When racism is not based on race, is it racism?

[Dingbat]

When racism is not based on race, is it racism? If not, what is it?

2005 survey found "35 percent of foreign-born Hispanics (down from 44%
[in 2002])" and 36 percent of African-Americans hold strong antisemitic
beliefs, four times more than the 9 percent for whites."[21]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_the_United_States

A Jewish friend's comment* on this article seems to imply that
antisemitism is not based on race. I haven't yet responded that
Whoopi Goldberg bought a heap of trouble by saying just that
about the Nazis' antisemitism.

* His comment on the article suggests that antisemitism is based
on envy and respect:
<<I once was speaking to someone from Puerto Rico who told me
that everyone he knew from there was antisemitic. I mentioned that
it has been suggested many Hispanics in the Americas may be
descended from hidden Jews that were fleeing the Inquisition. His
reaction surprised me, he said this is something they would be very
happy to know. Based on his statement it had an implication that
their enmity was based on a mixture of envy and respect. As more
rise economically over time perhaps their motivation for such envy
is lessened.>>

Elon Musk just accused “the media” and “elite colleges and high
schools” of being racist against white and Asian people, without
providing evidence.
<https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/26/elon-musk-calls-us-media-and-schools-racist-against-whites-asians-.html>

Setting aside the verisimilitude/ accuracy (or lack thereof) of Musk's
claim, what is the meaning of RACISM the way Musk uses it and is
this one of the meanings given in a dictionary? Is it possible for a
descriptivist lexicographer to hold Musk's usage as incorrect given
that the descriptivist posits that everything used is a correct usage.

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Friday, 10 March 2023 at 10:25:18 UTC+11, Dingbat wrote:
> When racism is not based on race, is it racism? If not, what is it?

Casteism.

[Silvano]

Dingbat hat am 10.03.2023 um 00:25 geschrieben:

> Elon Musk just accused “the media” and “elite colleges and high
> schools” of being racist against white and Asian people, without
> providing evidence.
> <https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/26/elon-musk-calls-us-media-and-schools-racist-against-whites-asians-.html>
>
> Setting aside the verisimilitude/ accuracy (or lack thereof) of Musk's
> claim, what is the meaning of RACISM the way Musk uses it and is
> this one of the meanings given in a dictionary?

<https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism> under 2a.

Is it possible for a
> descriptivist lexicographer to hold Musk's usage as incorrect given
> that the descriptivist posits that everything used is a correct usage.

I don't agree with your claim "that the descriptivist posits that

everything used is a correct usage".

To a descriptivist, the more people say or write something, the more
likely that thing will come to be accepted as a correct usage.

[Michael Uplawski]

Good morning

I usually ignore, even by deploying automatisms, these discussions.
And it is rather certain that I will regret (again) my contribution.

> When racism is not based on race, is it racism? If not, what is it?

I have seen your examples. The short answer is, however, “whatever the
person in charge of delivering a discourse or reading or listening wants
it to be”.

Your question may be valid, but as the contexts that you have in mind,
may be diverse and still outside the sphere of experience of your
readers, can we be sure that we know what “race” is referring to?
In my view, “race” was quite simply an equivalent to the diverse race of
animals, where all kind of attributes can serve to predict their way of
“being” and intreracting.

This concept had been proven invalid for the human species. None of our
attributes, especially those which are anchored in our genome, allow
such a classification of human beings. There is no gene to define a
“white” person, there may be a few which define the color of the skin,
but they are mixed freely with all the others, some of which alter other
attributes which may- or may not have been used in the past, in order to
put people into drawers. This should stop now and for the time it takes
for the human species to evolve into a diversity which might justify
such classification (or not and to make that very statement, once, anew).

Chances are, most US citisens in this Newsgroup will shoot me, now. That
may be a genetic thing or I don't know.

Otherwise could you put your question again?

TY.

Cheerio.

--
Native German / Colloquial French

[TonyCooper]

On Fri, 10 Mar 2023 07:57:03 +0100, Michael Uplawski
<michael....@uplawski.eu> wrote:

>Good morning
>
>I usually ignore, even by deploying automatisms, these discussions.
>And it is rather certain that I will regret (again) my contribution.
>
>
>> When racism is not based on race, is it racism? If not, what is it?
>
>I have seen your examples. The short answer is, however, “whatever the
>person in charge of delivering a discourse or reading or listening wants
>it to be”.

>
>Your question may be valid, but as the contexts that you have in mind,
>may be diverse and still outside the sphere of experience of your
>readers, can we be sure that we know what “race” is referring to?
>In my view, “race” was quite simply an equivalent to the diverse race of
>animals, where all kind of attributes can serve to predict their way of
>“being” and intreracting.

I've never been in a discussion - written or oral - where race was a
topic and not been able to clearly understand how the other party is
defining/using "race".

In a textbook or some other treatise, "race" may need to be defined by
the source, but in normal discourse the meaning is always evident.

Even if the user's meaning is incorrect, we know by context and the
demeanor of the other party what is meant by "race". I would modify
your statement above to be “whatever the person in charge of
delivering a discourse or reading or listening means it to be". I
don't think the othe participants are ever unsure of what that is.

The question, as posed, is one of those discussion points that some
people like to engage in but will never result in a definitive answer.

>
>This concept had been proven invalid for the human species. None of our
>attributes, especially those which are anchored in our genome, allow
>such a classification of human beings. There is no gene to define a
>“white” person, there may be a few which define the color of the skin,
>but they are mixed freely with all the others, some of which alter other
>attributes which may- or may not have been used in the past, in order to
>put people into drawers. This should stop now and for the time it takes
>for the human species to evolve into a diversity which might justify
>such classification (or not and to make that very statement, once, anew).
>
>Chances are, most US citisens in this Newsgroup will shoot me, now. That
>may be a genetic thing or I don't know.
>
>Otherwise could you put your question again?
>
>TY.
>
>Cheerio.
>
--

Tony Cooper - Orlando,Florida

[Michael Uplawski]

> I've never been in a discussion - written or oral - where race was a
> topic and not been able to clearly understand how the other party is
> defining/using "race".

Thank you.
But I had been in such discussions and had learned that not only we were
talking about different things, but also that our respective
understandings of the word had been representative of a group of people,
one neutral to the question, the other searching for an attitude to
adopt. It may be a French thing, though.

I write this with my wrong hand after an accident at work. It takes too
long and I prefer staying absent for a while; I did not cut of a finger,
but got close to that ...

Cheerio

[Snidely]

Michael Uplawski scribbled something on Friday the 3/10/2023:

> I write this with my wrong hand after an accident at work. It takes too
> long and I prefer staying absent for a while; I did not cut of a finger,
> but got close to that ...

I hope you continue to bond with all your digits, and that all
articulation is present and accounted for.

/dps

--
Trust, but verify.

[Mark Brader]

Michael Uplawski:

> I write this with my wrong hand after an accident at work. It takes too
> long and I prefer staying absent for a while; I did not cut of a finger,
> but got close to that ...

I hope that doesn't mean that you cut off a finger!
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "My only excuse for the typo is that 9 key and the 5 key
m...@vex.net | are on the same keyboard." --Tony Cooper

[Michael Uplawski]

> Michael Uplawski:
> > I write this with my wrong hand after an accident at work. It takes too
> > long and I prefer staying absent for a while; I did not cut of a finger,
> > but got close to that ...
>
> I hope that doesn't mean that you cut off a finger!

I did not. But there is one which could, after tuesday, lose a phalanx.
The surgeon is a specialist for hands and my utility – electric loppers
– was well ground. No pain either. Just plain simple dumbness.

In French, the aliteration tells the whole story:
« SÉCateur électrique ».

Cheerio.

[Mark Brader]

Michael Uplawski:
>>> I write this with my wrong hand after an accident at work. It takes too
>>> long and I prefer staying absent for a while; I did not cut of a finger,
>>> but got close to that ...

Mark Brader:

>> I hope that doesn't mean that you cut off a finger!

Michael Uplawski:
> I did not.

I think you missed my small joke about your typo.

> But there is one which could, after tuesday, lose a phalanx.

There is one which could?
--
Mark Brader | "And it's a moment in which there has never been
Toronto | a bigger ocean of [alphabet] soup from which
m...@vex.net | to draw letters." --Philip Bump

[Anton Shepelev]

Silvano to Dingbat:

> I don't agree with your claim "that the descriptivist
> posits that everything used is a correct usage". To a
> descriptivist, the more people say or write something, the
> more likely that thing will come to be accepted as a
> correct usage.

That is it: descriptivists decide what is correct and
incorrect by direct vote, giving equal consideration to an
illiterate teenager from a New York ghetto and to a
professor of English literature. But illiterate teenagers
happen so to outumber professors as competely to drown their
voices. And descriptivist professors do not care, they
"observe."

--
() ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\ www.asciiribbon.org -- against proprietary attachments

[Anton Shepelev]

Dingbat:

> A Jewish friend's comment* on this article seems to imply
> that antisemitism is not based on race.

Of course it is not. Racial, biological dislike of Jews is
Judophobia. Antisemitism is the dislike of Jewery as an
international criminal organisation (whether real or
imaginary), starting from the Crucifixion and up to pre-
modern times and modern times, plentiful with antisemitic
conspiracy theories. S K here is clearly antisemitic, for he
does not hate Jews for simply belonging to their race, but
always for some alleged crime against gentiles.

> Elon Musk just accused "the media" and "elite colleges and
> high schools" of being racist against white and Asian
> people, without providing evidence.

I thought the recent (racial) diversity craze included very
real racial admission quotas, e.g.:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevecohen/2015/07/06/the-secret-quotas-in-college-admissions/?sh=43358e9ab736

Forbes writes, somewhat self-contradictory:

A coalition of 64 Asian-American groups has filed a
complaint against Harvard for discriminating against
Asian-American kids in admissions. They're right to
assume there is a quota system at work. But they're
wrong that it is targeting Asian Americans. In fact,
it is discriminating in favor of Blacks and Hispanics.

I wonder why Jewish groups did not join in, because Jews are
clearly some of the cleverst races on the planet, if not the
cleverest of them all. Is it because they did not receive
the handicap the white and Asian people did?

A discrimination in favour of Blacks and Hispanics is of
course a discriminatio against Whites and Asians. You cannot
have one thing without the other! And this discrimination is
clearly racial.

> Setting aside the verisimilitude/ accuracy (or lack
> thereof) of Musk's claim, what is the meaning of RACISM
> the way Musk uses

I believe Musk's definition of racism is the negative and
unjustified discrimination of people based on their race,
whereas educational institutions in civilised countries
ought, of course, to discrimite them by their potential of
becoming great philosophers, scientists, doctors, engeneers,
&c.

[Michael Uplawski]

> > But there is one which could, after tuesday, lose a phalanx.
>
> There is one which could?

Ooookay ... Let me try ...
This one is about antique armies ..?

[Jerry Friedman]

On Sunday, March 12, 2023 at 5:53:53 AM UTC-6, Michael Uplawski wrote:
> > Michael Uplawski:
> > > I write this with my wrong hand after an accident at work. It takes too
> > > long and I prefer staying absent for a while; I did not cut of a finger,
> > > but got close to that ...
> >
> > I hope that doesn't mean that you cut off a finger!

> I did not. But there is one which could, after tuesday, lose a phalanx.
> The surgeon is a specialist for hands and my utility – electric loppers
> – was well ground. No pain either. Just plain simple dumbness.

...

Ouch! I hope you get to keep your phalanx.

I think you mean "tool", not "utility".

--
Jerry Friedman

[Anton Shepelev]

Michael Uplawski:

> This concept [of race] had been proven invalid for the
> human species.

In what way?

> None of our attributes, especially those which are
> anchored in our genome, allow such a classification of
> human beings.

Do you not contradict the mainstream scientific concsensus
that lots of our "attributes" are genetically determined,
inherited, shared across the respective populations, and
therefore part of the race, as a human subspecies?

> There is no gene to define a "white" person,

Of course not, but there must be some that define, or at
least closely correlate with, the white race in general.

> there may be a few which define the color of the skin, but
> they are mixed freely with all the others, some of which
> alter other attributes which may- or may not have been
> used in the past, in order to put people into drawers.
> This should stop now and for the time it takes for the
> human species to evolve into a diversity which might
> justify such classification (or not and to make that very
> statement, once, anew).

I don't see your point. Do you not, as everybody else,
distinguish between an Arab, African, a Pole, an Indian, and
a Japanese on sight? The obvious differences in their
appearances are due entirely to the genome (and therefore to
race), and so are many deeper physiological, mental, and
psychological traits. What if not race makes black people
so great runners and boxers? Do you know, by the way, that
at one time there was an incentive to forbid Blacks
sportsmen from competiting against white ones, on acount of
their racial athletic advantage?

[Kerr-Mudd, John]

You've already fallen for a fallacy; not all 'Black' people are great at x.
Same as not all 'White' people are good at darts. (random 'sport').

Do you know, by the way, that
> at one time there was an incentive to forbid Blacks
> sportsmen from competiting against white ones, on acount of
> their racial athletic advantage?
>

This was discrimination, in the US, but not based on actual tests, just
well, prejudice.

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Sunday, March 12, 2023 at 11:06:53 AM UTC-4, Anton Shepelev wrote:
> Silvano to Dingbat:
> > I don't agree with your claim "that the descriptivist
> > posits that everything used is a correct usage". To a
> > descriptivist, the more people say or write something, the
> > more likely that thing will come to be accepted as a
> > correct usage.
>
> That is it: descriptivists decide what is correct and
> incorrect

No, they (we) do not. As long as you retain that opinion,
you will not understand linguistics.

They, including lexicographers, determine what is current
usage, what is formal or informal, standard or non- (not
sub-) standard, even acceptable or not.

> by direct vote, giving equal consideration to an
> illiterate teenager from a New York ghetto and to a
> professor of English literature. But illiterate teenagers
> happen so to outumber professors as competely to drown their
> voices. And descriptivist professors do not care, they
> "observe."

You are so utterly wrong. But we know you're mired in the
19th century.

Also, it now transpires, rather racist.

[Jerry Friedman]

On Sunday, March 12, 2023 at 10:47:23 AM UTC-6, Anton Shepelev wrote:
> Michael Uplawski:
>
> > This concept [of race] had been proven invalid for the
> > human species.
>
> In what way?

> > None of our attributes, especially those which are
> > anchored in our genome, allow such a classification of
> > human beings.

> Do you not contradict the mainstream scientific concsensus
> that lots of our "attributes" are genetically determined,
> inherited,

That's a consensus.

> shared across the respective populations, and
> therefore part of the race, as a human subspecies?

If I understand you correctly, that's not. The consensus or at
least large majority view is that the distribution of genes does
not support racial classification.

> > There is no gene to define a "white" person,

> Of course not, but there must be some that define, or at
> least closely correlate with, the white race in general.

Some do and some don't. To take two well-known examples,
type B blood is absent or nearly so from the indigenous
populations of the Americas and Australia, and from the
Basques and some areas of Norway, and from an area of
northern Siberia. It's most common in Asia, including
other, even nearby, parts of northern Siberia. There's also
an area where it's fairly common in western and central
Africa. The distribution has nothing to do with that of
skin color or hair texture.

And sickle-cell anemia is one reason American medical
questionnaires ask about race. But it's absent in parts
of sub-Saharan Africa where malaria was not endemic,
and it's found significantly in areas of the Middle East
(traditional considered "Caucasian) where malaria was
endemic.

But it would be a mistake to go by a few traits such as the
ones I just mentioned. DNA studies generally find that
patterns of genetic difference don't correlate with each
other, that there's more diversity in Africa than in the rest
of the world combined, and that the DNA differences within
ethnic groups are greater than the differences between
ethnic groups.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)

> > there may be a few which define the color of the skin, but
> > they are mixed freely with all the others, some of which
> > alter other attributes which may- or may not have been
> > used in the past, in order to put people into drawers.
> > This should stop now and for the time it takes for the
> > human species to evolve into a diversity which might
> > justify such classification (or not and to make that very
> > statement, once, anew).

> I don't see your point. Do you not, as everybody else,
> distinguish between an Arab, African, a Pole, an Indian, and
> a Japanese on sight?

Heck, I've got a good chance of distinguishing between Pueblo
and Navajo people on sight.

> The obvious differences in their
> appearances are due entirely to the genome (and therefore to
> race), and so are many deeper physiological, mental, and
> psychological traits.

The evidence that those mental and psychological traits are
inherited rather than due to upbringing and such is much weaker.

> What if not race makes black people
> so great runners and boxers?

"Such", not "so".

The best boxers generally come from the poorest populations
that have the opportunity to engage in the sport. That's true
of sports in general, though the reasons aren't as drastic. But
young people who see a potential for a long-term comfortable
career may regretfully give up their dreams of Olympic glory to
pay more attention to their studies, while those who don't see
such a possibility may be more willing to go through arduous
athletic training. Other cultural factors may be involved too.
Kenyans and Ethiopians have been especially successful in
distance running--are they a different race from other Africans?

> Do you know, by the way, that
> at one time there was an incentive to forbid Blacks
> sportsmen from competiting against white ones, on acount of
> their racial athletic advantage?

Did you know that Jews once were so successful in basketball
that some American anti-Semites blamed evil Jewish
characteristics? (Basketball was for the sneaky, American football
was for the tough. I suspect there was plenty of sneakiness
and deception in football even then.)

(My maternal grandfather was proud of his and his brothers' success
in amateur basketball and volleyball.)

--
Jerry Friedman

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Sunday, March 12, 2023 at 12:47:23 PM UTC-4, Anton Shepelev wrote:
> Michael Uplawski:

> > This concept [of race] had been proven invalid for the
> > human species.
>
> In what way?

There is more genetic variation within the "races" than between
the "races." There is no biological distinction to correlate with
any so-called "racial" characteristics.

> > None of our attributes, especially those which are
> > anchored in our genome, allow such a classification of
> > human beings.
>
> Do you not contradict the mainstream scientific concsensus
> that lots of our "attributes" are genetically determined,
> inherited, shared across the respective populations, and
> therefore part of the race, as a human subspecies?

"The race" as in "the human race"? That's a low evasion
even for you.

> > There is no gene to define a "white" person,
>
> Of course not, but there must be some that define, or at
> least closely correlate with, the white race in general.

Is that what your Soviet education taught you?

There is no such thing as "the white race in general," so there
is nothing for "some genes" to "correlate with."

> > there may be a few which define the color of the skin, but
> > they are mixed freely with all the others, some of which
> > alter other attributes which may- or may not have been
> > used in the past, in order to put people into drawers.
> > This should stop now and for the time it takes for the
> > human species to evolve into a diversity which might
> > justify such classification (or not and to make that very
> > statement, once, anew).
>
> I don't see your point. Do you not, as everybody else,
> distinguish between an Arab, African, a Pole, an Indian, and
> a Japanese on sight?

Of course not.

> The obvious differences in their
> appearances are due entirely to the genome (and therefore to
> race),

WTF???????

> and so are many deeper physiological, mental, and
> psychological traits.

Utter bullshit.

No wonder the Soviet empire collapsed.

> What if not race makes black people
> so great runners and boxers?

Have you ever actually met any "black people"?

The ones you see on TV are the ones who are particularly skilled
at their pursuits and have intensively trained.

> Do you know, by the way, that
> at one time there was an incentive to forbid Blacks
> sportsmen from competiting against white ones, on acount of
> their racial athletic advantage?

Do you endorse that racist attitude?

[Peter T. Daniels]

Really? I've never heard of it.

Assuming that HBCU teams only played among themselves, and
not against sports powers in general, that was not because the
white colleges were afraid they'd get beat by the black colleges.

Major League baseball teams regularly played exhibition games
against Negro League teams, until and for a time after they began
to be integrated in 1947.

[Ken Blake]

On Sun, 12 Mar 2023 09:23:40 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Friedman
<jerry.fr...@gmail.com> wrote:

I hope he got to keep his tool..

[Anton Shepelev]

Peter T. Daniels:
> Anton Shepelev:

>
> > That is it: descriptivists decide what is correct and

> > incorrect by direct vote, giving equal consideration to

> > an illiterate teenager from a New York ghetto and to a
> > professor of English literature.
>

> [...]

> They, including lexicographers, determine what is current
> usage, what is formal or informal, standard or non- (not
> sub-) standard, even acceptable or not.

Oh, and how do they determine that if not by studying and
describing the actual usage among various groups, which is
the direct voting I talk about? Standard and acceptable
language is determined by its users in the corresponding
group!

> Also, it now transpires, rather racist.

Your accusation will fall apart as soon you try to verbalise
what you understand by that term. Either it does not apply
to me, or it is nothng to be ashamed of or disliked for.

[Anton Shepelev]

Kerr-Mudd, John:

> > What if not race makes black people so great runners and
> > boxers?
>
> You've already fallen for a fallacy; not all 'Black'
> people are great at x. Same as not all 'White' people are
> good at darts. (random 'sport').

Not all indeed, but where is the fallacy?

> > Do you know, by the way, that at one time there was an
> > incentive to forbid Blacks sportsmen from competiting
> > against white ones, on acount of their racial athletic
> > advantage?
>
> This was discrimination, in the US, but not based on
> actual tests, just well, prejudice.

Actual tests were conducted in the ring. This was the
anthropological consensus before it had come in the way of
uncontolled mixing of all races in the "melting pot" of the
Western civilisation, formerly Christian and White.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Sunday, March 12, 2023 at 6:15:58 PM UTC-4, Anton Shepelev wrote:
> Peter T. Daniels:
> > Anton Shepelev:

Stop distorting the messages you reply to.

> > > That is it: descriptivists decide what is correct and
> > > incorrect by direct vote, giving equal consideration to
> > > an illiterate teenager from a New York ghetto and to a
> > > professor of English literature.
> >
> > [...]
> > They, including lexicographers, determine what is current
> > usage, what is formal or informal, standard or non- (not
> > sub-) standard, even acceptable or not.
>
> Oh, and how do they determine that if not by studying and
> describing the actual usage among various groups, which is
> the direct voting I talk about? Standard and acceptable
> language is determined by its users in the corresponding
> group!

I see you don't know what "vote" means.

They do it by observation and by collecting data.

> > Also, it now transpires, rather racist.
>
> Your accusation will fall apart as soon you try to verbalise
> what you understand by that term. Either it does not apply
> to me, or it is nothng to be ashamed of or disliked for.

That observation was made before I moved to your next message,
which drips with absurd racist presuppositions and statements.

I suppose you think you were clever to delete the rather racist passage.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Sunday, March 12, 2023 at 6:44:34 PM UTC-4, Anton Shepelev wrote:
> Kerr-Mudd, John:
> > > What if not race makes black people so great runners and
> > > boxers?
> >
> > You've already fallen for a fallacy; not all 'Black'
> > people are great at x. Same as not all 'White' people are
> > good at darts. (random 'sport').
> Not all indeed, but where is the fallacy?
> > > Do you know, by the way, that at one time there was an
> > > incentive to forbid Blacks sportsmen from competiting
> > > against white ones, on acount of their racial athletic
> > > advantage?
> >
> > This was discrimination, in the US, but not based on
> > actual tests, just well, prejudice.
>
> Actual tests were conducted in the ring. This was the
> anthropological consensus before it had come in the way of
> uncontolled mixing of all races in the "melting pot" of the
> Western civilisation, formerly Christian and White.

What ARE you talking about? Is that Russian Rassenkunde?

And Putin claims he's battling "neo-nazis" on the southeast border.

[Arindam Banerjee]

An accepted usage, not necessarily correct. But, will do, especially when money is involved.

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Den 12.03.2023 kl. 17.47 skrev Anton Shepelev:

> psychological traits. What if not race makes black people
> so great runners and boxers?

Runners come from high-lying countries with thin air. Boxers come from
the ghetto where they learn how to survive.

Am I close?

--
Bertel, Denmark

[Peter T. Daniels]

Yes and no respectively.

[Silvano]

> On Sunday, March 12, 2023 at 10:47:23 AM UTC-6, Anton Shepelev wrote:

>> I don't see your point. Do you not, as everybody else,
>> distinguish between an Arab, African, a Pole, an Indian, and
>> a Japanese on sight?

I'd be very careful about your claim after looking at pictures of this Pole,
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmanuel_Olisadebe>
this Japanese,
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Leitch>
this Arab
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafez_al-Assad>
and this South African.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D._F._Malan>

[TonyCooper]

Many of the fastest runners are from the Caribbean islands.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Monday, March 13, 2023 at 9:15:10 AM UTC-4, Silvano wrote:
> > On Sunday, March 12, 2023 at 10:47:23 AM UTC-6, Anton Shepelev wrote:

> >> I don't see your point. Do you not, as everybody else,
> >> distinguish between an Arab, African, a Pole, an Indian, and
> >> a Japanese on sight?
>
> I'd be very careful about your claim after looking at pictures of this Pole,
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmanuel_Olisadebe>
> this Japanese,
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Leitch>

Sorry, how does playing on a soccer team change one's "race"?

> this Arab
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafez_al-Assad>

What makes you think the Assads don't "look Arab"?

> and this South African.
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D._F._Malan>

What's that got to do with anything? Don't you know the history
of that country?

[Peter T. Daniels]

Sprinters rather than distance runners. Anton is groping toward,
and Bertel is explaining, the fact that people whose ancestors
have inhabited high altitudes for hundreds of generations have
evolved bodies that make more efficient use of the thinner atmosphere.

(What to make of the boxers/ghettoes thing, though?)

[Jerry Friedman]

On Monday, March 13, 2023 at 1:30:56 AM UTC-6, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
> Den 12.03.2023 kl. 17.47 skrev Anton Shepelev:
>
> > psychological traits. What if not race makes black people
> > so great runners and boxers?

> Runners come from high-lying countries with thin air.

It's true that Kenya and Ethiopia have extensive highland regions and
contribute well over their share of the best distance runners, but
other than that, I don't think there's much correlation. Their main
competitors are not the Swiss, Coloradans, Peruvians, Tibetans, etc.

For sprinting I don't think it makes any difference.

> Boxers come from
> the ghetto where they learn how to survive.

...

More that they come from environments where training hard and
getting pummeled a lot can look like an attractive career choice, I
think.

--
Jerry Friedman

[TonyCooper]

On Mon, 13 Mar 2023 06:40:01 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
<gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

I dunno about the use of "ghetto", but I think boxers tend to come
from neighborhoods where "respect" is based on the person's ability to
be dominant. Some become dominant by becoming gang members and some
by becoming physically strong and aggressive. Some go the sports
route.

To become a boxer, though, the person has to be in a neighborhood that
has the facilities for training. A person can learn to fight in any
neighborhood, but boxing is a skill beyond fighting.

[Silvano]

Jerry Friedman hat am 13.03.2023 um 14:59 geschrieben:

> On Monday, March 13, 2023 at 1:30:56 AM UTC-6, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
>> Runners come from high-lying countries with thin air.
>
> It's true that Kenya and Ethiopia have extensive highland regions and
> contribute well over their share of the best distance runners, but
> other than that, I don't think there's much correlation. Their main
> competitors are not the Swiss, Coloradans, Peruvians, Tibetans, etc.

Young Swiss usually don't have to run 10 km or more to go to school and
back. I don't know enough about the other countries you mention.

[Pamela]

On 07:13 11 Mar 2023, Michael Uplawski said:

>> I've never been in a discussion - written or oral - where race was a
>> topic and not been able to clearly understand how the other party is
>> defining/using "race".
>
> Thank you. But I had been in such discussions and had learned that
> not only we were talking about different things, but also that our
> respective understandings of the word had been representative of a
> group of people, one neutral to the question, the other searching for
> an attitude to adopt. It may be a French thing, though.

It's not only a French thing. A few weeks ago I posted about this and
gave a quoted extract from James Lindsay's "Critical Inversion of
Language".

See http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=167872205000

[Peter T. Daniels]

That's the point. "Ghetto" fighting -- gang wars? -- these days involve
guns. Used to involve knives.

I doubt that Cassius Clay got into many fistfights -- he was, he
believed of himself, "too pretty."

[Peter Moylan]

Just recently I've seen publicity for a group in the Northern Territory
that opened a boxing academy to improve the life of indigenous children.
The logic is clear enough. In a region with a lot of poverty, poor
education, and not many job opportunities, a boxer can become successful
without much formal schooling. Meanwhile, those who don't become
successful have still gained in things like socialisation skills.

Football is also a big deal for Australian indigenous people, for the
same reasons. On the east coast, though, the top footballers tend to be
from the Pacific Islands, with just a scattering of Australian blacks.
That's just a matter of population distribution, of course.

--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org

[Snidely]

Anton Shepelev pounded on thar keyboard to tell us

> Kerr-Mudd, John:
>
>>> What if not race makes black people so great runners and
>>> boxers?
>>
>> You've already fallen for a fallacy; not all 'Black'
>> people are great at x. Same as not all 'White' people are
>> good at darts. (random 'sport').
>
> Not all indeed, but where is the fallacy?

By ascribing a characteristic of standouts as the norm.

Besides, there's reason to believe that

a) physical skills and strengths vary across different subgroups of the
population of Africa

b) physical skills and strengths vary across any one subgroup according
to lifestyle.

c) just like anywhere else on earth.

/dps

--
Rule #0: Don't be on fire.
In case of fire, exit the building before tweeting about it.
(Sighting reported by Adam F)

[Snidely]

Jerry Friedman explained :

> On Monday, March 13, 2023 at 1:30:56 AM UTC-6, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
>> Den 12.03.2023 kl. 17.47 skrev Anton Shepelev:
>>
>>> psychological traits. What if not race makes black people
>>> so great runners and boxers?
>
>> Runners come from high-lying countries with thin air.
>
> It's true that Kenya and Ethiopia have extensive highland regions and
> contribute well over their share of the best distance runners, but
> other than that, I don't think there's much correlation. Their main
> competitors are not the Swiss, Coloradans, Peruvians, Tibetans, etc.

IIRC from the early days of Kenyan success in international events
(e.g., the Olympics), the successful runners were from a rural
environment without a lot of private automobiles and with long
distances to be covered routinely.

> For sprinting I don't think it makes any difference.

Long distance running requires muscles conditioned to be strong during
long use, so mostly not running at 100%. Sprinting requires an
explosive start, so muscles must be strong but also quick, and they get
to rest a few seconds later.

>> Boxers come from
>> the ghetto where they learn how to survive.
> ...
>
> More that they come from environments where training hard and
> getting pummeled a lot can look like an attractive career choice, I
> think.

I think that also applied to the Irish immigrant population that also
contributed some notable US boxers. And perhaps to a portion of the
Italina immigrant population that didn't get into the restaurant trade.

[oops, that could be yet another cultural stereotype]

For roughly 100 years in the US, disadvantaged groups could gain some
ground finding livelyhood by working in factories, but sports could be
a faster trip upwards for some.

/dps

--
"That’s where I end with this kind of conversation: Language is
crucial, and yet not the answer."
Jonathan Rosa, sociocultural and linguistic anthropologist,
Stanford.,2020

[Silvano]

Peter Moylan hat am 14.03.2023 um 01:57 geschrieben:

> Football is also a big deal for Australian indigenous people, for the
> same reasons. On the east coast, though, the top footballers tend to be
> from the Pacific Islands, with just a scattering of Australian blacks.
> That's just a matter of population distribution, of course.

JFTR, as you're Australian. Are you talking about football as played in
the recent World Cup in Qatar or about Australian football?

[Peter Moylan]

Several football codes are popular here, including soccer. The one that
attracts most indigenous players, though, is Australian Rules. The
second most popular is Rugby League.

Just lately there has been a lot of concern about player injuries,
especially concussion, in Australian Rules. When I were a lad that game
was a low-contact sport, but for some reason players are now more
aggressive, and getting away with things I would have called illegal.

The injury problem is a lot worse in Rugby League, which seems to
attract thugs as players. Illegal and dangerous tackles happen
frequently, and I suspect there is a lot of early retirement through
brain damage.

Soccer involves a lot less violence among the players. To compensate,
the level of violence among the fans is shocking. What other sport
requires the spectators to be put in cages so that they can't attack
each other?

[Silvano]

Snidely hat am 14.03.2023 um 07:53 geschrieben:
> Jerry Friedman explained :

>> More that they come from environments where training hard and
>> getting pummeled a lot can look like an attractive career choice, I
>> think.
>
> I think that also applied to the Irish immigrant population that also
> contributed some notable US boxers. And perhaps to a portion of the
> Italina immigrant population that didn't get into the restaurant trade.

Rocky Marciano. In other sports: Joe DiMaggio, Mario Andretti etc.

> [oops, that could be yet another cultural stereotype]
>
> For roughly 100 years in the US, disadvantaged groups could gain some
> ground finding livelyhood by working in factories, but sports could be a
> faster trip upwards for some.

Of course, and sports as an upward ladder are neither limited to the US
nor to boxing.

[Silvano]

Peter Moylan hat am 14.03.2023 um 11:56 geschrieben:

> On 14/03/23 20:54, Silvano wrote:
>> Peter Moylan hat am 14.03.2023 um 01:57 geschrieben:
>
>>> Football is also a big deal for Australian indigenous people, for
>>> the same reasons. On the east coast, though, the top footballers
>>> tend to be from the Pacific Islands, with just a scattering of
>>> Australian blacks. That's just a matter of population
>>> distribution, of course.
>>
>> JFTR, as you're Australian. Are you talking about football as played
>> in the recent World Cup in Qatar or about Australian football?
>
> Several football codes are popular here, including soccer. The one that
> attracts most indigenous players, though, is Australian Rules. The
> second most popular is Rugby League.

So, my suspicion that you mean Australian football when you write
football was correct. Thank you, also for the explanation that
Australians call soccer what almost everyone else calls football.

> Just lately there has been a lot of concern about player injuries,
> especially concussion, in Australian Rules. When I were a lad that game
> was a low-contact sport, but for some reason players are now more
> aggressive, and getting away with things I would have called illegal.
>
> The injury problem is a lot worse in Rugby League, which seems to
> attract thugs as players.

Old English saying: "Football is a game for gentlemen played by
hooligans, and rugby union is a game for hooligans played by gentlemen."
I don't know much about Rugby League, but yellow (10 minutes out) or red
cards (out for the rest of the game) are common in Rugby Union games,
frequently for an illegal attack to the head or neck.

[Peter T. Daniels]

And body size? Polynesians are famously large people.

Oh, wait, you're talking about your kinds of football.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2023-03-14 12:42:07 +0000, Silvano said:

> Peter Moylan hat am 14.03.2023 um 11:56 geschrieben:
>> On 14/03/23 20:54, Silvano wrote:
>>> Peter Moylan hat am 14.03.2023 um 01:57 geschrieben:
>>
>>>> Football is also a big deal for Australian indigenous people, for
>>>> the same reasons. On the east coast, though, the top footballers
>>>> tend to be from the Pacific Islands, with just a scattering of
>>>> Australian blacks. That's just a matter of population
>>>> distribution, of course.
>>>
>>> JFTR, as you're Australian. Are you talking about football as played
>>> in the recent World Cup in Qatar or about Australian football?
>>
>> Several football codes are popular here, including soccer. The one that
>> attracts most indigenous players, though, is Australian Rules. The
>> second most popular is Rugby League.
>
> So, my suspicion that you mean Australian football when you write
> football was correct. Thank you, also for the explanation that
> Australians

and Americans

> call soccer what almost everyone else calls football.
>

--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 years; mainly
in England until 1987.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 1:48:16 PM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2023-03-14 12:42:07 +0000, Silvano said:
> > Peter Moylan hat am 14.03.2023 um 11:56 geschrieben:
> >> On 14/03/23 20:54, Silvano wrote:
> >>> Peter Moylan hat am 14.03.2023 um 01:57 geschrieben:

> >>>> Football is also a big deal for Australian indigenous people, for
> >>>> the same reasons. On the east coast, though, the top footballers
> >>>> tend to be from the Pacific Islands, with just a scattering of
> >>>> Australian blacks. That's just a matter of population
> >>>> distribution, of course.
> >>> JFTR, as you're Australian. Are you talking about football as played
> >>> in the recent World Cup in Qatar or about Australian football?
> >> Several football codes are popular here, including soccer. The one that
> >> attracts most indigenous players, though, is Australian Rules. The
> >> second most popular is Rugby League.
> > So, my suspicion that you mean Australian football when you write
> > football was correct. Thank you, also for the explanation that
> > Australians
>
> and Americans

Irrelevant comment. Who would need "explaining"?

[lar3ryca]

On 2023-03-14 11:48, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2023-03-14 12:42:07 +0000, Silvano said:
>
>> Peter Moylan hat am 14.03.2023 um 11:56 geschrieben:
>>> On 14/03/23 20:54, Silvano wrote:
>>>> Peter Moylan hat am 14.03.2023 um 01:57 geschrieben:
>>>
>>>>> Football is also a big deal for Australian indigenous people, for
>>>>> the same reasons. On the east coast, though, the top footballers
>>>>> tend to be from the Pacific Islands, with just a scattering of
>>>>> Australian blacks. That's just a matter of population
>>>>> distribution, of course.
>>>>
>>>> JFTR, as you're Australian. Are you talking about football as played
>>>> in the recent World Cup in Qatar or about Australian football?
>>>
>>> Several football codes are popular here, including soccer. The one that
>>> attracts most indigenous players, though, is Australian Rules. The
>>> second most popular is Rugby League.
>>
>> So, my suspicion that you mean Australian football when you write
>> football was correct. Thank you, also for the explanation that
>> Australians
>
> and Americans

and Canadians

>> call soccer what almost everyone else calls football.
>>
>

--

There's an old saying about those who forget history.
I don't remember it, but it's good.
-- Stephen Colbert

[Sam Plusnet]

On 14-Mar-23 12:42, Silvano wrote:

> So, my suspicion that you mean Australian football when you write
> football was correct. Thank you, also for the explanation that
> Australians call soccer what almost everyone else calls football.

In the UK, people talk about either "Football" or "Rugby" since we only
have those two games.

Australia has three main types, so their needs are different.

The US has different needs. etc.

--
Sam Plusnet

[Sam Plusnet]

On 14-Mar-23 11:04, Silvano wrote:
> Snidely hat am 14.03.2023 um 07:53 geschrieben:
>> Jerry Friedman explained :
>>> More that they come from environments where training hard and
>>> getting pummeled a lot can look like an attractive career choice, I
>>> think.
>>
>> I think that also applied to the Irish immigrant population that also
>> contributed some notable US boxers. And perhaps to a portion of the
>> Italina immigrant population that didn't get into the restaurant trade.
>
> Rocky Marciano. In other sports: Joe DiMaggio, Mario Andretti etc.

Warren Zevon fans would add Boom Boom Mancini.

--
Sam Plusnet

[Peter Moylan]

I'm not sure how much body mass counts, but being tall is an advantage
in Australian Rules. A common feature of the game is leaping high to
catch the ball.

[Peter Moylan]

On 14/03/23 23:42, Silvano wrote:
> Peter Moylan hat am 14.03.2023 um 11:56 geschrieben:

>> Just lately there has been a lot of concern about player injuries,
>> especially concussion, in Australian Rules. When I were a lad that
>> game was a low-contact sport, but for some reason players are now
>> more aggressive, and getting away with things I would have called
>> illegal.
>>
>> The injury problem is a lot worse in Rugby League, which seems to
>> attract thugs as players.
>
> Old English saying: "Football is a game for gentlemen played by
> hooligans, and rugby union is a game for hooligans played by
> gentlemen." I don't know much about Rugby League, but yellow (10
> minutes out) or red cards (out for the rest of the game) are common
> in Rugby Union games, frequently for an illegal attack to the head or
> neck.

A common incident I see on TV in the news about Rugby League games is
where a player is lifted up in the air, and then thrown head-first to
the ground. The intention appears to be to break the player's neck. As
far as I know (I'm not a follower of the game), this is illegal, but
apparently impossible to stop.

A player who actually succeeded in breaking an opponent's neck would
probably be suspended for three games.

[bruce bowser]

On Thursday, March 9, 2023 at 9:37:02 PM UTC-5, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Friday, 10 March 2023 at 10:25:18 UTC+11, Dingbat wrote:
> > When racism is not based on race, is it racism? If not, what is it?
> Casteism.

In the Americas, blond hair is openly promoted by the business community. Is that racism?

[Arindam Banerjee]

Don't see it. Blacks and browns seem far more prominent. But then I don't live in America, nor care to.



> Is that racism?

Not at all. Racism means holding other races to be sub-human, and so, open for such exploitation as animals are.

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Thursday, 16 March 2023 at 04:17:33 UTC+11, bruce bowser wrote:

It is tribalism, which in due course will become casteism.

[bruce bowser]

On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 5:12:42 PM UTC-4, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Thursday, 16 March 2023 at 04:17:33 UTC+11, bruce bowser wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 9, 2023 at 9:37:02 PM UTC-5, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > On Friday, 10 March 2023 at 10:25:18 UTC+11, Dingbat wrote:
> > > > When racism is not based on race, is it racism? If not, what is it?
> > > Casteism.
> >
> > In the Americas, blond hair is openly promoted by the business community.
>
> Don't see it.

Yes, you do.

> Blacks and browns seem far more prominent.

We go by what is, not what seems. When have you seen an actress who didn't have hair dye?

> But then I don't live in America, nor care to.

Nor do you have to. You have a computer/phone screen, don't you? What more do you need?

> > Is that racism?
>
> Not at all. Racism means holding other races to be sub-human, and so, open for such exploitation as animals are.

I see racism as its definitions.

[Arindam Banerjee]

That is how it was defined, and practised, till quite recently, overtly.

[Phil Carmody]

Silvano <Sil...@noncisonopernessuno.it> writes:
>> On Sunday, March 12, 2023 at 10:47:23 AM UTC-6, Anton Shepelev wrote:
>
>>> I don't see your point. Do you not, as everybody else,
>>> distinguish between an Arab, African, a Pole, an Indian, and
>>> a Japanese on sight?
>
> I'd be very careful about your claim after looking at pictures of this Pole,
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmanuel_Olisadebe>

Place of birth Warri, Nigeria

Phil
--
We are no longer hunters and nomads. No longer awed and frightened, as we have
gained some understanding of the world in which we live. As such, we can cast
aside childish remnants from the dawn of our civilization.
-- NotSanguine on SoylentNews, after Eugen Weber in /The Western Tradition/

[Silvano]

Phil Carmody hat am 19.03.2023 um 12:56 geschrieben:

> Silvano <Sil...@noncisonopernessuno.it> writes:
>>> On Sunday, March 12, 2023 at 10:47:23 AM UTC-6, Anton Shepelev wrote:
>>
>>>> I don't see your point. Do you not, as everybody else,
>>>> distinguish between an Arab, African, a Pole, an Indian, and
>>>> a Japanese on sight?
>>
>> I'd be very careful about your claim after looking at pictures of this Pole,
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmanuel_Olisadebe>
>
> Place of birth Warri, Nigeria

So what? He's a Polish citizen, i.e. a Pole.

[lar3ryca]

Do try to stay on-topic. We were discussing /race/, not citizenship.

--
If I make you breakfast in bed, a simple "Thank you" is all I need.
Not all this "How did you get into my house?" business.

[Dingbat]

It seems that 'Caucusoid' men like blondes without any goading from businesses
This tries to explain why:
<https://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/jun/04/men-blonde-women-attractive>

I, however, prefer Snow White to Goldilocks, though I find most natural hair colors
tolerable on white women, but not artificial colors like green and purple.
On tanned women, however, I don't like any color other than black or dark brown.
I'm not sure why but it's not because of any promotion by businesses.

Zoey Deutch naturally has brown hair, dark enough to resemble black.
She has highlighted it blonde and dyed it blonde. I don't find either to be an improvement.
Is this dyeing a result of promotion by businesses or an attempt to appeal to viewers?

Marilyn Monroe was naturally a brunette.
Was it the business community that got her to dye her hair blonde?
Or did she do it to make an favorable impression on viewers?


.

[Peter T. Daniels]

That is not an opinion shared by Poles in general.

Years ago, in Chicago, I was talking to a recent immigrant
and somehow "Polish Jews" came up. He said, with some
surprise, "They're not Poles, they're Jews!" And Jews had
been inhabitants, and presumably in Communist days _de
jure_ citizens, far longer than a current football player has.

[J. J. Lodder]

Dingbat <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 10:17:33?AM UTC-7, bruce bowser wrote:

Poppular evolution babble will have an explanation
for whatever is observed.

BTW, the latest in fossil DNA research
shows that those Doggerlanders and their friends were dark-skinned.
The ancestors of those light-skinned modern inhabitants
of Western Europe walked in from the steppes, later, much later...

Jan

[Silvano]

lar3ryca hat am 19.03.2023 um 16:45 geschrieben:

> On 2023-03-19 09:24, Silvano wrote:
>> Phil Carmody hat am 19.03.2023 um 12:56 geschrieben:
>>> Silvano <Sil...@noncisonopernessuno.it> writes:
>>>>> On Sunday, March 12, 2023 at 10:47:23 AM UTC-6, Anton Shepelev wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> I don't see your point. Do you not, as everybody else,
>>>>>> distinguish between an Arab, African, a Pole, an Indian, and
>>>>>> a Japanese on sight?
>>>>
>>>> I'd be very careful about your claim after looking at pictures of
>>>> this Pole,
>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmanuel_Olisadebe>
>>>
>>> Place of birth Warri, Nigeria
>>
>> So what? He's a Polish citizen, i.e. a Pole.
>
> Do try to stay on-topic. We were discussing /race/, not citizenship.

Since when are Poles a *race*?????

Actually, everyone could ask the same question about Arabs, Africans,
Indians and Japanese.

[Dingbat]

A reconstruction of Cheddar man, circa 7000 years ago, looks brown
skinned and broad nosed.
https://g.co/kgs/rHVhPh

I don't know about the provenance of white skin and blond hair; I was
just sharing an article in the UK Guardian that tries to explain why
blondes have been preferred for millenia. If the article is wrong, go
ahead and critique it.

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Den 19.03.2023 kl. 16.56 skrev Dingbat:

> It seems that 'Caucusoid' men like blondes without any goading from businesses
> This tries to explain why:
> <https://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/jun/04/men-blonde-women-attractive>

In a Danish tv program, mostly made for entertainment, they had several
well-known (in Denmark) women talk about hair colour. They all stated
quite clearly that they had more fun and were offered many more free
drinks if they died their hair blond when going out in the evening.

Personally I like natural colours and am saddened buy the fact that I
see so little of that. The quality of hair dye has improved a lot from
the screaming white of the sixties, but they do not have the quality of
the natural colours.

I once met a woman who had red hair that you wouldn't believe. A Dane
would understand "postkasserød" which is a bright, red colour. her hair
was also very curly. She once took part in a course about hair
treatment, and the teacher exclaimed at the sight of her:

You have too much colour in your hair dye,
and you shouldn't curl it up so much.

She could only answer that she had done nothing to her hair except comb it.

--
Bertel, Denmark

[J. J. Lodder]

Bertel Lund Hansen <gade...@lundhansen.dk> wrote:

> Den 19.03.2023 kl. 16.56 skrev Dingbat:
>
> > It seems that 'Caucusoid' men like blondes without any goading from
> > businesses This tries to explain why:
> > <https://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/jun/04/men-blonde-women-attractive
>
> In a Danish tv program, mostly made for entertainment, they had several
> well-known (in Denmark) women talk about hair colour. They all stated
> quite clearly that they had more fun and were offered many more free
> drinks if they died their hair blond when going out in the evening.
>
> Personally I like natural colours and am saddened buy the fact that I
> see so little of that. The quality of hair dye has improved a lot from
> the screaming white of the sixties, but they do not have the quality of
> the natural colours.
>
> I once met a woman who had red hair that you wouldn't believe. A Dane
> would understand "postkasserød" which is a bright, red colour.

Some non-Danes will also understand.
You will not believe it of course,
but some of those non-Danes will even guess
that the colour is 'letterboxred'.

BTW, the Dutch have invented a 'red head day',
held annually, starting in 2005. [1]
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redhead_Day>
<https://redheaddays.nl>
(the language toggle doesn't work)

Somehow the BBC discovered it, and reported on it,
and Britain followed.

Jan

[1] It got started when a painter, inspired by Klimmt and Rossetti,
advertised for a red head model.
Too many responded, and they decided to have a day.

[Dingbat]

'Red' is a variety of hair colors in English. I've heard strawberry blond,
ginger, copper and auburn all called red. I doubt that Danes would call
red the hair color on this book cover of 'The Red Headed League', a
Sherlock Holmes story:
https://openlibrary.org/books/OL4265688M/The_Red-Headed_League

[J. J. Lodder]

Dingbat <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote:

They are all red. 'Strawberry blond' is just the lightest kind of red.
(but I have been told that genuine strawberry blond is quite rare)

> I doubt that Danes would call
> red the hair color on this book cover of 'The Red Headed League', a
> Sherlock Holmes story:
> https://openlibrary.org/books/OL4265688M/The_Red-Headed_League

Why not, it is obviously red,

Jan

[Ken Blake]

Not as far as I'm concerned. Strawberry blonde is much more like a
light orange than a light red.

[Silvano]

J. J. Lodder hat am 20.03.2023 um 14:35 geschrieben:

>
> They are all red. 'Strawberry blond' is just the lightest kind of red.

Bizarre. I asked duckduckgo for "strawberry blond" pictures and many of
them look indeed red, oddly enough, but about 30% look blond to me, as
I'd expect given the name. And I'd never call blond the red ones.

JFTR, my hair was pretty much like what you can see here:
<https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D1%8B%D0%B5+%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%8B&t=ffab&iar=images&iax=images&ia=images>
before it turned grey and then white.
And people called it precisely that when I was in Moscow.

>> I doubt that Danes would call
>> red the hair color on this book cover of 'The Red Headed League', a
>> Sherlock Holmes story:
>> https://openlibrary.org/books/OL4265688M/The_Red-Headed_League
>
> Why not, it is obviously red,

Full agreement with Jan.

[Sam Plusnet]

On 20-Mar-23 10:46, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Bertel Lund Hansen <gade...@lundhansen.dk> wrote:
>
>> Den 19.03.2023 kl. 16.56 skrev Dingbat:
>>
>>> It seems that 'Caucusoid' men like blondes without any goading from
>>> businesses This tries to explain why:
>>> <https://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/jun/04/men-blonde-women-attractive
>>
>> In a Danish tv program, mostly made for entertainment, they had several
>> well-known (in Denmark) women talk about hair colour. They all stated
>> quite clearly that they had more fun and were offered many more free
>> drinks if they died their hair blond when going out in the evening.
>>
>> Personally I like natural colours and am saddened buy the fact that I
>> see so little of that. The quality of hair dye has improved a lot from
>> the screaming white of the sixties, but they do not have the quality of
>> the natural colours.
>>
>> I once met a woman who had red hair that you wouldn't believe. A Dane
>> would understand "postkasserød" which is a bright, red colour.
>
> Some non-Danes will also understand.
> You will not believe it of course,
> but some of those non-Danes will even guess
> that the colour is 'letterboxred'.

"Pillar-box red" in my BrE.

(Although non-pillar shaped letterboxes are the same colour)

Pillar boxes have their own Wikipedia page (because of course they have).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pillar_box

--
Sam Plusnet

[J. J. Lodder]

Almost all of those 'reds' are more like orange.
And orange is a lighter form of brown,

Jan

[lar3ryca]

On 2023-03-19 15:56, Silvano wrote:
> lar3ryca hat am 19.03.2023 um 16:45 geschrieben:
>> On 2023-03-19 09:24, Silvano wrote:
>>> Phil Carmody hat am 19.03.2023 um 12:56 geschrieben:
>>>> Silvano <Sil...@noncisonopernessuno.it> writes:
>>>>>> On Sunday, March 12, 2023 at 10:47:23 AM UTC-6, Anton Shepelev wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't see your point. Do you not, as everybody else,
>>>>>>> distinguish between an Arab, African, a Pole, an Indian, and
>>>>>>> a Japanese on sight?
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd be very careful about your claim after looking at pictures of
>>>>> this Pole,
>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmanuel_Olisadebe>
>>>>
>>>> Place of birth Warri, Nigeria
>>>
>>> So what? He's a Polish citizen, i.e. a Pole.
>>
>> Do try to stay on-topic. We were discussing /race/, not citizenship.
>
>
> Since when are Poles a *race*?????

That was my point exactly. He is a Pole by citizenship. His race has
nothing to do with his citizenship. Try to keep up.

> Actually, everyone could ask the same question about Arabs, Africans,
> Indians and Japanese.

--
If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it,
I hope it lands on a philosophy professor.
— Jon Stewart

[charles]

In article <1q7wj5k.tdz6g218xzvktN%nos...@de-ster.demon.nl>, J. J. Lodder

and brown is desaturated yellow.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England - sent from my RISC OS 4té
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

[Ken Blake]

On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 20:56:32 +0100, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.

Are you talking about red hair? No they're not. Most are clearly much
more red than orange. Some are even closer to red-violet.

>And orange is a lighter form of brown,

No, it's not. Orange is a mixture of red and yellow,

[J. J. Lodder]

Sam Plusnet <n...@home.com> wrote:

> On 20-Mar-23 10:46, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Bertel Lund Hansen <gade...@lundhansen.dk> wrote:
> >
> >> Den 19.03.2023 kl. 16.56 skrev Dingbat:
> >>
> >>> It seems that 'Caucusoid' men like blondes without any goading from
> >>> businesses This tries to explain why:
> >>>
> >><https://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/jun/04/men-blonde-women-attrac
> >>tive
> >>
> >> In a Danish tv program, mostly made for entertainment, they had several
> >> well-known (in Denmark) women talk about hair colour. They all stated
> >> quite clearly that they had more fun and were offered many more free
> >> drinks if they died their hair blond when going out in the evening.
> >>
> >> Personally I like natural colours and am saddened buy the fact that I
> >> see so little of that. The quality of hair dye has improved a lot from
> >> the screaming white of the sixties, but they do not have the quality of
> >> the natural colours.
> >>
> >> I once met a woman who had red hair that you wouldn't believe. A Dane
> >> would understand "postkasserød" which is a bright, red colour.
> >
> > Some non-Danes will also understand.
> > You will not believe it of course,
> > but some of those non-Danes will even guess
> > that the colour is 'letterboxred'.
>
> "Pillar-box red" in my BrE.

Yes, of course, but it was a literal transcription.
(which you obviously understood)

> (Although non-pillar shaped letterboxes are the same colour)
>
> Pillar boxes have their own Wikipedia page (because of course they have).
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pillar_box

Phone booth red will also do. And yes phone booth red
also has a wikipedia page of its own (because of course they have).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_telephone_box

BTW, those British-style red letterboxes
seem to have been a kind of informal standard
in parts of Western Europe.

In the Netherlands too, until some uppety-up with the mail
decided to vandalise them and to replace them all
with orange/grey monstruosities.
Do something for the sake of having done something, eh?
That's what you are an executive for.

The antique cast iron ones had already been scrapped
long before that,

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

Dingbat <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Yes, it isn't new, but the recent news
was having many more DNA samples saying the same.
Some editors seem to think that 'weren't white'
deserves a headline.

> I don't know about the provenance of white skin and blond hair; I was
> just sharing an article in the UK Guardian that tries to explain why
> blondes have been preferred for millenia. If the article is wrong, go
> ahead and critique it.

The problem with those 'explanations',
and with popi evolution and sociobiology in general
is that people will make them up explanations to fit
whatever the already known conclusion will be.

As for Marilyn, I don't think 'business community'
and 'forcing her' have anything to do with it.
'Platinum blonde' was already a popular fashion
before she jumped on that bandwagon too.

Here is one from WWII nose art.
<https://i.etsystatic.com/5339749/r/il/d72f62/539896761/il_794xN.539896761_mrm2.jpg>

Jan

[Jerry Friedman]

What's true, though, is that brown is dark orange. (Dark yellow is
more of a greenish brown.)

--
Jerry Friedman

[J. J. Lodder]

Ken Blake <K...@invalid.news.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 20:56:32 +0100, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> Lodder) wrote:
>
> >Ken Blake <K...@invalid.news.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 14:35:39 +0100, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> >> Lodder) wrote:
> >>
> >> >Dingbat <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 3:46:47?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:

[-]

> >> >> > BTW, the Dutch have invented a 'red head day',
> >> >> > held annually, starting in 2005. [1]
> >> >> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redhead_Day>
> >> >> > <https://redheaddays.nl>
> >> >> > (the language toggle doesn't work)
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Somehow the BBC discovered it, and reported on it,
> >> >> > and Britain followed.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Jan
> >> >> >
> >> >> > [1] It got started when a painter, inspired by Klimmt and Rossetti,
> >> >> > advertised for a red head model.
> >> >> > Too many responded, and they decided to have a day.
> >> >>
> >> >> 'Red' is a variety of hair colors in English. I've heard strawberry
> >> >> blond, ginger, copper and auburn all called red.
> >> >
> >> >They are all red. 'Strawberry blond' is just the lightest kind of red.
> >>
> >>
> >> Not as far as I'm concerned. Strawberry blonde is much more like a
> >> light orange than a light red.
> >
> >Almost all of those 'reds' are more like orange.
>
> Are you talking about red hair? No they're not. Most are clearly much
> more red than orange. Some are even closer to red-violet.
>
>
> >And orange is a lighter form of brown,
>
>
> No, it's not. Orange is a mixture of red and yellow,

And so is brown (just a darker shade of orange)
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown>
It is a matter of perception that we see orange and brown
as very different colours,

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

charles <cha...@candehope.me.uk> wrote:

> In article <1q7wj5k.tdz6g218xzvktN%nos...@de-ster.demon.nl>, J. J. Lodder
> <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> > Ken Blake <K...@invalid.news.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 14:35:39 +0100, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> > > Lodder) wrote:
> > >
> > > >Dingbat <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 3:46:47?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:

[-]

> > > >> > [1] It got started when a painter, inspired by Klimmt and
> > > >> > Rossetti, advertised for a red head model. Too many responded,
> > > >> > and they decided to have a day.
> > > >>
> > > >> 'Red' is a variety of hair colors in English. I've heard strawberry
> > > >> blond, ginger, copper and auburn all called red.
> > > >
> > > >They are all red. 'Strawberry blond' is just the lightest kind of red.
> > >
> > >
> > > Not as far as I'm concerned. Strawberry blonde is much more like a
> > > light orange than a light red.
>
> > Almost all of those 'reds' are more like orange. And orange is a lighter
> > form of brown,
>
>
> and brown is desaturated yellow.

No. Desaturating yellew gives colours like chartreuse yellow,
or pear yellow.
Getting something like those hair colours
really takes a stronger red component.

Jan

[lar3ryca]

I consider most so-called 'red-haired' people to have a definite orange
hair.

>
>> And orange is a lighter form of brown,
>
>
> No, it's not. Orange is a mixture of red and yellow,

--
An apple every eight hours will keep three doctors away.

[Dingbat]

Perhaps it's red in Danish too, but it wouldn't be lAl (red) in Hindi.

[Sam Plusnet]

Indeed.
"Platinum Blonde" and the "Blonde Bombshell" were both labels applied to
Jean Harlow, who died when Marilyn was 11.

--
Sam Plusnet

[Sam Plusnet]

And you never see a blonde strawberry.
--
Sam Plusnet

[musika]

Here's some with chicken pox.

https://tinyurl.com/nmsybksf
--
Ray
UK

[Dingbat]

On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 12:52:15 AM UTC-7, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
> Den 19.03.2023 kl. 16.56 skrev Dingbat:
>
> > It seems that 'Caucusoid' men like blondes without any goading from businesses
> > This tries to explain why:
> > <https://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/jun/04/men-blonde-women-attractive>
> In a Danish tv program, mostly made for entertainment, they had several
> well-known (in Denmark) women talk about hair colour. They all stated
> quite clearly that they had more fun and were offered many more free
> drinks if they died their hair blond when going out in the evening.
>

Clairol has an advertising slogan 'Blonde it up.' Their 1963 TV ad showed the nuptials
of a woman who found her husband by turning blonde. presumably using their dye.

In contrast, Julia Roberts is a natural blonde who has often colored her hair auburn,
although not in order to find a husband.

[Dingbat]

On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 12:52:15 AM UTC-7, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:

A 7000-6000 year old burial of a young woman, aged around 20, and her
newborn baby was excavated in Vedbaek, Denmark. It’s speculated that the
pair died together in childbirth. Only skeletons can be seen but a reconstructed
image shows her with black hair. Were there other hair colors at that time?
<https://wondersofthepast.quora.com/A-7000-6000-year-old-burial-of-a-young-woman-aged-around-20-when-she-died-and-her-newborn-baby-from-Vedbaek-Denmark>

[Arindam Banerjee]

Could not the image be reconstructed with green hair?
> <https://wondersofthepast.quora.com/A-7000-6000-year-old-burial-of-a-young-woman-aged-around-20-when-she-died-and-her-newborn-baby-from-Vedbaek-Denmark>

[Dingbat]

That would not be authentic since green is not a natural hair color,
whereas black is possibly authentic.

The hair on Tolland Man's body is red but this article cautions that it might have been
so colored by (the chemicals in) the bog, making its original color unknown.
<https://www.museumsilkeborg.dk/what-did-tollund-man-look-like-when-he-was-found>

[J. J. Lodder]

Dingbat <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote:

AFAIK the hair colour is fantasy, not based on DNA analysis.
If you search on the web you can also find another reconstruction,
with (guess what) platinum blond hair,

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

Looking things up: Jean Harlow's breakthrough
came with a movie titled "Hell's Angels".
She was still ordinary yellow blond in that one.
She became platinum blonde in het next movie,
titled, yes, "Platinum Blonde" (pre-Code, 1931)
So it looks like Harlow, or those around her,
actually invented the platinum blonde.
More contrast was of course an advantage in black and white movies.

And you suggest a much greater age difference than there actually was.
Jean Harlow died aged 26, (in 1937, of acute renal failure)
Saying that Monroe was born when Harlow was 15 gives a better idea,

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

Dingbat <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Guess what, colour description is context sensitive.
Take that colour of the hair from the cover of that 'Red Headed League',
and paint it on a letterbox.
Most people speaking English then won't call it red,

Jan

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 12:08:03 AM UTC-4, Dingbat wrote:

> In contrast, Julia Roberts is a natural blonde who has often colored her hair auburn,
> although not in order to find a husband.

Or she is provided with a wig.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 6:40:29 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:

> > "Platinum Blonde" and the "Blonde Bombshell" were both labels applied to
> > Jean Harlow, who died when Marilyn was 11.
> Looking things up: Jean Harlow's breakthrough
> came with a movie titled "Hell's Angels".
> She was still ordinary yellow blond in that one.

Do color photographs of Harlow even exist?

> She became platinum blonde in het next movie,
> titled, yes, "Platinum Blonde" (pre-Code, 1931)
> So it looks like Harlow, or those around her,
> actually invented the platinum blonde.
> More contrast was of course an advantage in black and white movies.

And you seem to be unaware of the existence of the wigmaker's art.

[Silvano]

lar3ryca hat am 20.03.2023 um 21:20 geschrieben:

> On 2023-03-19 15:56, Silvano wrote:
>> lar3ryca hat am 19.03.2023 um 16:45 geschrieben:
>>> On 2023-03-19 09:24, Silvano wrote:
>>>> Phil Carmody hat am 19.03.2023 um 12:56 geschrieben:
>>>>> Silvano <Sil...@noncisonopernessuno.it> writes:
>>>>>>> On Sunday, March 12, 2023 at 10:47:23 AM UTC-6, Anton Shepelev
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't see your point. Do you not, as everybody else,
>>>>>>>> distinguish between an Arab, African, a Pole, an Indian, and
>>>>>>>> a Japanese on sight?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'd be very careful about your claim after looking at pictures of
>>>>>> this Pole,
>>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmanuel_Olisadebe>
>>>>>
>>>>> Place of birth Warri, Nigeria
>>>>
>>>> So what? He's a Polish citizen, i.e. a Pole.
>>>
>>> Do try to stay on-topic. We were discussing /race/, not citizenship.
>>
>>
>> Since when are Poles a *race*?????
>
> That was my point exactly. He is a Pole by citizenship. His race has
> nothing to do with his citizenship. Try to keep up.

Please read again the original question: "Do you not, as everybody else,

[Ken Blake]

On a letter box or on someone's head, I wouldn't call it red. It's
clearly orange, not red.

However, leaving aside all the modern hair dye colors, the only names
for colors of hair used to be black, brown, brunette, blonde, blond,
platinum blonde, and red. There was never hair called orange, so even
if someone's "red" hair was more orange than red, it was usually
called red. .

Another however: The colors on the cover of that book depend on the
what the artist painted and what the printing press used can do. They
have nothing to do with actual hair colors. I've never seen anyone
with hair that color. Despite the title, his hair is orange, not red.

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Den 21.03.2023 kl. 17.00 skrev Ken Blake:

> However, leaving aside all the modern hair dye colors, the only names
> for colors of hair used to be black, brown, brunette, blonde, blond,
> platinum blonde, and red.

In Danish there is one more colour, "commune blond" or "liverpaste" to
describe hair that is not blond and not brown (not a brunette either).
It's not meant as a praise.

--
Bertel, Denmark

[TonyCooper]

It may be what we in the US refer to as "dirty blond". The use has
nothing to do with washing. Just color.



--

Tony Cooper - Orlando,Florida

[Ken Blake]

There are also other English modifications to the terms I mentioned,
such as "dirty blonde," but I didn't bother mentioning them,