[General Battuta]

I want to be a Voltron formed out of Derrida, Judith Butler, and some other people I'm too lazy to look up.

fake edit because i looked some up: Gayle Rubin

[Black Wolf]

My problem is that what I want is social change from people - generally non-scientifically educated people at that. The easiest way to get that change from those people is to work through existing social constructs that they already understand. If, instead, we ignore the whole concept of race, we lose what can potentially be an advantage. It's about presentation to the masses.

MP Ryan - I'm not arguing the genetic evidence - obviously the old ideas of race don't apply in the biological sense. I would ask though, how would you practically separate a group into populations without using racial characteristics? Is it not OK, therefore, to use racial characteristics to target health care if there's an increased risk of one disease or another in a particular racial group (my above reference to diabetes, for example)? Incidentally, if there are medical differences that can be determined even after screening for lifestyle and social factors, those are biological distinctions, yes or no?

[General Battuta]

MP Ryan - I'm not arguing the genetic evidence - obviously the old ideas of race don't apply in the biological sense. I would ask though, how would you practically separate a group into populations without using racial characteristics?

How would you?

Take sub-Sarahan Africans, that's totally a racial group. How would you split that group up into populations using phenotypic characteristics?

[Unknown Target]

My problem is that what I want is social change from people - generally non-scientifically educated people at that.

I'm trying to do the same thing, though I don't see it as a problem.

The easiest way to get that change from those people is to work through existing social constructs that they already understand. If, instead, we ignore the whole concept of race, we lose what can potentially be an advantage. It's about presentation to the masses.

I disagree with all of these statements.

MP Ryan - I'm not arguing the genetic evidence - obviously the old ideas of race don't apply in the biological sense. I would ask though, how would you practically separate a group into populations without using racial characteristics?

Why must a population be separated or strung together through any other system other than what an individual chooses for themself? That seems the most "practical" to me.

[Black Wolf]

I'm not talking about segregation or anything UT. I'm thinking about from the government's perspective, for the provision of (mostly medical) services.

It might make more sense if you understand the geographic districution issues in Australia - i.e. far higher densities of aboriginal people in parts of the country.

[Unknown Target]

I'm not talking about segregation or anything UT. I'm thinking about from the government's perspective, for the provision of (mostly medical) services.

I know - why do it at all? If race doesn't matter, why put it on a government form? Just give aid to people who need it, rather than trying to pre-allocate aide to groups by virtue of what group they're in.

It might make more sense if you understand the geographic districution issues in Australia - i.e. far higher densities of aboriginal people in parts of the country.

I'm sure there's a similar issue here in the US somewhere, just given the way mixed demographics and environments we have all over the country.

[Black Wolf]

It's not a matter of forms or anything... OK, I'll give a specific example. 1/4 of the populatiion of the Northern Territory here are aboriginal. Previous studies have suggested that aboriginals have a higher risk of diabetes. If there's no biological basis for race, then those studies, almost certainly performed in another part of the country, probably on the east coast, are not applicable. So, should the federal government increase funding for diabetes prevention in the Northern Territory relative to other states and territories, with smaller aboriginal poulations, or not?

[General Battuta]

If there's no biological basis for race, then those studies, almost certainly performed in another part of the country, probably on the east coast, are not applicable.

I don't think that follows.

[General Battuta]

UT - please try to stay on topic with respect to the thread and make an effort to follow the course of discussions. If you can't participate in debate, you don't belong here.

[Unknown Target]

It's not a matter of forms or anything... OK, I'll give a specific example. 1/4 of the populatiion of the Northern Territory here are aboriginal. Previous studies have suggested that aboriginals have a higher risk of diabetes. If there's no biological basis for race, then those studies, almost certainly performed in another part of the country, probably on the east coast, are not applicable. So, should the federal government increase funding for diabetes prevention in the Northern Territory relative to other states and territories, with smaller aboriginal poulations, or not?

I think they should increase funding for diabetes prevention in the Northern Territory, but not because there are more aboriginal people there. I think they should increase it because there is a higher likelihood for diabetes in that area.

[General Battuta]

That I agree with, but it doesn't answer BlackWolf's question in other hypothetical scenarios. If you know a population is prone to a particular issue, do you base your decisions on that knowledge?

Say you know an area has a lot of undiagnosed diabetes sufferers. Do you send more tests to the doors of those who belong to a diabetes-prone population?

[StarSlayer]

It's not a matter of forms or anything... OK, I'll give a specific example. 1/4 of the populatiion of the Northern Territory here are aboriginal. Previous studies have suggested that aboriginals have a higher risk of diabetes. If there's no biological basis for race, then those studies, almost certainly performed in another part of the country, probably on the east coast, are not applicable. So, should the federal government increase funding for diabetes prevention in the Northern Territory relative to other states and territories, with smaller aboriginal poulations, or not?

I think they should increase funding for diabetes prevention in the Northern Territory, but not because there are more aboriginal people there. I think they should increase it because there is a higher likelihood for diabetes in that area.

If its not due to environmental factors, assigning aid to a general region then your failing to address the reason the aid is needed.

[Unknown Target]

That I agree with, but it doesn't answer BlackWolf's question in other hypothetical scenarios. If you know a population is prone to a particular issue, do you base your decisions on that knowledge?

Say you know an area has a lot of undiagnosed diabetes sufferers. Do you send more tests to the doors of those who belong to a diabetes-prone population?

If they're undiagnosed, how do you know that the area has a lot of diabetes sufferers?

[Unknown Target]

It's not a matter of forms or anything... OK, I'll give a specific example. 1/4 of the populatiion of the Northern Territory here are aboriginal. Previous studies have suggested that aboriginals have a higher risk of diabetes. If there's no biological basis for race, then those studies, almost certainly performed in another part of the country, probably on the east coast, are not applicable. So, should the federal government increase funding for diabetes prevention in the Northern Territory relative to other states and territories, with smaller aboriginal poulations, or not?

I think they should increase funding for diabetes prevention in the Northern Territory, but not because there are more aboriginal people there. I think they should increase it because there is a higher likelihood for diabetes in that area.

If its not due to environmental factors, assigning aid to a general region then your failing to address the reason the aid is needed.

Then maybe you should address the reason the aid is needed instead of assigning aid at all...?

[General Battuta]

That I agree with, but it doesn't answer BlackWolf's question in other hypothetical scenarios. If you know a population is prone to a particular issue, do you base your decisions on that knowledge?

Say you know an area has a lot of undiagnosed diabetes sufferers. Do you send more tests to the doors of those who belong to a diabetes-prone population?

If they're undiagnosed, how do you know that the area has a lot of diabetes sufferers?

Statistical inference. You're seeing a lot of cases and you know the diagnosis rate is low there because of inadequate screening and education.

[MP-Ryan]

My problem is that what I want is social change from people - generally non-scientifically educated people at that. The easiest way to get that change from those people is to work through existing social constructs that they already understand. If, instead, we ignore the whole concept of race, we lose what can potentially be an advantage. It's about presentation to the masses.

But the masses don't understand race to begin with.  The public at large doesn't really understand the loaded definition, the imperialist history, and the superiority silliness that accompanies the concept.  It's embedded in literature from the mid-18th century onward, and hit it's heyday in the 19th and 20th.  A flawed concept is not a good way to explain an issue to people.

MP Ryan - I'm not arguing the genetic evidence - obviously the old ideas of race don't apply in the biological sense. I would ask though, how would you practically separate a group into populations without using racial characteristics?

Biological screening.  Microarray analysis is friggin' cheap.  So are blood tests.  Both techniques work admirably and can be applied on a large scale quite affordably.  In circumstances where a medical issue is widespread enough to make screening impractical, it may often be easier to treat everyone with preventative measures (for things such as diabetes.

Is it not OK, therefore, to use racial characteristics to target health care if there's an increased risk of one disease or another in a particular racial group (my above reference to diabetes, for example)?

Nope, because it's equivalent (in term of rigor) to simply treating everyone, BUT has the added detraction that it will miss people and simultaneously treat others who don't require it.  Better to either screen, or treat everyone regardless of race.

Incidentally, if there are medical differences that can be determined even after screening for lifestyle and social factors, those are biological distinctions, yes or no?

Yes, but they are either distinctions between individuals or shared frequencies that constitute a distinct population (on those markers only).  In neither case are they related to the perceived race of the people involved (which is another good aside:  race is all about perception.  "Asians" are often perceived by "Caucasians" as a single racial group, but Japanese, Koreans, Chinese, Mongols, Vietnamese, Laotians, and Cambodians do not self-identify as a single cohesive racial group).

Digression:  this conversation has reminded me why I disliked my population genetics class so intensely.

[MP-Ryan]

It's not a matter of forms or anything... OK, I'll give a specific example. 1/4 of the populatiion of the Northern Territory here are aboriginal. Previous studies have suggested that aboriginals have a higher risk of diabetes. If there's no biological basis for race, then those studies, almost certainly performed in another part of the country, probably on the east coast, are not applicable. So, should the federal government increase funding for diabetes prevention in the Northern Territory relative to other states and territories, with smaller aboriginal poulations, or not?

The problem is in the definitions.  The population that fuzzily encompasses the racial definition of aboriginals has a higher risk of diabetes, not the racial group.  It comes down to laziness.  People LOVE categories, and it's an easy way to do research, but it misses a part of the picture because race is subjective.

Ashkenaze Jews are a population group that coincides with a cultural which have a very high incidence of Tay-Sachs disease relative to the general population - but screening is not limited to their cultural group, nor are all people who are members of that cultural group necessarily screened.  Screening is primarily aimed at their historical reproductive population.

[General Battuta]

This is for UT, so he knows what to say next time someone asks him to talk about recent trends in global political violence: Human Security Report.

[Grizzly]

Hmmm. I geuss you are right. But how is it not high on the agenda of Afghanistan? I thought our very presence there and us training the police force etc. was all towards achieving that goal.

The last Afghan election was blatantly rigged. Also there's not nearly as much of a fuss about things like access to legal counsel or corporal punishment.

You really think America only supports democracies, don't you?

Ah, thanks for clearing that up

And no, I really do not think America only supports democracies. In fact, I can not think of any statements I made which could attribute towards me thinking that (I mean... WHAT?). However, I am quite sure that the NATO (that is who I meant with 'us') presence in Afghanistan has something to do with getting the country more stable. Because then, they can mine their vast amounts of natural resources and we can buy them.

[Unknown Target]

-Joshua-, to be honest I think that the standard

"Oh what, you don't believe your country does X?" (specifically America these days)

is basically just a troll comment. An era of ignorance on the part of the American public towards it's governments' foreign adventures, both past and present, is rapidly coming to a close. I think that if anyone's discussing politics these days, they know that there's a problem with America and that it needs to be fixed.

And no, I really do not think America only supports democracies. In fact, I can not think of any statements I made which could attribute towards me thinking that (I mean... WHAT?). However, I am quite sure that the NATO (that is who I meant with 'us') presence in Afghanistan has something to do with getting the country more stable. Because then, they can mine their vast amounts of natural resources and we can buy them.

Then by "us" you must have meant Western Europe/North America?

But yea, our presence in Afghanistan really was towards promoting stability in the region...but instead of actually giving them the resources that they need, we try to help sides fight over what little resources in the area there are.

A friend of mine wondered why we send gunships to Afghanistan instead of cows? It seems that that's what they'd fight over most...the few resources that they have. Why don't we let more of the public in on what Israel's doing in Gaza? Maybe that would help build pressure in the US Government for Israel and Gaza to come to peaceful terms, that includes Israel giving up some land. Not a ton, an equal amount of land for land.