Total posts: 855
Posted in:
-->
@K_Michael
@FLRW
If the first Homo sapiens arose in Africa, it seems we could presume they were dark-skinned.Would it be true then that lighter-skinned Homo sapiens are a later form of our species in terms of the evolutionary timeline? We are not making any comment on what implications that might have. We are just trying to map out a small section of the evolutionary tree (or whatever imagery you like).
It seems that I cannot get a straight answer regarding the quoted section above. There is much talk about evolutionary characteristics and the purpose of skin color. But it seems there is some hesitation in stating what I have asked plainly.
Let's say we drew a timeline that started from the point of our common ape ancestor. As we move along the timeline, we would see various species in the Homo family. Eventually, we would reach the first Homo sapiens on that timeline, and they would presumably be dark-skinned African Homo sapiens. There would not be any light-skinned European Homo sapiens in existence yet. It wouldn't be until we move a little further down the timeline that we see light-skinned European Homo sapiens.
Is there anything that is factually incorrect about this statement from the evolutionary perspective?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
If the first Homo sapiens arose in Africa, it seems we could presume they were dark-skinned.
Would it be true then that lighter-skinned Homo sapiens are a later form of our species in terms of the evolutionary timeline? We are not making any comment on what implications that might have. We are just trying to map out a small section of the evolutionary tree (or whatever imagery you like).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
I was using monkeys in a general sense, but I will copy and paste my previous statement with "apes":
So without commenting on quality or value, would it be accurate to say that evolutionists claim that apes evolved into dark-skinned Africans, and dark-skinned Africans evolved into other forms such as light-skinned Europeans?
Assuming you don't take any issues with this statement, what is so reprehensible then about saying dark-skinned Africans are closer to apes on the evolutionary timescale than light-skinned Europeans? Isn't that just a statement that describes how humans evolved?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
In my question, I was trying to avoid conclusions such as "top" or "higher" life forms and just look at the evolutionary timescale. So without commenting on quality or value, would it be accurate to say that evolutionists claim that monkeys evolved into dark-skinned Africans, and dark-skinned Africans evolved into other forms such as light-skinned Europeans?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drlebronski
It is not so much of a trap as simply bringing an idea to it's logical conclusion. But I try to be fair in these types of interactions so I won't force a view on you that you don't agree with. If we reach a conclusion and you feel I have misrepresented you, you are always free to dispute it or go back to the answer you feel needs clarification.
Now I am speaking in terms of rates in comparing white people to black people. So black people might commit crimes at a higher rate, yet there could be more crimes actually committed by whites because they account for a higher percent of the population.
So let me rephrase in terms of rates. It is more likely that a black person will receive a lower quality education than a white person because of their neighborhood. Thus, it is more likely that a black person's learned skill levels that are developed in their education (reading, math, critical thinking, etc.) will be lower compared to whites. And it is this lower quality education that will make it more likely that black people will be less qualified for jobs and have a harder time with financial decisions, right?
The opposite conclusion would be that you believe black people are not hindered by lower quality education in terms of their job qualifications and their ability to make financial decisions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drlebronski
And if it is more common for black people to receive a lower quality education than white people, it seems to follow that black people would be lower in terms of learned skills like math, reading, and critical thinking than white people, as these skills are developed in one's education. And since these skills help a person in areas like financial decisions and job qualifications, being at a lower level in those learned skills put black people at a disadvantage compared to white people, right?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drlebronski
So would you also agree that it is more common for black people to live in poor neighborhoods than white people, resulting in a lower quality education?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drlebronski
But it would be correct to say that, in general, it is a fact that black people commit crimes at higher rates than white people, right?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drlebronski
i would suggest putting more funding into their neighborhoods as low funding is one of the primary reasons that they have a higher rate of crime.
Just to be clear, is it your position that blacks commit crimes at the same rate as whites, but they are charged more frequently than whites? Or do blacks actually commit more crimes at a higher rate than whites because of living in poor neighborhoods?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drlebronski
You keep telling me about how I am misrepresenting "actual" Critical Race Theorists, and I need to read books by Critical Race Theorists, but you have yet to provide any citations from Critical Race Theorists about what CRT is and why I am misrepresenting it. Maybe you could quote the Frankfurt School, Delgado, Bell, Crenshaw, or others who crafted and modified CRT to make it more clear for me where I am mistaken.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I would take it even a step further to say that the push to change the very definition of "racism" makes racism obsolete. Merriam-Webster added a definition in 2020 (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism)
"the systemic oppression of a racial group to the social, economic, and political advantage of another"
This is fundamentally different from the traditional definition of racism they still include:
"a belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race"
To put it another way, the new definition makes the old one obsolete. Traditional racism is now justified if it is done to combat systemic racism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drlebronski
"CRT recognizes that racism is engrained in the fabric and system of the American society. The individual racist need not exist to note that institutional racism is pervasive in the dominant culture. This is the analytical lens that CRT uses in examining existing power structures. CRT identifies that these power structures are based on white privilege and white supremacy, which perpetuates the marginalization of people of color. CRT also rejects the traditions of liberalism and meritocracy. Legal discourse says that the law is neutral and colorblind, however, CRT challenges this legal “truth” by examining liberalism and meritocracy as a vehicle for self-interest, power, and privilege."-UCLA School of Public Affairs
All white people benefit from white privilege at the expense of other races, whether they admit it or not. And while the phrase "everything is racist" could be viewed as an oversimplified generalization, CRT is about examining society looking for any racial disparities which serve as "proof" that systemic racism exists. So the reason people say "everything is racist" is because you can examine anything - even the ratio of trees in white and black neighborhoods - and point to it as a form of systemic racism. These "proofs" are outcomes of power structures created to benefit white people.
Please explain how this is not concurrent with Critical Race Theory in an American context? Is UCLA just as wrong as DiAngelo apparently is?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
so I accidentally misrepresented you - though I would have done that regardless - to get you to admit that you were dishonest.
Here was the first definition of dishonesty that came up:
"deceitfulness shown in someone's character or behavior."
So again - and I really want to make sure I'm understanding you right - your admitted deceitfulness is morally acceptable, and my alleged deceitfulness is morally wrong?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Well I'm glad we agree about the bad argumentation of the article. And the reason I wanted to highlight it is to show that even a publication like Scientific American is allowing the culture war to seep into its pages. It's easy for people to just laugh off ridiculous assertions like the ones made by the author, but they stem from a deeper worldview that I believe is one of the primary factors in dividing America right now.
CRT is being taught in universities across the country, and is now set to be enshrined in k-12 education. Articles like this are the result of that kind of indoctrination.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
see that's the difference - you make claims of dishonesty, I used ignorance as a tool
Just so I'm not misunderstanding you, your intention was to bait me into arguing a point that was off topic - a point that you now admit misrepresented my position? And your deception in getting me to do this was done in order to show how dishonest I am? Was the rudeness and demeaning language also a part of this deception, or was that genuine?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
That is interesting info about the census. And it sounds like you are not necessarily a fan of viewing all of life through the lens of race then?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Your quote from #85:
You weren't folllowing - he was specifically talkin' about how the article says that the iconic image explaining evolution is casuing systemic racism
Perhaps I am just being pedantic, but could you please cite and quote the exact place that I said the ape to man image was "causing" systemic racism? Because if I never said that it "causes" systemic racism, then by your logic I am completely justified in calling you a lying piece of trash and being as rude to you as you have been to me.
Of course, my ethical system does not allow for this as yours seems to. Nor would I even desire to treat another sentient being in such a disrespectful way.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drlebronski
Lemming's question is pertinent here. CRT advocates do differ in their analysis of what is racist, but they have a pretty general agreement on the main tenets they hold to. And given that DiAngelo is one of the most popular and influential advocates of CRT, her version of it must be considered within the larger framework of the CRT debate. Ideas are not always stagnant.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
I definitely won't argue with you about that!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
I agree. The problem I see from many conservatives is that their only strategy for combating CRT is to poke fun at the absurdity and nothing more. They fail to realize that these seemingly absurd ideas are the logical consequences of an underlying worldview that is one of the main factors in our current culture war. I'm not saying that's your approach. That is just typically what I see. There is no in-depth analysis of the worldviews competing for the minds of Americans. This is why I believe we need to confront CRT in a more comprehensive way.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
DOES THIS FAMILIAL PREFERENCE MAKE YOU A "RACIST" ?
My worldview would say that valuing familial ties is a moral obligation. But there are CRT advocates who would accuse me of racism for that. Black Lives Matter is one such organization that believes valuing the nuclear family is a form of white supremacy.
SKIN TONE ≠ "RACE"
This is the problem with the social construct of race. There are benefits to these manmade categories, but you have identified a major weakness. The parameters for different categories are sometimes contradictory (are Russians Asian or white?). In my worldview, there is ultimately only one race (human) with many shades of the same color based on melanin count. I admit I am more melanin-challenged than my darker counterparts.
We are not an evolving group of organisms, some being closer to monkeys than others. We are an utterly distinct group that have always been and will always be human.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
@drlebronski
It seems both of you believe it is reprehensible to make comments regarding the proximity of a particular race to monkeys on the evolutionary timescale. If every organism falls somewhere on this timescale, it seems appropriate to inquire as to where on that timescale certain groups of organisms fall
Anyone else can comment as well if they find this practice reprehensible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
Just saw this and it seemed relevant to what we talked about. From the article "How America’s treeless streets are fueling inequality":
Trees, and the shade they provide, are actually markers of race and class...According to the data collected by the Texas A&M Forest Service, in Houston’s "medium to high" developed areas, there are an estimated 3.7 trees per person. In similar areas in Austin there are 4 trees per person and in San Antonio there are 7.5."There is disparity here. [Houston has] low tree canopy cover and high heat."
This is the mindset of CRT adherents. Seek out disparities between races, attribute those causes to racism that benefits white people, then ignore any alternatives no matter how reasonable they are. Because literally everything is racist. And racist tree planting is just one more reason to tear down our entire economy and give the government more power.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drlebronski
*when multiple people find a statement unclear, so you seek clarification so as not to misrepresent someone's position*
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
"Sure - doesn't mean that he wrote it down though - you are asserting that it was declared, stated, etc- he merely implied it"
Did you just assume the author was a man? Uh oh...
And you'll have to explain what is apparently so funny.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drlebronski
I have no need to make that argument because I do not believe that evolution adequately explains the diversity of life. Nor is proving the skin color of our supposed ancestors according to a theory I reject particularly relevant to the point of this thread.
The reason I cited the article is because I believe it shows how the prevalence of CRT allowed such bad argumentation to be published in Scientific American. And since you disagree with the idea that our earliest human ancestors were dark-skinned, it seems you might agree with me that it is bad argumentation. But it seems you might also be labeled by the author as a white supremacists for denying the achievements of our supposed dark-skinned ancestors.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drlebronski
I cited the article from my original post because that's what this thread is about. The author is stating that it is a form of white supremacy to reject the notion that the first humans were dark-skinned Africans.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drlebronski
If, as the author of the article states, the earliest ancestors to humans were dark-skinned Africans, then how is it false to say that dark-skinned Africans are the closest human descendants to monkeys?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
My main contention with evolution is a theological one. Though I think there is sufficient scientific evidence to reject it as well. I don't intend to get into a debate here since that is not the purpose of this thread. But in case you want to comment on this, my main argument is that if God created the world as good, death and disease would not have been part of it.
"Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned" - Romans 5:12
If death is the penalty for sin, and sin came through Adam, then death could not have been present prior to Adam. Evolution requires death in order for humans to come about. That would mean death did not come through Adam's sin, but it was a part of God's good creation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
I haven't read this thread, but I do agree with Peterson's view regarding equality of outcome vs equality of opportunity. His analysis of the extremes of both the Right and the Left seem pretty reasonable too.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
Yeah, people have many varying ideas about what CRT is. As with any ideology brought to the forefront of the culture, many people will base their ideas on sound bytes from the news or social media. I try to allow Critical Theorists to speak for themselves and analyze their arguments from their perspective. It would be a similar approach to debating where you want to accurately represents your opponent's arguments.
But it is also a huge topic that is hard to reduce to a single definition, with its own worldview and dictionary of terms. Combined with the sensitive nature of racism, this is why discussions about race often get derailed so easily.
But it is also a huge topic that is hard to reduce to a single definition, with its own worldview and dictionary of terms. Combined with the sensitive nature of racism, this is why discussions about race often get derailed so easily.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
This video shows Voddie Baucham explaining CRT simply and clearly using the most authoritative sources from Critical Theorists themselves. He's done post-graduate studies at Oxford and seeks to accurately represents CRT in their own words. It's just under 5 minutes and very helpful if you're interested.
https://youtu.be/zPpVTEZ7z3A
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
I think most people would agree that there have been laws and policies in US history that have been racist. I think slavery is a serious blemish on American history. However, I think we can also see that there are no current laws or policies that are racist, and that we go out of our way to ensure that racism is not carried out in such a way.
If you do not agree with defining racism as statistical disparities between racial groups, then you will definitely not like CRT. In fact, the disparities are what is used to justify actual racism against whites (and in some cases Asians). For instance, if you can show that white people have a higher median income than black people, that is "proof" that racism exists, even if no cause can be linked to discriminatory practices. And if this disparity is defined as racism, one would be justified to pay black people more than white people in order to "undo" the systemic racism being carried out against black people. In other words, CRT justifies traditional racism (prejudiced treatment based on race) if it is being used to fight systemic racism (disparities between races).
And it is this worldview that allows an author to publish in article in Scientific American stating that denying evolution is a form of white supremacy, using awful argumentation and ad hominem attacks upon anyone who disagrees.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
It seems the author of the article would actually agree with your original statement about dark-skinned Africans being the closest to monkeys:
"The global scientific community overwhelmingly accepts that all living humans are of African descent. Most scientific articles about our African origins focus on genetics. The part of the story that is not widely shared is about the creation of human culture. We are all descended genetically, and also culturally, from dark-skinned ancestors."
But I know that's not necessarily the main point you were making so I will shift the focus back to that. Racism has traditionally been understood to be the thoughts and actions of individuals that consider one race to be superior to another. The key point being that racism is carried out by an individual.
However, in CRT, racism is a structural evil. One author calls it racism without racists. Merriam-Webster even updated their definition, showing that the traditional understanding was distinct enough from what people call racism today to require a new definition.
So when you said that how an individual interprets something is the racist factor, that is true if you hold to the traditional understanding of racism. But if you hold to the new understanding (i.e. that racism is systemic), then you simply need to find some perceived disparity to "prove" that racism exists. In the article, it is the failure to acknowledge our dark-skinned ancestors in the evolutionary timeline. And since this is a form of systemic racism, those who take part in furthering this disparity can be called white supremacists, even if they don't believe whites are superior to blacks.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
Isn't that statement considered to be a general fact from the evolutionary worldview, regardless of whether it is intended to be racist?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
A simple definition might be the examination of societal structures in order to identify racism embedded within them. While a simple definition like this might seem harmless, the underlying presuppositions are what make it relevant to the article. One of these presuppositions is that systemic racism exists - that is assumed to be true. It also exists throughout all aspects of society, and was intentionally structured into that society by the oppressor class in order to benefit them at the expense of others.
The author makes the case that humans first arose in Africa with dark skin, and they are the foundation of art, culture, etc. To deny evolution is to take credit away from these dark-skinned ancestors for their accomplishments, making one guilty of racism. This is why the author can get away with essentially calling all creationists a bunch of evangelical KKK-loving white supremacists. The argumentation is terrible and the article has no business in a publication like Scientific American.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
"Also - you stop getting respect whenever you stop being intellectually honest- then you are nothing more than a liar in my eyes."
So do all people who lie deserve to be disrespected and insulted? Is that a part of your ethical standard?
But here is the statement I was referencing from the article:
"And yet, even in the current literature about human origins that we do have, the end point of evolution is often depicted as a white man carrying a spear."
Do you believe that the author of the article would agree or disagree that portraying the ape to man image ending in a white man with a spear is a form (not a cause) of systemic racism?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
Here is BrotherDThomas' DDO profile
https://www.debate.org/21stCenturyIconoclast/
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Critical Theory is the larger umbrella ideology which Critical Race Theory is a part of. This means the disparities that exist as they relate to gender and age are also part of the systemic oppression claimed by Critical Theory.
This image not only eliminates our African heritage but also erases women and children from the picture. Because evolution is foundational knowledge, we need the story to be told in many different ways, by many different voices.
This the language of Critical Theory. Hearing the voices of the oppressed is a part of fighting systemic racism. And we know that the ape to man image is a form of systemic racism because it inequitably represents the hegemony (a white male), while the oppressed classes (black, women , children) are underrepresented.
Critical theorists also make a distinction between racism as it is traditionally understood, and racism as it should be understood in the context of Critical Race Theory. Ibram X. Kendi even makes the point that "systemic racism" is a redundant term because racism is systemic.
Is [the image] a form of racism? Yeah, definitely, was it claimed to be systemically racist nope. I mean, I think it's true, but its just incredible how bad you are at reading.
A couple of questions:
- If Kendi, a leading proponent of CRT, does not make any meaningful distinction between racism and systemic racism but you do, who is wrong? You or Kendi?
- Does being rude and condescending make you feel good? If not, why do it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
And yet, even in the current literature about human origins that we do have, the end point of evolution is often depicted as a white man carrying a spear. This image not only eliminates our African heritage but also erases women and children from the picture. Because evolution is foundational knowledge, we need the story to be told in many different ways, by many different voices.As we move forward to undo systemic racism in every aspect of business, society, academia and life, let’s be sure to do so in science education as well. Embracing humanity’s dark-skinned ancestors with love and respect is key to changing our relationship to the past, and to creating racial equity in the present. These ancient people made the rest of us possible. Opening our hearts to them and embracing them as heroic, fully human and worthy of our respect is part of the process of healing from our racist history.
I notice you left out the conclusion which states that even the typical image used by evolutionists (the ape to man progression) is a form of systemic racism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
The problem is if you cannot clearly identify the "racism" you are trying to eliminate, how can it be eliminated? So I want a serious answer as to how we will know racism has been eliminated, because the answer you have given is clearly not your only parameter for measuring that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
At least you're being consistent. But you never answered my other question. How will we know when this supposed racism has been eliminated?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Race, as it is typically understood, is a social construct that serves a purpose but is far from a perfect system. That is why people from Russia, India, Iran, and China are all Asians, but they're not all "Asian." CRT is part of a worldview that affects how everything is interpreted. That includes ideas like math and physics. If requiring correct answers in math is racist, what does that do to the application of physics?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Do you agree with the statement that denial of evolution is white supremacy?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
We would obviously disagree on which side of the argument is denying reality, but at least we can agree that being on the other side does not make one guilty of white supremacy. I'm not sure how that article was considered at all, even as an opinion piece. That's where our culture is at I guess.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
And how will we know when this supposed racism has been eliminated?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
I'm not even sure how to respond to that statement...
Created:
Posted in:
"Denial of Evolution is a Form of White Supremacy"
Even as an opinion piece, I hope both evolutionists and creationists can agree that this is just bad argumentation and should never have made it into a publication like this. But this is Critical Race Theory. Whiteness is evil and is to blame for basically everything wrong with society. I hope people can see the logical end of such reasoning.
Created: