perfectly plausible to me

Hell yes. And there is nothing subtle about this clip. But I don't believe it's a "real" commercial.

There's nothing inherently racist about them having black people who work for them even if they want to call themselves confederates.

Overlaying "and their property" when only the black guy is on screen is blatantly racist (blatant enough that I seriously doubt its a real commercial).

This looks like it would have been on TV on the "Father Knows Best" show

Too many people get upset and call things Racist without knowing the whole story. So I am undeciding.

Originally posted by Lestov16
Maybe I'm mistaken, but isn't that a clip from this movie? I'm 80% sure that it is, making the racism moot because that's the point

If not, ignore everything I said atop

Says so on the youtube page.

Bardock42: You don't even in the USA, so making a comment about does not make any sense. It's like saying all Germans are just itching to go back to the old days of Hitler.

Originally posted by YankeeWhaler
Bardock42: You don't even LIVE n the USA, so making a comment about it does not make any sense. It's like saying all Germans are just itching to go back to the old days of Hitler.

So taking a scene from a satire movie and jumping to conclusions and becoming indignant? No wonder why Hitler got to be so popular in Germany. Augustus put down the chocolate.

http://youtu.be/rw_R9SS3kQ8

Originally posted by Lestov16
Maybe I'm mistaken, but isn't that a clip from this movie? I'm 80% sure that it is, making the racism moot because that's the point

If not, ignore everything I said atop
Hmm, I saw that movie long ago... don't remember if this was in it or not.

Originally posted by YankeeWhaler
Bardock42: You don't even in the USA, so making a comment about does not make any sense. It's like saying all Germans are just itching to go back to the old days of Hitler.

I have lived in the USA, and I am just as able to watch your news and media, in fact, I assume I am very likely in the upper 50 percent (not that that means much) when it comes to being informed on issues of current and historical social and political issues even among Americans currently living in the US.

Regardless, this is an issue of racism, on which the US does, luckily, not have the claim to sole knowledge and rights to discussion.

Nor did I jump to any conclusions from the satire. In fact, I very clearly stated that it could very well be satire, it is however satire designed to show racism, and if it was played straight (which it could be) it would be racist.

Don't pretend you know anything about me cause you creepily stalked someone on my forum, when you are so clearly unable to even comprehend what I actually write.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Reminds me of the movie CSA. Originally posted by Lestov16
Maybe I'm mistaken, but isn't that a clip from this movie? I'm 80% sure that it is, making the racism moot because that's the point

If not, ignore everything I said atop
Called it.

If this IS from that movie, then they did a pretty good job making it convincing.

It's not rascist.

It's just sneaky. Which is worse.

I can understand the name now if its from the movie, any company advertising "confederate" living would turn me off from the start. I mean the name is offensive in and of itself.

Originally posted by jalek moye
The fact that the black guy showed up right as it said and their property made me lol

So this really was from the CSA movie?


I haven't seen it.


But that settles it: I was right and Johnny Demonic was wrong. 313

Originally posted by King Kandy
If this IS from that movie, then they did a pretty good job making it convincing.
It was a well done movie.

Originally posted by Johnny Demonic
The company that the commercial promotes may be a racist folks, but just off what the commercial shows, I don't see any racism.

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx


didn't see the whole and their property when it panned to the black guy?

Lol, or the fact that its from a movie about an alternate America where slavery and racism are the status quo?

Furthermore, the black guy in question is of the "boy" stereotype in America, who is characterised as being loyal, late teens/early 20s, optimistic, obedient and hard working.

As opposed to say another stereotype such as the "mammy" which is almost always a loud fat religious moody violent black woman, the most obvious example of this is Tom's owner in Tom and Jerry. Now, of course, childhood me didn't know this was racist, nor do I think most people did, but it so obviously is, and the same can be said about this advert.

I even went as far as to think this was a real advert since racial stereotypes are all over American television. Just off the top of my head I can see the Mammy stereotype in Friends, Scrubs, Becker and even Malcolm in the Middle, except this time they're all nurses. 2 and a half men at least made their Mammy housekeeper white.

... Honestly that's pretty accurate of alot of older black mothers and younger grandmothers

So I don't see it as a racist depiction just a depiction of a type of person

Originally posted by lord xyz
As opposed to say another stereotype such as the "mammy" which is almost always a loud fat religious moody violent black woman, the most obvious example of this is Tom's owner in Tom and Jerry. Now, of course, childhood me didn't know this was racist, nor do I think most people did, but it so obviously is, and the same can be said about this advert.

I even went as far as to think this was a real advert since racial stereotypes are all over American television. Just off the top of my head I can see the Mammy stereotype in Friends, Scrubs, Becker and even Malcolm in the Middle, except this time they're all nurses. 2 and a half men at least made their Mammy housekeeper white.

I've met a *lot* of black "mammy" type women. I'd hesitate to call it particularly racist unless they're the only representative of black people in the show.

Originally posted by jalek moye
... Honestly that's pretty accurate of alot of older black mothers and younger grandmothers

So I don't see it as a racist depiction just a depiction of a type of person Dude, it's racist to say people of a certain colour of skin act a certain way.

You could say impoverished, condescended mothers of African ethnicity within the United States are inclined to a specific or broad trait, but their behaviour isn't caused by them being black, which is the implication here.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I've met a *lot* of black "mammy" type women. I'd hesitate to call it particularly racist unless they're the only representative of black people in the show. Their the only black nurses I've seen on American television...

And FYI, I haven't met a single person who acts like they do in the UK.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I've met a *lot* of black "mammy" type women. I'd hesitate to call it particularly racist unless they're the only representative of black people in the show.

Pretty much it's a very common type of person. Virtually every black person I know, myself included has someone like that in their family or neighborhood

Originally posted by lord xyz
Dude, it's racist to say people of a certain colour of skin act a certain way.

You could say impoverished, condescended mothers of African ethnicity within the United States are inclined to a specific or broad trait, but their behaviour isn't caused by them being black, which is the implication here.

Their the only black nurses I've seen on American television...

So it's racist to have a character based on a very common type of person in a culture? Maybe if all black people were that way but having a character like that isn't racist it's how people are.

They exist and are common, comedy tends to use certain types o characters they just happen to be pretty funny.

Originally posted by lord xyz

And FYI, I haven't met a single person who acts like they do in the UK.

I edited this in later.

Originally posted by jalek moye
So it's racist to have a character based on a very common type of person in a culture? Maybe if all black people were that way but having a character like that isn't racist it's how people are.

They exist and are common, comedy tends to use certain types o characters they just happen to be pretty funny. There's no other reason all these characters act the way they do other than the fact that they're black (and fat). It is never explained why Laverne in Scrubs and Margaret in Becker are both bible thumping loud violent attitude women.

The only explanation Hollywood provides, and the only explanation you can think of is, that this is how fat black female nurses act normally, and you're going as far as to say that this is how fat black middle aged women act normally.

That's racial stereotyping.

Not really it's from experience. Maybe it's different in the UK. But in the US. It's very very common. That's why every black American movie has characters like that its literally what we grow up with and is considered normal. Sure not everyone is like that but it's very very common and every. Black person here's knows or is related to some. Most don't think it negative she's considered important in most black families and is loved

Originally posted by jalek moye
Not really it's from experience. Maybe it's different in the UK. But in the US. It's very very common. That's why every black American movie has characters like that its literally what we grow up with and is considered normal. Sure not everyone is like that but it's very very common and every. Black person here's knows or is related to some. Most don't think it negative she's considered important in most black families and is loved Maybe it's different in another culture?

Every black person knows or is related to some?

She's considered important in most black families?



Do you seriously not see how this is racist?

Or do you think black women beat their cats whenever they do something wrong with a rolling pin on a regular basis as it's part of their community...?

Originally posted by lord xyz
Maybe it's different in another culture?

Every black person knows or is related to some?

She's considered important in most black families?



Do you seriously not see how this is racist?

Or do you think black women beat their cats whenever they do something wrong with a rolling pin on a regular basis as it's part of their community...?

How is it racists its how things are here. We are racists for the fact that most black families have someone like that in them? We are racists for it being a common and respected member of the family?

If something is common in the community showing it isn't racist and I really don't get how me saying what most black Americans are exposed to is racist. You culture may be different but in mine that's one of the ways that things are no more racists then showing black youth playing basketball a lot. Which happens its not saying all do but its a very common thing.

The "mammy" archetype of black women is something most of us grew up with in black America. At least in my generation and our parents.

Basketball is not the same thing as that's an activity, not a personality or behaviour.

It's a racial stereotype, just like a comic book loving geeky white kid is a racial stereotype. Take for example, Chris in Kenan and Kel is such an obvious white stereotype, and the same argument could be made that a nervous nerdy white kid is a part of whie people's lives.

"Most black families" is racial stereotyping, and this isn't television, this is what you're saying.

Yes its a stereotype but it isn't racist. And saying most black families is true from mine and everyone i knows experience. Along with numerous black Americans. I don't see how such a common thing is considered racist when acknowledged. Saying that most black American at least know of one isn't a racist statement. Its one saying how common they are in our culture.

saying that its how all black are would be. But them being prominent and at least one for every insert how ever many is far from being racist.

A racial stereotype is racist... ermm

So your saying anytime any show or anything portrays a character doing anything that is also a part of a stereotype it's being racist?

Originally posted by jalek moye
So your saying anytime any show or anything portrays a character doing anything that is also a part of a stereotype it's being racist? If it's a racial stereotype...yeah.

Hyper sensitivity to racial issues is a kind of recursive racism, bruh.

Who's being sensitive?

A racial stereotype is racist, bruh. ermmnone

What are your definitions of "racial stereotype" and "racist"?

Originally posted by lord xyz
Who's being sensitive?

A racial stereotype is racist, bruh. ermmnone
The guy who's calling things racist that everyone else don't so much bat an eye at.

Originally posted by Bardock42
What are your definitions of "racial stereotype" and "racist"? Well, first of all, races don't exist, and there is no biological evidence to determine a race...there's actually more genetic variation within whities than between whities and blacks. This is why we use "ethnicity" instead. I open with this because acknowledging different races as anything other than skin-deep is racist...Cultural stereotypes are culturist, I guess, but as I mentioned in earlier posts, if the only justification for the characteristics are the colour of the skin...that's racist.

Racism is defined as the belief that all members of a race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, esp. to distinguish as inferior or superior to other races, but not exclusively. A stereotype is defined as: A widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing. So a racial stereotype is an oversimplifying image of a race or a person of a race, specific to that race, basically. And race based oversimplification of characteristics is of course a way of showing race-specific characteristics.

Tom's owner in Tom and Jerry is completely racist, you'd have to be an idiot not to see it.

It's racist by definition, and there are more black stereotypes, the "boy" and the "mammy" are just 2. I think there are 5 most common which have been a part of Hollywood since it's formation inc. boy and mammy.

That's what I thought, you use racism as holding any believe for differences between "races". With that definition you are completely right.

I think the people replying to you however use the other common definition that includes some sort of "inferiority" in the race they are racist against.

So probably just a misunderstanding of terms, and not a difference in opinion.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Well, first of all, races don't exist, and there is no biological evidence to determine a race...there's actually more genetic variation within whities than between whities and blacks. This is why we use "ethnicity" instead. I open with this because acknowledging different races as anything other than skin-deep is racist...Cultural stereotypes are culturist, I guess, but as I mentioned in earlier posts, if the only justification for the characteristics are the colour of the skin...that's racist.

Racism is defined as the belief that all members of a race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, esp. to distinguish as inferior or superior to other races, but not exclusively. A stereotype is defined as: A widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing. So a racial stereotype is an oversimplifying image of a race or a person of a race, specific to that race, basically. And race based oversimplification of characteristics is of course a way of showing race-specific characteristics.

Tom's owner in Tom and Jerry is completely racist, you'd have to be an idiot not to see it.

It's racist by definition, and there are more black stereotypes, the "boy" and the "mammy" are just 2. I think there are 5 most common which have been a part of Hollywood since it's formation inc. boy and mammy.
I'm well aware of the major black stereotypes and their nuances.

I'm also aware that there's a difference between a stereotype with a foundation in reality and one born out of racial intolerance.

As the people in this thread have attested to, the "Mammy" isn't something that exists only in fiction.

Are you calling reality racist?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I'm well aware of the major black stereotypes and their nuances.

I'm also aware that there's a difference between a stereotype with a foundation in reality and one born out of racial intolerance.

As the people in this thread have attested to, the "Mammy" isn't something that exists only in fiction.

Are you calling reality racist? Of course not. The belief that these characteristics are race based is racist. In terms of television, these characteristics are of course only there due to the colour of the skin of the characters...racist. In terms of reality, if there is a general trend of certain characteristics due to the subculture of Americans with African ethnicity, and there's data to support that, then that isn't racist. But that's not what's being said.

Yeah, but isn't the believe that dark skinned people have darker skin than light skinned people already "racist" by your general definition?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, but isn't the believe that dark skinned people have darker skin than light skinned people already "racist" by your general definition? No, recognising skin colour isn't racist.

Originally posted by lord xyz
No, recognising skin colour isn't racist.

Yes it is by your definition.

"Racism is defined as the belief that all members of a race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race"

All members of a dark skinned race have darker skin (characteristic) than members of a white race whites.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yes it is by your definition.

"Racism is defined as the belief that all members of a race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race"

All members of a dark skinned race have darker skin (characteristic) than members of a white race whites. "dark skinned people", what you originally said, isn't a race, so that can't at all be racist.

"All members of a dark skinned race have darker skin (characteristic) than members of a white race whites." You kinda messed up that sentence at the end, I think...but okay.

"a dark skinned race" is that, all dark skinned people, or one "race" in which every member is dark skinned? I'm guessing the latter.

Again, how do you define dark? Where's the cut off point there?

It doesn't matter. I've already said there's no scientific data to show races exist, so, even saying darker skinned people are a different race to lighter skinned people is racist.

I should have used ethnicity in my definition of racist, my bad.

Originally posted by lord xyz
"dark skinned people", what you originally said, isn't a race, so that can't at all be racist.

"All members of a dark skinned race have darker skin (characteristic) than members of a white race whites." You kinda messed up that sentence at the end, I think...but okay.

"a dark skinned race" is that, all dark skinned people, or one "race" in which every member is dark skinned? I'm guessing the latter.

Again, how do you define dark? Where's the cut off point there?

It doesn't matter. I've already said there's no scientific data to show races exist, so, even saying darker skinned people are a different race to lighter skinned people is racist.

I should have used ethnicity in my definition of racist, my bad.

So now even saying "race" is racist?

Originally posted by Bardock42
So now even saying "race" is racist? I didn't say that either.

The definition of racism is the belief that a race is on an inferior level to another race, wither it be in regards to intelligence, athleticism, etc etc.

Stereotyping isn't racism. They tend to go hand in hand, but they aren't the same thing.

Believing races are anything more than what's superficial is inaccurate, so much that you can't even classify populations as race.

But I can admit that saying there's a common personality within black populations is not racist.

I seem to have gone a bit overboard with this point, but I think we can all admit the mammy is a racial stereotype.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Believing races are anything more than what's superficial is inaccurate, so much that you can't even classify populations as race.

That's sort of true.


There are differences, physically, in Sub-Saharan Africans and, say, true Caucasians (those that settled around the Caucasus Mountains/valleys.)

Medical publications still use some of the "major" social races in their works where appropriate...though it is cautioned against for most things. I see it pop up every now and then. For instance, lactose intolerance is much more common among African Americans than any other race demographic in America. So is sickle cell anemia. You can't really blame that on anything but their Sub-Saharan African origins.

Originally posted by dadudemon
For instance, lactose intolerance is much more common among African Americans than any other race demographic in America. So is sickle cell anemia. You can't really blame that on anything but their Sub-Saharan African origins. I disagree. Hardly anything is genetically programmed, even lactose intolerance could be overcome. Prenatal conditioning and the health of the mother can determine many disorders and diseases for the person in later life. According to Gabor Mate, almost no condition is genetically programmed.

It's probable that these conditions are a combination of many environmental factors as well as genetics. What I'm saying is, these deficits could be avoided if the environmental factors change.

Originally posted by lord xyz
I disagree. Hardly anything is genetically programmed...

Okay...


Originally posted by lord xyz
It's probable that these conditions are a combination of many environmental factors as well as genetics.


Okay...


So you don't even agree with yourself.


But let's stick with facts on science:

Here's some facts:

Lactose intolerance can be caused by a mutation in the LCT gene. This mutation reduces the ability for the intestines to produce an enzyme that breaks down lactose: lactase.

In order to inherit the LCT mutation, both parents have to contribute the gene mutation. This is known as autosomal recessive inheritance/trait.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002052.htm




That's one example down.


Originally posted by lord xyz
I disagree. Hardly anything is genetically programmed...

This is clearly wrong using just one example. In fact, pretty much every trait is directly programmed by your genes. Some traits are "programmed" by what I dub "super genes" mean a combination of multiple genes working together to create a particular trait ( "gene created traits" are what are called phenotypes). Still, others, are a combination of your genetics and environment.


But let's move on to ...

Sickle Cell Anemia.

I don't even have to talk much about this one...I'll just quote it:







Do some more research and reading concerning race and medical differences between the sociological (and sometimes anthropological, but many consider the major three antiquated) labels. It may change your mind a bit on just a few things. It's not ground breaking information or anything because we already know there's significant differences, even in appearance, between the major races. It should come as no shock that the differences are not just skin deep. Humans are definitely different and those differences can be narrowed down to a population living in specific geographics (genetically).


I love the modern world because we are mixing more and more. One day...we may not have race. One day...

Holy shit. I wanted to laugh because of how racist that was. And normally I would, but that was just...kind of disturbing. It almost seems like it could have been a comedic skit, except it was a bit undisguised.

Where is that commercial being advertised?

Originally posted by theICONiac
If the black girl had said 'Here you go massah!' while delivering the lemonade as the black guy was picking cotton in the background would definitely make this racist. haermm

Originally posted by dadudemon
Okay...





Okay...


So you don't even agree with yourself. You are so annoying.

Let's spend some time explaining why you're wrong here.

A combination of environmental factors and genetics doesn't mean genetically programmed.

Oh, that's actually easier than I thought.


Originally posted by dadudemon
But let's stick with facts on science:

Here's some facts:

Lactose intolerance can be caused by a mutation in the LCT gene. This mutation reduces the ability for the intestines to produce an enzyme that breaks down lactose: lactase.

In order to inherit the LCT mutation, both parents have to contribute the gene mutation. This is known as autosomal recessive inheritance/trait.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002052.htm
Sure, that seems pretty legit, but I only said probable, so thanks for showing me that.

I would like to add there's nothing there about it being more common with those of African origin, or that it something that those of African origin are more likely to pass down, but even if it were, that isn't an argument for the existence of race any more than that gingers are more likely to get skin cancer.

Originally posted by dadudemon
That's one example down. You're really really condescending and creepy when you post oti. You also take great pride in link dumping and take waaay too much effort replying to me.

Originally posted by dadudemon
This is clearly wrong using just one example. In fact, pretty much every trait is directly programmed by your genes. Some traits are "programmed" by what I dub "super genes" mean a combination of multiple genes working together to create a particular trait ( "gene created traits" are what are called phenotypes). Still, others, are a combination of your genetics and environment. Don't take this the wrong way, but I never trust your opinion.

Originally posted by dadudemon
But let's move on to ...

Sickle Cell Anemia.

I don't even have to talk much about this one...I'll just quote it:







Do some more research and reading concerning race and medical differences between the sociological (and sometimes anthropological, but many consider the major three antiquated) labels. It may change your mind a bit on just a few things. It's not ground breaking information or anything because we already know there's significant differences, even in appearance, between the major races. It should come as no shock that the differences are not just skin deep. Humans are definitely different and those differences can be narrowed down to a population living in specific geographics (genetically).


I love the modern world because we are mixing more and more. One day...we may not have race. One day... We don't have race, and I love the diversity in human populations...I wouldn't want everyone to have the same eye colour, hair colour, everyone to be the same height...etc.

I would like everyone to not be fat, but that's because fat people are gross. ermm

But anyway, races don't exist. That's why we use ethnicity and populations instead.

Originally posted by dadudemon
In fact, pretty much every trait is directly programmed by your genes.

I'll wait for you definition of "trait" but my initial reaction is simply that, no, this isn't true. Epigenetics is the new big thing in modern genetics, that the way your genes express themselves can be influenced by factors in your environment.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/jirtle-epigenetics.html

With things like sickle cell you can say "if you have this gene you will have this condition". They were really important to early genetic research because they proved the heritability of conditions. They weren't the final word, though.

Genes have switches, that turn on and off depending on our environment.

This isn't true for all genes, but the majority of them yes.

There's immense research including real human cases that show how different environments cause different biology.

If a person was raised in a dark room for example for the first 5 years of life, because that's when eyes finish development, that person will be blind.

Originally posted by meep-meep
Holy shit. I wanted to laugh because of how racist that was. And normally I would, but that was just...kind of disturbing. It almost seems like it could have been a comedic skit, except it was a bit undisguised.

Where is that commercial being advertised?
Its from a movie.

Originally posted by dadudemon
So your reason for why genetics don't produce most of our traits, directly, is that there are some that are expressed through epigentics (which I already referenced as "super genes".

Epigenetics is not at all what you defined as "super genes" (apparently any gene interactions complex than a binary on/off thing). Epigenetics means your phenotypes can change based on environmental factors.

Originally posted by dadudemon
If that's how you define it, then, no, I disagree. In order to disagree, you must make a case that the vast majority of our traits (traits is such a broad definition...phenotypes is actually how I defined it) is defined by something other than genetics.

I'd say you need to at least start by making a good cased for "nearly everything" about a person is defined by genetics. Let's see:

http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1289%2Fehp.114-a160

Twin studies have found epigenetic changes in various cells (stomach, liver, kidneys, bladder, esophageal, lymph, mouth, fat, muscle).
In mice epigenetics can alter fur color. Childhood care can alter the chemical make up of mice children as they age.
Cancer has apparent links to epigenetic effects.

But frankly I don't really see how either of us would make much of a case unless we're prepared to go through the literature on every possible aspect of humanity and see what causes it.

Originally posted by dadudemon
"Still, others, are a combination of your genetics and environment."

I'd argue that from what is known about how far reaching epigenetics can be it's reasonable to expect that in humans a lot of things are going to be defined by interaction with the environment rather than set in stone by your genes.

Mind you, I'm not taking the position like xyz that "nearly everything" comes from environmental interactions, I'm taking issue with the sort of genetic destiny you seem to be pushing.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Epigenetics is not at all what you defined as "super genes" (apparently any gene interactions complex than a binary on/off thing). Epigenetics means your phenotypes can change based on environmental factors.

I was wrong in calling "epigenes", supergenes...mostly because I used the wrong "above" prefix.

But I did requote portions of my post that show environmentally influenced expression. (genotypes becoming phenotypes).

However, environmentally influenced genetic expression is definitely not the only type of epigenetics.


Contrast my use with gene complexes. Super-genes are real and in the way I used it. So are gene complexes.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'd say you need to at least start by making a good cased for "nearly everything" about a person is defined by genetics. Let's see:

http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1289%2Fehp.114-a160

Twin studies have found epigenetic changes in various cells (stomach, liver, kidneys, bladder, esophageal, lymph, mouth, fat, muscle).
In mice epigenetics can alter fur color. Childhood care can alter the chemical make up of mice children as they age.
Cancer has apparent links to epigenetic effects.

But frankly I don't really see how either of us would make much of a case unless we're prepared to go through the literature on every possible aspect of humanity and see what causes it..


No, I absolutely will not entertain this line of reasoning.

1. You're using a strawman for my point.
2. You're asking me to prove that genes are the direct foundation for almost all traits. Really? I mean...really?

I definitely will not entertain such a silly demand.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'd argue that from what is known about how far reaching epigenetics can be it's reasonable to expect that in humans a lot of things are going to be defined by interaction with the environment rather than set in stone by your genes.

Mind you, I'm not taking the position like xyz that "nearly everything" comes from environmental interactions, I'm taking issue with the sort of genetic destiny you seem to be pushing.

I take issue with your taking issue with that. Yes, I'm serious. I think it's a silly "I'm bored" sem-troll attempt.

I mean, REALLY? You want to talk about genes not influencing the vast majority of eukaryote traits? Why would any normal person take that seriously?

You can say there's genes for determining skin colour and eyelid composition, sure.

Calling that a race or a subspecies is just stupid. Saying genes concretely define who we are is also stupid.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
a lot of things are going to be defined by interaction with the environment rather than set in stone by your genes.

Mind you, I'm not taking the position like xyz that "nearly everything" comes from environmental interactions, I'm taking issue with the sort of genetic destiny you seem to be pushing. srug I see that as being a bit pedantic.

Btw, where's inimalist? Me and him had quite an interesting chat about epigenetics.

Originally posted by lord xyz
You can say there's genes for determining skin colour and eyelid composition, sure.

Calling that a race or a subspecies is just stupid. Saying genes concretely define who we are is also stupid.

I agree. I've defined it as much more than just superficial observations.

I'm more for a "Gattica" type of medical future than I am a "Mad Max" type of future (for medicine). So race would be useless when treatment is nearly perfect for everything about you.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Its from a movie.

You're kidding. If not, what movie.

Originally posted by meep-meep
You're kidding. If not, what movie.
Confederate States of America.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Confederate States of America.

Bloody Brits. I'll have to put that one on my "to see" list. Thank ya much.

if this is real, it's racist. if it's a spoof, fake, parody, satire, etc., then it's not.

racism begins and will end with white people and i aint afraid to say it , so there you go.

Racist.

Originally posted by majid86
racism begins and will end with white people and i aint afraid to say it , so there you go.
One need only look at Japan to see that this is blatantly false.

Before any significant contact with white cultures Japan developed a racist view of non-Japanese that persisted until the 20th century.

There are other examples, but Japan is the one that most easily springs to mind considering they were isolated and had no contact with the "white people" you believe invented racism.

The word confederate considering the confederate flag and the history behind it, with two black servants would spark the thought in ones head. I'm almost certain though, that the guy in the circle at the end of the commercial owned some slaves....lol

Originally posted by Omega Vision
One need only look at Japan to see that this is blatantly false.

Before any significant contact with white cultures Japan developed a racist view of non-Japanese that persisted until the 20th century.

There are other examples, but Japan is the one that most easily springs to mind considering they were isolated and had no contact with the "white people" you believe invented racism.

hmm

Very good point. I actually had not thought about it that way.





If memory serves, wasn't there some sort of study done that shows African Americans to be more racist (it was posited that it was a social safety mechanism rather than just malicious/baseless racism...for safety reasons against hundreds of years of racism from whites)?

BRB, I'll see if I can find it.


Edit - WTF? I'm finding stuff about voting, but no studies. I did find something about blacks AND whites being prejudice against blacks in one study...and the blacks were more racist than the whites against the blacks (odd...).

I can't find what I'm looking for, so never mind. Ignore it.