To me, the very term "reverse racism" is in effect racist, in that it assumes that there is a 'normal' or 'regular' type of racism and then there is its reverse. The way I see it, all human groups tend to be fearful or hateful of other groups (but also fascinated by them, it's complicated). So racism cuts both ways -- there's no front or reverse.

The inability to individuate is a key component to racism. It opens up a host of fallacies that the racist can never overcome, relegating his beliefs to a lower order of thought, and any action motivated by it to injustice. — NOS4A2

My vocabulary concerning English is very limited still, thank you for the eloquence with which you have replied.

Good points, as usual :clap:

:strong: :100:

So there were some non-African hominids in Europe (Neanderthals) and Asia (Denisovans). My knowledge of human evolution is limited to the out-of-Africa theory, our neanderthal and denisovan cousins which we probably assimilated and/or exterminated. :scream: That's one reason I don't feel "happy to be alive". My family tree is not something I would be proud of, soaked in the blood of so many my ancestors had to kill as it is — Agent Smith

There isn't a lot of evidence to support the idea that we either assimilated or exterminated our cousins. There was never a large population of Neanderthals in Europe, or so I understand. Small populations self-extinguish more easily than large ones. (That said, they survived as a species longer than we have.)

There is a great book on Neanderthals, out in 2020: Kindred: Neanderthal Life, Love, Death and Art by Rebecca Wragg Sykes. She not only brings the Neanderthals to life, she utilizes and explains a lot of very impressive science stuff applied to ancient archeology. Very informative and enjoyable.

:up:

Merci for the book recommendation.

The way I see it, all human groups tend to be fearful or hateful of other groups (but also fascinated by them, it's complicated). — Olivier5

Been thinking about this; maybe I was a bit hasty. Xenophobia might be nearly universal, as I pointed out, but xenophobia is not the same thing as racism, which as @180 Proof reminds us, is more than just a psychological trait: racism is an ideology.

Racism is the theory and practice – ideology – of the oppressor and his functionaries. — 180 Proof

And when understood as an ideology, racism is definitely Western, ie European and American, and a recent phenomenon ie dating from the 19th century onward.

Some Africans have developed a racist ideology too, eg Hutus vs Tutsis, but it seems that such were based upon the racist theories of European colonialists. In Asia there's plenty of ethnic prejudice as well, including some that is institutional (eg the treatment of non Siamese folks in Thailand) but to my knowledge it hasn't been made into an ideology yet.

Xenophobia — Olivier5

What then explains SETI? :chin: Peoples (hate) fear each other but then they're oh so eager to contact aliens. Something doesn't add up now does it?

That is true: there is such a thing as near universal xenophobia, and there is also such a thing as a near universal desire or attraction for the exotic -- which I like to call the "Pocahontas effect", or simply "xenophilia": sexual or intellectual attraction for other folks.

That is true: there is such a thing as near universal xenophobia, and there is also such a thing as a near universal desire or attraction for the exotic -- which I like to call the "Pocahontas effect", or simply "xenophilia": sexual or intellectual attraction for other folks. — Olivier5

Xenophilia?!

Most interesting. — Ms. Marple

I should've known. Which is the rule and which is the exception? Beats me!

n Asia there's plenty of ethnic prejudice as well, including some that is institutional (eg the treatment of non Siamese folks in Thailand) but to my knowledge it hasn't been made into an ideology yet. — Olivier5

It's not uncommon for Asians to believe that Westerners/whites are inherently incapable of spiritual advancement. I've encountered this attitude among Buddhists and Hindus.

(Whites are also banned from visiting some Hindu temples.)

Historically, we simply don't value the lives of men as much as we do women. — 64bithuman

it's perfectly possible for men's issues to coexist with women's issues and have them both be recognized as problematic. Dismissing white blue collar issues has become something of a hallmark of popular liberal politics. — 64bithuman

Really good post, by which I mean I agree. I see no one has really responded to the substance of your comment.

... xenophobia, and ... xenophilia
— Olivier5

Which is the rule and which is the exception? — Agent Smith

In my experience, heterosexual males tend to be attracted to females of another ethnicity, while being fearful of, or antagonistic to men from another ethnicity. Vice versa for hetero females. It makes sense from a Darwinian standpoint, given hybrid vigor.

E.g. even the worst "frog basher" wouldn't mind a French girlfriend...

:up:

So Darwin! Are races/ethnicities proto-species? We were treated as distinct species in the sense that once upon a time, when racism was at its peak, interracial unions were forbidden, punishable by death since even consensual marriages/sex were/was taken to be rape/beastiality or something like that. A species is defined as being able to breed, biologically speaking.

when racism was at its peak, interracial unions were forbidden, punishable by death since even consensual marriages/sex were/was taken to be rape/beastiality or something like that. — Agent Smith

Even in the antebellum American South, people were having much biracial sex, from what historians can tell. Slave owners were the first one to do so, due to their power over their victims, but there were also instances of consensual biracial sex, eg through prostitution. So even such a thoroughly racist society could not eradicate it. That's how powerful the sexual pull is between different ethnicities.

And for good (Darwinian) reasons: hybrids tend to be stronger than their parents. In a state of nature, biracial sex would give one's genes a greater chance of future survival and propagation than 'monoracial' sex.

Even in the antebellum American South, people were having much biracial sex, from what historians can tell. Slave owners were the first one to do so, due to their power over their victims, but there were also instances of consensual biracial sex, eg through prostitution. So even such a thoroughly racist society could not eradicate it. That's how powerful the sexual pull is between different ethnicities. — Olivier5

Tempus fugit.

Anecdotal evidence is just that.

Anecdotal evidence is often all there is, and I find its discarding rather facile, most of times.

Beside, there is ample historical evidence that the antebellum American South was both 1) adhering formally to a totally racist ideology justifying slavery and separating the 'races' in a form of apartheid; 2) having quite a lot of sex going on across the colour divide, as testified by the large mulatto population in the US. This contradiction cannot be explained other than by some strong sexual desire happening between 'races'.

You are using this alongside something posed as ‘Darwinian’ though - ie. Scientific. Optimal procreation is not simply about mating with someone more different than you are (note: the actual genetic differences within ‘races’ is far broader than between said ‘races’). The optimal last heard was to mate with your 3rd or 4th cousin I believe.

There is a natural desire between 'races'. This desire is strong enough to beat any apartheid law. That's all I wanted to point out.

I also said it made sense from a Darwinian standpoint, and I still think it does.

There can be no such thing as a scientifically optimal mate, because we cannot predict the kind of traits that will be beneficial in the future. We do know however that inbreeding and incest are risky strategies, and that maintaining some degree of genetic diversity minimizes risks.

E.g. if the ozone layer is depleted, only black people will have a chance to survive the resulting UV influx. Under such circumstances, a white skin would become a grave handicap.

I was stating fact not opinion. Scientifically speaking what I said was correct I dudn’t day it because it ‘makes sense’ it is just simply what experts in the field have stated.

These experts know more than you clearly. Too much genetic variation is too much. Too little is too little. There actually is an optimal range for procreation and this optimal range is regarded to be (by experts in the field) with breeding between 3rd and 4th cousins if I recall correctly.

I actually did just check. I was correct.

Just gonna leave this here:



I fucking love Shaun & Jen

Too much genetic variation is too much. Too little is too little. There actually is an optimal range for procreation and this optimal range is regarded to be (by experts in the field) with breeding between 3rd and 4th cousins if I recall correctly. — I like sushi

Please quote those experts of yours, then. That notion does not mix well with what I know of genetics, and I believe I know far more than you do.

Try googling it maybe before putting your foot in your mouth.

Bye bye.

You are in my sin bin again. See you in 2 months maybe.

Try googling it maybe before putting your foot in your mouth. — I like sushi

So you are unable or unwilling to provide any evidence for your claim that "There actually is an optimal range for procreation and this optimal range is regarded to be (by experts in the field) with breeding between 3rd and 4th cousins". I wonder why. It should be easy, if you just checked the info as you pretend.

I also wonder why your reaction is so defensive and angry. We are just having different views here. Where's the offence, pray tell?

Try googling it — I like sushi

Since Sushi's apparently gone, I did google it out of curiosity. Here is one source:

An association between the kinship and fertility of human couples
Authors
Agnar Helgason 1, Saebjörn Pálsson, Daníel F Gudbjartsson, Thornórdur Kristjánsson, Kári Stefánsson
Affiliation
1deCODE Genetics, Sturlugata 8, 101 Reykjavik, Iceland. agnaratdecodedotis
Science. 2008.

Abstract
Previous studies have reported that related human couples tend to produce more children than unrelated couples but have been unable to determine whether this difference is biological or stems from socioeconomic variables. Our results, drawn from all known couples of the Icelandic population born between 1800 and 1965, show a significant positive association between kinship and fertility, with the greatest reproductive success observed for couples related at the level of third and fourth cousins. Owing to the relative socioeconomic homogeneity of Icelanders, and the observation of highly significant differences in the fertility of couples separated by very fine intervals of kinship, we conclude that this association is likely to have a biological basis.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18258915/

I don't have full text access, but here is another article quoting the above study in greater detail:

When Incest Is Best: Kissing Cousins Have More Kin
Study analyzing more than 200 years of data finds that couples consisting of third cousins have the highest reproductive success

By Nikhil Swaminathan on February 8, 2008

... The results of the exhaustive study are constant throughout the generations analyzed. Women born between 1800 and 1824 who mated with a third cousin had significantly more children and grandchildren (4.04 and 9.17, respectively) than women who hooked up with someone no closer than an eighth cousin (3.34 and 7.31). Those proportions held up among women born more than a century later when couples were, on average, having fewer children. ...

Interestingly, one evolutionary argument for mating with a relative is that it might reduce a woman's chance of having a miscarriage caused by immunological incompatibility between a mother and her child. Some individuals have an antigen (a protein that can launch an immune response) on the surface of their red blood cells called a rhesus factor—commonly abbreviated "Rh." In some cases—typically during a second pregnancy—when a woman gets pregnant, she and her fetus may have incompatible blood cells, which could trigger the mother's immune system to treat the fetus as a foreign intruder, causing a miscarriage. This occurrence is less probable if the parents are closely related, because their blood makeup is more likely to match. ...

"It may well be that the enhanced reproductive success observed in the Iceland study at the level of third [and] fourth cousins, who on average would be expected to have inherited 0.8 percent to 0.2 percent of their genes from a common ancestor," Bittles says, "represents this point of balance between the competing advantages and disadvantages of inbreeding and outbreeding."

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-incest-is-best-kissi/

The people who complain about reverse racism or reverse sexism are usually white, straight, cisgender men, and one of the kernels of their complaints tends to be what they perceive to be a double standard in the way society treats them.

They feel as if everyone but themselves is allowed a social narrative that they can identify with and can be proud about. Why can't white people have White Lives Matter? Why can't men have a men's rights movement? Why can't heterosexual people have straight pride events?

All of this is actually just a jealousy of class solidarity and a fear of losing privileges. Straight white men feel "left out" and isolated, as if nobody cares about them. The thinking goes: "if I really am so privileged as everyone else is saying I am, then why am I not happy? And if the gay snowflakes get what they want, I'll lose what little I have!"

In reality, the vast majority of them belong to the same class as everyone else: the working class. If straight white men developed class consciousness, this jealousy of other people different from them would dissolve, because they would have a support group and a meaningful social narrative in which they could place themselves. The fear of other people different from them would also dissolve, as they would identity with these folk as fellows of the working class. There would be an understanding that other people different from them, while belonging to the working class, also experience further forms of oppression that straight white men do not.

Similia similibus curantur (like cures like). — Homeopathy

Remember the dilution level is crucial - one molecule of the therapeutic agent in a volume the size of the solar system. In other words, nanoscale reverse racism is the cure, homeopathically speaking.

Watch the late great The Amazing (James) Randi video on the subject.

In reality, the vast majority of them belong to the same class as everyone else: the working class. If straight white men developed class consciousness, this jealousy of other people different from them would dissolve, because they would have a support group and a meaningful social narrative in which they could place themselves. The fear of other people different from them would also dissolve, as they would identity with these folk as fellows of the working class. — _db

Why would it be on the white, male, working class to bring about this solidarity? Are other members of the working class exempt from such a duty? Or are the white males the only ones holding out?