Wikipedia........Ancestry

Hitler's father, Alois Hitler, Sr. (1837–1903), was the illegitimate child of Maria Anna Schicklgruber.[2] Because the baptismal register did not show the name of his father, Alois initially bore his mother's surname, Schicklgruber. In 1842, Johann Georg Hiedler married Alois's mother, Maria Anna. After she died in 1847 and Johann Georg Hiedler in 1856, Alois was brought up in the family of Hiedler's brother, Johann Nepomuk Hiedler.[3] In 1876, Alois was legitimated and the baptismal register changed by a priest to register Johann Georg Hiedler as Alois's father (recorded as Georg Hitler).[4][5] Alois then assumed the surname Hitler,[5] also spelled as Hiedler, Hüttler, or Huettler. The Hitler surname is probably based on "one who lives in a hut" (Standard German Hütte for hut) or on "shepherd" (Standard German hüten for to guard); alternatively, it might be derived from the Slavic words Hidlar or Hidlarcek (small cottager or small holder).[6]

Nazi official Hans Frank suggested that Alois's mother had been employed as a housekeeper for a Jewish family in Graz and that the family's 19-year-old son, Leopold Frankenberger, had fathered Alois.[7] Because no Frankenberger was registered in Graz during that period, and no record of Leopold Frankenberger's existence has been produced,[8] historians dismiss the claim that Alois's father was Jewish.[9][10]

Karnal wrote on Jul 11^th, 2014 at 10:12am:
I don't mind other races in their own countries. So Karnal, if racism doesn't exist why are you banging  on about it all of the time. So does it or doesn't it??

hermoine wrote on Jul 11^th, 2014 at 10:15am:


Are you asking me if racism exists?

You don't seem to be able to distinguish between "race" and "racism", dear.

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 10^th, 2014 at 11:54pm:

Thanks, Dr Brain.
The only troublke with all this is that human interactions and relationships are not
"genetic" or "evolutionary" but interpersonal. And on that level, we take all sorts of things into consideration, including looks, manners, and all sorts of other outward signs of the others' inner personality, character, etc.
We do this because we are keen to know what kind of person he is. And previous interactions and information about the type of person we are dealing with is important.
Stereotypes are important. They have come about due to accumulated experience - and can be changed only by more accumulated experience to the contrary.

Anyone would prefer a well-dressed, well-spoken, well-mannered person to a tattoed, foul-mouthed, dirty one, regardless of what rave either of them is.

Race is not EVERYTHING. But it is evidently not nothing, either.

Soren wrote on Jul 11^th, 2014 at 11:45am:


Are you reinforcing Brian's point that the concept of race is a social construct?   

|dev|null wrote on Jul 11^th, 2014 at 12:00pm:

No.
I am saying that we judge people on the basis of experience with their traits and characteristics that we perceive. That includes their ethnicity, race, how they present, speak, behave. We have a different set of experiences and perceptions of white-haired, well-spoken grannies and gold-toothed, tattooed black gangstas effin' and blindin' - to give you two obviously different exampled that even you couldn't confuse (try though you will).

How 'bout we all get down to tin-tacks and call a spade a spade, and a shovel a shovel.

How 'bout we drop the word 'race' and talk about breeds instead?

Just like felines, canines, bovines, etc., people are of different 'breeds'. We got black ones, white ones, big ones, little ones, round eyes, slanty eyes, aggressive ones and timid ones.

Is it reasonable to suppose that there might personality traits, quite apart from other differences, between, say,  a labrador and a pit-bull? Or a Staffy and a Dobermann? Or a Toro Brava and a Hereford? A house cat with a leopard?

So it is with people. And 'social constructs'.

'Nature or Nurture' is an old saying and it contains many irrefutable proofs of its validity with regard to individual reactions to environment, social mores, 'breed' of family and friends, socio-economic factors, local infrastructure and religious upbringing.

There are various 'breeds' of Homo Sapiens, that tribe to which we all belong, and we live in a world where some 'breeds' are entering areas where a respectful and harmonious 'community' has already been established by other 'breeds'.

They don't mix. They don't want to mix. They form anti-social enclaves. They want to live off the largesse of the community. And they get vocal and aggrieved when things don't go their way.

Well here's some news, folks. Just like in the animal world, if you don't conform and you haven't toppled the existing power structure, you'll either be eaten or thrown out.

That's just the way it is. All the sooking about about the plight of the poor (insert victim group of the moment) won't change the inevitable. It's not that hard to work out who the bad guys are, the problems lie within the processes in place to deal with them.

It should be noted however, that different 'breeds' are best introduced over time and in small numbers.

We've seen this policy work before, why change it?

Civilisation is but a thin veneer on the limbic system.

A wolf pack is also a 'social construct', but only amongst themselves.