Talk:Races

First Reactions

What an extremely interesting article! And it highlights an underlying change of precisely why IB is so different in some ways from *here*. Still, I'll bet some folks take this whole idea waaaayyyy too far (the American Snorist Party for one). And a minor quibble--the European Central Race seems very generalized. While I realize that is kinda the whole idea, maybe a better name would be something like TransAlpine? Or maybe I'm misunderstanding. Zahir 11:51, 27 February 2006 (PST)

Thank you. Yes, I was thinking about the same too actually - maybe actually there would be 4 European races (one Scandinavian, second - English, Germans, Veneds, etc., third - Arabs, Spanish, Greeks, fourth - north Indians, maybe people from Caucassus), so I think the number and actual names of races are still not final, maybe someone who is more interested in genetics and such could help even more as according to this article the whole idea of races is much more developed and more proffessional in IB than *here*. As for some groups, you are right, though the Snorism is probably more related to Slavic culture rather than any race. Abdul-aziz 12:09, 27 February 2006 (PST)

I think Coreans would be considered closer to the Japanese subrace than the Chinese subrace. In Japan, they'd be grouped together as the Nissen race (a common view *here* at various times, particularly the Japanese colonial period of Korea, though not right now) Nik 14:29, 27 February 2006 (PST)

I have to say personnaly that I feel *very* uncomfortable about this. The whole measurement thing is too close to eugenism and race theory for me. I'm not saying that it can't exist *there* but to have it being a mainstream view could too easily lead us down a few paths I'd rather not thread on. --Marc Pasquin 14:47, 27 February 2006 (PST)

That's a good point. Particularly the idea of such a standardized, systematic, division. I prefer to think that racial views vary from country to country. In addition, I'd suspect that there would be rather more mixing *there* than *here*, with a less pronounced history of slavery, seggregation, etc. Nik 14:53, 27 February 2006 (PST)

Thats true. If anything, with condominiums and all, the notion of ethnicity might be more a question of choices then where you were born (or what you look like).--Marc Pasquin 15:00, 27 February 2006 (PST)

Knowing that there had been no (or few) elements of racism as such in the history of IB, such theories aren't any worse than are linguistic theories which classifies various languages in families and groups. It is not indicated anywhere that any of the races is worse than others, nor there had been, and thus the issue would cause much less stir. In IB as well non-white nations have been more important historically than they were in the real world (e.g. China, Ethiopia, amerindians in NAL), thus altering the *here's* white-centered world to different directions. As such, I believe the aknowledgemnt of differences would be not less important but even more important - for example, there would probably be different "beauty standards" for different races. In *here's* world most of actors, singers, models and such who achieved a worldwide fame are either whites or mixed with whites (with, of course, few notable exceptions) and the western beauty standards influences even non-western societies; in IB I assume this would be somewhat different. Therefore, although given our world's history it is perhaps even spooky to think of it this way, human races would be regarded in some way as animal breeds. In the world where racism was not a larger problem than are jokes about blondes and where people of one races did not exploit another races on the basis of race with the exception of few cases however, scientific approach and investigation of races would not raise any serious trouble (not any more than classification of animals or languages) I believe; especially not until the mid-20th century. As for particular classification, the way I view it it (and the way it is currently written in the article) the classification is mostly from early 20th century racology - afterwards, with the advancements in DNA and such, racology moved from what it was towards what is *here's* modern genetics and anthropology. Of course, now probably various genetical analysis would be done instead of measuring skull and such, although some people might use the traditional ways still. Indeed, there would have been intermixing, especially in the last century, and probably it would be one of the reasons why the old conception of races would be somewhat changing. And indeed, local social terms would still exist (Afroes, Euroes in NAL, probably metszos in Latin America, etc.) same as they do in the real world, but in more scientific/official contexts these "racological" names would be used. As for how widespread the ideas would be, I am not sure - the idea that races exist would be common (i.e. there would be not more those who denies it than there are those who would claim that ethnicities/nationalities doesn't exist in the real world) and due to higher development and scientific research and less stigmas about the issue, there would be the widely accepted classification of races (similarly to classification of languages or that of animals for example); on what exactly the classification would be, however, it still can be debated. However, as for the idea of measurements - I am not sure how many people would actually do that, after all, that is not really needed in most places; as for models and actors however, it could be done, similarly to the measurements of figure. And as well given the less reason to talk about it actually it would probably be talked less about race and related issues than it is done *here* (i.e. no race-related affirmative action, accusations of discrimination and such). And, with the breakthroughs with DNA and such, generally the racial classification would be used less by scientists nowadays and more just as one of means to somewhat describe someone's looks in one word. Abdul-aziz 15:51, 27 February 2006 (PST)

I agree. One of the interesting aspects of IB to me is that in a lot of ways it is a better place than *here* and to trace why that might be so as well as the logical extensions of same. Seems clear that *there* racism is quite different--more subtle, less pervasive, and in much of the world simply less virulent. One result, it seems to me, would be that certain ideas would be less taboo. Just as Anti-Semitism in IB is less taboo (because of no Holocaust) so any discussion of the actual make-up and definition of ethnicity would be less fraught with tensions.

Contrariwise, there is a human tendency to find the "other" and demonize it. This is a natural impulse, but like the one to smash your sibling's mouth sometimes, it isn't one over which we have no control. I am sure that IB must have targets for collective insecurities and paranoia to some degree. But in IB it has generally not been race that ended up the focus of same, hence few if any attempts at genocide. Zahir 07:50, 28 February 2006 (PST)

I still doubt the plausibility of a single, universally-agreed-upon, racial division. I'd imagine that there'd be a great deal of controversy, with some groups, for nationalistic purposes, claiming relationship to other groups, or, conversely, claiming to be a distinct race from their neighbors. This could be one division, but I don't think it'd the sole division Nik 12:01, 28 February 2006 (PST)

You are right I believe that there exists different perceptions and different names for races (such as Afros and Euros in NAL), however, these divisions are not considered scientific. The description of e.g. "ethnicity" in the times of genetics would be decided upon by the general racologic community, similarly as e.g. the exact lenghts of various metric units are decided upon. Thus, ethnicity would have to have differences in some genes (the numbers, percentages and what genes would be decided uopon) to be considered a seprate ethnicity and, furthermore, these differences would have to be among whole populations (e.g. whole population in one place differs from surrounding populations due to lack of intermarriages in the past (due to political or geographical boundaries most likely) and thus is considered a separate ethnicity or subethnicity). Indeed, some groups might say as you suggested, however I believe with the general smaller importance of races, lack of historical pretext (no nazism and such), such claims would be less used: probably the groups would be more likely to claim that their culture is superior or that their religion is superior for example (e.g. pro-Slavic SNOR) rather than that their genes are superior/race is superior. There could still be theories that e.g. IQ of some races is higher, similarly as there are in the real world (see book IQ and the Wealth of Nations), but, however, that would be seen as aknowledgement of differences rather than racism as such and in general there would be very little sentiment of claiming that some particular race is just *better* than others (similarly as e.g. there is very little sentiment of claiming that some languages are better than others in the real world, although it might be aknowledged in various researches that some languages has more rich vocabularity or that some languages supposedly are more fit for one topics, while others - for other topics). Larger intermixing of races would ave also played a role here, as well as the higher historical achievements of the non-white races. The acceptation of the classification itself could be compared to the languages in the real world: there had been some trying to prove that one language belongs to another group or family for political reasons (e.g. Soviet attempts to say that Moldavian is not Romanian language but rather a Slavic language heavily influenced by the Romanian language), but in general this is rare and the common classification is commonly accepted - of course, some parts of this classification are debatable, such as the place of Japanese or Korean languages, and similarly some parts of the racological classification would be debatable too probably with several theories existing, although with the availability of genetics it would be more decided upon I think. Abdul-aziz 12:43, 28 February 2006 (PST)

I disagree. Views of racial superiority have existed for a long time. The abscence of Naziism wouldn't mean the abscence of racism. In fact, if anything, it might mean that doctrines of racial superiority/inferiority wouldn't be considered as unacceptable as they are *here*. Just because slavery was abolished earlier doesn't mean that blacks were instantly accepted as equal to whites. There still would've been a long road to acceptance, a civil rights movement, albeit one that started earlier. And as for SNOR, it was my impression that they upheld, not the superiority of Slavic culture, but the superiority of the Slavic race.

Besides which, race can't be classified as easily as language. Even with languages, you have dialect continuums, but you also generally have fairly clean lines between, e.g., French and German. Race, on the other hand, is far more fluid. You can't draw lines as easily as with language.

Personally, I suspect that the idea of race is, in most of the IB world, seen as less important than *here*. Nationality and culture, rather, would be more important Nik 13:28, 28 February 2006 (PST)

Indeed, nazism was an example - I did not imply that racism started with nazism, although nazism is *a* if not *the* reason why some forms of even non-racistic (that is, not implying that some races are worse than others) attempts of division of humanity into races, various related genetic things, researches and such are considered as unacceptable now. As you have noted yourself, if not nazism such sciences and research would probably be more acceptable, as is noted in this article. Now, as for the theories of the racial superiority themselves, a heavy push for them was the Essay About the Inequality of Human Races by Joseph Arthur Comte de Gobineau; the ideas of racism weren't prevelan through ages, they appeared with renaisance, time of great geographic discoveries mostly. Large portions of racistic texts were backed (and largely one of the reasons for the racism was) the underdeveloping of the non-white, especially black and amerindian, nations, which was not such evident in IB. As for the slavery, from what I understand, in IB it was not only abolished earlier, but generally existed to a smaller extent; smaller ammounts of blacks were enslaved, smaller amounts lives in NAL, there was no civil war and such. As well the importance of amerindians in NAL, the existance of amerindian nations in South America (Tawatinsuyu) indicates less friction between the whites and amerindians and more cohesion. I am not sure if the reasons for that were exploited yet, but maybe we can assume amerindians were more developed, mesoamericans didn't adhere the religious practices that horrified the Europeans or something like that. Fact is fact however that there was less friction here too. And indeed I agree that the idea of race is viewed as less important in IB - although more explored and less a taboo, due to the non-existance (or smaller existance) of the mentioned discrimination and racism related issues. Due to this reason however, the issue of race is less talked about outside specific enviroiments - there are no affirmitive action policies, frequent allegiations of racism, racist attacks or murders, racist protests (KKK, etc.), that are existant and making news in the real world; therefore, the racial issue overally is less important in IB. As for SNOR, it can be that way also that they (or some snorists) would claim genetic superiority if it is QSS; however the view of most other people towards the Slavs of course would not be as that towards a separate race and if they would not like Slavs for some reason (e.g. SNORism), this would be politically and culturally based rather than racially I assume. The doctrines of superiority/inferiority might be indeed considered to be a less touchy subject in IB, but they would be far less popular both historically and currently and thus much less of the issue. As for the classification, as I have said, the modern scientists in IB would have dropped the *scientific* use of such classification and it is mostly a remnant of early 20th century's racology. It is however still commonly used among people, in magazines and such, similarly as we use words "blacks" or "whites" to describe those races - even though, as you have said, actually it is not so easy to describe. According to this proposal in IB the black/white classification would have fallen out of use by early 20th century due to the heavy criticism from racologists and changed by a better(?) system. Currently it can be assumed that this system is as well under criticism by the modern scientists, but it would take far more time for it to be altered somehow or to go away than it perhaps would in the real world, because of the lack of social pressure (i.e. the taboo of racism, similarity to nazism and such) to push such abandonment. Abdul-aziz 14:00, 28 February 2006 (PST)

Hmmm ... I see what you're saying now. So, this is more of an historic division, which still has some popular usage, then? I would imagine that many of the subraces would tend to be ignored in modern times, especially by groups outside of those racial groupings. For example, many Asians would pay close attention to the subdivisions of their Eastern group, while tending to clump together Europeans, and vice versa. Suggestion: Instead of "European", how about "Indo-European", since it includes Arabs and North Indians? Nik 15:23, 28 February 2006 (PST)

I've read the points but I'm still against having this proposal being accepted as being maintream in any way. mention like "baltic subrace" and "Eastern and European races together makes the Northern superrace" might not be meant to sound like nazi propaganda but, well, they do. --Marc Pasquin 16:07, 28 February 2006 (PST)

Nik you are right about the fact that general people would stick more to exploring the subraces of their "own" race and ignore those of other racial groupings. As for change for the name of European race, it indeed might be convinient, although perhaps Indoeuropean is not the best name either as it would associate with the Indoeuropean languages, and e.g. Arabs, Jews, Turks, Fins, Estonians, Hungarians and others are part of this race, but not speakers of the Indoeuropean languages. As for it being nazi propaganda, I guess the view that Europeans and Asians are a part of same racial grouping would not have been exactly liked in the nazi times, despite the fact that indeed genetically Europeans and Asians are relatively close together (and, contrary to a popular belief, the skin of Chinese for example is not really darker than European skin); but according to the nazi racism, even Jews were considered a separate race, so it is quite different. Similarly, most modern racist systems doesn't considers e.g. Arabs to be whites, as well despite the similar looks. Terms "superrace" does not means that it is race that is "super" of course, but rather that it is a grouping larger than race. Particular terms like that can be changed however if it feels that something else would be more convinient. Abdul-aziz 06:33, 1 March 2006 (PST)

Nazi racial ideology was actually quite a bit more complex than is generally suppposed (if no less looney). The official line was that a race of godlike humans once walked the earth but that they polluted their bloodlines via beastiality, resulting the mongrelized types of humanity that exist today. Thus it was assumed that every ethnic group had varrying degrees of this "divine" blood, with the Germanic peoples having the most and Jews having the very least. Long term plans for the SS included breeding programs (which had in fact begun) to try and breed out the bestial traits and get back to a more pure, godlike form. It was expected to take a couple of centuries, at the end of which (Himmler insisted) a race of blonde warriors with amazing psychic and occult powers would rule the world. Zahir 08:42, 1 March 2006 (PST)

Did not know about this actually - well, in that case this proposal then has very little to do with nazi theories, as, of course, no such theories would exist or would have ever reached a wider following in the IB (maybe just in that book by Adolf Hitler the author). Abdul-aziz 14:41, 1 March 2006 (PST)

Racology to Raceology

It comes out, in my english mind as Rackology, and I know that's not what you're going for. I've changed it to raceology... BoArthur 11:41, 12 April 2006 (PDT)

About De-proping

Could be wrong but I'm not entirely sure concensus was achieved here to allow it to be deproposalised yet. The discussion just fizzled out.--Marc Pasquin 19:29, 20 July 2006 (PDT)

Maybe we could bring it up on conculture? BoArthur 19:30, 20 July 2006 (PDT)

Probably a good idea. --Marc Pasquin 19:36, 20 July 2006 (PDT)

I think the majority agreed with what is written in the article... I don't know if an unilaterial agreement is needed. If there are any particular suggestions they are welcome. Abdul-aziz 01:00, 21 July 2006 (PDT)

I'm still extremely uncomfortable with this article and agree that it should be taken to conculture first before being considered QSS. Deiniol 20:24, 7 August 2006 (PDT)

This needs to go to conculture and be discussed there. Please put it up there with any introduction you feel would be good to write, AA. :) BoArthur 07:00, 8 August 2006 (PDT)

Ok, once I will get home and will have time to participate in discussions (late August or early September most likely). Abdul-aziz 05:45, 10 August 2006 (PDT)