Death to the Irish...

[KnightTemplar]

^^^^^ Yes it was my parents intent ! And was my inlaws ! And my wife and I as well ! "it's not about being WHITE" , but perserving my ETHNICTY as a ETHNIC group !
Forget WHITE , Hitler killed over 2 million of people just like me .

See what I'm geting at hear ? I could care less about some Redneck or Aryan nonsence .
And Yes the term "Gypsie ,Gypo or Pikey " are IMO Terms of Abuse or Hate!

Try not having certaine freedoms still in 2010! Geting fucked with ! Geting harrased and can't do shit about it ! So I live .

While I agree with some of what you said, you need to tone it down a bit, mate. Turbo was just joking, and so was I when I used a version of the Demolition Man quote. I doubt there are many, if any at all, neo-Nazis, Aryan Brotherhood members etc on Sherdog; why take the chance when they can all hang out in Stromfront?

Be cool, man. We are not your enemy.

 

[Origins]

It annoys me how most people (at least in America) have a delusional view that every person is created equally and that race/ethnicity/heritage don't have any effect on a person.

Sorry kiddies, but that's not actually the way it works. Thomas Jefferson was just trying to be poetic.

 

[Giant Midget]

Scotland is a warrior nation, we're hard by nature and I have full confidence that we will tool the Americans.
FREEDOM!!!!!

 

[Tosa]

^^^^^ Yes it was my parents intent ! And was my inlaws ! And my wife and I as well ! "it's not about being WHITE" , but perserving my ETHNICTY as a ETHNIC group !
Forget WHITE , Hitler killed over 2 million of people just like me .

See what I'm geting at hear ? I could care less about some Redneck or Aryan nonsence .
And Yes the term "Gypsie ,Gypo or Pikey " are IMO Terms of Abuse or Hate!

Try not having certaine freedoms still in 2010! Geting fucked with ! Geting harrased and can't do shit about it ! So I live .

You might want to tone it down. It's starting to come off as a little bit crazy.

And the idea of perserving an ethnic group seems...odd, considering the Scots are the result of combination of various ethnic groups. And that's even if you accept the idea that there's some meaningful genetic element(s) that makes Scot Scottish. You could talk about preserving culture, which would make more sense...

It annoys me how most people (at least in America) have a delusional view that every person is created equally and that race/ethnicity/heritage don't have any effect on a person.

Sorry kiddies, but that's not actually the way it works. Thomas Jefferson was just trying to be poetic.

First, I'd agree that not everyone is equal. Some people are very, very stupid, or have signifcant personality faults or whatever. And there are certain things that do correlate with ethnicity, like sickle cell anemia, lactose intolerance, resistance to HIV/AIDs, reactions to certain medications.

But these are all statistically established. And in no way makes people "unequal". And this variation is incredibly small compared to the variation that exists within ethnic groups. So there's no genetic basis for people being considered unequal.

Heritage does have an affect, since the history of a people does have an affect. But this affect is due to a persons upringing, socio-economic conditions, culture, etc...you can't blame a person for this, and you can't say they're not equal because of it. Additionally this does not entirely correlate with ethnicity...for example: we can say that for historical reasons African Americans are disadvantaged in the USA, but this doesn't mean that every African American is disadvantaged, and it would be wrong to assume so.

So, in conclusion, you're a bigot.

 

[KnightTemplar]

You might want to tone it down. It's starting to come off as a little bit crazy.

And the idea of perserving an ethnic group seems...odd, considering the Scots are the result of combination of various ethnic groups. And that's even if you accept the idea that there's some meaningful genetic element(s) that makes Scot Scottish. You could talk about preserving culture, which would make more sense...



First, I'd agree that not everyone is equal. Some people are very, very stupid, or have signifcant personality faults or whatever. And there are certain things that do correlate with ethnicity, like sickle cell anemia, lactose intolerance, resistance to HIV/AIDs, reactions to certain medications.

But these are all statistically established. And in no way makes people "unequal". And this variation is incredibly small compared to the variation that exists within ethnic groups. So there's no genetic basis for people being considered unequal.

Heritage does have an affect, since the history of a people does have an affect. But this affect is due to a persons upringing, socio-economic conditions, culture, etc...you can't blame a person for this, and you can't say they're not equal because of it. Additionally this does not entirely correlate with ethnicity...for example: we can say that for historical reasons African Americans are disadvantaged in the USA, but this doesn't mean that every African American is disadvantaged, and it would be wrong to assume so.

So, in conclusion, you're a bigot.

Scots, like most people, are a mongrol race; a combination of Pict, Celt(Irish) Germanic(Anglo-Saxon)Norse(mainly Norwegian and some Danish)and Norman.

It is possible to defien someone as gentically Scottish; there is such a thing in Geneology as the "Scots Modal" which is a Haplotype with specific STR Values that indicate Scottish ancestry.

 

[Tosa]

It is possible to defien someone as gentically Scottish; there is such a thing in Geneology as the "Scots Modal" which is a Haplotype with specific STR Values that indicate Scottish ancestry.

Which would be based on looking at various Scots genetics, and comparing those genetics to those who aren't Scottish. In other words it's tautological...you can define Scottish people genetically only because you start off with the ethnicity "Scottish" as a known group.

 

[Kennethguye]

Yeah Buddy!

 

[Origins]

First, I'd agree that not everyone is equal. Some people are very, very stupid, or have signifcant personality faults or whatever. And there are certain things that do correlate with ethnicity, like sickle cell anemia, lactose intolerance, resistance to HIV/AIDs, reactions to certain medications.

But these are all statistically established. And in no way makes people "unequal". And this variation is incredibly small compared to the variation that exists within ethnic groups. So there's no genetic basis for people being considered unequal.

Heritage does have an affect, since the history of a people does have an affect. But this affect is due to a persons upringing, socio-economic conditions, culture, etc...you can't blame a person for this, and you can't say they're not equal because of it. Additionally this does not entirely correlate with ethnicity...for example: we can say that for historical reasons African Americans are disadvantaged in the USA, but this doesn't mean that every African American is disadvantaged, and it would be wrong to assume so.

In my opinion not all of the observable differences between ethnicities can be explained by upbringing, socio-economic conditions, culture, etc. I think that a larger part of it than people want to admit is genetic. For example, the NBA is dominated by African-Americans. The Olympic sprinting events are dominated by people of African descent. Do you actually think that these things can be fully explained by upbringing, socio-economic conditions, culture, etc.? Basketball is a prominent sport in almost every public and private school in America, even in almost all white regions like the Midwest. And yet the sport continues to be dominated by a relatively small portion of the population. Do you really think that the dominance in Olympic sprinting by black people all over the world can be explained by upbringing, socio-economic conditions, culture, etc.? Wouldn't genetic predisposition to being good at sprinting be a better explanation?

To open an even larger can of worms, how did those cultures emerge? Did/does genetics influence the shaping of cultural standards and pressures? E.g. why have many East Asian cultures historically placed such importance on schooling and academics. Was/is this just a random occurrence? Or are East Asians predisposed genetically to be good at that sort of thing? This sort of turns into a chicken-and-egg thing, though.

So, in conclusion, you're a bigot.

lol.

 

[Tosa]

In my opinion not all of the observable differences between ethnicities can be explained by upbringing, socio-economic conditions, culture, etc. I think that a larger part of it than people want to admit is genetic. For example, the NBA is dominated by African-Americans. The Olympic sprinting events are dominated by people of African descent. Do you actually think that these things can be fully explained by upbringing, socio-economic conditions, culture, etc.? Basketball is a prominent sport in almost every public and private school in America, even in almost all white regions like the Midwest. And yet the sport continues to be dominated by a relatively small portion of the population. Do you really think that the dominance in Olympic sprinting by black people all over the world can be explained by upbringing, socio-economic conditions, culture, etc.? Wouldn't genetic predisposition to being good at sprinting be a better explanation?

Somehow I don't think Thomas Jefferson was refering to aptitude for specific sports. And you can't assume someone is good at basketball or sprinting because they are of African descent. Like I said, there are differences between ethnic groups, or at least in the frequency of certain genes and qualities being present, but you could only say they make people unequal in specific contexts, not generally.

Maybe that's what you meant initially, but it's best to make that sort of thing clear. Otherwise you get called a bigot.

To open an even larger can of worms, how did those cultures emerge? Did/does genetics influence the shaping of cultural standards and pressures? E.g. why have many East Asian cultures historically placed such importance on schooling and academics. Was/is this just a random occurrence? Or are East Asians predisposed genetically to be good at that sort of thing? This sort of turns into a chicken-and-egg thing, though.

I don't think there's a genetic component.

The emphasis on schooling in East Asians can be explained entirely without having to consider genetics. Both China and Japan began the process of modernization more recently than western countries, and an important part of modernization, especially in the accelerated, catch up version, that occured in China and Japan is education. This modernization turned countries that were puppets to Western powers into economic powerhouses ... and since education was a big part of this modernization, education became highly valued...and since education is usually important for a succesful career / finacial well being, it continues to be valued. There's also the fact the in both these cultures, having succesful children that can look after their parents in old age is more likely to be a concern...perhaps due to having modernized more recently.

 

[turbozed]

This is a very complex issue and it's hard to make an accurate assessment of all the biological, genetic, social, and historical reasons why certain races are perceived the way they are. Science can give us an almost-complete picture when it maps the human genome and finds no significant variation to justify the construct of race as a biological fact.

This, however, doesn't mean that historical circumstances can't conspire to cause actual noticeable physical differences between population groups. One could argue that a few hundred years of the slave trade served as an artificial selecting mechanism for more robust and athletically gifted African-Americans (certainly they had to be to survive brutal conditions in being transported and exploited by slaveowners). If true (and I doubt the current political environment would allow for anyone to assert this as a theory for testing), it would still say nothing about 'Africans' as a race, but more about the effects of selecting physical traits that have nothing to do fundamentally with race. For example, imagine if we took the tallest 1% of the people (which would include representatives from all 'races') on Earth and shipped them off to an island somewhere to mix and intermarry. There's no doubt that they would produce taller children, but for someone to assert that the Tall Islanders were a unique race and that the evidence for that is that they are indeed taller than everybody else would be begging the question. Like Tosa said, it'd be tautology and easily recognizable in this case.

It's easy to get caught up in superficial human traits like skin color, hair color, eye color, height, and body shape, since they are readily apparent visual differences. However these aren't the things that make humans human. It's our cognitive abilities, adaptability, language, and various forms of intelligence that separate us from other species; and it's easy to see that what we think of as different races are equally gifted in those areas across populations (if not so across individuals).

 

[Origins]

Somehow I don't think Thomas Jefferson was refering to aptitude for specific sports. And you can't assume someone is good at basketball or sprinting because they are of African descent. Like I said, there are differences between ethnic groups, or at least in the frequency of certain genes and qualities being present, but you could only say they make people unequal in specific contexts, not generally.

No, Thomas Jefferson was probably not referring to aptitude for sports. I just used sports as examples because there are more observable racial patterns that may also be easier to swallow than in areas like academics. No, you shouldn't assume things, but that doesn't mean that certain groups aren't better/worse at certain things in general than others. And it's not so much that I think people are unequal, more like different in certain areas.

I don't think there's a genetic component.

The emphasis on schooling in East Asians can be explained entirely without having to consider genetics. Both China and Japan began the process of modernization more recently than western countries, and an important part of modernization, especially in the accelerated, catch up version, that occured in China and Japan is education. This modernization turned countries that were puppets to Western powers into economic powerhouses ... and since education was a big part of this modernization, education became highly valued...and since education is usually important for a succesful career / finacial well being, it continues to be valued. There's also the fact the in both these cultures, having succesful children that can look after their parents in old age is more likely to be a concern...perhaps due to having modernized more recently.

That may play a part in East Asian culture of modern times. But even way back Before the Common Era, the Han dynasty in China was probably the most advanced civilization at the time in terms of education. One thing that was unique about China throughout most of their history, including the Han era, was that the "scholar-gentry" class was essentially the highest social class (under the royal family of course). Education has been very highly valued in Chinese culture long before modernization.

 

[Origins]

This is a very complex issue and it's hard to make an accurate assessment of all the biological, genetic, social, and historical reasons why certain races are perceived the way they are. Science can give us an almost-complete picture when it maps the human genome and finds no significant variation to justify the construct of race as a biological fact.

This, however, doesn't mean that historical circumstances can't conspire to cause actual noticeable physical differences between population groups. One could argue that a few hundred years of the slave trade served as an artificial selecting mechanism for more robust and athletically gifted African-Americans (certainly they had to be to survive brutal conditions in being transported and exploited by slaveowners). If true (and I doubt the current political environment would allow for anyone to assert this as a theory for testing), it would still say nothing about 'Africans' as a race, but more about the effects of selecting physical traits that have nothing to do fundamentally with race. For example, imagine if we took the tallest 1% of the people (which would include representatives from all 'races') on Earth and shipped them off to an island somewhere to mix and intermarry. There's no doubt that they would produce taller children, but for someone to assert that the Tall Islanders were a unique race and that the evidence for that is that they are indeed taller than everybody else would be begging the question. Like Tosa said, it'd be tautology and easily recognizable in this case.

It's easy to get caught up in superficial human traits like skin color, hair color, eye color, height, and body shape, since they are readily apparent visual differences. However these aren't the things that make humans human. It's our cognitive abilities, adaptability, language, and various forms of intelligence that separate us from other species; and it's easy to see that what we think of as different races are equally gifted in those areas across populations (if not so across individuals).

Good points.

 

[Tosa]

No, Thomas Jefferson was probably not referring to aptitude for sports. I just used sports as examples because there are more observable racial patterns that may also be easier to swallow than in areas like academics. No, you shouldn't assume things, but that doesn't mean that certain groups aren't better/worse at certain things in general than others. And it's not so much that I think people are unequal, more like different in certain areas.

I can agree with that. Although someone should be careful in this area to make sure that conclusions are based on solid facts. And should also recognize these differences don't necessarily coincide with what we consider to be ethnic groups.

That may play a part in East Asian culture of modern times. But even way back Before the Common Era, the Han dynasty in China was probably the most advanced civilization at the time in terms of education. One thing that was unique about China throughout most of their history, including the Han era, was that the "scholar-gentry" class was essentially the highest social class (under the royal family of course). Education has been very highly valued in Chinese culture long before modernization.

Probably because education was essential to a large, advanced civilization...a parallel would be the importance of education in ancient Rome. It could also be in part due to being able to obtain good government jobs by doing well on exams (which would have been a huge opportunity for many people)...which required an education.

A better question is why western countries don't put even more of an emphasis on education. Although I think this is starting get off topic.

 

[Origins]

Probably because education was essential to a large, advanced civilization...a parallel would be the importance of education in ancient Rome. It could also be in part due to being able to obtain good government jobs by doing well on exams (which would have been a huge opportunity for many people)...which required an education.

A better question is why western countries don't put even more of an emphasis on education. Although I think this is starting get off topic.

That's the thing, though. Education was valued more highly in Han China than in ancient Rome. In Rome education was important to be successful for a young patrician but it wasn't really an institution in and of itself.

Yes, we wouldn't want to get off-topic or anything.

 

[Tosa]

That's the thing, though. Education was valued more highly in Han China than in ancient Rome. In Rome education was important to be successful for a young patrician but it wasn't really an institution in and of itself.

I'm not familar enough with Chinese and Roman history to make a strong statement about in which case education was more important. If you do know something about this, please do share, as I'd probably find it interesting.

Regardless, we can say that the importance of education in ancient China is cultural or related to the necessity of running a large country rather than genetic because China doesn't represent a homignous ethnic group, or a consistent ethnic group overtime.

 

[pz]

They should've held the event in Dublin, CA -- it's 6 miles from San Ramon and it's DUBLIN.

 

[turbozed]

They should've held the event in Dublin, CA -- it's 6 miles from San Ramon and it's DUBLIN.

Haha, good point. Or maybe they should've held it in the East Bay in the city of Hercules.

 

[Real_Mckenzie]

Lol look what I started.

 

[turbozed]

Somewhere in Northern California, Glenn is reading this thread and wondering what happened.

 

[KnightTemplar]

Lol look what I started.

Just for you, McKenzie:

'There had been a battle, a slaughter battle, a fight of horror in which a valley had reeked of blood. And Ivar Ivarson, the most powerful Dane in Northumbria, had been defeated by Aed of Scotland.

We heard more the next day when nearly sixty new survivors arrived...and they were still reeling from the butcher's work they had endured. Ivar had been lured across a river into a valley where he thought Aed had taken refuge. But it was a trap. The hills on either side had been thick with Scots who came howling down out of the mist and the heather to hack intot he Danish shield-walls.

"There were thousands of them", one man told me. And he was still shaking as he spoke.

Ivar's shield-wall had held, but I could well imagine the ferocity of that battle; my father had fought the Scots many times, and he always described them as devils. Mad devils, he said, sword devils. Howling devils. And Ivar's Danes told us how they rallied from that first assualt, and used sword and spear to cut the devils down, and still the shrieking hordes came. Climbing over their own dead, their wild hair red with blood, their swords hissing. And Ivar had tried to climb north out of the valley to reach the high ground.

That ment cutting and cleaving a path through flesh, and he failed. Aed had then led his household troops against Ivar's best men, and the shields clashed and the swords sang and one by one, the warriors died. Ivar had fought like a fiend but he took a sword wound in the chest and a spear in the leg and his own men dragged him from the shield-wall while he raved at them and demanded to die facing his enemies.

The rear of the Danish army still held and Ivar's son, just sixteen years old, led a charge that broke through the encircling Scots and led a charge for the river. score more Danes died as they tried to cross the river in the growing dark. Some, weighed down by their chain-mail, drowned. Others were butchered in the shadows by the Scots. But Ivar and perhaps one-sixth of the Danish army made it across to the other bank. Where they formed a shield wall as night fell. Listening to the screams of their dieing men. And the howling of the Scots...':icon_twis

- Sword Song by Bernard Cornwall.