"I forgot he was black"
He is post-racial, by all appearances, the liberal host said on the air. I forgot he was black tonight for an hour. You know, he's gone a long way to become a leader of this country, and past so much history, in just a year or two. I mean, it's something we don't even think about.
I know he was trying to say something positive, but boy did that come out clumsy.
Sometimes I think that the only people who can talk about race without offending people are black comedians.
Rent Chris Rock's documentary Good Hair. He does take on an interesting social factor that most white people over the age of 30 are completely unaware about. It is very funny.
But I think it is extreme to think that President Obama's election would make society post racial is like thinking that Queen Elizabeth I made society non sexist.
There is no way to know with absolute certainty, but it is presumed that mankind's original skin color was dark, given that most scientists support the out of Africa theory of mankind's spread around the world. Natural Selection gave preferential treatment to white skin in Europe to aid in the production of Vitamin D when there was less sunlight. White skin is really thin skin since all skin of all human is white on the lower layers. The other peoples at high lattitudes like Inuit and Siberian people ate enough fish that there was no compelling evolutionary reason to select white skin.
Quote: pacomartinThe comment came from MSNBC host Chris Matthews after President Barack Obama's State of the Union speech Wednesday.
He is post-racial, by all appearances, the liberal host said on the air. I forgot he was black tonight for an hour. You know, he's gone a long way to become a leader of this country, and past so much history, in just a year or two. I mean, it's something we don't even think about.
I know he was trying to say something positive, but boy did that come out clumsy.
Sometimes I think that the only people who can talk about race without offending people are black comedians.
Rent Chris Rock's documentary Good Hair. He does take on an interesting social factor that most white people over the age of 30 are completely unaware about. It is very funny.
But I think it is extreme to think that President Obama's election would make society post racial is like thinking that Queen Elizabeth I made society non sexist.
There is no way to know with absolute certainty, but it is presumed that mankind's original skin color was dark, given that most scientists support the out of Africa theory of mankind's spread around the world. Natural Selection gave preferential treatment to white skin in Europe to aid in the production of Vitamin D when there was less sunlight. White skin is really thin skin since all skin of all human is white on the lower layers. The other peoples at high lattitudes like Inuit and Siberian people ate enough fish that there was no compelling evolutionary reason to select white skin.
MSNBC is infatuated with race. They also reportes how many "white people" were at Tea Parties.
As to evoloution, more comes in. "Discover" magazine did a piece on "Survival of the Sexiest" maybe 20 years ago. It said that when looking for a mate, people choose what they find attractive. So if society in Sweeden likes fiar skinned blondes more with those features will find mates and reproduce while darker skinned, darker haired women will not find as many or as strong of mates. I found it interesting.
But there is more to what changed than the color of skin. My college US History Textbook mentioned a side-reason slavery really took hold was because the Irish indentured-servants could not take the humidity while Africal slaves could. Eventually they found it WAS genetic! Bad part was the gene that gave that resistance was the gene that caused sickle-cell anemia. So something in evolution caused that.
Quote: AZDuffmanBut there is more to what changed than the color of skin. My college US History Textbook mentioned a side-reason slavery really took hold was because the Irish indentured-servants could not take the humidity while Africal slaves could. Eventually they found it WAS genetic! Bad part was the gene that gave that resistance was the gene that caused sickle-cell anemia. So something in evolution caused that.
Discovery did articles on the persistence of genetic diseases like sickle cell annemia. It turns out to be casued by a recessive gene, meaning you need to have two copies of the "bad" gene to get sickle cell. But if you only get one you also get some resistance to the malarial parasite. Therefore the gene persists because those with one copy are more likely to survive and procreate.
Another example is a disease prevalent on eastern European Jews, I forget the name. A single copy of the gene provides protection against tuberculosis. Two copies are invariably fatal at an early age.
Regarding race, the whole idea is more or less meaningless. What matters is what each person does as an individual, not what color he is. To quote Ayn Rand "A genius remains a genius regardless of how many morons his "race" has produced. A moron remains a moron regardless of how many geniuses belong to his "race." " Or as Martin Luther King Jr. said, people should be judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin.
Quote: NareedQuote: AZDuffmanBut there is more to what changed than the color of skin. My college US History Textbook mentioned a side-reason slavery really took hold was because the Irish indentured-servants could not take the humidity while Africal slaves could. Eventually they found it WAS genetic! Bad part was the gene that gave that resistance was the gene that caused sickle-cell anemia. So something in evolution caused that.
Discovery did articles on the persistence of genetic diseases like sickle cell annemia. It turns out to be casued by a recessive gene, meaning you need to have two copies of the "bad" gene to get sickle cell. But if you only get one you also get some resistance to the malarial parasite. Therefore the gene persists because those with one copy are more likely to survive and procreate.
Another example is a disease prevalent on eastern European Jews, I forget the name. A single copy of the gene provides protection against tuberculosis. Two copies are invariably fatal at an early age.
Regarding race, the whole idea is more or less meaningless. What matters is what each person does as an individual, not what color he is. To quote Ayn Rand "A genius remains a genius regardless of how many morons his "race" has produced. A moron remains a moron regardless of how many geniuses belong to his "race." " Or as Martin Luther King Jr. said, people should be judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin.
Now that is interesting on the malarial parasite. I tell people this and they say, "You are being racist!" I answer, "No, I am quotince science." I think that gene also affects how you react to hot/humidity/cold in general. I used to work pest control and in winter black customers had their heat up noticibly higher than anyone else. This cut across income and education levels. It was noticible enough that I was uncofortable at the temp level.
I think I heard that about the eastern european jews but also cannot remember more.
Conversely, I have heard that people of northern european decent have a gene that makes you lactose tolerant vs everyone else who is less so.
Quote: AZDuffmanI think I heard that about the eastern european jews but also cannot remember more.
Conversely, I have heard that people of northern european decent have a gene that makes you lactose tolerant vs everyone else who is less so.
I remembered it just now: it's Tay-Sachs disease.
I vaguely recollect some benefit to one copy of the cystic fibrosis gene.
As to lactose tolerance, I've an hypothesis that people, and dogs, remain tolernat to lactose partly due to exposure. There is such a thing as lactose intolerance, definitely. But it would be interesting to experiment whether withdrawing lactose shortly after weaning would cause intolerance in otherwise tolerant people (or more likely animals)
Quote: WizardRemember the uproar when it was found that Harry Reid wrote in his book that Obama was elected in part because he is a light-skinned and has no negro dialect. I would have never made that remark myself, but I think was right, and everybody knows it.
Probably a million people white and black said something similar. It's just that Harry is old. If he had said African American Vernacular English it would have been a little different.
But, in general, you would wonder why a politician would feel a need to say something like that. It's not like anyone is going to have trouble figuring that out for themselves.
