Fruits of the racist referendum- racist attacks in Cork

by Paul McAndrew Wed Oct 06, 2004 22:49

forgot to say, the Irish Times coverage is in "other media" section of indymedia

by Tony Thu Oct 07, 2004 01:09

Paul - you say:

"The referendum stirred up racist feeling in Ireland, helpfully distracting people from what the corrupt politicicians were getting up to , channeling anger towards people who are vulnerable.

I don't think its a coincidence that since the referendum racist attacks have escalated in Cork."

I disagree. Your first statement might hold some validity had the government vote not collapsed. If people were distracted - it is a rather bizzare assumption that they forgot to vote for the government while voting for the amendment in droves.

Your second statement is similarily challenged. Have racist attacks escalated since the smoking ban? Have racist attacks escalated since the cabinet re-shuffle? Have racist attacks escalated since the bin charges etc?

I certainly dont know but what I do know - is that racist attacks can be accurately tracked along the curve of immigration and moreso - illegal immigration and abuse of the asylum system.

Why not drop the patronising arrogance that the nuts that carry out racist attacks are there waiting to be "educated" and "celebrate diversity" or could give a shit about marches.

The solution lies in immigration policies that are acceptable to the majority of people in line with the stance adopted at the referendum ie removal of immigration abuse.

The nuts will feel less empowered if the majority of people are clearly happy with immigration and the subversive, pseudo anti racists and those that call for a "multi ethnic and multicultural" replacement for our existing society/culture are removed from the picture.

I dont recall seeing any of their ilk lining up to capitalise on the anti-government vote but in fairness, they probably dont want to be utterly humiliated at the poll booth either.

by John Jefferies Thu Oct 07, 2004 12:55

there are a dozen more stoking the fires.

Well done Paul for raising this issue as it relates to Cork because racism is certainly on the rise in the city and county.

by Joe Thu Oct 07, 2004 13:07

The same post-referendum effect is also alarmingly visible in Dublin with violent attacks seemingly massively up. The referendum seems to have made the racists feel popular and that they represent the majority. A predictable result for anyone who had seen how across Europe in the 1990's the right wing politicians feeding off migration hysteria ended up making the far-right respectable again.

by redjade Thu Oct 07, 2004 13:53

Tony says:
''I disagree. Your first statement might hold some validity had the government vote not collapsed. If people were distracted - it is a rather bizzare assumption that they forgot to vote for the government while voting for the amendment in droves.''

----

First, the Referendum was a ploy, a cheap ploy, to gain votes for FF/PD - it just didn't work as they had hoped.

As anyone involved in anti-racism work can tell you these days, visible and open racism is definitely up. Hang out with Residents Against Racism at their weekly stall at the Bank of Ireland on Saturdays (across from Trinity) and you will see it often. RAR is confronted by people on the streets regularly by people like the man in these pictures.

He is angry, lashes out in a spew towards 'foreigners' etc - and yes, this man in his rage did mention the Referendum.

Tony, even if you in denial about the connection - he makes the connection.

Racism is alive and very real in Ireland today.

Residents Against Racism 29 Sept 2004 Protest

Gardai calmly ask him to chill out or leave

exit poll taken last election day

by Paul McAndrew - ardhanishvara@yahoo.co.uk Thu Oct 07, 2004 15:43

Tony said:
"pseudo anti racists and those that call for a "multi ethnic and multicultural" replacement for our existing society/culture are removed from the picture "

Does this mean you only want people of one ethnicity, and from one culture in Ireland?

And how to you propose to remove us from the picture?

It seems reasonable to ask if you have neo-nazi, revionist politics.

by Tony Thu Oct 07, 2004 17:08

Does this mean you only want people of one ethnicity, and from one culture in Ireland?

What sort of a stupid question is this. When did we ever have such a society Paul? We have been part of Europe for a long time now in case you missed it and have had immigration for a long time.

And how to you propose to remove us from the picture?

Who is "us" and what do you represent? It is very unclear from your post.

It seems reasonable to ask if you have neo-nazi, revionist politics.

Why is it reasonable? It seems immature and childish to me.

The foundation of racism is the gift of those who want a society and an immigration policy that is unacceptable to the majority. What mental perversion is employed to derive Nazism or revisionism from that?

by huh? Thu Oct 07, 2004 17:17

'The foundation of racism is the gift of those who want a society and an immigration policy that is unacceptable to the majority.'

huh???

by Tony Thu Oct 07, 2004 17:41

redjade, I see you posted the RTE exit poll.

It is interesting because it shows that the citiznship poll became a proxy poll on the wider issues of immigration and the message is clear to me:

In the absence of popular consent, immigration has been allowed to descend into chaos and the citizenship/asylum system has been abused to the point that it can no longer rely on the goodwill of Irish people to sustain it. Possible, as a consequence, even the case for legal immigration has been damaged but I suspect that this isnt fully the case as the opening of our country to the new EU member states was unproblematic and uncontroversial - NOTABLY - when the abuse element had been removed (ie no welfare on arrival for anyone).

To the poll:

36% believe there is exploitation by immigrants. They might be thinking of the 350 million spent on "asylum seekers" in 2003. 90% of which is squandered on bogus applicants - the majority of whom - have failed to claim asylum in the first safe country as per UNHCR recommendations. Seems exploitive to me.

27% believe there are too many immigrants. Is it a crime to think this? I would think it if I lived in some areas of Dublin where ghettoisation is clearly occuring.

20% wanted us to come in line with other European countries. Again I ask - is this unreasonable?

14% did not believe they should qualify for Citizenship just by accident of birth. Perfectly resonable to me.

Lets agree on one thing redjade. Racism may be alive and well and thriving. But lets not forget the contribution that "anti racists" make, as they attempt to marginalise the majority opinion of people in this country and pigeonhole them as "racists" for not wanting the free for all that they advocate without democratic mandate.

And you wonder why people get annoyed.

It is still legal to have an opinion you know. We are not all waiting for the big social engineering project to produce clones that see the world as you do.

I respect your views for what it is worth. At least you don't post the absurd "Nazi" line that others do. I simply don't see their logical foundation.

by Badman Thu Oct 07, 2004 17:41

Answer the question. Are you a revisionist / racist / nazi / white nationalist or one of their ilk?

Put up or shut up

by Tony Thu Oct 07, 2004 17:48

'The foundation of racism is the gift of those who want a society and an immigration policy that is unacceptable to the majority.'


Let me try again:

If certain individuals want Irish people to dismantle their borders, open immigration to anyone who arrives then set about replacing that society/culture to suit those immigrants (aka "multiculturalism) without asking Irish people for their permission - would that eliminate racism or cause it to increase ten fold?


Simple question HUH?

by Bill Thu Oct 07, 2004 17:50

I think he is trying to blame anti-racists for the existence of racism. It's very similar to how women are blamed for the existence of rape. It's difficult, if not impossible, to regard 'Tony' as having any credibility when he comes out with such twaddle.

by Tony Thu Oct 07, 2004 17:52

Badman (& aliases)

As I said to you before on many occasions - stop wasting bandwidth with your childish rants.

by Joe Thu Oct 07, 2004 17:55

The questions meaningless.

Culture isn't something created by 'certain people' its what everyone does. The cultures on this island have been in a state of change for as long as they have been around (the idea there is one single culture embracing everyone from the Orange Order to the Legion of Mary is hilarous).

by Tony Thu Oct 07, 2004 17:56

Lively debate!!

I think he is trying to blame anti-racists for the existence of racism. It's very similar to how women are blamed for the existence of rape. It's difficult, if not impossible, to regard 'Tony' as having any credibility when he comes out with such twaddle.

Lets make this simple Bill huh?

Extremism at one end of the spectrum generates an equal and opposite reaction.

This is not a discussion about rape and there is not a lot of scope for relativism.

by Freddy Thu Oct 07, 2004 17:57

He looks to me like a cheerleader for racism, only he stays subtle and 'respectable' and snipes at anti-racists while the heavies do the obvious thuggery.

by Badman Thu Oct 07, 2004 18:02

I think that we can all draw obvious conclusions from that.

by Tony Thu Oct 07, 2004 18:02

"the idea there is one single culture embracing everyone from the Orange Order to the Legion of Mary is hilarous)"

You have me there Joe. You are right - who would even notice female genital mutilation, mysogyny, stonings, animism etc when we have the likes of the Legion of Mary to try come to terms with?

by ok then Thu Oct 07, 2004 18:03

/Extremism at one end of the spectrum generates an equal and opposite reaction. /

so are you saying that a 18 month old boy (Thomso) - in the land of his birth and his citizenship - is the cause of racism and hatred against him?

get some perspective, dude.

by Tony Thu Oct 07, 2004 18:06

You lost me - where did I specifically mention "Thomso" (sic).

by ok then Thu Oct 07, 2004 18:22

ummmm you're the one that seems to think that a few more browner faces is the end of irish civilisation.

somehow the existence of these people is to blame for people's hatred towards them. i always thought a person's actions were the responsibility of that person, but you seem to be blaming the victim.

therefore, thomso must be blamed for other people's racism - according to you perhaps.

to be honest tony - you make no sense. i do not think you are a nazi but i do think you are a fearful shallow man.

by Tony Thu Oct 07, 2004 18:27

He looks to me like a cheerleader for racism, only he stays subtle and 'respectable' and snipes at anti-racists while the heavies do the obvious thuggery.

A perfect example of what I am highlighting. Anyone who dares go against the "anti racist" logic must be a "cheerleader for racism".

For God's sake grow up.

by Tony Thu Oct 07, 2004 18:31

ok then, you are off on a tangent again. Are you posting on a few threads and getting confused?

I never mentioned "brown faces" or "thomso" (sic).

People like you assume the issue is about "brown faces" because of your own finely tuned racism.

It is not. It is about immigration of all colours and creeds.

by ok then Thu Oct 07, 2004 18:54

Tony sez
"It is about immigration of all colours and creeds."

Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia

Yeah Tony - kick them all out, right?

or is there another 'them' that you fear?

by Tony Thu Oct 07, 2004 19:02

Yeah Tony - kick them all out, right?

No, didnt post that either, nor Countries etc. All the work of your own fevered little imagination. Whatever will you come up with next. Nazi? facist? - nothing original or connected with the issue I presume.

by fhu Thu Oct 07, 2004 19:20

Once again when somebody, like Tony, makes intelligent, clear-minded and articulate posts on immigration and challenges the case of the ‘anti-racists’ he is immediately attacked ad-hominen and has strawman arguments galore thrown at him, which, of course, always happens when somebody hasn’t got an argument.

The truth is ‘anti-racists' aren’t interested in real debate; they prefer the argument of force over the inverse.
The lack of truthfulness and fairness is plain for all to see.

P.S. if somebody of majority ilk (i.e.the majority agree with Tony) was as personal as ‘Badman’ they would be deleted immediately. IMC hypocrisy is also blatent for all to see!

by ok then Thu Oct 07, 2004 19:38

tony said:
'No, didnt post that either, nor Countries etc'

right. *I* posted the countries because...

you said:
'It is about immigration of all colours and creeds.'

My question now:
so do you object to migrants and immigrants from all those countries listed?

which immigrants do you object to exactly?

by the way, i never used the term racist or nazi etc about you

by Badman Thu Oct 07, 2004 19:41

fhu, please point out the personal nature of my comments. The truth of the matter is that Tony's arguments are very confused and it is very relevant to ask him if his politics are of the bonehead variety.

His responses and yours make me 99.99% sure that both of you are indeed of that curious tribe and I'd hazard a guess that you grace our site from that academy of debate that is known as shitefest by us mongrels.

by Tony Thu Oct 07, 2004 19:51

Thanks for the contribution fhu.

The tradgedy of many the posts exhibited here is the realisation that many of these people actually prefer their "racists" foaming at the mouth and indulging in racist attacks.

It appears next to impossible for many of these people, to advance their cause coherently, or indulge in any modicum of self criticism, when they are so utterly consumed with blind rage, outing imaginary "racists", and foaming at the mouth themselves.

Best to ignore the crazies though you are correct about the reluctance of the mods to delete the extremists from one side.

ok then

"so do you object to migrants and immigrants from all those countries listed?"

I'm sorry. This is still a tangent. I want an immigration policy acceptable to the majority of people in this country, that can cope decisively and effectively with legal and illegal immigration and abusers of the asylum system.

We do not have one yet.

by Tony Thu Oct 07, 2004 20:01

fhu, please point out the personal nature of my comments.

Don't you understand your own points Paul?

by Dave McCarthy - Traveller Visibility Group Thu Oct 07, 2004 21:50 tvgcork at hormail dot com 11 Comeragh Park, The Glen, Cork. 021 4503786

I doubt very much that many of the people carrying out racist attacks have psychiatric issues. In ways, it is more comfortable to think that they do, because it somehow makes it easier to accept violence for racist motives if we believe or suspect that the aggressors are not well, i.e. not like the most of us. What frightens us is that most racist attacks are probably carried out by people like ourselves, who otherwise appear normal and well adjusted. Early last year in Cork, there was a frightening exampe of this. In a housing estate in Ballyvolane a middle aged Traveller couple rented a house where they lived with one adult daughter. They enjoyed a good incident-free relationship with their neighbours over an 18 month period, although they sensed that people knew that they were Travellers. Then there was a morning chat show on a local station 96FM in which the host, Neil Prendiville, allowed a series of racist anti-Traveller slogans to be uttered and repeated by callers to the show. Not once did he admonish or challenge the callers, despite repeated attempts by TVG to persuade him to do so. That night, about 30 neighbours of the middle aged Traveller couple gathered outside their home. Some were on their way home from the pub, and others came out of their houses to join in. The crowd formed more or less spontaneously, chanting the same racist anti-Traveller slogans which had been used that morning on 96FM. The Traveller couple were not in at the time, but their adult daughter was. She came out when the chanting started, to see what was up. She was pelted with whatever people could lay their hands on. She suffered a facial laceration from a bottle which struck her under the eye. The Traveller couple arrived home during this scene, not knowing what was going on. They got out of their car thinking that an accident or something had happened. They were not physically attacked, but as they hurried into their home, they suffered extreme verbal abuse and humiliation from neighbours with whom they had lived in harmony for the previous year and a half. It is such a pity that our law criminalising incitement to hatred is so toothless, because broadcasts like this should be punished. But now, looking back at the incident, what is more serious is that there is probably latent racism in all of us, which can be triggered by an event as simple as a radio broadcast.
Post script: This morning, the same Mr. Neil Prendiville may have undone himself by allowing a broadcast which may have incited violence. Now he faces the possibility of criminal charge. See the new thread with this story.

by Michael Hennigan Thu Oct 07, 2004 22:18

The impact of the referendum can be argued about, but the results of the RTE exit poll are very revealing. A significant section of the population believe that immigrants are exploiting us - including the majority on work visas. Some of those who gave that as an explanation for their vote are not racist I assume but they have no problem holding the tin ponny to others but jib at the small relative cost of supporting people who are claiming asylum. Just for the record on that: last year thecash per head 'foreign aid' from the EU was €391.70 for each Irish national- the highest and equivalent to 1.4% of GDP. 11 of 15 members were net payers. Thank you Germany despite your high unemployment!!

It is dificult to determine the extent of racism which is generally only publicly manifested by losers on the fringe who use immigrants as scapegoats. From talking to foreigners here and also observing how people can drop the mask with the help of a few drinks, I think myself that there is a lot of latent racism in our society. Racism is to be found everywhere in the world of course.

Some of the people who now bemoan the rise of immigration in Europe used to criticise the Soviet domination of Eastern Europe. When the Iron Curtain fell, there was a lot less movement westward compared when people who tried to leave their countries without permission and were simply shot.

It is also right to acknowledge that problems can arise in countries where there are big inward movements of people with different cultures. I wouldn't want to live in a city where for example Muslims wanted to restrict existing rights. That is not an issue here in Ireland.

It should also be said that immigrants should recognise that children reared here are likley to reject some of the strictures of their parents' cultures.

Basically, tolerance should be a tw-way street.

by Tony Thu Oct 07, 2004 22:30

Dave McCarthy, you are way off topic here and your story is completely one sided and unverifiable - so - no comment on that.

However,

I am no expert on race. As far as I am aware, there are a number of different recognised races: Caucasian, Negro, and Asian spring to mind. There may be more, but "Irish traveller" does not quite have the same gravitas as the ones listed.

Whoever decided to classify travellers as a racial group has done as much to alienate them and set them apart as any bigot, albeit with the best of intentions.

The road to hell etc.

by Tony Thu Oct 07, 2004 22:47

Michael Hennigan,

I must take issue with your figures. 350 millions for asylum seekers is no pittance and only includes direct costs. And, it is mounting up as the years drag on.

We could spend more money overseas if we were not squandering it here on illegal immigrants who are millionaires compared to the poor bastards that actually live in poverty in countries such as Africa. Also, the goodwill and contributions to charity are declining as people link illegal immigration from Africa with a false picture of mobility for the genuinely impoverished.

It makes me sick to the stomach to receive letters from charities asking for €20 a month to guarantee the eyesight of an African child or €40 to provide drinking water to a family. I think it is morally bankrupt and offensive to spend 350 million on mostly fake claims for asylum. The wretched poor in these countries could NEVER afford airplanes/trafficker fees and forged documentation.

Europe as a whole could provide water/medicine and a life to MILLIONS in Africa for a fraction of what is pisses away on asylum. That is moral bankrupcy to me Michael and one of the reasons why I feel so strongly on the issue.

I'm not too keen on the, lets see if we are "racist" by letting immigrants dictate our immigration policy line either.

by R. Isible Fri Oct 08, 2004 01:58

QUOTE: "I am no expert on race. As far as I am aware, there are a number of different recognised races: Caucasian, Negro, and Asian spring to mind."

No, Tony there are no recognised races. Race is not a meaningful concept, it is undefinable in any biological manner. It is quite simply impossible to find a combination of genes which one can say defines a "race". "Race" is an arbitrary and unprovable concept and exists only in the head of racists.

QUOTE: " There may be more, but "Irish traveller" does not quite have the same gravitas as the ones listed.

Whoever decided to classify travellers as a racial group has done as much to alienate them and set them apart as any bigot, albeit with the best of intentions."

Racism is a simplistic form of hatred indulged in by marginalised and/or opportunist extremists who need an "outgroup" to define themselves against. Travellers had the sole, unenviable claim to that outgroup status in the past and now it's being extended to other people selected on arbitrary lines.

Travellers are not a racial group, because racial groups _do not exist_.


The road to hell etc.

by Michael Hennigan Fri Oct 08, 2004 08:31

On the cost side, if you add the development aid budget and the support cost for asylum applicants together, we still would have plenty left over from EU income aid.

See this article for recent data:
http://www.finfacts.ie/comment/irelandeunetreceiptsbenefits.htm

The European taxpayers who are providing our farmers with income support are the ones who should be complaining!

While immigration controls are necessary, as a country that has depended so much on economic migration- until as recently as the 1980's when Irish consular support was given to Irish 'illegals' in the US - we should not view the problem of migration through a prism of negativity.

by fhu Fri Oct 08, 2004 10:25

Apart from funding this is overlooking the pressures that the influx is having on our services and infrastructure, as if it hadn’t enough problems as it was!


If this E.U. money is coming in who’s getting it or more likely- exploiting it.

Take the obvious groups amongst those who exploit it.

These would include: apart from the bogus applicants themselves and people traffickers- include our own homegrown (in many cases in with FF) landlords and property speculators, , immigration lawyers, who have a vested interest in prolonging cases for as long as possible, social workers, language teachers, used car dealers, white goods and furniture dealers all getting HEALTH BOARD money as part of the asylum industry.

The ‘anti-racists’ are little more than the ‘useful idiots’ of all the above.

Interestingly too, That Michael Hennigan site don’t look too left wing to me. Yet another type of ( legal, of course) business beneficiary perhaps?

by Tony Fri Oct 08, 2004 11:14

Risable

QUOTE No, Tony there are no recognised races. Race is not a meaningful concept, it is undefinable in any biological manner. It is quite simply impossible to find a combination of genes which one can say defines a "race". "Race" is an arbitrary and unprovable concept and exists only in the head of racists.

Hilarious post. I suppose gender is just another figment of peoples imaginations too, oops racists I meant - or shoud that be groupists?.

Michael Hennigan

You are missing the point. If we closed down hospitals and schools we would be swimming in money to give to International aid.

People like you seem to forget that this Government is mandated to serve the Irish people, unswervingly and, yes, completely selfishly. It is not a moral actor or a disseminator of funds to OTHER countries although some contribution is not unthinkable.

Has it ever occured to you that viewing migration through a prism of negativity is exactly the result you can expect when asylum and citizenship abuse is allowed fester at peoples expense?

As for payback time, Michael, I am fed up posting this:

Irish people who went illegally to the USA went to a predominantly white country. They spoke the same language and they assimilated fast. Also, the overwhelming majority went legally. Historically, on Ellis island they were VETTED. If they were sick or deemed not to have a contribution to make Michael, and this is very very important THEY WERE SENT STRAIGHT BACK.

THEY DID NOT CLAIM WELFARE. THEY DID NOT SUBMIT BOGUS ASYLUM CLAIMS. THEY DID NOT INFLICT THEMSELVES ON THE TAXPAYERS, AND IF THEY WERE REMOVED, THERE WAS NO-ONE SCREAMING RACISM AFTER A LEGAL CIRCUS DRAGGED ON FOR YEARS AND COST THOUSANDS.

THERE IS NO RELATIVISM.

The nearest we have now is the permission to allow fellow EU citizens from TEN new EU member states immigrate here, without qualification, BUT Michael, without entitlement to claim asylum or welfare. I dont here ANYONE, including yourself, clapping the Irish on the back for THAT extraordinary piece of genorosity even though we were almost UNIQUE in the EU in allowing it.

The idea that until we extend this priviledge to Africa and Asia, we are not doing enough, is complete and utter bullshit.

by seal Fri Oct 08, 2004 11:59

“On the cost side, if you add the development aid budget and the support cost for asylum applicants together, we still would have plenty left over from EU income aid”



Doh!! Maybe the reason the E.U. is funding us still is because WE need it!!
do you condone piriacy on the seas too?

by Michael Hennigan Fri Oct 08, 2004 13:45

To avoid something like a 'yellow peril' takeing hold, we should be aware that mass economic migration is on the wane. In the 1990's, the collapse of communism, war in the Balkans, the rise of the Taliban in Afghanistan and large outflows from Iraq, led to a significant increase in migration.

In 1991 there were 31 applications for asylum in Ireland. If we had remained a basket case economy, we wouldn't have to worry about immigration today. There were 7,900 asylum applications in 2003, down from 11,634 in 2002. In the first 6 months of 2004, there were 2,118 new applications for asylum.

The figures for work permits/authorisations are as follows:

2003-47,551 21,965 -New Permits; 25,039 -Renewals

2002- Total figure was 40,321

Statistics on work permits:
http://www.entemp.ie/labour/workpermits/statistics.htm

Asylum stats:
http://www.orac.ie/

Tony said: 'People like you seem to forget that this Government is mandated to serve the Irish people, unswervingly and, yes, completely selfishly. It is not a moral actor or a disseminator of funds to OTHER countries although some contribution is not unthinkable.'

Just for the record, the mantra of Irish politicians in the first 2 decades of membership of the EC/EU was the 'OBLIGATION' of rich members to assist poor countries like Ireland. Now that the boot is on the other foot, the tune has changed.

The logic of acting 'completely selfishly,' suggests that the European countries who funded us to the tune of €34 billion, should have left us as a backwater.

Some Irish went on welfare in the UK and also took advantage of the NHS post 1948. I recall my father saying that there was a judge in Cork who when presented with the excuse that a defendant was planning to move to England, more often than not, would instruct a garda to escort the individual to the 'Innisfallen' on its next sailing.

fhu's post:

Reference the 'the asylum industry,' the problem about using terms like this, is that some people don't distuingish between those who are here legally and others. Last year there was a report of an Indian software engineer from HP- who incidentally employ more than 2,000 here- being attacked by gobshites mouthing some of the line in the post here.

As to 'That Michael Hennigan site don’t look too left wing to me. Yet another type of ( legal, of course) business beneficiary perhaps?'- rest assured that I don't take a position on an issue to hawk any services. If not being too left wing, means right wing, you are wrong there too.

by Tony Fri Oct 08, 2004 14:42

QUOTE Just for the record, the mantra of Irish politicians in the first 2 decades of membership of the EC/EU was the 'OBLIGATION' of rich members to assist poor countries like Ireland. Now that the boot is on the other foot, the tune has changed.

I dont believe you read my posts Michael, or at best, you are extremely selective.

Firstly, as you point out, Ireland is on the verge of becoming a net contributor to the EU. The boot is on Michael. Do you know any detractrors?

Secondly, Ireland opened it's borders to the entire 10 new member states on accession to the EU. An extraordinary act that countries with ten times our population, and more, refused to do. Again, Do you know any detractors?

So as you can see - again - the "tune" has not neccessarily changed, simply because it does not generate the same publicity and hysteria that "asylum seekers" seem to.

by Tony Fri Oct 08, 2004 14:52

Quote The logic of acting 'completely selfishly,' suggests that the European countries who funded us to the tune of €34 billion, should have left us as a backwater.


Michael, The €34 billion was not a handout. If it was, we would not be paying the money back vis a vis EU contributions. It was an investment and it funded infrastructure and other such projects.

Surely your grasp of econmics can spot something as basic as that.

by Michael Hennigan Fri Oct 08, 2004 15:16

This €34 billion is the total after DEDUCTING cash payments to the EU from the Department of Finance- and relates to support for Irish farm income and grants doled out by Enterprise Ireland and other State agencies. It's not a loan.

Whatever angle is put on it, foreign nationals have funded these large transfers to Ireland.

In 2003, we received €2.7bn; paid €1.1bn and the net benefit to us was €1.6 bn i.e cash benefit. If that isn't a 'handout', I don't know what is.

by Tony Fri Oct 08, 2004 17:03

Michael, I don't think your grasp of economics, is as insightful as your articles initially suggest.

Lets agree to disagree.

And if I am ever looking for a "loan", I'll look you up.

by R. Isible Fri Oct 08, 2004 20:42

QUOTE: "QUOTE No, Tony there are no recognised races. Race is not a meaningful concept, it is undefinable in any biological manner. It is quite simply impossible to find a combination of genes which one can say defines a "race". "Race" is an arbitrary and unprovable concept and exists only in the head of racists.

Hilarious post. I suppose gender is just another figment of peoples imaginations too, oops racists I meant - or shoud that be groupists?."

And again Tony you fail to provide any evidence to back your assertions. Show me one published, peer-reviewed paper by a geneticist that states that human races exist. Put up or else keep it in your head. You are exposing your inability to deal with the real world and facts and doing a grave disservice to people that think like you and are now embarrassed by having an incompetent represent their views.

by Tony Sat Oct 09, 2004 00:55

Sorry R. Isible,

But, with so many "people" adopting this incomprehensible, beligerant, "put up" line, as de facto argument, I suspect that "their" views are actually divisible by one.

In which case, I must post my standard response, You are wasting valuable bandwidth, please, please try to grow up.

And, by the way, I represent no-one other than myself. I freely and happily admit that.

You obviously have a major difficulty with that. Good luck with the fan club.

I pity you.

by R. Isible Sat Oct 09, 2004 02:49

QUOTE: "But, with so many "people" adopting this incomprehensible, beligerant, "put up" line, as de facto argument"

It may indeed be incomprehensible to you that when you claim "race" exists you are asked to provide some form of proof for that. Unfortunately in the real world which the rest of us inhabit your fanciful and bizarre statements need some sort of support. Otherwise you're just wasting our time. There is not one single peer-reviewed, published paper by a geneticist that acknowledges the existence of race.

Not _one_ Tony.

Your claims fly in the face of all the considered, amassed knowledge of professional, reputable scientists.

Yet you feel free to assert the existence of "race" and base a whole series of beliefs and actions upon this non-existent proposition.

Doesn't it strike you that there's something wrong with your entire approach to the world, let alone your attitude to this one issue when you can't provide even the slightest piece of evidence to substantiate your views?

by Tony Sat Oct 09, 2004 08:05

Sorry, R. Isible

Seeing as it's not me thats putting forward the bizzare racial theories, I'll have to pass on the subject.

I'd rather stay on topic. I'll leave self confessed experts like yourself to the far out, whacky eugenics stuff.

Good luck with the fan club.

by fhu Sat Oct 09, 2004 09:11

“Reference the 'the asylum industry,' the problem about using terms like this, is that some people don't distuingish between those who are here legally and others.”

I think many ‘liberals’ are as guilty of deliberately blurring this distinction for their own motives. The fact that there is some confusion in public perception doesn’t alter the fact that there is a wide scale abuse and profiteering from that abuse. More importantly it is happening at the expense of the native needs. How long more should this be allowed to continue?


“Last year there was a report of an Indian software engineer from HP- who incidentally employ more than 2,000 here- being attacked by gobshites mouthing some of the line in the post here.”

The growth in xenophobia, although I agree much of it misplaced, is largely an inevitable consequence of the whole mismanagement, exploitation and abuse of the asylum process. The PC Fascism which stifles open and frank debate is also a contributory factor. Only when we have leadership who are prepared to grasp the nettle and start dealing decisively with this problem will we expect see any wane in this type of incident.

“rest assured that I don't take a position on an issue to hawk any services”

I’ll happily take you on your word then. The problem is that some homegrown (business, legal etc) interests use asylum abuse for their own gain. Unlike the ultra-naïve, subversive and aggressive ‘anti-racist’ element they advocate ‘tolerance’ only as a ploy.

“If not being too left wing, means right wing, you are wrong there too”

Okay, but the confusion comes from on the general blurring of socio-economic thought between ‘left’ and ‘right’ that has occurred over the last decade or so particularly on this issue. Much of the central-left arguments seem to be made on business-friendly grounds.
Many economic liberals like the U.S. neocons are relatively liberal on immigration while both paleo-cons and paleo-socialist are more restrictionist.
I’m often struck by how similar the ’radical’ left and absolutist neo-liberal right can sound it’s as if the unwitting mouthpiece of the other- which is, in fact, what they are!

by R. Isible Sat Oct 09, 2004 21:38

QUOTE: "Seeing as it's not me thats putting forward the bizzare racial theories, I'll have to pass on the subject. "

You did indeed put forward a bizarre racial theory. Allow me to refresh your memory from your post above where you wrote:

QUOTE: " I am no expert on race. As far as I am aware, there are a number of different recognised races: Caucasian, Negro, and Asian spring to mind. There may be more,"

Now, the idea that race exists _is_ a bizarre racial theory. As a (self-acknowledged) non-expert who refuses to provide supporting evidence for your non-expert opinion you shouldn't make that sort of statement. And you certainly shouldn't deny that you made it when the evidence is right there in the thread above.

I appeal to you as a rational, intelligent and compassionate thinker to please provide the evidence. Otherwise you'll have to be written off in public as a blowhard that makes all sorts of assertions that can't be credited. A shame when you write so much! Perhaps everything you write is based upon little or no evidence?

by Race to the finish Sat Oct 09, 2004 21:46

Maybe you should check out what J. Philippe Rushton has written on the subject of "race". BTW he's a John Simon Guggenheim Fellow and a professor of psychology at the University of Western Ontario.

But it could be that you suffer from the type of "religious fundamentalist" mentality he refers to ......

"Unless one is a religious fundamentalist and believes that man was created in the image and likeness of God, it is foolish to believe that human beings are exempt from biological classification and the laws of evolution that apply to all other life forms. Of course, individuals vary greatly within each racial group and should be treated as such. Nonetheless, much has been learned by studying the statistical differences between the various human races. In my book Race, Evolution, and Behavior (1995, Transaction Publishers), as well as in other recent writings (e.g., the February 1996 issue of Current Anthropology), I review the behavioral, morphological, and physiological differences between the three major human races -- mongoloid, caucasoid, and negroid -- and show that these statistical differences are constant across both historical time, national boundaries, and political and economic systems.

Here I will briefly summarize the findings. Asians and Africans consistently aggregate at opposite ends, with Europeans intermediate, on a continuum that includes over 60 anatomical and social variables. These 60 variables include brain size, intelligence, sexual habits, fertility, personality, temperament, speed of maturation, and longevity. If race were an arbitrary, socially-constructed concept, devoid of all biological meaning, such consistent relationships would not exist."

by Polymath Sat Oct 09, 2004 22:01

A professor in psychology may or may not be an expert in his own field. As far as I know however, expertise in genetics has never been considered a central part of psychological training.

A friend of mine has recently received a doctorate in archaeology. Wise though she is, this qualification has unfortunately not made her an authority on quantum mechanics. If I were to get into an argument about the nature of a quark the fact that my friend might agree with me would not carry much weight. Get the point?

by Race to the finish Sat Oct 09, 2004 22:27

Ah yes indeed I do get the point ... only a qualified geneticist is permitted by the Sanhedrin of political correctness to pronounce on the subject of "race" .... presumably he or she has to be vetted first as well before he or she is allowed to open his or her mouth on the subject ......

But perhaps even in such a banal source as the Wikipedia the rest of us can find some words of wisdom accessible to even the general reader without the benefit of specialised academic training:
"The belief that human subspecies (races) exist is unquestionably real and, like any belief held by a large number of people, is significant in itself, and significant regardless of its scientific accuracy. The primary impact of race on societies is through the effect the belief in it has on social behaviour (see communal reinforcement for further analysis of this social phenomenon). Nevertheless, it is useful to review the scientific meaning of race as used by biologists in the study of other large organisms, such as mammals, birds, and trees. In biology, a race (or subspecies—the terms are exact equivalents) is a type of recognisable group forming part of a species."

Further on we read:
"However, a distinct difference is only one of the two conditions that must be satisfied before a different form can be classified as a race or species. The other is lack of significant gene flow between the populations. In the case of human "races", interbreeding is not just possible but widespread: thus they cannot be considered separate species. Given the way that different human "races" fade gradually from one to another in many parts of the world, the overwhelming majority of biologists draw the conclusion that human "racial" variation is in fact clinal, and that the human species is monotypic. Thus, biologically speaking, Homo sapiens has no races."

Now this is all very interesting and indeed it does support Mr. R.Isible's position that the concept of "race" is an "unscientific" one from a purely biological viewpoint.

But if one reads the fine print some legitimate questions arise. In particular the definition of "clinal variation" is worth paying attention to:
"The variation between individuals is noticeable and does follow a pattern, but there are no clear dividing lines between separate groups: they fade imperceptibly into one another. This is called clinal variation, and always indicates substantial gene flow between the apparently separate groups that make up the population. Populations that have substantial gene flow between them are, by definition, members of the same race and species."

Now forgive me for asking a rather improper question in such an antiseptically pure politically correct cyber-environment but I am afraid that I cannot stifle it:
To what extent can one realistically speak of a "substantial gene flow" between the populations of Ireland and Sub-Saharan Africa (as an illustrative example) ?

Admittedly such a "gene flow" would be biologically feasible on a hypothetical level but to the best of my knowledge it has not traditionally or historically taken place to any substantial extent.

Therefore an "aboriginal" inhabitant of Ireland who might tend to regard an aboriginal inhabitant of Sub-Saharan Africa as belonging to a different "race" (and let it be said: VICE VERSA) may well be sinning against Mr. R.Isible's dogma of biological egalitarianism but this reaction - or call it "prejudice" if you will - is not necessarily something that can be dismissed out of hand ....... unless of course you are an unyielding high priest or zealot of the aformentioned cult of biological egalitarianism .....

by Tony Sat Oct 09, 2004 22:29

QUOTE I appeal to you as a rational, intelligent and compassionate thinker to please provide the evidence

As I have already pointed out, it is your good self that is labouring this diversion and the first to propose a whacky, far out, theory on race.

I am not a fan of eugenics or obsessed with race. It is one of the reasons why I despise the likes of RAR who use race as a weapon. I have never read a "single peer-reviewed, published paper" on race, nor do I intend to. Perhaps the onus is actually on you to back up your whacky theory but clearly you don't think so. You say back it up or "Otherwise you're just wasting our time". Well, I dont want to waste your fan clubs time or is that just you and various aliases.

People obsessed with race and race theory make me shudder and I am shuddering now even replying to you. What a shame for you, that you were not around in the 30's when the subject was all the rage.

This is my final post on this rather infantile diversion. I take it you cannot let it go. How sad.

Post away.

I will not be replying.

by Tony Sat Oct 09, 2004 22:38

Wow,

just read Race to the finish's post.

Now R. Isible, lucky you, you finally have a real debate on your hands. I'm gonna sit back and enjoy your demolition of this post with maturity, objectiveness, peer review papers, research, links, quotes, anecdotes, sources and brilliant insights!!!

by Polymath Sat Oct 09, 2004 22:42

Professor Rushton is as entitled to write about race as anyone else. That does not mean that he knows the first thing about the subject.

R. Isible made the not unreasonable request that his opponents on this thread provide some evidence for their assertions. You came back with the opinions of somebody who is no more qualified in the field than you are. You could equally have come back with the opinions of an accountant or the opinions of a physicist or the opinions of a shop assistant.

Those opinions may or may not be of interest. They may or may not even be correct. What they certainly are not is evidence of current scientific thought in the field of genetics.

by Polymath Sat Oct 09, 2004 22:49

Anyone reading this thread should remember that a link to it was posted on a prominent neo-Nazi website.

In other words, our new friends with the strongly held opinion that race is an important distinction are quite likely to have followed the link here.

by Race to the finish Sat Oct 09, 2004 23:43

My dear polymath,
I have not arrived here via any neo-Nazi web site but I don't suppose that my disclaimer in this regard will stop you from indulging in your primitive Stalinist innuendoes ......

You now inform us that the only thing of relevance here is "evidence of current scientific thought in the field of genetics".

Permit me one small observation in this regard. I proceed from the premise that "the field of genetics" is about fiddly little bits of DNA, deciphering double helices and genomes and suchlike pursuit of abstruse blear-eyed wisdom out of midnight toil.

Now as soon as a geneticist starts to pronounce on matters of "race" and proffer his opinion on the biological foundations (or lack thereof) of the concept of "race", he has - I would argue - departed from his own narrow specialist field of genetics. At this point he has already begun to draw social (or might one even dare to say political, even ideological) conclusions from the results of his (or others') "pure" scientific research.

Let us however not beat around the bush.

I would contend that it is not a matter of dispute that human "racial" variation is what biologist term "clinal", and that the human species is _at least on a hypothetical level_ "monotypic". One may thus conclude in unison with Mr. R.Isible that on a purely biological level "Homo sapiens has no races" because a "substantial gene flow" between different population "groups" is biologically feasible (at least in theory).

To return to a previously given illustrative example, the indigenous populations of Ireland and Sub-Saharan Africa (as mere illustrative examples) could very well intermingle giving rise to a "substantial gene flow" between said populations. Biologically or genetically this would be perfectable feasible.

But in considering human affairs one should surely not limit one's horizion to speculative biological possibilities. There are also social and cultural aspects to be taken into account.

There is no good reason why the aforementioned "gene flow" should in fact happen unless it is deemed necessary or desirable from a social, cultural or political viewpoint. To pretend otherwise is quite frankly bordering on the disingenuous.

You high-priests and zealots of enforced multiculturalism (which actually serves the interests of global capitalism more than anything or anybody else) accuse those of us who touch on the admittedly sensitive issue of "race" of all sorts of imaginable (and unimaginable) thought-crimes (and worse).

However, what you fail to admit or perhaps even realise is that it is you yourselves who are promulgating ideological dogmas buttressed by a thin veneer of "scientific fact".

As I have explained, I do not at all question the biological or genetic hypothesis on which your holy and infallible dogma of enforced multiculturalism is predicated.
What I do object to is your attempts to stifle any criticism from a cultural or political viewpoint by loudly proclaiming the allegedly scientific foundations of what is in effect an IDEOLOGICAL dogma, and moreover one whose pursuit ultimately benefits international corporate capital and its lackeys.

I have said what I have to say on this topic.
It is clear that this is hardly the forum for a sensible debate on the matter.

by Race to the finish Sun Oct 10, 2004 00:03

Oh and by the way, the pedantic polymath might like to explain to us why the UK has a "Race Relations Act" on its statute book.

If "race" is a mere figment of the diseased imaginations of the frequentees of neo-Nazi web sites, why should there be any need for such eminently sensible and utterly pragmatic chappies as the "mainland British" to legislate on the thorny subject of "race relations" .....

The UK even has a wonderfully politically correct "educational charity" and think-tank calling itself - wonders of wonders - the "Institute of Race Relations" ......
http://www.irr.org.uk/about/index.html

Maybe Mr. R.Isible should be sent to inform them that they have lost the plot ..... and to propose that they rename themselves the "Institute for proving the non-existence of "race"" .......

After all when everybody has finally realised that this whole "race" business was a load of codswallop to begin with, there won't be any need to regulate or study "race relations" any more .....

by Race to the finish Sun Oct 10, 2004 01:22

It's a complete waste of time arguing with the high priests of any dogma .....

These are the guys who in one breath will tell you: "There are no recognised races. Race is not a meaningful concept, it is undefinable in any biological manner. It is quite simply impossible to find a combination of genes which one can say defines a "race". "Race" is an arbitrary and unprovable concept and exists only in the head of racists."

Then in the next breath they'll be beating some politically correct drum hollering on about something like "genocide".

Now what is "genocide" ?

Well, the 1948 Convention on Genocide states:
"In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such ..."

Yep, you may have noticed that the word "racial group" appears in there as a distinct legal category.
Now if the concept really is as meaningless as alleged by Mr. R.Isible, if there really is no such thing as a "racial group" (outside the diseased and depraved minds of those who surf neo-Nazi sites - with the honourable exception of our Polymath of course) why did the legislators introduce it into the legal text of an international treaty ?

Would be nice to have an answer from Mr. Clever-Clogs R.Isible .... but I'll not be holding my breath .......

by Tony Sun Oct 10, 2004 02:02

You know what R.Isible, I think I will join your fan club after all.

This debate just got interesting.

Nice one!!

Don't let "us" down now when your about to write the post of your life.

Simply debunk history, domestic and international law, anthropology, monoculturalism, the race industry, genetics and culture.

"We" are waiting..........

by Tony Sun Oct 10, 2004 13:33

OK Moderator, I'll go again and see if I can navigate the politcially correct minefield, preserved for dissenters, and hopefully get an answer to my question.

Would polymath please explain what has him trawling Neo-Nazi websites.

by polymath Sun Oct 10, 2004 15:22

I keep an eye on the few Neo-Nazi websites which deal with Irish events. The places are an open sewer and many of the contributors are simply demented rather than particularly dangerous. Occasionally however vermin crawls from the sewer and so it is worth keeping an eye on the situation.

It seems that this site in particular has an irresistable attraction for Ireland's handful of would-be uber-menschen. They come dragging themselves out of the refuse, trying to spread contamination here. Luckily most of them are too stupid to maintain a pretence at moderation for long. The mask quickly slips. Occasionally we encounter a slightly brighter specimen.

And by the way, your continued use of phrases like "politically correct" to describe any viewpoint to the left of Attilla the Hun is heavily indicative of a far-right background. "Political Correctness" is an insult originally developed for a certain type of language-obsessed US liberal. You will find that few on this site share the politics of the liberal element of American academia and fewer still share the views of the right wing opponents.

by Fhu Sun Oct 10, 2004 15:37

“your continued use of phrases like "politically correct" to describe any viewpoint to the left of Attilla the Hun is heavily indicative of a far-right background.”

With respect, complete twaddle!!
Political correctness is a well recognized form of enforced 'liberal' restraint to supress its opposition.

FYI its broad spectrum of opponents include libertarians, genuine freedom-loving liberals ( as opposed to the social culturally Marxist variety who inspired it and continue to try to enforce it) and many people in the creative and performing arts who may rightly reject it as censorship and suppression on free expression.
Perhaps your unbalanced view of its opponents says more about your own world view than theirs.

by polymath Sun Oct 10, 2004 15:48

You misunderstand both the origins of "politically correct" concern with language and the nature of the mainstream use of the term. Far from being "Marxist" in inspiration, the concern with language above all else is a hallmark of postmodern thought. Postmodernism's colonisation of much of the "left" of American academia was a retreat from such concepts as the centrality of class.

This very real shift away from effective radicalism in favour of word games has not saved its proponents from being tarred as "Marxists", "Feminazis" and a hundred and one other things. The virulent American right wing has been particularly effective in this, even going so far as to make the term "political correctness" part of the American political lexicon. PC, you will note is always an insult. Nobody ever describes themselves as such, their enemies do it for them. It is now an all purpose insult for anyone holding anti-racist views or anti-sexist views or anti-homophobic views.

by Tony Sun Oct 10, 2004 17:52

I'd like to thank Polymath for appointing himself an unpaid crusader for Indymedia ireland and policing Neo Nazi sites that uniquely, his superior intellect can absorb without becoming demented.

Such a selfless individual might now "out" some of the posters here, as contributors to those sites by revealing similarity in posts.

As I dont have Neo Nazi sites in my favourites, like your good self polymath, a few links would not go astray to beef up your case. Or, you can cut copy and paste if you are reluctant to put up the links.

Ps.

Your quote " virulent American right wing " is interesting. Despite your protestations of being labelled with abusive terms, you reply with a description that implies a physical sickness for having, essentially conservative views as opposed to your cartoon version of the "atypical" racist, homophobic and sexist right.

Very compassionate and tolerant.

by p. o conaire (1883–1928) - scothscéalta Sun Oct 10, 2004 22:07

ar fheabhas, go ana mhaith ar fad!

"Never scald your lips with another man's porridge".

by R. Isible Wed Oct 13, 2004 20:30

Tony,

you wrote that there were at least three recognised races and possibly more. I asked you to provide some supporting statements from a peer-reviewed geneticist and you refused to do so and promised to write no more.

QUOTE: "There is not one single peer-reviewed, published paper by a geneticist that acknowledges the existence of race.

Not _one_ Tony.

Your claims fly in the face of all the considered, amassed knowledge of professional, reputable scientists."

Fair enough. You revealed yourself to be willing to make grandiose statements and base whole courses of actions with no rational underpinning. Unfortunately you then relied on a prolix posting by a fellow-traveller who has not read the work that he cites (similar to your self) or else is incapable of evaluating it. You'll note that your friend is careful to point out that Rushton is a _psychologist_, not a geneticist. Although this doesn't mean that he can't do good work in the area it's interesting that neither of you was able to pull up someone that _is_ a geneticist, which I specifically requested. Why? Because no professional geneticist sees any evidence to believe this garbage. It could be that Rushton is a lone, brave outsider daring to speak the truth, but in fact his methods and selective use of evidence have been questioned and his findings debunked.

Rushton makes almost wholly unsupported claims that ignore evidence in the field that contradict his claims about skull-circumference (for example in 1988 [1] Rushton ignores the work of Beals et al, 1984 [2] which demonstrates that skull-circumference and cranial capacity can only be shown to vary by distance from equator and not by any supposed "racial" qualitization. He also widely misapplies statistical methods in his use of multiply redundant measurements which cloud any possibilty of deriving a meaningful correlation coefficient. He has been criticised on this basis repeatedly and widely by other trained professionals in the field including Weizmann et al [3].

I suggest that you familiarise yourself with some of the literature before you quote someone that is not a professional in the area and who has failed to answer reasonable and detailed criticisms by professionals.

You have failed to provide evidence that there are any such things as race, and instead have provided evidence that there is no support for this bizarre, fantastic and insane theory among geneticists or evolutionarly biologists.

[1] Rushton, J. P. "Race differences in behavior: A review and evolutionary analysis". _Personality and Individual Differences_ 9 (1988): 1009-1024.

[2] Beals, K. L., Smith, C. L., & Dodd, S. M. "Brain size, cranial morphology, climate, and time machines." _Current Anthropology_ 25(1984): 301-330

[3] Weizmann, F, Wiener, N. I., Wiesenthal, D. L., & Ziegler, M. "Eggs, eggplants, and eggheads: A rejoinder to Rushton." _Canadian Psychology_ 32(1991): 43-50.

by R. Isible Wed Oct 13, 2004 20:36

How bizarre! The proof of the existence of races is asserted to be that the remnants of the racist empire across the channel has a governmental instrument with the word "race" in it. Therefore race must exist?
Now I know there are aliens because there's a SETI (Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence) program at NASA.
Still, I suppose in it's way it's an admission that there's not a shred of proof.

by Tony Thu Oct 14, 2004 02:25

Playing the ball.............

"But of course there could be genetic variation, most likely quantitative, among people and races; it would be absurd to declare this outcome impossible a priori just because it would be uncomfortable
if true."

STEVEN PINKER

The Blank Slate, the Noble Savage, and the
Ghost in the Machine

The Tanner Lectures on Human Values
Delivered at
Yale University
April 20 and 21, 1999

by Tony Thu Oct 14, 2004 15:58

Still playing the ball (officer)

You dont mind if I retrieve the relevant lines of text Riso? I wouldnt want anyone accusing me of just publishing book titles or anything like that - without a least a hint of what they might contain:


"By examining the phenotypic and genotypic trends within contemporary human populations it is possible to construct models that can aid Anthropologists in the study of human ancestry. Both the “Bergmann” and “Allen” rules (Campbell and Loy 2000: 591) deal with phenotypic changes in animals which were then applied to humans. Bergmann observed that there is a relationship between body mass, surface area and heat production. He claimed that larger animals with smaller surface areas lived in cooler climates than smaller animals. Allen noticed that the largest animals actually lived in the middle but had shorter and stouter extremities in the cooler climates. These rules create a way of measuring phenotypic reaction to the environment in things like bone length and density. The important thing is that, “human populations follow these rules derived from animal studies, and it seems clear that populations known only from their fossilized remains did the same” (Campbell and Loy 2000: 592). "


Genetics: A Potentially Powerful Tool in the
Study of Human Evolution
By: John Nixon
36574036
Anthropology 140 – 002
Professor: Brian Chisolm
March 26th 2004

by Tony Thu Oct 14, 2004 16:07

And one for the road.


Different species or populations sometimes possess the same phenotype but have
different genotypes (Nanney 1982; Cohan 1984; Losos et al. 1998; see also Ludwig et al.
2000). In our simulations, allopatric populations under parallel, directional selection
evolve toward the same phenotype but often via different underlying genetic changes
(Johnson and Porter 2000). This same result could be achieved, in theory, via mutation,
drift, stabilizing selection, and compensatory mutations (Nei et al. 1983; Ludwig et al.
2000). Although we did not observe speciation when the trait was under just stabilizing
selection, our simulations just covered a relatively short period of time.
Regulatory genetic pathways are typically more complex than the linear pathways
we have thus far investigated. Often, pathways are branched, allowing one gene product
to interact with the regulatory sites of more than one other gene. Do the properties that
make linear, regulated genetic pathways conducive for the evolution of reproductive
24
isolation also apply to the more complicated branched pathways? We predict that they do.


And that bit of lunancy comes from:


Toward a New Synthesis: Population Genetics and Evolutionary Developmental Biology
Norman A. Johnson
Adam H. Porter
Department of Entomology
And
Program in Organismic and Evolutionary Biology
102 Fernald Hall
University of Massachusetts
Amherst, MA 01003

by Tony Thu Oct 14, 2004 16:22

Gosh, this speed reading is fun:

Introduction to Molecular Genetics and Genomics:


Evolutionary genetics. DNA polymorphisms
are studied in an effort to describe
the patterns in which different types of
genetic variation occur throughout the
genome, to infer the evolutionary mechanisms by which genetic variation is maintained, and to illuminate the processes by which genetic polymorphisms within speices become transformed into genetic
differences between species.


That enough Riso? Above from a textbook that teaches the stuff, you clearly know so little about.

by you know who Thu Oct 14, 2004 21:02

You should stop winding up poor Riso.
The chap does admittedly have a point, even if it is beside the _real point_.

The arguments for or against enforced multiculturalism are not primarily "biological" or "genetic". They are of a political (dare one say "ideological" ?) nature.

The problem with Riso's reductionist approach is that by focussing on what is _not_ the point, he deflects attention from the real issues - whether or not this is his intention.

By way of analogy one could argue that there is no biological or genetic basis for the notion of "class" which must thererfore be dismissed as "absurd". Surely the worker and the boss are forged from the same biological / genetic material - like two peas in a pod. Starting from this premise, and applying Riso-style Bizarro-logic we would end up with the conclusion that all those who refer to the absurd and "unscientific" concept of "class" (especially the hotheads who preach the fomenting of "class war") are "classists" and under the influence of some malign and "scientifically unsound" ideology.

And of course all postings referring explicitly or implicitly to "class differences" would be ruthlessly censored ................

Thank God we do not yet live in that Bizarro world .....
(I wonder how long this one will last - hopefully long enough for you to read it !)

by Tony Thu Oct 14, 2004 22:06

you know who:

You know me better than that!

It's clear that there is still a long road to retracing a few of the elementary steps that have shaped this "theory"

Going back to the DNA angle makes as much sense as going back to the sperm and the egg and possibly a traumatic childhood, but this theory has set in over a long time.

Tick Tock Tick Tock

by Tony Thu Oct 14, 2004 22:40

you know who:

There is another subtext here that is notable.

A bright spark like yourself may also have noticed the refreshing inversion of Godwins laws on this and many topics.

The debate *starts out* with someone being called a Nazi

by you know who Thu Oct 14, 2004 23:17

... that the Nazis started out being called (National) Socialists .......

by Tony Thu Oct 14, 2004 23:52

Oh I do,

The story of Hitlers policies is rarely told yet they are identical to socialist policies today.

He would have adored what we now call political correctness with it's fired up frenzy, bastardisation of language, callous disregard for the truth and utter hatref of opponents.

An animal lover and a strident anti-smoker, he would have been delighted with Irelands recent ban to protect the Volk from themselves. How amusing that tobacco became currency following his demise.

by Tony Fri Oct 15, 2004 17:59

As I have been accused of all sorts of things on another thread, based on this one, I would like to take this opportunity to point out a small fact about the subject matter here.

The proof (or not) of race is not de facto proof of the superiority/inferiority of any one race, which is a fundamental theory underpinning what one might call racism.

It is not good enough to state baldly that an argument proving existence of race is evidence of "racism" per se.

This is merely another intellectual/ideological short circuit designed to discourage open and honest discussion.

Never mind that it was not I that has pushed this topic down this road in the first place.

by R. Isible Sat Oct 16, 2004 02:05

We've been working at cross purposes here and for that I apologise for not making things clearer. You see, what I'm asking you for is a published, peer-reviewed paper by a geneticist (or evolutionary biologist) that demonstrates the existence of the three races that you mentioned above.

I also apologise for assuming that you understand the words in front of you on the page. Obviously that could cause great confusion and distress to you if it were not the case, as is so manifest here.

QUOTE: "But of course there could be genetic variation, most likely quantitative, among people and races; it would be absurd to declare this outcome impossible a priori just because it would be uncomfortable
if true."

You missed out the important sentence that occurs immediately after that: "If such variation were discovered, what would follow?"

If you took the trouble to read Pinker's non-peer reviewed paper he actually takes the time to state that if there were ever such things as "races" then they probably no longer exist due to gene flow across populations. This, you see, is the point Tony. It is not possible to construct a definition of race which doesn't break down as a classification model. If a phenotype or a genotype is presented as being the basis for classification then it will not produce consistent sorting. That's why no geneticist has published a paper demonstrating one of your "widely accepted races" that you mention above. Pick a supposedly typical "negroid" gene and it is inevitable that it is widely dispersed in "asians" and "caucasians".

Again, you need to either put up or keep the fantasy zipped up inside your head. Point to a peer-reviewed paper by a geneticist that demonstrates the existence of race. Just one.


QUOTE: "By examining the phenotypic and genotypic trends within contemporary human populations it is possible to construct models that can aid Anthropologists in the study of human ancestry. Both the “Bergmann” and “Allen” rules (Campbell and Loy 2000: 591) deal with phenotypic changes in animals which were then applied to humans. Bergmann observed that there is a relationship between body mass, surface area and heat production. He claimed that larger animals with smaller surface areas lived in cooler climates than smaller animals. Allen noticed that the largest animals actually lived in the middle but had shorter and stouter extremities in the cooler climates. These rules create a way of measuring phenotypic reaction to the environment in things like bone length and density. The important thing is that, “human populations follow these rules derived from animal studies, and it seems clear that populations known only from their fossilized remains did the same” (Campbell and Loy 2000: 592). "

I'm sorry Tony, but you're going to have to explain how the Allen rules (which are extrapolations based on shrews and elephants) and their application to the study of human ancestors demonstrate the existence of race. Just to make it very clear to you, what the text above is talking about above is the study of human ancestry. No one is denying that there were genetically distinguishable ancestors which are classifiable on the basis of phenotype and probably genotype from _Homo sapiens_.

Really, the more you pull up quotes which have at best a tenuous relation to the subject matter and present them as some sort of proof the more I wonder if you are capable of rational thought.


QUOTE" "Different species or populations sometimes possess the same phenotype but have
different genotypes (Nanney 1982; Cohan 1984; Losos et al. 1998; see also Ludwig et al.
2000). In our simulations, allopatric populations under parallel, directional selection
evolve toward the same phenotype but often via different underlying genetic changes
(Johnson and Porter 2000). This same result could be achieved, in theory, via mutation,
drift, stabilizing selection, and compensatory mutations (Nei et al. 1983; Ludwig et al.
2000). Although we did not observe speciation when the trait was under just stabilizing
selection, our simulations just covered a relatively short period of time.
Regulatory genetic pathways are typically more complex than the linear pathways
we have thus far investigated. Often, pathways are branched, allowing one gene product
to interact with the regulatory sites of more than one other gene. Do the properties that
make linear, regulated genetic pathways conducive for the evolution of reproductive
24
isolation also apply to the more complicated branched pathways? We predict that they do."

Again, where's the proof of the existence of "three widely accepted races" there Tony? I completely agree with all of the New Synthesis (even if there was an unfortunate tendency to downplay the effect of different probablility distributions of random mutations upon allele frequencies, this was more of a result of the success of selection experiments than any conscious decision to ignore Morgan's work on mutation).



QUOTE: "Evolutionary genetics. DNA polymorphisms
are studied in an effort to describe
the patterns in which different types of
genetic variation occur throughout the
genome, to infer the evolutionary mechanisms by which genetic variation is maintained, and to illuminate the processes by which genetic polymorphisms within speices become transformed into genetic
differences between species.

That enough Riso? Above from a textbook that teaches the stuff, you clearly know so little about."

And one more time Tony, you have quoted a piece of information that I don't dispute (and indeed embrace) but which completely fails to demonstrate the existence of your "widely accepted three races".

I'm saddened Tony. You've obviously spent at least five minutes trying to understand this, but it's not enough. Instead of wasting your time further you could just admit that races don't exist and you can't furnish the proof which I requested.

I shall be unable to reply to you any further on this thread as I think I've demonstrated the point to all that posses the capacity for rational thought. Good luck with the reading.

by R. Isible Sat Oct 16, 2004 02:23

QUOTE: "The arguments for or against enforced multiculturalism are not primarily "biological" or "genetic". They are of a political (dare one say "ideological" ?) nature."

I'd agree with that. It is interesting though that Tony has shown himself to be a racist who also happens to advance the "political" or "economic" arguments. I suspect that a large number of those that attempt to dress their gut-racism in the clothes of "politics" are merely cleverer than our mutual acquaintance. On that note I find it interesting that you talk about "enforced multiculturalism" which appears to be what you would style allowing the non-national parents of Irish children to stay. A strange assumption on your part that the referendum was about "enforced multiculturalism".

QUOTE: "The problem with Riso's reductionist approach is that by focussing on what is _not_ the point, he deflects attention from the real issues - whether or not this is his intention."

Oh, now "you know who". Tony was the one who revealed the underbelly of the debate. Here's where he asserts the existence of race and then denies that Travellers can be a race on that basis. You see, he's not smart like you. He really believes it even though he doesn't understand what he believes:

QUOTE: " am no expert on race. As far as I am aware, there are a number of different recognised races: Caucasian, Negro, and Asian spring to mind. There may be more, but "Irish traveller" does not quite have the same gravitas as the ones listed.
Whoever decided to classify travellers as a racial group has done as much to alienate them and set them apart as any bigot, albeit with the best of intentions."

See, there's a few simple folk out there that believe the completely unscientific myth of racism. A significant number of those unfortunates also happen to be against "multiculturalism". Hmmm, I wonder if there's a gene for racism?

QUOTE: "By way of analogy one could argue that there is no biological or genetic basis for the notion of "class" which must thererfore be dismissed as "absurd"."

An inaccurate and absurd analogy. Class is defined on economic, not genetic grounds. If "class" were widely understood to refer to a supposedly genetically determined characteristic then I would indeed attack it on the same basis if there were as little evidence for it's existence as there is for race.

by Tony Sat Oct 16, 2004 03:12

Well, Riso, if you do not reply, it will echo your responses so far.

As usual, you have not read my posts. C'est la vie.

Dont take it out on me old chum, take it out on acedemia at large. Villify all at will. I am not particularily interested.

The thorny fact of the matter remains - race is something that MOST people intuitively see, react to, talk about, theorise about and - even (as you have ably shown) - post to Indymedia about - with some passion!!!

Whilst the genetic cul-de-sac is remotely interesting (and I MEAN remotely) - the point has been made by others - far better than I could have made it - that "race" is something that people - at large - actually believe in - wait for it = WITHOUT doctorates (even in the narrowest fields) in genetics. And that must represent a mere 99.997% of this countries population.

I know that you look down on those that have not contemplated/lauded your far out theories, with derision and scorn, but, ironically, you are simply illustrating your own primordial prejudices and bitter hatred as a virtue,

Just like racists do.

by zzzzz Sat Oct 16, 2004 05:22

I don't know if there is such a thing as "race", but what I do know is that any differences that occur between people of different ethnic backgrounds can not be allowed to be used as an excuse to discriminate against them.
I hope that long sentence is not confusing to anyone, but I was getting tired of seeing you two waffling on and on and not dealing with the real issue, which is how people's assumptions about other people of different ethnic groups are used by those who have an interest in keeping people divided against one another, so that those on the lower end of the economic scale are effectively prevented from organising together fo change things for the better.
Now please stop boring the rest of us.

by Tony Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:14

Tell me zzzzz,

How are these aims currently achieved in a monocultural or monoracial setting?

by zzzz Sat Oct 16, 2004 17:22

I'm not sure what you mean by that question. You are the one arguing for a monocultural society.

by Tony Sat Oct 16, 2004 18:19

?

by King Amdo Thu Oct 21, 2004 10:28

SICK-NESS