Dale Farms

Every day, forensic pathologists identify the race of human remains from various characteristics of their bones. The notion that race is an invention is a fashionable conceit that is quickly discarded where race is helpful.

In this case, though, the issue is behavior. And there's no ethical dilemma disliking certain behaviors.

http://web.mit.edu/racescience/in_media/what_dna_says_about_human/index.html

I think anyone has defined race as "pure and static groups that are significantly different from one another" in a hundred years. Well, fifty, anyway.

When someone says that race is a social construct, they don't mean that differences found in forensic pathology don't exist.  Heck, you can tell the difference between a Finnish skeleton and a French one.  Did you know that?  Should we say Finns are a separate race from the French because they have certain characteristics like a tendency for pronounced occipital buns?  What you can't do is say for certainty that a black guy has more in common genetically with another unrelated black guy than a white guy.  Nor can you say that all the other crap we try to put on "racial" difference is valid.

ETA: And I am sure that totally made the article not worth reading.  Of course, if you'd like to define race, list them, and explain how it is relevant to the modern world outside of corpse identification and genetic diseases (which exist in populations which are "races" including Irish Travellers, it'd go a long way to ridding me of my conceit.  At least this one anyway.

I did know that. There is plenty of precedent for regarding Finns and Frenchmen as racially different. Or, for that matter, Picts, Saxons and Normans. Or, for all I know, the Beaker People. Any group that stays put and interbreeds long enough to develop a set of identifiable physical characteristics could be described as a race.

Or a breed or a reallllly extended family or a rama-lama ding-dong, if you simply don't like the word "race."

But most racial classifications would not separate the Finns and the French.  Sami Finns, maybe.  But the difference is there for non-Sami Finns as well.  And few would say that the Normans and Celts were racially distinct.  Ethnically, yes.  When almost any population stays isolated long enough, they develop tendencies.  If this is what you classify as race, then the Travellers fall into it.  They even have the tendency to develop certain diseases which are rare in the general population.

But when someone calls race a social construct, they are saying that the idea that someone like my half-brother who looks black should have more in common genetically, even without going on to get into the really racist bits, with a random black guy than me, his white half-sister is not scientific or relevant.  It's ridiculous and tribal.  The really racist bits are that his potential or characteristics are different simply because he inherited his fathers more obvious skin colouring (and likely other physical differences that would classically be grouped with "race").  It's not denying that there are genetic differences in populations.  It's denying that the differences are as important as we make them out to be.  It's how we have handled these differences when we encounter them which is important and makes it a social construct. 

And yes, my birth family was basically like a miniature version of the UN.

I like rama lama ding dong.  

I am not sure why I find it semi-acceptable that Amish children leave school at 14, but that by Key Stage 3 (age 11 or so) only 15%-20% of traveller children are attending school.

I suppose Amish families support themselves and don't have a reputation for stealing.  

I don't know.

I like rama lama ding dong.  

I am not sure why I find it semi-acceptable that Amish children leave school at 14, but that by Key Stage 3 (age 11 or so) only 15%-20% of traveller children are attending school.

I suppose Amish families support themselves and don't have a reputation for stealing.  

I don't know.

I think it's OK to live outside society as long as you live completely outside it.  The Amish are a completely separate and distinct group that for valid religious, ethnic, and cultural reasons choose to remain separate.  There are benefits and drawbacks to their way of life, and they accept and live with both.  I believe that Gypsies and Travellers should be permitted to make that same decision, but if they want to live outside of society, then they can't take advantage of something they choose not to participate in.  So if they want to have their separate society and lifestyle, fine, but they can't then claim benefits from the government of the society that they reject. 

My two pence, anyway

bingo historyenne that is what I agree with

I agree with you too.

I suppose my only sticking point is the educational issue, but Amish children either go on to apprentice or work at home (or in really rare cases become teachers).

Smash I am with you! Look if we want to talk about tax avoidance let's open it up. Corporations are dodging taxes in the billions, as are the wealthy. They move their crap offshore and lobby for unfair tax systems - capital gains is still not taxed as income, loopholes abound. Things like VAT and sales tax are terribly regressive, hitting the poor and working classes much harder than the rich. We are sitting on the very edge of a plunge that could easily see a lot of us on a corner in the snow with a tin cup because of high flying bankers and money manipulators. And let me tell you they don't view people like me and you as 'good people' to be taken care of....they lump all of us in together. I can't understand for the life of me why we keep going at each other....immigrants....travellers...poor. We turn on each other while the goons in the city giggle and say they need more.   

I think it's OK to live outside society as long as you live completely outside it.  The Amish are a completely separate and distinct group that for valid religious, ethnic, and cultural reasons choose to remain separate.  There are benefits and drawbacks to their way of life, and they accept and live with both.  I believe that Gypsies and Travellers should be permitted to make that same decision, but if they want to live outside of society, then they can't take advantage of something they choose not to participate in.  So if they want to have their separate society and lifestyle, fine, but they can't then claim benefits from the government of the society that they reject. 

My two pence, anyway

But they're not totally separate. They use the public roads, the postal system, and they sell their goods to non-Amish, and own property and business all without paying taxes.

So it is ok for people to break the law because big business does? 

Where does that leave society?

So it is ok for people to break the law because big business does? 

Where does that leave society?

Is it OK for big business to break the law? Where does that leave society?

But I'm not necessarily making a direct comparison...I think that's some sort of logical fallacy.....just wondering why we focus so much on one segment of society - people in a trailer park.

But they're not totally separate. They use the public roads, the postal system, and they sell their goods to non-Amish, and own property and business all without paying taxes.

Do you think they should build their own roads?  Honestly, I don't care about this stuff.  It's too petty to get worked up over.  The Amish mind their own business, take care of themselves, make great snickerdoodles, and always wave when I drive by.  I've got no problems with them not paying taxes.  I don't have problems with Gypsies/Travellers not paying taxes either, if all they're doing is using roads and post offices, in which they presumably pay the necessary postage.  If they're claiming benefits, then I might take issue, but trying to parse all this who-uses-what-and-who-pays (that'll be 10 cents per mile, if you want to use public roads, Mr Amish Person) is just too exhausting.  I'm with sonofasailor.  If you want to get upset about someone not paying taxes, how about focusing your ire on the multimillionaires who go to a lot of trouble to avoid paying, for no other reason than that they don't want to, rather than on people who only interact with mainstream society on a superficial level, and probably wouldn't owe that much anyway.