People breed pets for desired qualities. A purebred animal exhibits the exellence of features in a desired architype.
A Pitbull is the architype for a guardog/fighter. Everyone of its features were bred intentionally, and non-intentially, toward the breed that it is today.
A Pitbull brought up in the right enviroment and under a good master can be as docile as a Lab. It is still a powerful dog, and can be provoked into violence easier then other dogs in this position, but is usually the product of its conditioning.
I will choose the Borzoi, a quiet and gentle breed, as an opposite example. The tall and willowy features of a Borzoi speak of its nature very clearly, it is a dog that most represents what we want in a loving companion. It would be extremely hard to make a Borzoi a fighter or guardog.
Both dogs, when brought up in a condition that is totally against their nature, adapt in a mediocre fashion. They rarely exel at the jobs given to them.
Now, imagine ourselves the dogs of this example, each race a breed.
Are we fully the product of our conditioning, and absolutely nothing else? Like the Pitbull and Borzoi, is one breed more prone to different physical and behavioral features then others?
This leads to taboo questions. A common example; Could a certain form of violence of been bred into the African-American Man, like the pitbull? When put into anouther race group, can exel at the tasks given to that group? Especially, when his parents and relatives had varying social ills? Is it, or would it be, a common occurence for him to exel, or just a rarity among a majority like the docile Pitbull or verocious Borzoi.
I'm sorry if your confused. I'll admit my writing isn't the best, but I did try to explain a few points. I was trying to points that dogs were a product of their conditioning AND breed. I've raised dogs, read about them as a hobby, so I think I have a good foundry about the breeds I talk about. When I compared Humans to dogs, the fact that they may be a product of breed and conditioning, I wanted to know everyones thoughts on this.
Last edited by UlrikeSE on Tue Mar 27, 2007 5:22 pm; edited 1 time in total
| UlrikeSE wrote: |
People breed pets for desired qualities. A purebred animal exhibits the exellence of features in a desired architype.
A Pitbull is the architype for a guardog/fighter. Everyone of its features were bred intentionally, and non-intentially, toward the breed that it is today.
A Pitbull brought up in the right enviroment and under a good master can be as docile as a Lab. It is still a powerful dog, and can be provoked into violence easier then other dogs in this position, but is usually the product of its conditioning.
|
So here you say the dog is the product of it's environment.
| Quote: |
| I will choose the Borzoi, a quiet and gentle breed, as an opposite example. The tall and willowy features of a Borzoi speak of its nature very clearly, it is a dog that most represents what we want in a loving companion. It would be extremely hard to make a Borzoi a fighter or guardog. |
Your evidence for this statement is ? | Quote: |
Both dogs, when brought up in a condition that is totally against their nature, adapt in a mediocre fashion. They rarely exel at the jobs given to them. |
Your evidence for this statement is ?
(And here you say the dog is a product of heredity) | Quote: |
[color=green]
Now, imagine ourselves the dogs of this example, each race a breed. |
No thanks.....your statements so far are confused and contradictory. After this point they are confused and offensive,I'm sorry if your confused. I'll admit my writing isn't the best, but I did try to explain a few points. I was trying to points that dogs were a product of their conditioning AND breed. I've raised dogs, read about them as a hobby, so I think I have a good foundry about the breeds I talk about. When I compared Humans to dogs, the fact that they may be a product of breed and conditioning, I wanted to know everyones thoughts on this.
I'm not providing any evidence further then the vague/"confused". I want to hear arguments for and against the ideas that may be different then the ones mentioned. I never stated whether I believed it or not, it's a discussion starter.
I'm also sorry your offended, what offended you? Was it just my confusing writing or the example I chose? I didn't choose it to be offensive intentially, it just seemed like the most blatant example in America.
It may be less offensive to people to, rather than thinking of breeds of humans, to think of this in terms of races of dogs.
Hispanic, European, Asian, African, et cetera are several 'breeds' that I would differentiate if I were given the task of objectively classifying humans in the same way humans have classified other animals.
They all have differing physical characteristics (for example, hispanics almost always have moderately dark skin, straight black hair, below average height, et cetera.) As in any breed of any species there are exceptions to these rules. Because nobody is purposefully breeding humans selectively, the difference between these breeds is small compared to the differences between breeds in some other species, especially domesticated ones.
| ocalhoun wrote: |
It may be less offensive to people to, rather than thinking of breeds of humans, to think of this in terms of races of dogs.
Hispanic, European, Asian, African, et cetera are several 'breeds' that I would differentiate if I were given the task of objectively classifying humans in the same way humans have classified other animals.
They all have differing physical characteristics (for example, hispanics almost always have moderately dark skin, straight black hair, below average height, et cetera.) As in any breed of any species there are exceptions to these rules. Because nobody is purposefully breeding humans selectively, the difference between these breeds is small compared to the differences between breeds in some other species, especially domesticated ones. |
Very good point.
But is the interbreeding that profound to drown out protential racive traits? One could argue that white communities rarely breed outside the community, the same with other races. If you walk into a ghetto, rich suburban area, you can't help but see that some breeding lines are present and very rarely tampered with. I will admit that their are exeptions to every location, but enough to null and void the argument?
This only the sub-argument though. I wanted to question if that their are any bahvioral traits along with the physical ones like you mention. Do you think so?It's a politically incorrect thing to discuss, but I don't think you intended to offend anyone, so I'd word your question this way:
"Different breeds of dogs tend to have distinct temperaments, genetically programmed. Do different 'races' of humans?"
First of all, I don't like the word "race", because I think it implies more genetic difference than occurs. (Ethnicity is better, but we're not discussing which word is better so it doesn't matter.) I think the differences between us are truly only skin deep, and that what gives up black or white skin, blonde hair or curly or whatever, does not affect our temperament the way it does with dogs.
Different breeds of dogs were bred for the desired characteristics, physical and temperament. Humans were not. While it may be true that people of African descent have a higher likelihood of getting sickle cell anemia (or whatever, I forget the details and why that may be so), they were not bred for specific traits.
Maybe the closest we can get to selective breeding in humans is the great evil of African slavery. It was based on Europeans prospering on the labour of Africans. Millions of the strongest were chosen. My anecdotal observation would say that on average, black people in North America are bigger and stronger than whites, and this might not be hard to explain genetically. This is no way affects their personality.
Any characteristic you might want to use to describe the temperament a particular "race" (which is in itself generalization) I think is entirely a result of the culture and environment.
A dog has learned to bite and bark from it's environment.
I thought we were discussing the part of a dog's traits that come from its genetics, but certainly its environment plays a big part as well.
| stone1343 wrote: |
| I thought we were discussing the part of a dog's traits that come from its genetics, but certainly its environment plays a big part as well. |
Well, now that you've pushed such good points, I will have to agree with your argument . It would seem that they are effected by their environment, and genetics are effected by environment. | UlrikeSE wrote: |
| stone1343 wrote: | | I thought we were discussing the part of a dog's traits that come from its genetics, but certainly its environment plays a big part as well. |
Well, now that you've pushed such good points, I will have to agree with your argument . It would seem that they are effected by their environment, and genetics are effected by environment. |
Genes are not affected by environment (other than by exposure to radiation and other potential sources of mutation). This is an example of the confusion I was talking about. You are proposing some sort of Lamarckian model http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Baptiste_Lamarck | UlrikeSE wrote: |
| This only the sub-argument though. I wanted to question if that their are any bahvioral traits along with the physical ones like you mention. Do you think so? |
Well, that would really boil down to the old debate of nature vs. nurture.
How can we conclusively tell which traits are inherited via genetics and which are imprinted through education and the way a child is raised?
For example, my dog is half pit-bull, and when anyone hears that, they think that she'll be a mean dog, but she's the exact opposite of mean, because of the way she was raised and trained since she was a puppy.I think comparing human "races" to dog breeds is a risky proposition, for many reasons, not the least of which is that it's explicitly offensive.
I suspect that the level of genetic differentiation among dog breeds is many orders of magnitude greater than the differentiation that occurs among human ethnic groups. This is probably due to the extreme amount of inbreeding that is used to generate dog breeds.
Most any trait you can think of that humans express, with few exceptions, are considered "quantitative" by genetecists. Height is an example, in which tremendous variability exists in the traits due to variable expression of dozens of genes. When new dogs breeds are created, similar dogs are selected and then drastically inbred. This removes a tremendous amounts of variability and "fixes" quanitative traits at a certain value.
Human ethnic groups are (with one or two noteable exceptions) not inbred in the slightest. In each ethnic group there is a tremendous amount of genetic diversity. Natural selection can fix traits, and MAY be responsible for the evolution of traits such as dark skin coloration, but it certainly hasn't fixed traits associated with aggression, musical ability, or physical prowess, or other traits that are so offensively associated with percieved racial distinctions. I suspect that there is much more gene flow among ethnic groups than you realize, as well.
The reality of "races" is that substantial genetic diversity exists both within and among ethnic groups. A person you would identify as "black" may have European and black South African genetic background in roughly similar proportions, and may be less genetically different from an American caucasian than they are from another "black" American. In fact, I see no reason to believe that a South African shares more genetic similarity with a Somalian than a Somalian does with an Albanian. It is not safe to assume that any meaningful traits or genetic similarities are associated with skin color.
The reason black people appear to some in this country to be more athletic or more musical than whites probably has more to do with our biases, which are self-confirming, cultural pressures, and differing expectations. With biases, people tend to notice examples that support their bias and ignore those that contradict their biases. Also, it's been shown that the expectations people have for themselves can dramatically affect their physical and mental performance, and that these expectations are heavily influenced by society. A majority of sucessful soccer players for example, have birthdays that place them at the top of their age groups in soccer competitions. Being slightly older than their peers gives them a slight competitive advantage, which leads to greater sucess, higher expectations, and accelerates development of ability. The cycle continues, and they are much more likely to become superior athletes than the children who are just a few months younger than them.
| Gagnar The Unruly wrote: |
explicitly offensive.
|
Only from the viewpoint of thinking that humans are far better than and far removed from other animals, which is itself offensive to me. | ocalhoun wrote: |
| Gagnar The Unruly wrote: | explicitly offensive.
|
Only from the viewpoint of thinking that humans are far better than and far removed from other animals, which is itself offensive to me. |
No, the offensive element was the specific comparison and the way it was made:
| Quote: |
| Could a certain form of violence of been bred into the African-American Man, like the pitbull? |
Regardless of intent, that is an inherently racist question and I find it offensive. No attempt is made to compare Caucasian or other racial groups to different breeds, just this one comparison is made.
The question assumes as a given that African American males ARE more violent than other males - with no supporting evidence - and then goes on to question whether this is genetic in origin.
I am perfectly happy to accept that the question was not intended to be racist, but I personally found it offensive and it would not surprise me if others did too. It has nothing to do with assuming that humans are superior to dogs and everything to do with the context and selection of the specific example. | UlrikeSE wrote: |
[color=darkred]People breed pets for desired qualities. A purebred animal exhibits the exellence of features in a desired architype.
A Pitbull is the architype for a guardog/fighter. Everyone of its features were bred intentionally, and non-intentially, toward the breed that it is today.
Now, imagine ourselves the dogs of this example, each race a breed.
|
That's not offensive.
| Quote: |
| Could a certain form of violence of been bred into the African-American Man, like the pitbull? |
That probably is. Specifics should be avoided, especially derogatory specifics.
I had read the whole topic first, and I could have sworn that the thread hadn't deteriorated to the point of the second quote there... (Or I wouldn't have argued that it wasn't offensive) I must have missed that part.
Conclusion: This thread is potentially offensive, but I maintain that there should be nothing offensive in comparing the way both humans and animals are seperated into distinct breeds. | ocalhoun wrote: |
| Conclusion: This thread is potentially offensive, but I maintain that there should be nothing offensive in comparing the way both humans and animals are seperated into distinct breeds. |
It depends why and how it is done. I am a dog lover myself - I have 2 collies (agility trials winners on many occasions) and a Schipperke (2nd in class at Crufts this year) so I find nothing offensive, per se, about dogs.
The problem was with the specific question and then with the nonsense that followed it, such as :
| Quote: |
| It would seem that they are effected by their environment, and genetics are effected by environment. |
and
| Quote: |
| A dog has learned to bite and bark from it's environment. |
Complete rubbish. Firstly we have a Lamarkian re-writing of genetics and then we are told that a dog in the wrong environment doesn't know how to bite or bark (and therefore presumably starves to death in silence soon after birth). | Bikerman wrote: |
| Quote: | | A dog has learned to bite and bark from it's environment. |
Complete rubbish. Firstly we have a Lamarkian re-writing of genetics and then we are told that a dog in the wrong environment doesn't know how to bite or bark (and therefore presumably starves to death in silence soon after birth). |
As an individual, surely not. But as a species?Like Bikerman, I'm prepared to accept that the author didn't mean to offend anyone with his/her post. I normally ascribe to the "no question is a bad question" philosophy, but I have to admit to taking some offense to the author's post. I can also imagine someone becoming much more offended than I was, and rightfully. I'll outline what I find to be offensive about this post, to the best of my ability. The common theme will be the comparison of human ethnicities to dog breeds:
| UlrikeSE wrote: |
| People breed pets for desired qualities. |
Does the author believe that races of humans have been bred for desired qualities? This is offensive, if implied.
| UlrikeSE wrote: |
| A purebred animal exhibits the exellence of features in a desired architype. |
Similarly, is there a racial archetype? What would that archetype represent? This serves as a validation for unfounded cultural prejudices. That races exist because things are best that way. It reminds me of Reggie White's coments that "blacks" are good at sports, the "Chinese" are good at math, and "Indians" (read: Native Americans) are good at being sneaky. The author's comment is offensive on the grounds that it implies individual races are more suited for certain purposes (and therefore not for others).
The author describes the archetypes he/she invisions in the separate dog breeds. Is there a human corellary to the "guarddog/fighter," that "can be docile" but also "can be provoked into violence easier than other dogs in this position?" Given the cultural context in which these statements occur, they are extremely offensive. Statements like these have been made far too often regarding people of African descent.
Further unsettling is the following quote:
| UlrikeSE wrote: |
| The tall and willowy features of a Borzoi speak of its nature very clearly, it is a dog that most represents what we want in a loving companion. It would be extremely hard to make a Borzoi a fighter or guardog. |
First off, I would like to point out the continued use of predilection towards violence as a theme in separating breeds, which is implied as a theme in separating races by juxtoposition. Secondly, this indicates that the external features of the dog speak to it's nature. This may be true to a limited degree for dog breeds, but certainly not to human beings. How racial discriminations are supposed to inform the "nature" (or content of character?) of an individual human is beyond me. The above quoted statement is also offensive.
| UlrikeSE wrote: |
| Both dogs, when brought up in a condition that is totally against their nature, adapt in a mediocre fashion. They rarely exel at the jobs given to them. |
Again, what are we to gain by this comparison. First, it implies that certain humans are suited to certain conditions by their inner nature. This is offensive. Second, it implies that some racial groups may have been brought up against their nature. What does this cause one to think of? I think of slaves in America, translocated into a society where they are by nature unfit? This is extremely offensive.
And now for the explicitly offensive comments:
| Quote: |
| Now, imagine ourselves the dogs of this example, each race a breed. |
Humans are not dogs, but some humans have been treated like dogs, or worse, for many years. For centuries dark-skinned people have been dehumanized across the globe. This comment continues the theme of dehumanization - by comparing humans to dog breeds the author uses imagery that is extremely offensive. There is nothing wrong with dogs, but treating humans like dogs, and comparing humans to dogs, is offensive. Humans do not deserve to be chained, collared, or treated as subjects. They are not like dogs. This comment is offensive.
| Quote: |
| Could a certain form of violence of been bred into the African-American Man, like the pitbull? When put into anouther race group, can exel at the tasks given to that group? Especially, when his parents and relatives had varying social ills? Is it, or would it be, a common occurence for him to exel, or just a rarity among a majority like the docile Pitbull or verocious Borzoi. |
In these sentences, the author suggests that violence could have been bred into African Americans, compares African American men to pitbulls, suggests that African American men cannot excel at common tasks in Western society, and that the ones that do excel do so as exceptions. Further, the author sees these problems as being problems of nature, rather than being ones of purely social origin. What isn't offensive about this? Much of what is offensive about this topic is implicitly offensive. This is definitely explicitly offensive.
Finally, though it happens all the time, it is inappropriate to judge individual people by prejudices we associate with groups of people. Thus, the whole question is basically moot. In any event, I think we've answered the question of whether human races can be compared to dog breeds.
Last edited by Gagnar The Unruly on Wed Apr 11, 2007 12:17 am; edited 2 times in total | ocalhoun wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: |
| Quote: | | A dog has learned to bite and bark from it's environment. |
Complete rubbish. Firstly we have a Lamarkian re-writing of genetics and then we are told that a dog in the wrong environment doesn't know how to bite or bark (and therefore presumably starves to death in silence soon after birth). |
As an individual, surely not. But as a species? |
The common dog (Canis lupus familiaris) is a member of the Canidae family. It has recently been shown beyond reasonable doubt to have evolved from the Canis lupus (the grey wolf) by Robert Wayne and his team in California*
| Quote: |
To sort out the evolutionary origin of the family dog, Wayne and his colleagues used the techniques of molecular biology to compare the genes of dogs with those of wolves, coyotes and jackals. Wayne's team collected blood, tissue, or hair from 140 dogs of sixty-seven breeds, and 162 wolves from North America, Europe, Asia, and Arabia. When Wayne looked at mitochondrial DNA samples, he found that wolves and coyotes differ by about 6% in their mitochondrial DNA, while wolves and dogs differ by only 1%.
Wayne's team then focused their attention on one small portion of the mitochondrial DNA called the control region, because it was known to vary a lot among mammals. Among the sixty seven breeds of dogs, Wayne's team found a total of 26 different sequences in the control region, each differing from the others at one or a few sites. Wolves had 27 different sequences in the control region, none of them exactly the same as any dog sequence, but all very similar to the dog sequences, differing from them at most at 12 sites along the DNA, and usually fewer. Coyote and jackal were a lot more different from dogs than wolves were. Every coyote and jackal sequence differed from any dog sequence by at least 20 sites, and many by far more. That settled it. Dogs are domesticated wolves. |
Most of the Canidae family bark (obviously they all bite - we'll leave that aside since it is self-evident).
| Quote: |
| Most wild canids including wolves, bark as a form of close-range communication. The wolf's bark is short, low-pitched and gruff, often described as "noisy" because it lacks harmonic or tonal qualities identified with more musical vocalizations. The bark is usually associated with defense of den or pups, a warning to back off, a protest, threat or an actual attack.** |
There is some evidence that the expressive range and frequency of the bark of Canis lupus familiaris has evolved with it's association with man since the average dog has a far more expressive range of bark than it's ancestor. This is difficult to be scientific about, however, since there is little data to go on. What we can say, without reservation, that a dog's bark is a genetic trait.
* http://www.idir.net/~wolf2dog/wayne2.htm
** http://www.resteddoginn.ca/bark.php
