[Closed] Is this racist?

I think sampling bias and social conditioning will have played a massive part in the results of the survey.

No. It would be racist to discriminate against someone on the basis of their skin colour, but compiling data on who's fittest doesn't discriminate at all.

This pathological fear of racism that seems to be being instilled in society does more harm than racism itself, IMHO.

I think sampling bias and social conditioning will have played a massive part in the results of the survey

I think it really depends on how scientific the data was, and an online poll doesn't sound the most scientific thing in the world.

This pathological fear of racism that seems to be being instilled in society does more harm than racism itself, IMHO

yeah, that's what people like you always say

I do think common Western concepts of beauty are skewed very heavily towards White folk; just take a look at the vast majority of advertising out there, speshly for beauty products, fashion an ting.

I don't think he can use a term like 'attractiveness' in any scientific context though, as it's far too subjective an issue, surely?

Dr Kanazawa has an online column on Psychology Today called "A Look at the Hard Truths About Human Nature".
It includes posts with titles such as: "Are All Women Essentially Prostitutes?', "If Beautiful People Have Daughters, Why Do Posh and Becks Have Three Sons?", "More Intelligent People Are More Likely to Binge Drink and Get Drunk" and "Girls Are More Intelligent Than Boys, But Men Are More Intelligent Than Women".

Sounds like Dr Kanazawa is a little bit more inertested in courting publicity and controversy than actual proper scientific research. I find it bizarre that time, money and educational resources are wasted on such ultimately meaningless crap though.

Do people scour the media actively looking for reasons to be offended?

I think it's just these uppity wannbes who read newspapers

Is the study racist in and of itself? Of course not.

Were the people who completed the poll racist? Perhaps. It's hard to tell. In the absense of any further information, it's feasible that white women scored higher simply because more white men took part in the poll, or that the samples voted on were skewed.

Are his conclusions racist? Perhaps. He forms conclusions as to why he's got the results he has, and we can't tell solely from the BBC article as to whether that's anything other than concjecture. He's essentially saying that black women are fatter and more masculine than white women, which is a pretty inflammatory thing to be claiming without some serious evidence to back it up, and I'd perhaps argue that an average score of 3.5 against one of 3.7 isn't all that statistically significant (assuming that it's a well-conducted study at all, which I've not bothered to look into).

Do people scour the media actively looking for reasons to be offended?

I find that offencive.

This pathological fear of racism that seems to be being instilled in society does more harm than racism itself, IMHO

I do think common Western concepts of beauty are skewed very heavily towards White folk; just take a look at the vast majority of advertising out there, speshly for beauty products, fashion an ting.

I also think 'concepts of beauty' follow trends and fashions, and aren't set in stone. Examples of this are the pointy bras of the 1950s, and the bustles of Victorian ladies to emphasise their arses. And yet neither pointy knockers nor big sticking-out arses are considered to be particular 'sexy' today. Another example was the habit in Chaucer's day for women to shave the front of their hair so that their foreheads appeared larger, thereby conveying an image which suggested that they were 'brainy' .........today very few men are greatly attracted to woman by her intelligence.

And my own preferences have changed over the years - whilst I have also been very attracted to Asian women, I was never much attracted to black women when I was younger. Today however I find black woman particularly attractive. Which is handy 'cause there plenty around my manor - and some of them are well horny.

btw I reckon Dr Satoshi Kanazawa is an ugly ****er.

I have a particular penchant for fair, blue-eyed Nordic beauties.

I am small and swarthy with dark eyes...

Oi Elfin ! Keep your eyes off our women !

This pathological fear of racism that seems to be being instilled in society does more harm than racism itself, IMHO.

Wow.

He's a very interesting man:

[i]Dr Kanazawa has an online column on Psychology Today called "A Look at the Hard Truths About Human Nature".
It includes posts with titles such as: "Are All Women Essentially Prostitutes?', "If Beautiful People Have Daughters, Why Do Posh and Becks Have Three Sons?", "More Intelligent People Are More Likely to Binge Drink and Get Drunk" and "Girls Are More Intelligent Than Boys, But Men Are More Intelligent Than Women".[/i]

Needs to get a proper job, the twonk.

fail

yum . . .
[img] [/img]

[i]I have a particular penchant for fair, blue-eyed Nordic beauties.[/i]

+1 😀

So how is saying black women are on average less attractive and black men on average more attractive racist?

I have a particular penchant for fair, blue-eyed Nordic beauties.

I am small and swarthy with dark eyes...

Your best strategy then Elf is to try and convince them you are a troll from Nordic mythology and you can be their pet.

today very few men are greatly attracted to woman by her intelligence

I suspect that is not as true as is commonly assumed.

So how is saying black women are on average less attractive and black men on average more attractive racist?

There's a difference between saying 'I like X' and 'X is good'

By the twisted logic of today, if anyone thinks it's racist, it is racist. Fair play to the guy for pulling a professors salary for doing this stuff. Knowing newspapers will print any old crap will keep his research going pretty much forever as long as we are dumb enough to keep paying his wages.

I suspect that is not as true as is commonly assumed.

Only if they are librarians or secretaries* molgrips ......that changes everything.

* or they put glasses on in porn films to look like ones.

Your best strategy then Elf is to try and convince them you are a troll from Nordic mythology and you can be their pet.

🙂

I have bin petted by Norwegian ladies...

I have bin pitied by Norwegian ladies

Better?

That too, probbly, but if their pity turns to petting, then I'm not complaining...

It might lead to the pity petting of tiny feet

Dem black folk sure do have a good sense ob riddem, doe. Hup yes, boy!!

Eh?

It isn't racist, its subjective based on professor tw@s study. I'm white, my wife is black. I like [i]attractive women regardless of race.

Its easy, Alicia Keys (black), Nicole Scherzinger (Hispanic), or Keira Knightly (Caucasian)?

Would you turn any of them down due to thier racial background? Some other reason possibly.... but not racial.

I woon't turn any woman down [s]due to race[/s]. 🙁

I like attractive women regardless of race.

The same is true of everyone who likes women. It's just the definition of what's attractive that differs. Which leads to,

Would you turn any of them down due to thier racial background? Some other reason possibly.... but not racial.

... I'm rarely, if ever, attracted to non-caucasian women. It's nothing to do with racism or race per se, it just doesn't do it for me. As a counterpoint to that, I'm not usually attracted to blondes either.

Seriously??

Wow, that's very limiting. I find that very strange tbh.

Extreme indeed. I can't see myself saying, "Sorry Nicole/Alicia, I would have if you were caucasian, but please put your kit back on love, and thiers the door"

Junkyard - Member
tell that to jewish people or perhaps to those who suffered ethnic cleansing inthe former Yugoslavia or in Africa. Could you [b]sight[/b] how many millions have died and been persecuted as a result of this "pathological fear of racism" or any actual real harm to anyone?

I wouldn't normally reply to such a clumsy post, but the level of ill-informed ignorance that you display in so few words astounds me! For starters, the persecution of Jews is not racism; it's religious persecution, not racial.

And no, I couldn't "sight" the figures you request. At the moment, all I can "sight" is a messy desk and a computer. 🙄

For starters, the persecution of Jews is not racism

Jesus wept. And you have the temerity to suggest someone else is ignorant??? 😯

Ohh I find black women hugely attractive... mmmmm

tell that to jewish people or perhaps to those who suffered ethnic cleansing inthe former Yugoslavia or in Africa. Could you sight how many millions have died and been persecuted as a result of this "pathological fear of racism" or any actual real harm to anyone?

I don't think there is a jewish 'race' to discriminate against...

Elfinsafety - Member
Jesus wept. And you have the temerity to suggest someone else is ignorant???

Excuse me? "Jews" in the modern sense of the word are followers of a religion, not a race. So yes, Junkyard is rather ignorant on the matter, as, it would seem, are you.

Feel free to 'cite' the Jewish quest for their own holy land as reason for them being a race, but you'd be wrong. There are followers of Judaism from many races.

Dr Satoshi Kanazawa had some other good ideas though, like this one:

http://crookedtimber.org/2008/03/11/in-the-eea-tactical-nuclear-weapons-were-highly-fitness-enhancing/

Wow, that's very limiting. I find that very strange tbh.

I'm not deliberately limiting anything, it's just what I do and don't find attractive. I've bisexual friends who think it limiting that I only like women.

Whether I'd kick them out of bed for eating crisps is another matter, but I'd be unlikely to be pinning their photos up on the wall (metaphorically speaking).

I'm explaining this quite badly, aren't I...!

I'm pretty sure Alicia Keys is mixed race.

And that she has been cited, among other women, as a reason why in the Western world we don't accept the beauty of darker skinned black women.

she has been cited, among other women, as a reason why in the Western world we don't accept the beauty of darker skinned black women.

?!

I just googled here cos I wasn't exactly sure who she was, and figured she'd probably be an exception, she's pretty.

Ah, sorry, I'm with you - darker-skinned black women as opposed to fairer-skinned black women.

I wonder if it's actually skin colour, or if it's more to do with "western" facial features?

Well personally I think it's facial features, but there have been studies and documentaries looking at the rise in cosmetic products to lighten skin and also cosmetic surgery purely aimed at making people look more western.

I'd imagine if you asked someone from Africa who hadn't been tainted by Western media what they thought of such 'beauties' as Kiera Knightly they'd think they were shocking, pale malnourished freaks.

Each to their own. (not in a segregationist way)

I'd imagine if you asked [s]someone from Africa who hadn't been tainted by Western media[/s] me what [s]they[/s] I thought of such 'beauties' as Kiera Knightly [s]they'd[/s] I'd think they were shocking, pale malnourished freaks

FFS! Look at Cougar, nothing except Caucasian until he saw a picture of Alicia Keys. Prove's my point - its what you consider to be attractive not whether she's black, white etc....

S. Yeti - people have been lightening and darkening (ever sat in the sun to get tanned?) and used many "props" for centurities to conform to what may be considered to be "fashionably attractive" at the time.

In reality beauty is in the eye of the beholder...

Kryton - I know. It is our social condition that drive such trends.

Pale skin - doesn't have to work outside, sign of wealth...
Pale Skin - can't afford a decent holiday... sign of poverty...
Pale skin... sign of education... doesn't want to get skin cancer.

Western media plays a big part in the west believing white features are more attractive.

i'm definitely not racist, i have a black friend.

Excuse me? "Jews" in the modern sense of the word are followers of a religion, not a race. So yes, Junkyard is rather ignorant on the matter, as, it would seem, are you.

Oh right, because you've just redefined what it is to be Jewish then. I'll just tell all my Jewish friends who don't practice the religion that they aren't Jewish any more....

And Hitler's aversion to Jews was nothing to do with their Semitism or his Eugenicist philosophies of a 'Master Race', then. No, course not.

So if a Jew chooses to convert to another religion are they cursed as always being a jew then?

Open to interpretation I think.

Well I think I'll take the interpretation of people who are actually Jewish, if it's all the same.

now you are just being anti-semitic:

http://www.jewfaq.org/judaism.htm

In the 1980s, the United States Supreme Court ruled that Jews are a race, at least for purposes of certain anti-discrimination laws. Their reasoning: at the time these laws were passed, people routinely spoke of the "Jewish race" or the "Italian race" as well as the "Negro race," so that is what the legislators intended to protect.

But many Jews were deeply offended by that decision, offended by any hint that Jews could be considered a race. The idea of Jews as a race brings to mind nightmarish visions of Nazi Germany, where Jews were declared to be not just a race, but an inferior race that had to be rounded up into ghettos and exterminated like vermin.

But setting aside the emotional issues, Jews are clearly not a race.

Race is a genetic distinction, and refers to people with shared ancestry and shared genetic traits. You can't change your race; it's in your DNA. I could never become black or Asian no matter how much I might want to.

Common ancestry is not required to be a Jew. Many Jews worldwide share common ancestry, as shown by genetic research; however, you can be a Jew without sharing this common ancestry, for example, by converting. Thus, although I could never become black or Asian, blacks and Asians have become Jews (Sammy Davis Jr. and Connie Chung).

Or to simplify the point further for the benefit of padded-brain, Hitler would have had no problem with me, but had my brother decided to convert to Judaism, he'd have been sent off for a shower.

The point junkyard was trying to make, is that Jewish persecution was a matter of racism. That Jews have been persecuted while their countrymen of other religions have not, proves MY point exactly - that this is an example of religious hatred, not racial.

And obviously, you're going to get differing opinions from certain sectors of the Jewish community based on their politico-religious leanings.

Shibboleth - Member

Excuse me? "Jews" in the modern sense of the word are followers of a religion, not a race. So yes, Junkyard is rather ignorant on the matter, as, it would seem, are you.

Feel free to 'cite' the Jewish quest for their own holy land as reason for them being a race, but you'd be wrong. There are followers of Judaism from many races.

That may be so, but there still exists a Semitic ethnic group that is not Arab, and that we call 'Jewish'. Perhaps a different name might be appropriate, but it is generally accepted that the word 'Jewish' refers both to a religion and to a race/ethnic group of people. So no, Elfinsafety is not reflecting ignorance. Know-it-alls who think they're being clever by challenging an entirely appropriate use of a word are.

As for the features of women from an African background, I would suspect that the psychologist's data is indeed skewed by an overrepresentation of respondants with a European background.

From a personal point of view, I had never appreciated the beauty of Black people before I moved to the Caribbean, when I realised that my concept of beauty was, without a doubt, entirely shaped by having grown up in a predominantly European place. Once I lived among people of African origin, it was plain that, while our respective assumptions about beauty were strong, they were also just that: assumptions. That is, they were easily dispelled as we adapted to a new context.

The point junkyard was trying to make, is that Jewish persecution was a matter of racism.

In the context of the Nazi Holocaust, it was. Hitler saw the Jews as sub-human, and potential pollutants of his dream of an ethnically pure Aryan Master Race.

So when you say this:

For starters, the persecution of Jews is not racism

You are quite clearly wrong.

And go have a look round places like Stamford Hill, which has one of the largest orthodox Jewish communities outside Israel. you might notice certain common physical facial characteristics amongst those people, which distinguishes them on ethnic terms from other groups in that area.

I know you really want to look all clever and that, but tbh, you're the one coming across as pretty ignorant Shib.

Nazi propaganda used race as the basis for the promotion of it's warped ideologies. Have a look at this:

[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]

And tell me that's got nothing to do with race.

SaxonRider - Member

That may be so, but there still exists a Semitic ethnic group that is not Arab, and that we call 'Jewish'. Perhaps a different name might be appropriate, but it is generally accepted that the word 'Jewish' refers both to a religion and to a race/ethnic group of people. So no, Elfinsafety is not reflecting ignorance. Know-it-alls who think they're being clever by challenging an entirely appropriate use of a word are.

Had the post been about the persecution of that group, then perhaps the use of the term "racism" would have been appropriate. Seeing as it was a reference to the persecution of followers of Judaism, then it is an inappropriate use.

Here you go Shib:

[img] [/img]

[i][b]"But many Jews were deeply offended by that decision, offended by any hint that Jews could be considered a race."[/b][/i]

Yeah the reason for that is that it would throw up the very awkward issue that Jews are not the only Semites, eg, the modern Palestinians, both Christian and Muslim, are also Semites. The are no racial differences between Palestinians Jews and Palestinian Christians and Muslims - they share the same DNA.

So to get round the little problem the Zionists had when they decided to steal the land from the Palestinians, they chose to call themselves "a people" ..... preferably a "Chosen People", which very conveniently excludes all non-Israeli Palestinians. That's chosen by God btw.

Obviously many Jews have non-semtic DNA, specially North European DNA. But I notice TurnerGuy that you chose to call Elfin "anti-semitic", why would you do that - if you reject the claim that Jews are a race?

Defining yourself as a Jew does not have anything to do with religion, in fact half of the Jews in Israel are "secular" Jews........clearly religion, contrary to your claim, is not the deciding factor.

Jews are a race, but they share their race with other people. In the same way that Kurds can be racially identified, despite the fact that do not constitute a separate race.

To get slightly back on track ....

I don't see how people can have a 'type' / demographic group that they find either attractive or unattractive. For me, it's all about the individual, so I find certain people attractive regardless of race, hair colour, build, height, gender etc Actually having read that, it makes me sound like a floozy ... it's not that I find everyone attractive, but more that I couldn't ever specify a particular 'type' in even the broadest terms.

You're confusing "attractive" with "physically attractive." There's plenty of people I fancy that I'd never dream of going anywhere near for any sort of relationship (assuming I was single that is). Some of the most attractive people I know wouldn't win any beauty contests.

The point junkyard was trying to make, is that Jewish persecution was a matter of racism. That Jews have been persecuted while their countrymen of other religions have not

This pathological fear of racism that seems to be being instilled in society does more harm than racism itself, IMHO.

I wouldnt say it was a racist paper, but I wouldnt trust it either. What's LSE (E for economics) doing this research for anyway?

The statement "Because they have existed much longer in human evolutionary history, Africans have more mutations in their genomes than other races." is absolutle rubbish.

If one believes the out of Africa hypothesis, which is generally accepted then yes humans started off as African and then migrated, random mutation occured and asian, european and other races originated from these mutations. So in fact I would argue that everyone, but Africans harboured more mutations than the norm. This bloke has taken his races DNA and compared it to Africans to claim they are more mutated. When he should be using African DNA as the reference sequence.

Bad science. I wouldn't give it the time of day. Who ever peer reviewed his paper are also morons.

Well, ...

I think we're missing the point a bit invoking the nazis in a discussion of black vs everybody else - nazis weren't only anti-jew as a single group, were they ? Gay people, gypsies (dunno, are they a race too?), communists, ... (how were they on christians?). Just all-round nasty ****ers IMO and there's no way that "racist" covers it alone; that's glossing over too much else that was so, so wrong.

They were surely "only" persecuting jews as a large majority because there were likely very few black/brown/yellow folk to hand - sure, xenophobic in the most exaggerated sense (anything different to their ideal) and unspeakably evil, but not (just) racist vs jews. If gays were easier to identify I guess there'd have been plenty (more) of them in the line than was the case

(If it had turned out different I do wonder what they'd had in mind for the Japanese, once the old 1000 yrs had started)

[as for the "research" - since we haven't seen his methods I don't suppose we can really say, but "****y" seems a likely favourite]