Homeopathic Racism

[Victory]

Lots more about this on Wikipedia.... "The One Drop Rule"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-drop_rule


It is speculated that Abraham Lincoln was a Melungeon, of mixed race ancestry.


https://face2faceafrica.com/article...arack-obama-be-americas-first-black-president

 

[Mikefule]

Species	1	2	3	4	5
Americanus	Red, choleric and straight	Straight, black and thick hair; gaping nostrils; [freckled] face; beardless chin	Unyielding, cheerful, free	Paints himself in a maze of red lines	Governed by customary right
Europaeus	White, sanguine, muscular	Plenty of yellow hair; blue eyes	Light, wise, inventor	Protected by tight clothing	Governed by rites
Asiaticus	Sallow, melancholic, stiff	Blackish hair, dark eyes	Stern, haughty, greedy	Protected by loose garments	Governed by opinions
Africanus	Black, phlegmatic, lazy	Dark hair, with many twisting braids; silky skin; flat nose; swollen lips; Women [with] elongated labia; breasts lactating profusely.	Sly, sluggish, neglectful	Anoints himself with fat	Governed by choice [

I am tempted to wonder about the size of the sample that Linaeus studied before making "elongated labia" a distinguishing feature of one of his 4 races.

Indeed, Wikipedia says, <<Linnaeus's remains constitute the type specimen for the species Homo sapiens following the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature since the sole specimen that he is known to have examined was himself. >> If this is correct, then all of the above chart is based on hearsay, assumptions, and cultural preconceptions.

Years ago I put forward the maxim, there are two types of people with whom I always disagree: those who divide everything into two categories, and those who don't.

I soon realised that there was in fact room for compromise between these extremes and I modified this to, there are three types of people with whom I always disagree: those who divide everything into two categories, those who don't, and those who say the truth always lies somewhere in between.

I think the rot started with Socrates, or at least with Plato's literary version of Socrates. In his dialogues, Socrates tried to reach a perfect definition of his subject. In Socrates' case, it was usually some aspect of human behaviour or thought such as "virtue" rather than a physical thing like a finch or a flower.

Each time someone proposed a definition, Socrates confronted them with an apparent exception and the definition was then refined to take this into account. However, the outcome was nearly always the same: a conclusion that it is not possible to frame a perfect definition. The word for this is aporia, which loosely translates as the absence of a way through.

As soon as you try to categorise anything, you need some sort of working definition for each category. It is a small step from this to making arbitrary distinctions, or introducing sub categories. Before long, you can find yourself paying more attention to the categories than to the things that fall within them — like concentrating on the bookshelves rather than the books.

There are times when it is genuinely useful to group things into categories. I do this as a Morris dance teacher, sometimes choosing to spend a teaching session concentrating on dances with a shared feature.

However, every dance has several features, and a pair of dances that fit in the same category one evening (e.g. "corner dances") may not fall into the same category the following week (e.g. "long stick dances").

This sort of loose and flexible categorisation is often useful. It becomes a problem when you try to fit dances from a wide range of traditions into a single overarching scheme.

Linaeus was a great scientist and his basic idea of classification has broadly stood the test of time. He did not know about natural selection, and parallel or convergent evolution, and he had no concept of genetics and DNA. All things considered, it is remarkable that he got so much right and unsurprising that he got some of it wrong. Science is about identifying and correcting mistakes in understanding.

Of course, Linaeus' crude categorisation of humanity, in the chart above, seems quaint and risible to us today. I think it is a classic case of someone allowing his undoubted expertise to be influenced by his cultural background: he used his scientific approach to codify his preconceptions. This is one of the dangers of any attempt at scientific study of racial characteristics: the unspoken assumption that your own race is the standard by which others are measured.

 

[stu neville]

Categories are useful, but rigid categorisation only has limited applications. For example, in my local corner shop all of the tinned goods are in the same section of the store, everything from tinned custard to Mackerel fillets. Whether you want custard, Mackerel or both (makes for a curious dessert, but each to their own) you know it'll be on that stand of six shelves. Go to the supermarket, however, and the tinned custard will be in the dessert section and the Mackerel in a completely different part of the store with all the other tinned fish. Each model works as there's an understood context in either case: we get that in one place the tins are the definitive category, in another it's the contents that dictate position.

You can only come near to solidly, comprehensively define the essential nature of something when it's effectively elemental, but even then you can say gold (for example) is a metal, non-ferrous, ductile, conductive, etc etc. Once again it comes down to context, which is one of the most essential, but overlooked facets of Forteanism. Finding a gibbon in a zoo isn't Fortean. Finding one in your kitchen is, and very much so. A gibbon is a gibbon but context dictates.

 

[gordonrutter]

I am tempted to wonder about the size of the sample that Linaeus studied before making "elongated labia" a distinguishing feature of one of his 4 races.

Indeed, Wikipedia says, <<Linnaeus's remains constitute the type specimen for the species Homo sapiens following the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature since the sole specimen that he is known to have examined was himself. >> If this is correct, then all of the above chart is based on hearsay, assumptions, and cultural preconceptions.

For Linnaeus being the type specimen, this is based on his description of humans “know yourself”. When he was doing this he was literally making the rules up (partially by adapting previous work) and at the time there was no requirement for a type specimen. Selection of Linnaeus as the type was made by William Stearn in 1959, and it makes Linnaeus the lectotype. It’s a single sentence in a paper that gives Linnaeus this honour.

BTW the heading in that table should be races not species.

 

[Mikefule]

On the more general subject of mankind's folly in classifying and categorising things to an irrational degree:

I was thinking of posting this elsewhere, but it seems to fit the current discussion.

In the late19th and early 20th centuries, terms like "idiot" and "imbecile" had very specific medical meanings.

By 1928:
The term idiot specifically referred to an adult with an IQ of 0–24.
The term imbecile referred to an adult with an IQ of 25–49
The term moron referred to an adult with an IQ from 50 to 74.
The term borderline referred to an adult with an IQ from 75–84
The term dull referred to an adult with an IQ from 85 to 94.

These terms, which we would now consider insulting, are defined by arbitrary round numbered thresholds on an arbitrary scale of a score which measures an aspect of intelligence that is arbitrarily chosen based on a cultural idea of what intelligence is. IQ tests test your ability to pass IQ tests.

At various times as this scale was developed, the same words were also defined in terms of "mental age": another very subjective term.

On a smilar point:

A British Government report in 1908 specifically defined feeble-minded as follows: <<Persons who may be capable of earning a living under favourable circumstances, but are incapable from mental defect, existing from birth or from an early age: (1) of competing on equal terms with their normal fellows, or (2) of managing themselves and their affairs with ordinary prudence.>>

 

[escargot]

On the more general subject of mankind's folly in classifying and categorising things to an irrational degree:

I was thinking of posting this elsewhere, but it seems to fit the current discussion.

In the late19th and early 20th centuries, terms like "idiot" and "imbecile" had very specific medical meanings.

By 1928:
The term idiot specifically referred to an adult with an IQ of 0–24.
The term imbecile referred to an adult with an IQ of 25–49
The term moron referred to an adult with an IQ from 50 to 74.
The term borderline referred to an adult with an IQ from 75–84
The term dull referred to an adult with an IQ from 85 to 94.

These terms, which we would now consider insulting, are defined by arbitrary round numbered thresholds on an arbitrary scale of a score which measures an aspect of intelligence that is arbitrarily chosen based on a cultural idea of what intelligence is. IQ tests test your ability to pass IQ tests.

At various times as this scale was developed, the same words were also defined in terms of "mental age": another very subjective term.

On a smilar point:

A British Government report in 1908 specifically defined feeble-minded as follows: <<Persons who may be capable of earning a living under favourable circumstances, but are incapable from mental defect, existing from birth or from an early age: (1) of competing on equal terms with their normal fellows, or (2) of managing themselves and their affairs with ordinary prudence.>>

There's also 'cretin', which is defined as 'a person who is physically deformed and has learning difficulties because of congenital thyroid deficiency.'
I used to meet actual medical cretins in one of my first jobs. They were the last generation of British children to be born to mothers with iodine deficiency.

 

[Mythopoeika]

On the more general subject of mankind's folly in classifying and categorising things to an irrational degree:

I was thinking of posting this elsewhere, but it seems to fit the current discussion.

In the late19th and early 20th centuries, terms like "idiot" and "imbecile" had very specific medical meanings.

By 1928:
The term idiot specifically referred to an adult with an IQ of 0–24.
The term imbecile referred to an adult with an IQ of 25–49
The term moron referred to an adult with an IQ from 50 to 74.
The term borderline referred to an adult with an IQ from 75–84
The term dull referred to an adult with an IQ from 85 to 94.

These terms, which we would now consider insulting, are defined by arbitrary round numbered thresholds on an arbitrary scale of a score which measures an aspect of intelligence that is arbitrarily chosen based on a cultural idea of what intelligence is. IQ tests test your ability to pass IQ tests.

At various times as this scale was developed, the same words were also defined in terms of "mental age": another very subjective term.

On a smilar point:

A British Government report in 1908 specifically defined feeble-minded as follows: <<Persons who may be capable of earning a living under favourable circumstances, but are incapable from mental defect, existing from birth or from an early age: (1) of competing on equal terms with their normal fellows, or (2) of managing themselves and their affairs with ordinary prudence.>>

Apparently, Andy Warhol had a measured IQ of 86.
He must have been smarter than that to have done so well, so I think IQ tests aren't a complete picture of a person's intelligence.

 

[stu neville]

...I think IQ tests aren't a complete picture of a person's intelligence.

When Binet, inventor of one of the IQ tests was asked what intelligence was he replied that 'It's what my test measures.'

 

[pandacracker]

ordinary prudence.

Now there's a lovely phrase we should all try and use more often.

 

[Krepostnoi]

Now there's a lovely phrase we should all try and use more often.

Ordinary Prudence sounds like a minor character in The Crucible.

 

[Frideswide]

On the more general subject of mankind's folly in classifying and categorising things to an irrational degree:

I can add to this - low functioning and high functioning.

The first is used to deny you any say in your life, the second to deny you services.

Both are innacurate and arbitrary.