There's no genetic pure race.

[Feral]

As I've noticed a pattern on this kind of forums, I'll try to be as laconic as possible. There's no genetic pure race (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml). The perception of 'race purity' originates, and it's observable, because of the heritability and relativization and appropriation and identification and differentiation of certain desirable and common traits within social groups; which we could just call them by the appropriate name "ethnic groups".

Does this means that there aren't biological differences determined by genetic? Does this means that race doesn't matter? Or that ethnicity doesn't matter? Or that the preservation of these two whether for separate or together doesn't? On the contrary. As the purpose of living isn't dying, the purpose of evolution isn't extinction nor, as it might seem, merely adaptation. As far I've been coming to know, transcendence seems to be that purpose.

Victimism it's the modern topic, the pivot of almost every contemporary political idiosyncracy. Victimism excuses weakness, worships it, idealize it. And the denial of weakness, as something to overcome, blocks the potential for greatness. Victimism cannot consagrate to attain anything superior than itself as it substantialize on the condition, whether real or not, of inferiority.

Genetical purity on human populations, in terms of a sociological conception, it's ficticious as it is an extrapolated and biased construction at the moment it becomes incongruous to exact sciences. Both racism and anti-racism had proven to only serve to victimize and submit and/or omit ethnic groups, whether of different origins or the very own; As the true nature of victimism is passive coercion.

That it's to say, genetical purity seems to be not only unreal but also irrelevant to ethnic preservation; while normalization, as said in the first paragraph, is. The moment ethinicities find shelter in racism and victimism, they sentence their own decadence and, eventually, their extinction. If you still didn't get it, just go check about inferiority/superiority complex.

[StonyArabia]

Of course purity is total bullshit dude. No one is pure it's wishful thinking.

[Loki]

Yes, lots of gene flow (both ancient and modern) between human groups. That is why we can't elevate races in humans to subspecies as in other animals.

[Anthony PV]

Once, 'race' meant knowing who your parents and ancestors were, where they came from, from what 'tribe' they belonged to, what feats they accomplished in their life, etc. Nowadays, it just means nothing more than 'bio-chemistry': I have that given adenine-cytosine-guanine-thymine pattern cycling inside the chromosomes that compose the nucleus of my cells, other people I don't really care about also have the same pattern, we belong to the same 'race' but I don't want to meet them or have anything to do with them, etc. Yay! :p

Anyway, here's two excerpts taken from 'On the plurality of civilizations' written by Polish historian Feliks Koneczny in 1931 about whether race-mixing is good or bad. First, those who think it is good:


'Among enthusiasts for [race-mixing] the Hegelian [Jules] Michelet, mentioned earlier, has gone furthest. According to him humanity is tending to the recovery of its primordial racial unity, which will occur through 'the melting of all existing races "into one "middle" race, as is happening in America; with the brotherhood of all mankind to follow.

(Personal comment: PWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!) :p


Similar optimists were Bastian, Bodichon and Krzywicki, with Oberziner among the younger men. A. Reibmayr and O. Lorem restricted the advantage of [race-mixing] to elements ethnically close to each other. Eduard Meyer advocated [race-mixing], but with the reservation that the influences on both sides must melt into internal unity.'

Now, those who think it is bad and exalt the virtues of racial purity:


'The opponents of [race-mixing] are headed by [Arthur de] Gobineau (1816-1882). For him everything in history which is positive derives from racial purity, from [race-mixing] everything which is evil. While a race is pure it has one way of thinking and one logic, so that institutions correspond with desires and are fixed, permanent, unchanging. In a heavily mixed society "first there is maximum disturbance, then unhealthy stagnation, in the end death". When even the noblest race dissolves into the flood of the ignoble, the disappearance of civilisation must be the consequence.


The "Aryan race" must, therefore, be protected against mixed blood. The Aryans of southern and eastern Europe have enormously lowered their own level by mixing their blood; this can be seen, among other things. in the egalitarian tendencies of the democracy which has developed among them. For although in ethnically mixed elements the superior race provides the unifying civilizing factors, over a period this superior race degenerates, while the lower race by no means rises to the other's original level. The hierarchy of race is obscured and we approach equality, then degeneration in ethnic relations. Higher values disappear in the mixture. The superficial spread of civilization goes for nothing, since "inevitable laws drive humanity towards ethnic unity which is a foretaste of decline and a portent of unavoidable death". Even the Semitic race, in the hierarchy of races coming immediately after the Aryan, when mixed with the latter brings about Aryan degeneration. The Anglo-Saxon and Scandinavian peoples, standing for the purity of "Aryan" blood, have kept their superiority—so argues Gobineau. [Arthur de Gobineau, Essai sur l'inégalité des races humaines, 1853.]

(Personal comment: Hum, a Frenchman who thinks Anglo-Saxons and Scandinavians are 'purer Aryans' than his own people...) :p


[Gustave] Le Bon expressed the same ideas even more emphatically. In his view "man is always and before all else, a representative of his race". He proclaimed that "historic races" decline and perish through [race-mixing]. He was the first to declare that in former times the Aryans in India and then the English in their colonies preserved unity and strength because they did not intermarry. He also first drew attention to the flooding of the United States of North America by foreigners, and to the fact that France faces the same threat. He feared that as a result the United States might one day fall into civil wars which must end with the country's disintegration into several hostile states. He told France that a third of her population would be Italian, and another third German, which would be "worse than the severest military defeat". And so the racial problem towers above everything in history.'

[Linebacker]

According to a lot of people in Stormfront they don't have a single drop of genes from another race.

[Dani Cutie]

Basques?

Maybe in 5000 years we will convert the neolithic genes to europeans or is a joke?

[Feral]

Once, 'race' meant knowing who your parents and ancestors were, where they came from, from what 'tribe' they belonged to, what feats they accomplished in their life, etc. Nowadays, it just means nothing more than 'bio-chemistry': I have that given adenine-cytosine-guanine-thymine pattern cycling inside the chromosomes that compose the nucleus of my cells, other people I don't really care about also have the same pattern, we belong to the same 'race' but I don't want to meet them or have anything to do with them, etc. Yay! :p

Anyway, here's two excerpts taken from 'On the plurality of civilizations' written by Polish historian Feliks Koneczny in 1931 about whether race-mixing is good or bad. First, those who think it is good:



(Personal comment: PWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!) :p



Now, those who think it is bad and exalt the virtues of racial purity:





(Personal comment: Hum, a Frenchman who thinks Anglo-Saxons and Scandinavians are 'purer Aryans' than his own people...) :p

That concept of race even if it was real (since I'm only familiarized with the modern concept) it would be arcaic and in any case as you described it, it actually resembles to the actual concept of ethnicity.

My point is that ethnic preservation doesn't need the fictitious idea of racial/genetic purity. In fact, not only doesn't needs it but, nowadays, it's unfavorable for preservationism. Political discourses that advocate for could only do it in a clandestine way. Political mobilizations would be only a minority in comparison to everyone else that most probably would stand against it.
As long as the idea of preservationism stands on racism and xenophobia, it will miserably faill against this postmodernist impositive bigotry of the contemporaneous political sanctimony; It's a leviathan that preservationists will not be able to defeat if their depend on these aforesaid premises.

[LightHouse89]

There is. Race could mean anything though. One could claim it means ethnic group or a nationality. It is used usually as a way of classifying people or groups of people in one larger group.


Ethnic groups exist. So this theory doesn't make sense.

[LightHouse89]

According to a lot of people in Stormfront they don't have a single drop of genes from another race.

That would be irrelevant. If I had a drop of aboriginal DNA that doesn't alter who I am. I think I do not though. I am not lactose intolerant so if I do it is very far back.

Race usually means or people consider it to be an ethnic group. Would you claim Bulgarians do not exist?

[LightHouse89]

According to a lot of people in Stormfront they don't have a single drop of genes from another race.

double post

[Lábaru]

But you can be racially purer than your neighbor, at the end of the day that's what matters :rolleyes:

[randomguy1235]

People who tend to emphasize this notion are themselves ethnically/racially mixed, but yes you're correct. There's nothing wrong with being mixed of course, but people and groups can be more genetically isolated than others.

[LightHouse89]

But you can be racially purer than your neighbor, at the end of the day that's what matters :rolleyes:

Maybe :p we are certainly racially purer than the people south of us here. But populations differ due to differences over time the DNA mutated or changed. Mixing did not occur much for when the 'Anglo-Saxons' invaded the British Islands they did not contribute much to the gene pool of England.

Also look at Spain. Genetically it is mostly homogeneous. Sure small tiny amounts of admixture may exist in every population but this doesn't make them 'mixed'. It so funny how left wing people use these examples to justify multiculturalism. Its like okay morons do you read the information you just gave me :rolleyes:.

Even myself genetically I entirely cluster around the British Islands with the except of maybe some traces from france, Germany and Sweden. But even they are not so distant from one another.

So I don't believe this means I am mixed or unmixed really. I wont go around claiming 'race' or 'ethnic' groups do not exist. Most people who makes claims about the world being diverse and no one being homogeneous are themselves are descended from immigrants living somewhere or racially mixed. To me racially mixed people are a different race altogether or at least they should be viewed as that.

[Insuperable]

You came to this conclusion before or after you realized you are part black?

[Lábaru]

Maybe :p we are certainly racially purer than the people south of us here. But populations differ due to differences over time the DNA mutated or changed. Mixing did not occur much for when the 'Anglo-Saxons' invaded the British Islands they did not contribute much to the gene pool of England.


Because Anglo-Saxons were very similar to the native islanders, like the South French and Spaniard, such migrations do not change to an ethnic group.


You came to this conclusion before or after you realized you are part black?


Hahaha, bastard. Feral, dile algo feo.

[LightHouse89]

People who tend to emphasize this notion are themselves ethnically/racially mixed, but yes you're correct. There's nothing wrong with being mixed of course, but people and groups can be more genetically isolated than others.

Yes but this information does not disprove ethnic groups exist. It still doesn't present the fact that the majority of these populations are mostly homogeneous with maybe small amounts of admixture.

[LightHouse89]

Because Anglo-Saxons were very similar to the native islanders, like the South French and Spaniard, such migrations do not change to an ethnic group.




Hahaha, bastard. Feral, dile algo feo.

Not so sure. Mind you many came from Denmark which in my opinion would over lap with the UK. The Netherlands and Belgium yes but definitely not Denmark or Scandinavia.

[Lábaru]

Also look at Spain. Genetically it is mostly homogeneous. Sure small tiny amounts of admixture may exist in every population but this doesn't make them 'mixed'. It so funny how left wing people use these examples to justify multiculturalism. Its like okay morons do you read the information you just gave me :rolleyes:. .

That is explained by the reconquista, the people of northern Spain moved towards southern lands, loaded of viagra and looking for southern brunettes girls, for the greatness of the Catholic God, of course.

[SupaThug]

Exist it or not,I am definitly part of the ''pure race'' club.

[Lábaru]

Not so sure. Mind you many came from Denmark which in my opinion would over lap with the UK. The Netherlands and Belgium yes but definitely not Denmark or Scandinavia.

Denmark in my opinion is more similar to Netherland than Norway, but the three populations are very close. The fact is that the ancient Anglo-Saxon peoples were people of the western areas of these countries, slightly more similar to the native "Albion" Islander.

[Feral]

But you can be racially purer than your neighbor, at the end of the day that's what matters :rolleyes:

By mere lenguistics, the word should homogenous and not pure. No ethnic group can be racially/genetically pure but they can actually be homogenous. Purism as an ideal might be acceptable as long as it means the persue of relativization and appropriation of the elements that compounds what could be the genetic homogeneity of certain group.
That's it's to say that as long as the modern concept of race tries to relies on genetics, there couldn't ever be a "pure race". And as long as "pure" means the homogeneity and correspondence to determined identifiable harmonization of desirable elements, whether genetical and/or cultural, this concept of purity will be a social construction and not something that can be proven or argued by exact sciences. Therefore, using genetics purism as an argumentative basis for ethnic preservation will be not only be debunked but it will also be used to discredit it.

[Feral]

Hahaha, bastard. Feral, dile algo feo.

Nada. Iba aclarar al comienzo del hilo que pasaría con desdén cualquier tipo de ad hominem. Ya tuve mí dosis en el momento con gente unineuronal en éste foro. O argumentos o no respondo.
Que conste, claro, como pareciera nadie haberse percatado, no hay intento alguno de desbaratar el etnocentrismo con la intención maquiavelista de dar a lugar y justificar al multiculturalismo y la mescolanza de las masas para crear una über raza universal. Acaso al contrario que busco manera de que en éstas épocas realmente haya cabida para la posibilidad de que los pueblos puedan elegir su futuro.
En mi vida poco importaría justificarme frente a una persona que estando del otro lado del mundo me afecta menos que lo hace el ruido de un grillo por las noches. Mí postura es la misma de siempre: El discurso actual del etnopreservacionismo no se adapta a tiempos modernos ni posee las capacidad de imponerse o defenderse de estos. El propósito no ha de cambiar, opino yo, sino la manera de realizarlo. Espero que haya quien se de cuenta de que es ésto a lo que apunto, de lo contrario el hilo se va a tornar muy monótono e insípido.

[Feral]

You came to this conclusion before or after you realized you are part black?

http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/3D_5w1przcQ/hqdefault.jpg

o! u got me! imma multicultural marcist ayshent! lets mix pls 4 th sake of leftism!




:picard2:

[Feral]

Yes but this information does not disprove ethnic groups exist. It still doesn't present the fact that the majority of these populations are mostly homogeneous with maybe small amounts of admixture.

My thougts weren't ever shared to disprove the existence of ethnic groups, quite the contrary; something I actually mentioned on the original post. I recommend comprehensive reread of the text, free of preconceptions, falacies and biases.

[Feral]

Bump. Don't be shy.

[LightHouse89]

My thougts weren't ever shared to disprove the existence of ethnic groups, quite the contrary; something I actually mentioned on the original post. I recommend comprehensive reread of the text, free of preconceptions, falacies and biases.

To me an ethnic group can be a race of people. Mestizos to me are a new race. I mean white americans of the colonial stock are a certain race whether they have some minor admixture or not. Are we pure? Maybe in a different meaning of the word :cool:

[LightHouse89]

Denmark in my opinion is more similar to Netherland than Norway, but the three populations are very close. The fact is that the ancient Anglo-Saxon peoples were people of the western areas of these countries, slightly more similar to the native "Albion" Islander.

So we are a race after all :cool:

[Pahli]

A lot of races are the result of two other races mixing; Hispanic, Turkic, Slavic ...

[Yuffayur]

Basques?

Maybe in 5000 years we will convert the neolithic genes to europeans or is a joke?

Sardinians rather than Basques.

[Feral]

To me an ethnic group can be a race of people. Mestizos to me are a new race. I mean white americans of the colonial stock are a certain race whether they have some minor admixture or not. Are we pure? Maybe in a different meaning of the word :cool:

A ethnic group is a group of individuals of shared characteristics. Genetic similarity being only one of them.
Mestizos can't be be of the same race as most of us don't share the same genetic composition.
That's postmodern reasoning. :picard1:

[Lábaru]

So we are a race after all :cool:

Yes, all ethnic groups of the Atlantic coast of Europe are a very pure people, British, Irish, Iberians, French, Belgium etc...
http://i.imgur.com/StBUQuU.jpg

[Instinct]

Race and ethnicity both are different conceptions. Races (White, Black, Amerindian, etc) are the general conception includes many ethnics.

Ethnicities are social constructions; a group of people who speak the same language, or have mainly similarities in common are ethnicities. I didn't have a genetic test yet though I don't think I've got a lot of admixture of other nations.

[Feral]

Race and ethnicity both are different conceptions. Races (White, Black, Amerindian, etc) are the general conception includes many ethnics.

Ethnicities are social constructions; a group of people who speak the same language, or have mainly similarities in common are ethnicities. I didn't have a genetic test yet though I don't think I've got a lot of admixture of other nations.

That perception of race it's of because of the remnants of arcaic physical anthropology, considering it's based on the categorization of overgeneralized phenotypicals traits. It doesn't means these traits are unreal, but that the classification of these are a socially constructed conception that are subject to change. And since this thread is about genetic, as another user already stated, "there isn't "white" on genetics" nor black, nor amerindian.

On the other hand, modern genetics had proven that we can trace ancestry, then it's reasonable to state that ethnic groups do have a genetic identity. However, this by no means means that there exists "pure races". To socialize formal sciences is plainly absurd. It's postmodernism! :P

People on this forums needs to think a little out the box. Otherwise, keep believing I'm a marxist agent. :v

[LightHouse89]

Yes, all ethnic groups of the Atlantic coast of Europe are a very pure people, British, Irish, Iberians, French, Belgium etc...
http://i.imgur.com/StBUQuU.jpg

Then the white race is real :cool:

[Feral]

Then the white race is real :cool:

Of course we do. (https://scontent-b-mia.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/9464_1494056190877033_7601811032506877288_n.jpg?oh =210996b910b3831fde9fe7a5f47578af&oe=554A8732) :cool:

[Argentano]

Of course we do. (https://scontent-b-mia.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/9464_1494056190877033_7601811032506877288_n.jpg?oh =210996b910b3831fde9fe7a5f47578af&oe=554A8732) :cool:

fachaaaaa

[Feral]

fachaaaaa

Sí, sí, así nos dicen del otro lado del discurso. :P Acá soy "marxista". (?)

[Grace O'Malley]

Maybe :p we are certainly racially purer than the people south of us here. But populations differ due to differences over time the DNA mutated or changed. Mixing did not occur much for when the 'Anglo-Saxons' invaded the British Islands they did not contribute much to the gene pool of England.

Also look at Spain. Genetically it is mostly homogeneous. Sure small tiny amounts of admixture may exist in every population but this doesn't make them 'mixed'. It so funny how left wing people use these examples to justify multiculturalism. Its like okay morons do you read the information you just gave me :rolleyes:.

Even myself genetically I entirely cluster around the British Islands with the except of maybe some traces from france, Germany and Sweden. But even they are not so distant from one another.

So I don't believe this means I am mixed or unmixed really. I wont go around claiming 'race' or 'ethnic' groups do not exist. Most people who makes claims about the world being diverse and no one being homogeneous are themselves are descended from immigrants living somewhere or racially mixed. To me racially mixed people are a different race altogether or at least they should be viewed as that.

Have you had a dna test done?

[Grace O'Malley]

I might get some thumb downs for this on here because people have such strange ideas but I'm honestly exasperated about my dna tests. It is something that bugs me no end and this is what Irish people get on these dna tests. On FTDNA both my brother and myself are 100% British Isles and on 23andMe my brother is 96.8% B&I and the rest Unspecified Northern Euro, I'm not much better with 2.6 French and German added to the mix but still 94% B&I and the rest northern Euro. My mother gets a little more variety but not much as she is 91% B&I, 4.6% French & German, the rest is Northern Euro and 0.1% unspecified Southern Euro. I've looked at other nationalities results and no one gets as bland results as the Irish. One Irish man I share with from Donegal gets a wapping 98.6% B&I and 1.2% unspecified Northern European. Then you get people like Dutch, Scandis, Northern French especially getting over 30% B&I in their results which doesn't make sense to me. There might have been some B&I going to those countries but not to that extent. Personally yes I would like a bit more variety in my AC. :)

[Hong Key]

http://youtu.be/caanqmV96j0

[Neon Knight]

I might get some thumb downs for this on here because people have such strange ideas but I'm honestly exasperated about my dna tests. It is something that bugs me no end and this is what Irish people get on these dna tests. On FTDNA both my brother and myself are 100% British Isles and on 23andMe my brother is 96.8% B&I and the rest Unspecified Northern Euro, I'm not much better with 2.6 French and German added to the mix but still 94% B&I and the rest northern Euro. My mother gets a little more variety but not much as she is 91% B&I, 4.6% French & German, the rest is Northern Euro and 0.1% unspecified Southern Euro. I've looked at other nationalities results and no one gets as bland results as the Irish. One Irish man I share with from Donegal gets a wapping 98.6% B&I and 1.2% unspecified Northern European. Then you get people like Dutch, Scandis, Northern French especially getting over 30% B&I in their results which doesn't make sense to me. There might have been some B&I going to those countries but not to that extent. Personally yes I would like a bit more variety in my AC. :)Be careful what you wish for!

Seriously, those %s for AC you give - from which confidence level are they? Because with 23andMe:
We've built in three confidence thresholds to Ancestry Composition. These are Speculative (50 percent), Standard (75 percent), and Conservative (90 percent).
so only the Conservative can be taken seriously.

This test claims to be able to distinguish between Irish an British so it should be useful to you: http://dna.ancestry.co.uk/ My mum is going to take and I will too when I can afford it.

http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/files/2013/10/New-AncestryDNA-detail.png

[Grace O'Malley]

Be careful what you wish for!

Seriously, those %s for AC you give - from which confidence level are they? Because with 23andMe: so only the Conservative can be taken seriously.

This test claims to be able to distinguish between Irish an British so it should be useful to you: http://dna.ancestry.co.uk/ My mum is going to take and I will to when I can afford it.

Let me know how you go with that test. I'd be willing to take another one :) (I'm a bit addicted to these genetic tests). They are for speculative on 23andMe and the conservative one is extremely drab. The FTDNA doesn't have any other levels. I do think my family have been in Ireland for eons though. My brother is M222 which is very North West Irish/Lowland Scots (so very British Isles). I should be getting some more info on my mother's family soon from a genealogist but I don't expect any surprises. Let me tell you I will be thrilled if they are even from outside Tipperary :).

[щрбл]

It probably depends on how you define the human races. However if you go back far enough in the past everyone is pretty much mixed.

[Leto]

A lot of races are the result of two other races mixing; Hispanic, Turkic, Slavic ...
First of all, those are not "races". Not even proper ethnic groups. Second, it's ridiculous to compare "Hispanics" (which is a very broad term) with Slavs. Latin Americans are New Worlders, they have existed only for like 400-500 years at best and are a result of mixing between European colonists (mainly Spaniards), Native Americans (Indians) and to a bit lesser extent African (ex-)slaves. How can you compare Czechs, Poles and Croats with them? That doesn't make any sense.

[Pahli]

First of all, those are not "races". Not even proper ethnic groups. Second, it's ridiculous to compare "Hispanics" (which is a very broad term) with Slavs. Latin Americans are New Worlders, they have existed only for like 400-500 years at best and are a result of mixing between European colonists (mainly Spaniards), Native Americans (Indians) and to a bit lesser extent African (ex-)slaves. How can you compare Czechs, Poles and Croats with them? That doesn't make any sense.

I'm not comparing them, I was mentioning a few, guess I made a mistake with the slavs, but you should get my point

[Leto]

I'm not comparing them, I was mentioning a few, guess I made a mistake with the slavs, but you should get my point
Yes, the point is valid if you mean that there are a lot of ethnic groups which emerged as a result of mixing between several others.

[Pahli]

Yes, the point is valid if you mean that there are a lot of ethnic groups which emerged as a result of mixing between several others.

Thats what I tried to say in the first place ;)

[Proctor]

It probably depends on how you define the human races. However if you go back far enough in the past everyone is pretty much mixed.

Doesn't matter. Evolution takes place relatively quickly and populations eventually branch out and become their own genetically defined group, as is the case nowadays. One day a certain race or subspecies of humans will speciate, the sooner this happens the better.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/53/Speciation_modes.svg/350px-Speciation_modes.svg.png

[LightHouse89]

A ethnic group is a group of individuals of shared characteristics. Genetic similarity being only one of them.
Mestizos can't be be of the same race as most of us don't share the same genetic composition.
That's postmodern reasoning. :picard1:

Mestizos are half europid and half aboriginal. Some more than others.

[LightHouse89]

Doesn't matter. Evolution takes place relatively quickly and populations eventually branch out and become their own genetically defined group, as is the case nowadays. One day a certain race or subspecies of humans will speciate, the sooner this happens the better.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/53/Speciation_modes.svg/350px-Speciation_modes.svg.png

I dont think blending out of existence is good for us. Imagine a nation full of Obamas.

[LightHouse89]

Have you had a dna test done?

No but I know the results will be this 60 to 70% British Islands and 30% or less from France and Germany.

[LightHouse89]

Of course we do. (https://scontent-b-mia.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/9464_1494056190877033_7601811032506877288_n.jpg?oh =210996b910b3831fde9fe7a5f47578af&oe=554A8732) :cool:

?

[Grace O'Malley]

No but I know the results will be this 60 to 70% British Islands and 30% or less from France and Germany.

You might be surprised. It is worth having one. You can have such fun doing all those Gedmatch calculators for a start. :)

[Feral]

?

:picard1:

[Neon Knight]

Yes, all ethnic groups of the Atlantic coast of Europe are a very pure people, British, Irish, Iberians, French, Belgium etc...
http://i.imgur.com/StBUQuU.jpgI'm not sure that map makes sense. These genetic labels come from gepographical locations. So since Greece is completely within Europe then a typical Greek must be 100% European, whatever the ancestry composition. Saying that Greeks are 31% non-Euro is, I think, a case of double counting - like mixing 88% copper with 12% tin to make bronze and then saying: "Bronze is not pure because it is mixed with tin". What we have is a single geographical category - Europe - containing a variety of genetic categories typical for each region - Europeans. A Greek who was untypical because of, say, a Syrian grandparent would be 75% European.

[Graham]

The maps outdated now.

It's all about Western Hunter Gatherer, Scandinavian Hunter Gatherer & Eastern Hunter Gatherer. Then with the later Upper Paleolithic Siberians & the Neolithic farmer from Middle East.. All of which mixed in with earliest hunter gatherer groups thousands of years back.

It depends what your cut off year is. :P But no group is purely related to the Hunter Gatherers.

[igo112]

...

[Neon Knight]

It does completely depend upon the cut-off year. To define Europeans genetically we must agree on a period when it first became politico-culturally separate from Asia. Which is probably a debate in itself.

[igo112]

...

[Gooding]

Have you had a dna test done?

I was going to post something like this, but Grace beat me to it. :high5: When I got my DNA test done from AncestryDNA, they pointed out for me that all the regions represented had various degrees of admixture, some regions bleeding into other regions, sometimes showing significant regional variations ( Great Britain, for example, has a high number of natives who read genetically as Ireland, Europe West and Scandinavia, while the number of people who read as Great Britain, are around 60% of the British native population), with history of admixture sometimes going back for millennia. Europe's level of admixture might be understandable for its relatively small size. When you see how the British signature bleeds off gradually into Northern France, Benelux and Northwestern Germany and is abruptly cut off in southern Scotland, western Wales and Ireland, it's really rather startling. Ireland's dominance in Wales, Scotland and even England itself, genetically speaking, tells you that the " conquered" has apparently pwned the " conquerors." Genetic purity? Maybe in places such as Siberia, Polynesia and Japan, at least before last century, but in Europe? Doubtful. America? Laughable.
Maybe there are uncontacted tribes in the Amazonian rainforests of South America that could claim some sort of purity in their isolation ( give it time), but I seriously doubt there are many populations in the world that could claim genetic purity.

[LightHouse89]

It does completely depend upon the cut-off year. To define Europeans genetically we must agree on a period when it first became politico-culturally separate from Asia. Which is probably a debate in itself.

This makes what a European is. I am only interested in ethnic based stuff. I am not a European so this is why hahaha. But this is interesting none the less.

[LightHouse89]

I was going to post something like this, but Grace beat me to it. :high5: When I got my DNA test done from AncestryDNA, they pointed out for me that all the regions represented had various degrees of admixture, some regions bleeding into other regions, sometimes showing significant regional variations ( Great Britain, for example, has a high number of natives who read genetically as Ireland, Europe West and Scandinavia, while the number of people who read as Great Britain, are around 60% of the British native population), with history of admixture sometimes going back for millennia. Europe's level of admixture might be understandable for its relatively small size. When you see how the British signature bleeds off gradually into Northern France, Benelux and Northwestern Germany and is abruptly cut off in southern Scotland, western Wales and Ireland, it's really rather startling. Ireland's dominance in Wales, Scotland and even England itself, genetically speaking, tells you that the " conquered" has apparently pwned the " conquerors." Genetic purity? Maybe in places such as Siberia, Polynesia and Japan, at least before last century, but in Europe? Doubtful. America? Laughable.
Maybe there are uncontacted tribes in the Amazonian rainforests of South America that could claim some sort of purity in their isolation ( give it time), but I seriously doubt there are many populations in the world that could claim genetic purity.

Yes but in North Western Europe the various ethnic groups have always inter mixed and much of that ancestry could be much older than the period in which England became a nation. Genetically I don't think the Irish and English differed greatly to begin with. I don't think the Gaels and Anglo-Saxons genetically were entirely different. Culturally different yes!

[Neon Knight]

The farther back in time we look, the more confusing and meaningless it gets, so I think we should stay away from ancient times if we want solid identities. The practice of Christianity is probably the major defining feature of Europe:


Armenia was the first country in the world to adopt Christianity as its state religion in 301AD. The Mar Thoma Syro-Malabar Catholic Church, Kodungaloor; the first Christian church in India, built 52 A. D. The oldest state-built Church in the world, Etchmiadzin Cathedral, was built between AD 301-303. It is the Seat of the Armenian Apostolic Church. The Roman Empire officially adopted Christianity in AD 380. During the Early Middle Ages, most of Europe underwent Christianisation, a process essentially complete with the Christianisation of Scandinavia in the High Middle Ages. The emergence of the notion of "Europe" or "Western World" is intimately connected with the idea of "Christendom", especially since Christianity in the Middle East was marginalized by the rise of Islam from the 7th century, a constellation that led to the Crusades, which although unsuccessful militarily were an important step in the emergence of a religious identity of Europe.

The Christianization of Scandinavia took place between the 8th and the 12th centuries. The realms of Scandinavia proper, Denmark, Norway and Sweden, established their own Archdioceses, responsible directly to the Pope, in 1104, 1154 and 1164, respectively. The conversion to Christianity of the Scandinavian people required more time, since it took additional efforts to establish a network of churches. The Samis remained unconverted until the 18th century.
To be on the safe side, I think we can say that Europe and, hence, Europeans began proper in 1200 AD. So if we can assume that the Irish, Russians, French, Greeks, etc. are genetically the same now as they were in 1200 (and why not?) then those are the European races. Hunter gathers are irrelevant for this identitarian purpose.

[igo112]

...

[Feral]

there is..

considering that you are south-american I am sure you have heard of this pure master race specimen, please observe the picture below!



Of course we are. (https://scontent-b-mia.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/9464_1494056190877033_7601811032506877288_n.jpg?oh =210996b910b3831fde9fe7a5f47578af&oe=554A8732) :cool:


:coffee:

[igo112]

...

[Gustave H]

There is. Race could mean anything though. One could claim it means ethnic group or a nationality. It is used usually as a way of classifying people or groups of people in one larger group.


Ethnic groups exist. So this theory doesn't make sense.

Oh shut up. You are nothing, you represent nothing, you know nothing. Hopefully people like you of such stupidity will be utterly erased from this Earth. The fact that you exist makes me physically ill. I want to throw up when I read your absolutely ridiculous posts. As of matter of fact you represent what Apricity stands for and has always stood for apparently: Utter stupidity. You are all a bunch of uneducated, low-income, losers. All of you need to fucking die.

[Leto]

...
Fixed. The German expression is not needed, though, since there is an English translation - "cultural Marxism".;)

[LightHouse89]

Oh shut up. You are nothing, you represent nothing, you know nothing. Hopefully people like you of such stupidity will be utterly erased from this Earth. The fact that you exist makes me physically ill. I want to throw up when I read your absolutely ridiculous posts. As of matter of fact you represent what Apricity stands for and has always stood for apparently: Utter stupidity. You are all a bunch of uneducated, low-income, losers. All of you need to fucking die.

:rolleyes: Go suck your Immams dick faggot.

[McCauley]

...


Hey man, no offence, but some of your posts are just complete nonsense. I don't know if you understand genetics very well (neither do I, but that's beside the point). I also saw you say once that Celts have invaded Russia three times. When exactly was that? :confused:

[LightHouse89]

Hey man, no offence, but some of your posts are just complete nonsense. I don't know if you understand genetics very well (neither do I, but that's beside the point). I also saw you say once that Celts have invaded Russia three times. When exactly was that? :confused:

They invaded in 1066. :rolleyes:

[igo112]

...

[igo112]

...

[Pyramidologist]

There was a couple of genetic studies a decade back arguing that genetic clustering supports human racial classification, however these studies have all shown to be erroneous. They polarized the data by deliberately excluding 'intermediate' populations between continental extremes:

"Moreover, large “sampling gaps” in the data available clearly skew the picture of human genetic diversity (Serre and Pääbo 2004:1682; see also Wilson et al. 2001:268 on the need for “geographically exhaustive” data). When Serre and Pääbo (2004) analyzed the widely used HGDP-CEPH Human Genome Diversity Cell Line Panel,2 they found not only a dearth of individuals from North Africa, for example, but a complete absence of indigenous people from North America."

"Given the relatively small numbers and limited locations of human beings who have been genotyped, the distribution of individuals sampled is important for any assessment of population structure. Serre and Pääbo (2004) argued that sampling often concentrates on “the extremes of continental land masses” (p. 1680), maximizing the geographic and therefore genetic distance between individuals presumed to belong to distinct continental clusters."

"In contrast, when these researchers designed a study that sampled individuals “such that their geographic distribution around the world approximates the distribution of the human population as a whole and includes areas where Africa, Asia, and Europe meet,” the pattern of genetic variation they found was “one of gradients of allele frequencies that extend over the entire world, rather than discrete clusters” (Serre and Pääbo 2004:1679-1680)."
- Morning, A. (2014). Does Genomics Challenge the Social Construction of Race?. Sociological Theory, 32(3), 189-207.

Despite this there's still plenty of internet-clowns arguing genetic clustering supports human races.

[LightHouse89]

There was a couple of genetic studies a decade back arguing that genetic clustering supports human racial classification, however these studies have all shown to be erroneous. They polarized the data by deliberately excluding 'intermediate' populations between continental extremes:

"Moreover, large “sampling gaps” in the data available clearly skew the picture of human genetic diversity (Serre and Pääbo 2004:1682; see also Wilson et al. 2001:268 on the need for “geographically exhaustive” data). When Serre and Pääbo (2004) analyzed the widely used HGDP-CEPH Human Genome Diversity Cell Line Panel,2 they found not only a dearth of individuals from North Africa, for example, but a complete absence of indigenous people from North America."

"Given the relatively small numbers and limited locations of human beings who have been genotyped, the distribution of individuals sampled is important for any assessment of population structure. Serre and Pääbo (2004) argued that sampling often concentrates on “the extremes of continental land masses” (p. 1680), maximizing the geographic and therefore genetic distance between individuals presumed to belong to distinct continental clusters."

"In contrast, when these researchers designed a study that sampled individuals “such that their geographic distribution around the world approximates the distribution of the human population as a whole and includes areas where Africa, Asia, and Europe meet,” the pattern of genetic variation they found was “one of gradients of allele frequencies that extend over the entire world, rather than discrete clusters” (Serre and Pääbo 2004:1679-1680)."
- Morning, A. (2014). Does Genomics Challenge the Social Construction of Race?. Sociological Theory, 32(3), 189-207.

Despite this there's still plenty of internet-clowns arguing genetic clustering supports human races.

Hmm. So all dogs are the same yet there are different breeds?

[Mikasa]

I once saw a 23andme test that said someone was 100% Korean.

[Neon Knight]

There was a couple of genetic studies a decade back arguing that genetic clustering supports human racial classification, however these studies have all shown to be erroneous. They polarized the data by deliberately excluding 'intermediate' populations between continental extremes:

"Moreover, large “sampling gaps” in the data available clearly skew the picture of human genetic diversity (Serre and Pääbo 2004:1682; see also Wilson et al. 2001:268 on the need for “geographically exhaustive” data). When Serre and Pääbo (2004) analyzed the widely used HGDP-CEPH Human Genome Diversity Cell Line Panel,2 they found not only a dearth of individuals from North Africa, for example, but a complete absence of indigenous people from North America."

"Given the relatively small numbers and limited locations of human beings who have been genotyped, the distribution of individuals sampled is important for any assessment of population structure. Serre and Pääbo (2004) argued that sampling often concentrates on “the extremes of continental land masses” (p. 1680), maximizing the geographic and therefore genetic distance between individuals presumed to belong to distinct continental clusters."

"In contrast, when these researchers designed a study that sampled individuals “such that their geographic distribution around the world approximates the distribution of the human population as a whole and includes areas where Africa, Asia, and Europe meet,” the pattern of genetic variation they found was “one of gradients of allele frequencies that extend over the entire world, rather than discrete clusters” (Serre and Pääbo 2004:1679-1680)."
- Morning, A. (2014). Does Genomics Challenge the Social Construction of Race?. Sociological Theory, 32(3), 189-207.

Despite this there's still plenty of internet-clowns arguing genetic clustering supports human races.There is no clustering in the visible light spectrum but we still conceive of different colours and put those concepts to use.

Global plot by Britains DNA:

http://dnatestingchoice.com/admin/resources/britains-dna-worldwide-600x560-border-w600.jpg

[LightHouse89]

There is no clustering in the visible light spectrum but we still conceive of different colours and put those concepts to use.

Global plot by Britains DNA:

http://dnatestingchoice.com/admin/resources/britains-dna-worldwide-600x560-border-w600.jpg

No use. He wont ever understand that ethnic groups are not social constructs but rather biological constructs. He denies the existence of White people[s].

[Pyramidologist]

There is no clustering in the visible light spectrum but we still conceive of different colours and put those concepts to use.

Global plot by Britains DNA:

http://dnatestingchoice.com/admin/resources/britains-dna-worldwide-600x560-border-w600.jpg

It isn't a global plot. Read what I posted. That plot typically misses out lots of populations and focuses on geographical extremes (ignoring what is between them):

"Serre and Pääbo (2004) argued that sampling often concentrates on “the extremes of continental land masses” (p. 1680), maximizing the geographic and therefore genetic distance between individuals presumed to belong to distinct continental clusters [...] In contrast, when these researchers designed a study that sampled individuals “such that their geographic distribution around the world approximates the distribution of the human population as a whole and includes areas where Africa, Asia, and Europe meet,” the pattern of genetic variation they found was “one of gradients of allele frequencies that extend over the entire world, rather than discrete clusters” (Serre and Pääbo 2004:1679-1680)." (Morning, 2014)

And comparing colour categorization to race is a non sequitur. Yes, the human eye divides the visible light spectrum into spectral colours (wavelengths) and those are arbitrary divides of a continuum (i.e. the retina or brain of different animals appears to divide the spectrum differently) but each colour/wavelength is obviously useful. The reason this utility argument cannot be applied to race, is that colour deals with one variable (visible light spectrum), race doesn't. There has never been agreement what the parameters, criteria or variables of "race" exactly are. Since the 19th century there has been at least ten different race concepts. The race = genetic cluster concept is very recent.

[Sockorer]

It isn't a global plot. Read what I posted. That plot typically misses out lots of populations and focuses on geographical extremes (ignoring what is between them):

"Serre and Pääbo (2004) argued that sampling often concentrates on “the extremes of continental land masses” (p. 1680), maximizing the geographic and therefore genetic distance between individuals presumed to belong to distinct continental clusters [...] In contrast, when these researchers designed a study that sampled individuals “such that their geographic distribution around the world approximates the distribution of the human population as a whole and includes areas where Africa, Asia, and Europe meet,” the pattern of genetic variation they found was “one of gradients of allele frequencies that extend over the entire world, rather than discrete clusters” (Serre and Pääbo 2004:1679-1680)." (Morning, 2014)

And comparing colour categorization to race is a non sequitur. Yes, the human eye divides the visible light spectrum into spectral colours (wavelengths) and those are arbitrary divides of a continuum (i.e. the retina or brain of different animals appears to divide the spectrum differently) but each colour/wavelength is obviously useful. The reason this utility argument cannot be applied to race, is that colour deals with one variable (visible light spectrum), race doesn't. There has never been agreement what the parameters, criteria or variables of "race" exactly are. Since the 19th century there has been at least ten different race concepts. The race = genetic cluster concept is very recent.

Are you seriously implying Race isn't a useful concept.

So if I understand genetic and phenotypic differences between different Human populations, I can't make predictions with this information? I can't also make use of genetic and phenotype differences between different Human populations or in other words RACE and use that to make a value judgements?

BTW you're a turd. :)

[Pyramidologist]

Are you seriously implying Race isn't a useful concept.

So if I understand genetic and phenotypic differences between different Human populations, I can't make predictions with this information? I can't also make use of genetic and phenotype differences between different Human populations or in other words RACE and use that to make a value judgements?

BTW you're a turd. :)

Race isn't a useful concept because whatever variable you look at (there has never been agreement) it captures far too little of this variation.

Good luck explaining how race is useful in a genetic sense when on average it captures only 0.01% of the total genome. The vast majority of genetic variation that makes us different is found between individuals, not populations.

[Pyramidologist]

"Clearly the concept of race is of negligible value in science. The racial approach is a deceptive strategy for collecting information on human variation." (Kelso, 1974)

[Sockorer]

Race isn't a useful concept because whatever variable you look at (there has never been agreement) it captures far too little of this variation.

Good luck explaining how race is useful in a genetic sense when on average it captures only 0.01% of the total genome. The vast majority of genetic variation that makes us different is found between individuals, not populations.

Race captures far too little of WHAT variation Turd( PROPER NOUNS TURD) "(there has never been agreement)" agreement on what exactly and NEVER any agreement at all ever?

How is something useful in a "genetic sense" and why would something being useful in a "genetic sense" be the standard by which we evaluate it?

Do you want to provide evidence for your claim and clarify what you mean "The vast majority of genetic variation that makes us different is found between individuals"?



""Clearly the concept of race is of negligible value in science. The racial approach is a deceptive strategy for collecting information on human variation." (Kelso, 1974) "


"14/88, GAS THE KIKES RACE WAR NOW!" (Abraham Lincoln, 1945) :thumb001:

[AverageKorhonen]

http://rs2img.memecdn.com/Aborginals-Been-Here-40000-Years-Invented-A-Stick_o_109295.jpg


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRLXH8EE5bA


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDezBiaguPY


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXcj0ZEyIY8

[Pyramidologist]

Race captures far too little of WHAT variation Turd( PROPER NOUNS TURD) "(there has never been agreement)" agreement on what exactly and NEVER any agreement at all ever?

How is something useful in a "genetic sense" and why would something being useful in a "genetic sense" be the standard by which we evaluate it?

Do you want to provide evidence for your claim and clarify what you mean "The vast majority of genetic variation that makes us different is found between individuals"?



""Clearly the concept of race is of negligible value in science. The racial approach is a deceptive strategy for collecting information on human variation." (Kelso, 1974) "


"14/88, GAS THE KIKES RACE WAR NOW!" (Abraham Lincoln, 1945) :thumb001:

Zoologists and biologists recognise the existence of subspecies/races in species if there is significant genetic differentiation between populations, which is the result of a high level (to complete) reproductive isolation between them. Most zoologists use Wright's Fst (fixation index). Human populations come out far too low to recognise the existence of subspecies/races because most of the variation is found within the populations, rather than between them.

"Genetic differences between groups develop under isolation because lost alleles are not reintroduced, and new mutations are not spread. Under such conditions, the kinds of genetic discontinuities develop that lead biologists to apply the subspecies concept. These genetic discontinuities are represented by high FST values." (Hochman, 2013)

[LightHouse89]

Race isn't a useful concept because whatever variable you look at (there has never been agreement) it captures far too little of this variation.

Good luck explaining how race is useful in a genetic sense when on average it captures only 0.01% of the total genome. The vast majority of genetic variation that makes us different is found between individuals, not populations.

Not true. Infact there is a lot of evidence to suggest populations exist. An individual person is not representative of a group but rather a group of individuals from a specific geographical location form a cluster or group [ethnics or race]. You claim this is incorrect and that it doesn't exist :rolleyes:.

[Leto]

"Clearly the concept of race is of negligible value in science. The racial approach is a deceptive strategy for collecting information on human variation." (Kelso, 1974)
It is still important in society. Go tell those blacks from Ferguson that they are no different from whites.

[LightHouse89]

Race captures far too little of WHAT variation Turd( PROPER NOUNS TURD) "(there has never been agreement)" agreement on what exactly and NEVER any agreement at all ever?

How is something useful in a "genetic sense" and why would something being useful in a "genetic sense" be the standard by which we evaluate it?

Do you want to provide evidence for your claim and clarify what you mean "The vast majority of genetic variation that makes us different is found between individuals"?



""Clearly the concept of race is of negligible value in science. The racial approach is a deceptive strategy for collecting information on human variation." (Kelso, 1974) "


"14/88, GAS THE KIKES RACE WAR NOW!" (Abraham Lincoln, 1945) :thumb001:

He denies groups exist or populations but the genetics of an individual out of a group is what matters to be representative of what exactly? Nothing. He is delusional as most left wing people are in society.

Populations exist. Claiming they do not exist is the same as saying different breeds of animals do not exist. What a moron:picard1:.

[LightHouse89]

It is still important in society. Go tell those blacks from Ferguson that they are no different from whites.

They would physically assault me.

The fact is race is very real and its obvious as much to those same blacks and to the various other ethnic groups living here and abroad. Even within races there are differences in terms of populations. The term race is very broad but it doesn't invalid that it doesn't exist.

Genetics support the biological construct of race. However I believe populations or ethnic groups matter more. They are a reality not a 'social construct'.

[Trogdor]

I don't think I've ever met someone who was 100% of anything.

[Leto]

They would physically assault me.

The fact is race is very real and its obvious as much to those same blacks and to the various other ethnic groups living here and abroad. Even within races there are differences in terms of populations. The term race is very broad but it doesn't invalid that it doesn't exist.

Genetics support the biological construct of race. However I believe populations or ethnic groups matter more. They are a reality not a 'social construct'.
Well, ethnicity is a more changeable thing than race. There are ethnicities which didn't exist 100-200 years ago. For example, here with Slavs. Ukrainians weren't considered to be a separate ethnic group until the 20th century. Another example is Arabs. Who is an Arab? It's a very broad term, which encompasses different groups of people. Syrians, Lebanese, Omanis, Saudis, Egyptians, Algerians, Moroccans, etc. And what about Austrians? They used to be German some centuries ago, now they are not. Are Sicilians Italians? Some would say they aren't. The list goes on and on.

[LightHouse89]

I don't think I've ever met someone who was 100% of anything.

Being 100% doesn't mean anything. Being 90% doesn't make you less of what or who you are.

Being 99.7% British Islander and .3% some archaic ancestry doesn't make you impure in some way. You still belong to an ethnic group that exists whether we like it or not.

All of this obsession over genetics and the smallest of detail is retarded. To claim one is impure because you have .3% unknown ancestry doesn't make you less of what or who you are. This doesn't prove someone is an individual. This is all left wing scientific propaganda to 'disprove' ethnic groups do not exist. To claim it isn't being promoted by the far left would be foolish.

I am sorry but population genetics disprove this left wing crap that race doesn't exist or ethnic groups do not exist.

[LightHouse89]

Well, ethnicity is a more changeable thing than race. There are ethnicities which didn't exist 100-200 years ago. For example, here with Slavs. Ukrainians weren't considered to be a separate ethnic group until the 20th century. Another example is Arabs. Who is an Arab? It's a very broad term, which encompasses different groups of people. Syrians, Lebanese, Omanis, Saudis, Egyptians, Algerians, Moroccans, etc. And what about Austrians? They used to be German some centuries ago, now they are not. Are Sicilians Italians? Some would say they aren't. The list goes on and on.

Ethnic groups can be created. To try to disprove them is foolish. But I agree. Race nor ethnic groups can be disproven as a reality even with the shit these morons here are claiming. They claim that these things do not exist. Its like saying dog breeds or horse breeds do not exist and they are all the same because they have a common origin. That is infact unscientific to claim.

[Pyramidologist]

Not true. Infact there is a lot of evidence to suggest populations exist. An individual person is not representative of a group but rather a group of individuals from a specific geographical location form a cluster or group [ethnics or race]. You claim this is incorrect and that it doesn't exist :rolleyes:.

"First of all, a host of studies, beginning with those by Lewontin in 1972 and most recently by Barbujani and colleagues in 1997, have shown that the amount of human genetic diversity that is attributable to race is only about 5% to 10%. Following this, any particular “population” includes roughly 85% or more of the total human genetic diversity." - Brown, R. A., & Armelagos, G. J. (2001). "Apportionment of racial diversity: a review". Evolutionary Anthropology, 10(1), 34-40

And of course it should be remembered on average human individuals are 99.9% identical in genotype. The estimated 5-10% inter-populational variation, comes out at <0.01% of the total genome.

[Trogdor]

Being 100% doesn't mean anything. Being 90% doesn't make you less of what or who you are.

Being 99.7% British Islander and .3% some archaic ancestry doesn't make you impure in some way. You still belong to an ethnic group that exists whether we like it or not.

All of this obsession over genetics and the smallest of detail is retarded. To claim one is impure because you have .3% unknown ancestry doesn't make you less of what or who you are. This doesn't prove someone is an individual. This is all left wing scientific propaganda to 'disprove' ethnic groups do not exist. To claim it isn't being promoted by the far left would be foolish.

I am sorry but population genetics disprove this left wing crap that race doesn't exist or ethnic groups do not exist.

I'm not saying your identity is negated by having other ancestries, but the notion that anyone can be 100% pure anything is absurd.

[LightHouse89]

"First of all, a host of studies, beginning with those by Lewontin in 1972 and most recently by Barbujani and colleagues in 1997, have shown that the amount of human genetic diversity that is attributable to race is only about 5% to 10%. Following this, any particular “population” includes roughly 85% or more of the total human genetic diversity." - Brown, R. A., & Armelagos, G. J. (2001). "Apportionment of racial diversity: a review". Evolutionary Anthropology, 10(1), 34-40

And of course it should be remembered on average human individuals are 99.9% identical in genotype. The estimated 5-10% inter-populational variation, comes out at <0.01% of the total genome.

Human genetic diversity that is attributed to race is only about 5% to 10%. Okay and what genetic markers are attributed to a race? Please enlighten me.

Population genetics to me matter not the sorry crap you are going on about.

[Pyramidologist]

They would physically assault me.

The fact is race is very real and its obvious as much to those same blacks and to the various other ethnic groups living here and abroad. Even within races there are differences in terms of populations. The term race is very broad but it doesn't invalid that it doesn't exist.

Genetics support the biological construct of race. However I believe populations or ethnic groups matter more. They are a reality not a 'social construct'.

Genetics doesn't support race as a valid/useful construct.

[Pyramidologist]

It is still important in society. Go tell those blacks from Ferguson that they are no different from whites.

Your point? Society believes in demons, angels, god(s), aliens from out of space, and plenty of other crazy stuff that isn't real.

It is irrelevant to biology if people continue to believe in social race theory.

Race’: What Biology Can Tell Us about a Social Construct
http://www.els.net/WileyCDA/ElsArticle/refId-a0005857.html

"Although there exist human populations that differ in the proportions of particular alleles present, this fact does not support claims that ‘race’, as it is usually understood, is a biological rather than a social concept. Although there are differences in proportions of alleles in those races usually recognised in contemporary western social discourse (folk‐racial categories), these differences are no more biologically significant than are the genetic differences that exist between populations that are not socially recognised as races (populations that do not correspond to folk‐racial categories). This implies that whatever average genetic differences exist between the populations called ‘races’ in ordinary social discourse, those genetic differences are not what account for the folk‐racial categories in use today. Despite recent research sometimes taken to imply otherwise, folk‐racial categories – which remain of fundamental importance to people's life‐prospects – remain social categories and not biological categories." (Kaplan, 2011)

[LightHouse89]

I'm not saying your identity is negated by having other ancestries, but the notion that anyone can be 100% pure anything is absurd.

Actually that is untrue. There are people who are 100% pure. But either way it is irrelevant. Ethnic/Race are both realities. I am still pure despite possibly having .3% unknown ancestry, .3% doesn't mean anything at all. It wouldn't even contribute to a phenotype for Christ sake or much inheritance in terms of what an individual may inherit. That's my point.

This bullshit that a race is only 5% of a persons heritage is foolishness. What are they going on to make this assumption?

Again the term race has many definitions but one cannot argue that it does not represent populations or in some way invalidates that they exist. This is something this new age 'cline' theory is trying to do.

It claims we are not products of our own environment even. I don't know whether to laugh or cry when I read this crap.

[LightHouse89]

Your point? Society believes in demons, angels, god(s), aliens from out of space, and plenty of other crazy stuff that isn't real.

It is irrelevant to biology if people continue to believe in social race theory.

Race’: What Biology Can Tell Us about a Social Construct
http://www.els.net/WileyCDA/ElsArticle/refId-a0005857.html

"Although there exist human populations that differ in the proportions of particular alleles present, this fact does not support claims that ‘race’, as it is usually understood, is a biological rather than a social concept. Although there are differences in proportions of alleles in those races usually recognised in contemporary western social discourse (folk‐racial categories), these differences are no more biologically significant than are the genetic differences that exist between populations that are not socially recognised as races (populations that do not correspond to folk‐racial categories). This implies that whatever average genetic differences exist between the populations called ‘races’ in ordinary social discourse, those genetic differences are not what account for the folk‐racial categories in use today. Despite recent research sometimes taken to imply otherwise, folk‐racial categories – which remain of fundamental importance to people's life‐prospects – remain social categories and not biological categories." (Kaplan, 2011)

Here we go again with the social construct. This logic boils down to everything being a social construct. My hair color is a social construct. The shoes I am wearing are a social construct. The name of my name is a social construct. I am a social construct. Blah blah blah.

No matter what race will always be a reality. Ethnic groups are a testament to this. Good luck disproving reality.

[LightHouse89]

Genetics doesn't support race as a valid/useful construct.

I beg to differ. Again refer to population genetic studies.

[Leto]

Your point? Society believes in demons, angels, god(s), aliens from out of space, and plenty of other crazy stuff that isn't real.
Invalid comparison. You can see race with your own eyes, be it a social category or a biological. Would you say you don't notice the difference between black Brits, white Brits, Asian Brits, etc. There is nothing crazy about ethnic groups, they are still relevant to society.

[Trogdor]

Actually that is untrue. There are people who are 100% pure. But either way it is irrelevant. Ethnic/Race are both realities. I am still pure despite possibly having .3% unknown ancestry, .3% doesn't mean anything at all. It wouldn't even contribute to a phenotype for Christ sake or much inheritance in terms of what an individual may inherit. That's my point.

This bullshit that a race is only 5% of a persons heritage is foolishness. What are they going on to make this assumption?

Again the term race has many definitions but one cannot argue that it does not represent populations or in some way invalidates that they exist. This is something this new age 'cline' theory is trying to do.

It claims we are not products of our own environment even. I don't know whether to laugh or cry when I read this crap.

There probably are some groups that have never mixed with anyone else in some places like Iceland or Papua, New Guinea, but most people are not like that.

[LightHouse89]

Invalid comparison. You can see race with your own eyes, be it a social category or a biological. Would you say you don't notice the difference between black Brits, white Brits, Asian Brits, etc. There is nothing crazy about ethnic groups, they are still relevant to society.

Don't argue with him. Social constructs are always right! :rolleyes::p

[LightHouse89]

There probably are some groups that have never mixed with anyone else in some places, but most of humanity isn't like that.

It is irrelevant what most of mankind is. Humanity is a made up word. Humanity is a social construct. Mankind is nothing more than a bunch of different ethnic groups sharing the same environment the way birds do, dogs or horses.

Differences exist. Purity itself should be re-defined. No matter what different races exist. An Afram is not the same as me. Despite coming from the same country and speaking the same language neither one of us are the same. I mean social constructs view everything as the same. They believe everything is equal.

This way of thinking is infact un-scientific and ignorant.

[Pyramidologist]

Invalid comparison. You can see race with your own eyes, be it a social category or a biological. Would you say you don't notice the difference between black Brits, white Brits, Asian Brits, etc. There is nothing crazy about ethnic groups, they are still relevant to society.

You cannot see "race". What we see is biological variation. How that is then divided into "race" is arbitrary.

"As it turns out, this seemingly unassailable reasoning is not objective. There are many different, equally valid procedures for defining races, and those different procedures yield very different classifications. One such procedure would group Italians and Greeks with most African blacks. It would classify Xhosas--the South African "black" group to which President Nelson Mandela belongs--with Swedes rather than Nigerians. Another equally valid procedure would place Swedes with Fulani (a Nigerian "black" group) and not with Italians, who would again be grouped with most other African blacks. Still another procedure would keep Swedes and Italians separate from all African blacks but would throw the Swedes and Italians into the same race as New Guineans and American Indians." (Diamond (http://discovermagazine.com/1994/nov/racewithoutcolor444), 1994)

Fulani group with Swedes if one criteria is used, Italians then group with most other African "blacks".

[LightHouse89]

You cannot see "race". What we see is biological variation. How that is then divided into "race" is arbitrary."As it turns out, this seemingly unassailable reasoning is not objective. There are many different, equally valid procedures for defining races, and those different procedures yield very different classifications. One such procedure would group Italians and Greeks with most African blacks. It would classify Xhosas--the South African "black" group to which President Nelson Mandela belongs--with Swedes rather than Nigerians. Another equally valid procedure would place Swedes with Fulani (a Nigerian "black" group) and not with Italians, who would again be grouped with most other African blacks. Still another procedure would keep Swedes and Italians separate from all African blacks but would throw the Swedes and Italians into the same race as New Guineans and American Indians." (Diamond (http://discovermagazine.com/1994/nov/racewithoutcolor444), 1994)

Fulani group with Swedes if one criteria is used, Italians then group with most other African "blacks".

Not at all. You can see race because it is a reality.

Do you live under a rock?

[Leto]

You cannot see "race". What we see is biological variation. How that is then divided into "race" is arbitrary.
Society consists of various conventions, there is nothing wrong about it. It seems that you're seriously obsessed with this anti-racism. If a black attacks you at night, you'll report the assault describing the perpetrator as "black". And it will be irrelevant what biological or social category his appearance belongs to.
Remove the word "English" then, if you don't believe in the existence of ethnic groups.

[Cleitus]

The idea that a race must posses specific genes found only in that race is a misconception. Racial differences are a result of patterns differences in gene frequencies.

[Pyramidologist]

The idea that a race must posses specific genes found only in that race is a misconception. Racial differences are a result of patterns differences in gene frequencies.

Incorrect. Note this definition is never applied to non-humans. Why?

"Perhaps the most obvious objection to the idea of ‘Lewontin’s fallacy,’ however, is to point out that in non-human biology single-locus statistics are the standard tools used for subspecies classification." (Hochman, 2013)

"Sesardic claims that he is simply applying the subspecies concept from non-human to human biology. However, this passage suggests that multilocus, rather than singlelocus statistics are used to determine whether non-human species are divisible into subspecies. This is misleading, as the new multilocus clustering methods have not, to my knowledge, been used to redefine subspecies in non-human animals." (Ibid.)

[Pyramidologist]

Society consists of various conventions, there is nothing wrong about it. It seems that you're seriously obsessed with this anti-racism. If a black attacks you at night, you'll report the assault describing the perpetrator as "black". And it will be irrelevant what biological or social category his appearance belongs to.
Remove the word "English" then, if you don't believe in the existence of ethnic groups.

Ethnic groups are social constructs. You are confusing social constructs with scientific categories.

Race was conceived in thought as a scientific/taxonomic category (not a social construct). However since the 1960s/70s, it has been shown to be invalid and obsolete.

Your other error is not realizing the use of "black", "white" etc in forensic science is socially constructed. Forensic scientists are not arguing these are biological races.

[LightHouse89]

To claim races or populations do not exist is absurd. They are realities. They are biological constructs not social constructs.

To claim they are not real is like claiming the sky isn't blue with no clouds in the sky. One can take notice of how populations are real and could be broad in terms of covering a wider population with smaller subgroups with minor differences.

Some could argue maybe the term race isn't descriptive enough?

Pseudo science and politically motivated people will use these subjective studies to come to an irrational conclusion that race, ethnic groups and populations do not exist. However truth is there before everyone's eyes to see along with scientific evidence to suggest differences are obvious. Politically motivated people use subjective tactics which this poster is using to claim race, populations etc... are social constructs.

A rationalist accepts reality as truth and bases his/her opinion on facts that are real and objective. This study even proves populations exist however argues that they differ greatly [which I believe is exaggerated for political reasons].

I take notice to those who use pseudo science to disprove reality. You cannot disprove reality but nice try. Reality is an obstacle to Progressive thinking. No wonder they use t to support third world immigration to western countries. Only a moron would buy into this pseudo science.

[LightHouse89]

Ethnic groups are social constructs. You are confusing social constructs with scientific categories.

Race was conceived in thought as a scientific/taxonomic category (not a social construct). However since the 1960s/70s, it has been shown to be invalid and obsolete.

Your other error is not realizing the use of "black", "white" etc in forensic science is socially constructed. Forensic scientists are not arguing these are biological races.

And here we are again. So if race isn't real then what does this make you? A social construct?

Progressive thinking is insanity. The fact you put labels on things that are infact reality and not 'social constructs'. Show me a genetic social construct. I am interested in seeing this new race of mankind.

[Cleitus]

Incorrect. Note this definition is never applied to non-humans. Why?

"Perhaps the most obvious objection to the idea of ‘Lewontin’s fallacy,’ however, is to point out that in non-human biology single-locus statistics are the standard tools used for subspecies classification." (Hochman, 2013)

"Sesardic claims that he is simply applying the subspecies concept from non-human to human biology. However, this passage suggests that multilocus, rather than singlelocus statistics are used to determine whether non-human species are divisible into subspecies. This is misleading, as the new multilocus clustering methods have not, to my knowledge, been used to redefine subspecies in non-human animals." (Ibid.)

According to you it is even possible that species dont exist, the tiny amount of genetic variation between Humans and chimpanzees is also not enough to account for the physical differences between the two species. That is because the way genes are expressed is more important than the amount of genetic variation itself. There is a significant difference in human-chimp gene expression patterns, not the genes themselves. Small alternations in a single gene have enormous consequences, for example the main reasons why humans are capable of speech and chimps not is the minimal alternation in the gene FOXP2.

[LightHouse89]

The idea that a race must posses specific genes found only in that race is a misconception. Racial differences are a result of patterns differences in gene frequencies.

He is trying to disprove reality. This is what pseudo-scientists in the west are doing to promote and encourage our destruction.

[Pyramidologist]

To claim races or populations do not exist is absurd. They are realities. They are biological constructs not social constructs.

To claim they are not real is like claiming the sky isn't blue with no clouds in the sky. One can take notice of how populations are real and could be broad in terms of covering a wider population with smaller subgroups with minor differences.

Some could argue maybe the term race isn't descriptive enough?

Pseudo science and politically motivated people will use these subjective studies to come to an irrational conclusion that race, ethnic groups and populations do not exist. However truth is there before everyone's eyes to see along with scientific evidence to suggest differences are obvious. Politically motivated people use subjective tactics which this poster is using to claim race, populations etc... are social constructs.

A rationalist accepts reality as truth and bases his/her opinion on facts that are real and objective. This study even proves populations exist however argues that they differ greatly [which I believe is exaggerated for political reasons].

I take notice to those who use pseudo science to disprove reality. You cannot disprove reality but nice try. Reality is an obstacle to Progressive thinking. No wonder they use t to support third world immigration to western countries. Only a moron would buy into this pseudo science.

Dude, you're a total quack. A white supremacist religious loon. In the other thread you posted you don't even accept biological evolution/Darwin. lol. Don't talk about political bias or "objectivity". You are 100% biased and identify as a racialist/ethno-nationalist.

I have quoted plenty of peer-reviewed objective scientific studies showing science has discredited human races. The reason you reject these is for your own racist political agenda.

[Cleitus]

And here we are again. So if race isn't real then what does this make you? A social construct?

Progressive thinking is insanity. The fact you put labels on things that are infact reality and not 'social constructs'. Show me a genetic social construct. I am interested in seeing this new race of mankind.

That what people today call progressiv thinking is surely not progressiv, but infantile and self destructive.

[LightHouse89]

Dude, you're a total quack. A white supremacist religious loon. In the other thread you posted you don't even accept biological evolution/Darwin. lol. Don't talk about political bias or "objectivity". You are 100% biased and identify as a racialist/ethno-nationalist.

I have quoted plenty of peer-reviewed objective scientific studies showing science has discredited human races. The reason you reject these is for your own racist political agenda.

I am only a loon because my opinion is different than what you happen to believe in. So this automatically invalidates anything I will dare say to the superior Progressive Liberal. I don't fully accept Darwinism as 'truth'. How can it be? It doesn't explain our origin or how the Earth was made so how can a sane and rational person accept it as pure fact? I accept some of his writings but not all of it because he is just a man with an opinion and scientific work [which is interesting but not the sole answer to how the universe was created].

I am a preservationists because I believe it is sane to be a preservationist [not just for my own people but all peoples and groups around the world being threatened by globalism]. I am objective where as you are subjective.

You cannot discredit races. You use the same study and theory to disprove Reality which makes you incorrect. The fact the international scientific community doesn't credit this as reality is proof that identity and race are infact real. Only a politically motivated person with left wing views would try to discredit reality.

Reality is before your eyes whether you like it or not. You can argue that it isn't. Then people would laugh at you because you sounds absurd.

Racist political agenda? What is 'racist' about my agenda if race is a social construct? What is racist about being a preservationist?

I also must ask what is sane about being one who tries to argue that reality isn't real? That's like me claiming gravity isn't real and a social construct.

I think maybe we can agree to disagree at least? I just realize a lot of this post modern pseudo science is maybe as inaccurate as some of the 19th century ways of thinking. But to claim all of mankind is the same or a social construct is pure insanity being promoted by the Globalist society that wants to do away with reality to create a different world. The only way to do that is to invalidate race, or ethnic groups or cultural things. What is happening is Reality and that is a fact. My nation is a perfect example of this in 2015.

I would be a racist to protest this reality because my views are so 19th century :rolleyes:.

[LightHouse89]

That what people today call progressiv thinking is surely not progressiv, but infantile and self destructive.

No it is entirely subjective. They are just running on fuel created by the globalists to encourage more globalism. The only way to achieve this is to destroy things or groups of people and create more 'humanz'. Here in America they claim we are all humans therefore all the same and equal.

But real science disproves this nonsense.

Only a moron would claim everything is the same and everyone is the same. That simple genetic traits are the only difference. Well if that is the case then how can everyone be the same?

This mind fucked progressive liberal thinking is beyond warped and ignorant.

[Sockorer]

Zoologists and biologists recognise the existence of subspecies/races in species if there is significant genetic differentiation between populations, which is the result of a high level (to complete) reproductive isolation between them. Most zoologists use Wright's Fst (fixation index). Human populations come out far too low to recognise the existence of subspecies/races because most of the variation is found within the populations, rather than between them.

"Genetic differences between groups develop under isolation because lost alleles are not reintroduced, and new mutations are not spread. Under such conditions, the kinds of genetic discontinuities develop that lead biologists to apply the subspecies concept. These genetic discontinuities are represented by high FST values." (Hochman, 2013)

"Zoologists and biologists recognise the existence of subspecies/races in species if there is significant genetic differentiation between populations" Define "significance" TURD

The Fst distance between Human populations is comparable to the Fst distance between dog breeds.

Of course this another lame argument, HURR "You can't categorize humans into different population groups or RACES because the genetic difference between humans isn't big enough" of course who are you(or anyone) to define what constitutes a big enough difference or not to categorize something. I can construct and deconstruct categories as much as I see fit, I can create a category for every individual, I can create a category for every family, I can create a category for every clan, I can create a category for every Nation and so on and this does not just apply to Race this is for really everything. INB4 HURR "You can't categorize humans into different population groups or RACES because the genetic difference between humans is a gradient"




"First of all, a host of studies, beginning with those by Lewontin in 1972 and most recently by Barbujani and colleagues in 1997, have shown that the amount of human genetic diversity that is attributable to race is only about 5% to 10%. Following this, any particular “population” includes roughly 85% or more of the total human genetic diversity." - Brown, R. A., & Armelagos, G. J. (2001). "Apportionment of racial diversity: a review". Evolutionary Anthropology, 10(1), 34-40

And of course it should be remembered on average human individuals are 99.9% identical in genotype. The estimated 5-10% inter-populational variation, comes out at <0.01% of the total genome.


Humans also share 99% of there DNA with Chimpanzees and 50% of there DNA with Bananas. So how much of the Genome Race covers is pretty fucking irrelevant. Just to illustrate, One single allele can have a, what most people consider "large", effect on phenotype; the 2 repeat allele of the MAOA gene "The 2-Repeat Allele of the MAOA Gene Confers an Increased Risk for Shooting and Stabbing Behaviors" - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24326626 . This allele also happens to differ by RACE with 5.5% of Black men, 0.1% of Caucasian men, and 0.00067% of Asian men carry the 2R allele.



Genetics doesn't support race as a valid/useful construct.

"The study of genes, heredity, and genetic variation in living organisms doesn't support genetic variation between Human populations as a valid/useful construct." HURR



Your point? Society believes in demons, angels, god(s), aliens from out of space, and plenty of other crazy stuff that isn't real.

It is irrelevant to biology if people continue to believe in social race theory.

Race’: What Biology Can Tell Us about a Social Construct
http://www.els.net/WileyCDA/ElsArticle/refId-a0005857.html

"Although there exist human populations that differ in the proportions of particular alleles present, this fact does not support claims that ‘race’, as it is usually understood, is a biological rather than a social concept. Although there are differences in proportions of alleles in those races usually recognised in contemporary western social discourse (folk‐racial categories), these differences are no more biologically significant than are the genetic differences that exist between populations that are not socially recognised as races (populations that do not correspond to folk‐racial categories). This implies that whatever average genetic differences exist between the populations called ‘races’ in ordinary social discourse, those genetic differences are not what account for the folk‐racial categories in use today. Despite recent research sometimes taken to imply otherwise, folk‐racial categories – which remain of fundamental importance to people's life‐prospects – remain social categories and not biological categories." (Kaplan, 2011)


WRONG. "We have analyzed genetic data for 326 microsatellite markers that were typed uniformly in a large multiethnic population-based sample of individuals as part of a study of the genetics of hypertension (Family Blood Pressure Program). Subjects identified themselves as belonging to one of four major racial/ethnic groups (white, African American, East Asian, and Hispanic) and were recruited from 15 different geographic locales within the United States and Taiwan. Genetic cluster analysis of the microsatellite markers produced four major clusters, which showed near-perfect correspondence with the four self-reported race/ethnicity categories. Of 3,636 subjects of varying race/ethnicity, only 5 (0.14%) showed genetic cluster membership different from their self-identified race/ethnicity." - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1196372/

The social construction of RACE corresponds with genetic variation between human populations.



You cannot see "race". What we see is biological variation. How that is then divided into "race" is arbitrary.

"As it turns out, this seemingly unassailable reasoning is not objective. There are many different, equally valid procedures for defining races, and those different procedures yield very different classifications. One such procedure would group Italians and Greeks with most African blacks. It would classify Xhosas--the South African "black" group to which President Nelson Mandela belongs--with Swedes rather than Nigerians. Another equally valid procedure would place Swedes with Fulani (a Nigerian "black" group) and not with Italians, who would again be grouped with most other African blacks. Still another procedure would keep Swedes and Italians separate from all African blacks but would throw the Swedes and Italians into the same race as New Guineans and American Indians." (Diamond (http://discovermagazine.com/1994/nov/racewithoutcolor444), 1994)

Fulani group with Swedes if one criteria is used, Italians then group with most other African "blacks".

These "equally valid procedures" only test a small amount of loci. More accurate procedures test for more loci and would never group European peoples with African peoples.



Incorrect. Note this definition is never applied to non-humans. Why?

"Perhaps the most obvious objection to the idea of ‘Lewontin’s fallacy,’ however, is to point out that in non-human biology single-locus statistics are the standard tools used for subspecies classification." (Hochman, 2013)

"Sesardic claims that he is simply applying the subspecies concept from non-human to human biology. However, this passage suggests that multilocus, rather than singlelocus statistics are used to determine whether non-human species are divisible into subspecies. This is misleading, as the new multilocus clustering methods have not, to my knowledge, been used to redefine subspecies in non-human animals." (Ibid.)

singlelocus statistics are clearly inferior when compared to multilocus. It's obvious as to why this is.




Ethnic groups are social constructs. You are confusing social constructs with scientific categories.

Race was conceived in thought as a scientific/taxonomic category (not a social construct). However since the 1960s/70s, it has been shown to be invalid and obsolete.

Your other error is not realizing the use of "black", "white" etc in forensic science is socially constructed. Forensic scientists are not arguing these are biological races.


No it hasn't. Race categorizes are obviously "socially constructed" all categories are.



Dude, you're a total quack. A white supremacist religious loon. In the other thread you posted you don't even accept biological evolution/Darwin. lol. Don't talk about political bias or "objectivity". You are 100% biased and identify as a racialist/ethno-nationalist.

I have quoted plenty of peer-reviewed objective scientific studies showing science has discredited human races. The reason you reject these is for your own racist political agenda.


Dude, you're a total quack. A Racial Egalitarian mystic loon. Don't talk about political bias or "objectivity". You are 100% biased and identify with Race Denialist positions.

[LightHouse89]

"Zoologists and biologists recognise the existence of subspecies/races in species if there is significant genetic differentiation between populations" Define "significance" TURD

The Fst distance between Human populations is comparable to the Fst distance between dog breeds.

Of course this another lame argument, HURR "You can't categorize humans into different population groups or RACES because the genetic difference between humans isn't big enough" of course who are you(or anyone) to define what constitutes a big enough difference or not to categorize something. I can construct and deconstruct categories as much as I see fit, I can create a category for every individual, I can create a category for every family, I can create a category for every clan, I can create a category for every Nation and so on and this does not just apply to Race this is for really everything. INB4 HURR "You can't categorize humans into different population groups or RACES because the genetic difference between humans is a gradient"






Humans also share 99% of there DNA with Chimpanzees and 50% of there DNA with Bananas. So how much of the Genome Race covers is pretty fucking irrelevant. Just to illustrate, One single allele can have a, what most people consider "large", effect on phenotype; the 2 repeat allele of the MAOA gene "The 2-Repeat Allele of the MAOA Gene Confers an Increased Risk for Shooting and Stabbing Behaviors" - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24326626 . This allele also happens to differ by RACE with 5.5% of Black men, 0.1% of Caucasian men, and 0.00067% of Asian men carry the 2R allele.




"The study of genes, heredity, and genetic variation in living organisms doesn't support genetic variation between Human populations as a valid/useful construct." HURR





WRONG. "We have analyzed genetic data for 326 microsatellite markers that were typed uniformly in a large multiethnic population-based sample of individuals as part of a study of the genetics of hypertension (Family Blood Pressure Program). Subjects identified themselves as belonging to one of four major racial/ethnic groups (white, African American, East Asian, and Hispanic) and were recruited from 15 different geographic locales within the United States and Taiwan. Genetic cluster analysis of the microsatellite markers produced four major clusters, which showed near-perfect correspondence with the four self-reported race/ethnicity categories. Of 3,636 subjects of varying race/ethnicity, only 5 (0.14%) showed genetic cluster membership different from their self-identified race/ethnicity." - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1196372/

The social construction of RACE corresponds with genetic variation between human populations.




These "equally valid procedures" only test a small amount of loci. More accurate procedures test for more loci and would never group European peoples with African peoples.




singlelocus statistics are clearly inferior when compared to multilocus. It's obvious as to why this is.






No it hasn't. Race categorizes are obviously "socially constructed" all categories are.





Dude, you're a total quack. A Racial Egalitarian mystic loon. Don't talk about political bias or "objectivity". You are 100% biased and identify with Race Denialist positions.

I think you wasted a lot of space and time typing this. It is a well known fact which you and I obviously get. But the world is a social construct to this lunatic and his ilk who think this way.

[Sockorer]

I think you wasted a lot of space and time typing this. It is a well known fact which you and I obviously get. But the world is a social construct to this lunatic and his ilk who think this way.

My reply is not just for him, there are a whole lot of people who will see my post.

[lei.talk]

...to boasians (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?16770-Race-doesn-t-exist!&p=234763&viewfull=1#post234763)
that seem incapable of abstraction (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/abstraction#Etymology)
utilising the concept of genus/differentia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genus%E2%80%93differentia_definition):




http://youtu.be/caanqmV96j0


http://i56.tinypic.com/18nokk.png (http://www.theapricity.com/snpa/index2.htm)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/95/Wikipedia_logo_3d_gold.png/120px-Wikipedia_logo_3d_gold.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_race_concepts#External_links)http://i30.tinypic.com/scytjl.jpg

[Pyramidologist]

According to you it is even possible that species dont exist, the tiny amount of genetic variation between Humans and chimpanzees is also not enough to account for the physical differences between the two species. That is because the way genes are expressed is more important than the amount of genetic variation itself. There is a significant difference in human-chimp gene expression patterns, not the genes themselves. Small alternations in a single gene have enormous consequences, for example the main reasons why humans are capable of speech and chimps not is the minimal alternation in the gene FOXP2.

Species are not defined by biologists by their genetic differentiation but by inter-sterility.

It is true that some putative subspecies/races of chimpanzees show low Fst as human populations. But guess what? They're now being removed from scientific literature. Most biologists now don't recognize chimpanzee subspecies.

"Fischer et al. argued from these results that there are no chimpanzee subspecies and suggested instead that chimpanzee variation might be characterized by continuous gradients of gene frequencies." (Becquet et al., 2007)

Are Chimpanzee-race denialists politically motivated too?:picard2:

[Leto]

Ethnic groups are social constructs. You are confusing social constructs with scientific categories.

Race was conceived in thought as a scientific/taxonomic category (not a social construct). However since the 1960s/70s, it has been shown to be invalid and obsolete.

Your other error is not realizing the use of "black", "white" etc in forensic science is socially constructed. Forensic scientists are not arguing these are biological races.
So what? I don't care what kind of label it has. Fact is it does exist, regardless of how it should be viewed by science.

[Pyramidologist]

"Zoologists and biologists recognise the existence of subspecies/races in species if there is significant genetic differentiation between populations" Define "significance" TURD

A subspecies/race is recognized by biologists or zoologists with a Fst > 0.25. Humans don't come close.


The Fst distance between Human populations is comparable to the Fst distance between dog breeds.

Nope. Whatever statistical model of genetic variation you look at, human populations are not like "breeds" of dogs:

"Genetic variation between dog breeds, however is much greater than the observed variation between human populations (27.5% versus 5.4%)." (Ostrander et al., 2008)


Of course this another lame argument, HURR "You can't categorize humans into different population groups or RACES because the genetic difference between humans isn't big enough" of course who are you(or anyone) to define what constitutes a big enough difference or not to categorize something. I can construct and deconstruct categories as much as I see fit, I can create a category for every individual, I can create a category for every family, I can create a category for every clan, I can create a category for every Nation and so on and this does not just apply to Race this is for really everything. INB4 HURR "You can't categorize humans into different population groups or RACES because the genetic difference between humans is a gradient"

You're a scientist? You look like a cocky dumb teenager to me. The threshold Fst for subspecies or race is certainly arbitrary, but it was set by biologists. Science isn't done by random people, but in peer-reviewed journals. But the fact it is arbitrary is pretty irrelevant since human populations come out the lowest. Compare for example subspecies with a high fixation index of over 0.70, to humans who are well under 0.10 (around 0.05 in most studies). The fact remains that human populations show incredibly low interregional or interpopulation genetic variation compared to other animal populations.


WRONG. "We have analyzed genetic data for 326 microsatellite markers that were typed uniformly in a large multiethnic population-based sample of individuals as part of a study of the genetics of hypertension (Family Blood Pressure Program). Subjects identified themselves as belonging to one of four major racial/ethnic groups (white, African American, East Asian, and Hispanic) and were recruited from 15 different geographic locales within the United States and Taiwan. Genetic cluster analysis of the microsatellite markers produced four major clusters, which showed near-perfect correspondence with the four self-reported race/ethnicity categories. Of 3,636 subjects of varying race/ethnicity, only 5 (0.14%) showed genetic cluster membership different from their self-identified race/ethnicity." - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1196372/

The social construction of RACE corresponds with genetic variation between human populations.

No one denies genetic variation exists between populations, but those differences can be found in populations that don't match folk-biology/socially constructed racial categories.

Are the Amish a race? :picard2:

[Feral]

It's interesting how this thread has developed as I sadly thought it would. Even thought I firmly clarified that there's a genetical differentiation between human population that are undeniable evidenced through physical traits, and this could be reason enough to state that these populations can have a genetical identity. This could easily serve as an argument to advocate for ethnic preservationism. Which was the very purpose of this thread, to criticize the most recurrent argumentation tends to be 'racial purism' which has been proven to be an apotheosized and dogmatized absurdity that has caused more problems than actually ensuring ethnic preservationism on modern times. But nope, unineuronal acritical masses rushed to defend and protest with tridents and torchs against anything that deared to question their belief system.

Shorter version: If anyone thought that I attempted to argument the inexistence of race (genetical populations), should really reflect on the cause of such misinterpretation (that ironically proves my point). :coffee:

[Pyramidologist]

It's interesting how this thread has developed as I sadly thought it would. Even thought I firmly clarified that there's a genetical differentiation between human population that are undeniable evidenced through physical traits, and this could be reason enough to state that these populations can have a genetical identity. This could easily serve as an argument to advocate for ethnic preservationism. Which was the very purpose of this thread, to criticize the most recurrent argumentation tends to be 'racial purism' which has been proven to be an apotheosized and dogmatized absurdity that has caused more problems than actually ensuring ethnic preservationism on modern times. But nope, unineuronal acritical masses rushed to defend and protest with tridents and torchs against anything that deared to question their belief system.

Shorter version: If anyone thought that I attempted to argument the inexistence of race (genetical populations), should really reflect on the cause of such misinterpretation (that ironically proves my point). :coffee:

Do you then consider, the Amish, French and Londoners to be races?

[Feral]

Do you then consider, the Amish, French and Londoners to be races?

Amish are a subculture, french it's a nationality and londoners a demonym.

[Pyramidologist]

It's interesting how this thread has developed as I sadly thought it would. Even thought I firmly clarified that there's a genetical differentiation between human population that are undeniable evidenced through physical traits, and this could be reason enough to state that these populations can have a genetical identity. This could easily serve as an argument to advocate for ethnic preservationism. Which was the very purpose of this thread, to criticize the most recurrent argumentation tends to be 'racial purism' which has been proven to be an apotheosized and dogmatized absurdity that has caused more problems than actually ensuring ethnic preservationism on modern times. But nope, unineuronal acritical masses rushed to defend and protest with tridents and torchs against anything that deared to question their belief system.

Shorter version: If anyone thought that I attempted to argument the inexistence of race (genetical populations), should really reflect on the cause of such misinterpretation (that ironically proves my point). :coffee:

It is unclear who you think is arguing "races are pure". This mostly seems to be your own straw man. The vast majority of biologists agree that human races aren't scientific. The few academics still arguing for race (mostly psychologists of the far-right hereditarianism school) are not claiming races are even "pure". Heck, even most neo-Nazis on Stormfront aren't arguing for a "genetic pure" race. So its unclear where you got this idea from. It looks like a straw man you invented in an attempt to make yourself look smart (it is easy to 'knock down' positions no one holds).

[Leto]

It is unclear who you think is arguing "races are pure". This mostly seems to be your own straw man. The vast majority of biologists agree that human races aren't scientific. The few academics still arguing for race (mostly psychologists of the far-right hereditarianism school) are not claiming races are even "pure". Heck, even most neo-Nazis on Stormfront aren't arguing for a "genetic pure" race. So its unclear where you got this idea from. It looks like a straw man you invented in an attempt to make yourself look smart (it is easy to 'knock down' positions no one holds).
Dude, this is a cultural community, people are here to discuss various ethnic and historical issues. Why do you come to almost every thread to post your quotes? Real, unreal, who cares? If society is real itself, then things it creates are real as well. If you are obsessed with "anti-racism", that is your own problem.

[Pyramidologist]

Amish are a subculture, french it's a nationality and londoners a demonym.

Incorrect. They are all populations that can be differentiated by genetic frequency. The reason you don't choose these, is because you are following a socially constructed concept of "race". Read Kaplan (2011):

• "Although human populations identified on the basis of folk‐racial categories differ in the proportion of particular alleles, so too do many human populations that are not generally socially recognised as forming races (such as the country of origin within Europe)."

•"Biologically, the populations that form folk‐racial categories (e.g. Asians) are no more important or significant than many other populations that are not usually identified as races (e.g. the Spanish and Portuguese). "

•"Although human populations identified on the basis of folk‐racial categories differ in the proportion of particular alleles, this does not make the folk‐racial categories biological categories."

Race’: What Biology Can Tell Us about a Social Construct
http://www.els.net/WileyCDA/ElsArticle/refId-a0005857.html

[Leto]

a Social Construct
SO FUCKING WHAT? Don't we all live in SOCIETY? Is it some kind of swearword to the likes of you?

[LightHouse89]

It is unclear who you think is arguing "races are pure". This mostly seems to be your own straw man. The vast majority of biologists agree that human races aren't scientific. The few academics still arguing for race (mostly psychologists of the far-right hereditarianism school) are not claiming races are even "pure". Heck, even most neo-Nazis on Stormfront aren't arguing for a "genetic pure" race. So its unclear where you got this idea from. It looks like a straw man you invented in an attempt to make yourself look smart (it is easy to 'knock down' positions no one holds).

Again race has many definitions and this term you are going out of your way to claim doesn't mean anything which is infact insane. Purity? Purity to me is in itself something different. I believe I am pure 'white' because I am :p. .3% unknown ancestry wouldn't mean anything at all. If I lets says mixed with someone who either had the same amount of unknown or non north western euro ancestry that wouldn't produce an impure child.

I would dare claim that I am pure because looking at my records going all the way back to 1609 would suggest I am for the most part of 'North Western European' extraction.

You could claim I am full of shit but my ancestry records only suggest that. So in a way I am pure :p How racist of me to dare suggest!

[LightHouse89]

Incorrect. They are all populations that can be differentiated by genetic frequency. The reason you don't choose these, is because you are following a socially constructed concept of "race". Read Kaplan (2011):

• "Although human populations identified on the basis of folk‐racial categories differ in the proportion of particular alleles, so too do many human populations that are not generally socially recognised as forming races (such as the country of origin within Europe)."

•"Biologically, the populations that form folk‐racial categories (e.g. Asians) are no more important or significant than many other populations that are not usually identified as races (e.g. the Spanish and Portuguese). "

•"Although human populations identified on the basis of folk‐racial categories differ in the proportion of particular alleles, this does not make the folk‐racial categories biological categories."

Race’: What Biology Can Tell Us about a Social Construct
http://www.els.net/WileyCDA/ElsArticle/refId-a0005857.html

beyond delusional. Amish people would cluster with other white americans who had similar backgrounds. They are descended from North Western Euros and believe me anyone can be amish. If tomorrow I wished to become Amish I could do it. So to claim they are genetically pure in the sense that they are different than the average white American is bad shit insanity.

[Unome]

There's no genetic pure race?


This is a Native American?

http://www.africanfoods.co.uk/images/african-woman-smiling.jpg


This is a European?

http://www.faithinterface.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/australia-aborigines-460.jpg


This is an Afrikan?

http://people.ucls.uchicago.edu/~snekros/2008-9%20webquests/products3/native_american.jpg


This is an Oriental?

http://tsdg.typepad.com/.a/6a00e54f9f5da988340120a58e8da5970c-320wi


This is an Australian Aborigine?

http://www.wikinoticia.com/images/eslatele.comatom/eslatele.com.wp-content.uploads.2009.08.hiroyuki-shimosawa_l.jpg


Yes, all races are the same… cannot tell anybody apart?

[LightHouse89]

Dude, this is a cultural community, people are here to discuss various ethnic and historical issues. Why do you come to almost every thread to post your quotes? Real, unreal, who cares? If society is real itself, then things it creates are real as well. If you are obsessed with "anti-racism", that is your own problem.

We are really living in the Matrix.

[LightHouse89]

A subspecies/race is recognized by biologists or zoologists with a Fst > 0.25. Humans don't come close.



Nope. Whatever statistical model of genetic variation you look at, human populations are not like "breeds" of dogs:

"Genetic variation between dog breeds, however is much greater than the observed variation between human populations (27.5% versus 5.4%)." (Ostrander et al., 2008)



You're a scientist? You look like a cocky dumb teenager to me. The threshold Fst for subspecies or race is certainly arbitrary, but it was set by biologists. Science isn't done by random people, but in peer-reviewed journals. But the fact it is arbitrary is pretty irrelevant since human populations come out the lowest. Compare for example subspecies with a high fixation index of over 0.70, to humans who are well under 0.10 (around 0.05 in most studies). The fact remains that human populations show incredibly low interregional or interpopulation genetic variation compared to other animal populations.



No one denies genetic variation exists between populations, but those differences can be found in populations that don't match folk-biology/socially constructed racial categories.

Are the Amish a race? :picard2:

You seem to be going in circles claiming there are many races. Then claiming no race exists. Also claiming there are no similarities judging by an individual within a population of similar individuals. This is pure lunacy.

[Neon Knight]

I don't think the genetic clines in the world are completely smooth, without any gaps. The oceans and the Sahara Desert have obviously been major barriers to gene flow. And small differences have even been shown within the UK, between English and Welsh and English and Scots. So there are minor clusters. Whether it matters or not is a political and aesthetic question.

Dogs have more genetic variation than humans, true, but then we do not live in a society of dogs, we live in a world of humans. I say that you don't have to adopt a racial identitiy if you don't want to but identitifying with a racial-national type is a perfectly reasonable thing to do if it is to your taste.

[Leto]

We are really living in the Matrix.
Nah, seriously, if a group of people decided to create their own society of, say, elves, should we say they don't exist? They'd move to an uninhabited area or another planet and start their new elf society where any other people who don't belong there would be called, say, "goblins". That would be a "social construct", but how could we say it is invalid or irrelevant to that particular society? You'd be killed for entering their territory, just because you are not one of them.
Social constructs are usually a harsh reality, whether we like it or not.
I hope my analogy is good enough.

[Pyramidologist]

...to boasians (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?16770-Race-doesn-t-exist!&p=234763&viewfull=1#post234763)
that seem incapable of abstraction (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/abstraction#Etymology)
utilising the concept of genus/differentia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genus%E2%80%93differentia_definition):




http://i56.tinypic.com/18nokk.png (http://www.theapricity.com/snpa/index2.htm)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/95/Wikipedia_logo_3d_gold.png/120px-Wikipedia_logo_3d_gold.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_race_concepts#External_links)http://i30.tinypic.com/scytjl.jpg

Jared Taylor is a politically motivated white nationalist and hereditarian who has ties/links to an assortment of neo-Nazis and other far-right racists. Are we meant to take him serious?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Taylor

"Race realism" is not a scientific movement, but a political one. It is totally biased, equivalent to religious creationism.

The amount of genuine scientists arguing for human races that aren't far-right/of the hereditarian school (e.g. Pioneer fund) are extremely low, to almost non-existent.

[Feral]

It is unclear who you think is arguing "races are pure". This mostly seems to be your own straw man. The vast majority of biologists agree that human races aren't scientific. The few academics still arguing for race (mostly psychologists of the far-right hereditarianism school) are not claiming races are even "pure". Heck, even most neo-Nazis on Stormfront aren't arguing for a "genetic pure" race. So its unclear where you got this idea from. It looks like a straw man you invented in an attempt to make yourself look smart (it is easy to 'knock down' positions no one holds).

Not necessarily a posture itself more than an argument. And the ones I'm pointing out are the ones that constantly misinterpretated my point as if it were about stating that 'race' doesn't exist. A biased misinterpretation that evidences their belief's basis. On the other hand I don't know in which social circles do you move, but even on social sites, even forums, there's still a normalized opinion regarding race that clearly originates on the idea of race purism even though it doesn't directly abogates for it.
(Check Unome's comment, for example. :laugh: )

[Neon Knight]

Nah, seriously, if a group of people decided to create their own society of, say, elves, should we say they don't exist? They'd move to an uninhabited area or another planet and start their new elf society where any other people who don't belong there would be called, say, "goblins". That would be a "social construct", but how could we say it is invalid or irrelevant to that particular society? You'd be killed for entering their territory, just because you are not one of them.
Social constructs are usually a harsh reality, whether we like it or not.
I hope my analogy is good enough.I think we can say that race is a rough biological construct which can be refined through social construction.

[Leto]

We people are free to classify things we see around us giving them some labels. Why can't I call a black thing black if it is indeed black and not white?:confused: Why should I pretend it has a different color or no color at all?

[LightHouse89]

Nah, seriously, if a group of people decided to create their own society of, say, elves, should we say they don't exist? They'd move to an uninhabited area or another planet and start their new elf society where any other people who don't belong there would be called, say, "goblins". That would be a "social construct", but how could we say it is invalid or irrelevant to that particular society? You'd be killed for entering their territory, just because you are not one of them.
Social constructs are usually a harsh reality, whether we like it or not.
I hope my analogy is good enough.

I disagree. The fact still remains that races are a biological reality and biological construct.

Again look at populations not the worthless ramblings of one of these pseudo scientists.

[LightHouse89]

Jared Taylor is a politically motivated white nationalist and hereditarian who has ties/links to an assortment of neo-Nazis and other far-right racists. Are we meant to take him serious?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Taylor

"Race realism" is not a scientific movement, but a political one. It is totally biased, equivalent to religious creationism.

The amount of genuine scientists arguing for human races that aren't far-right/of the hereditarian school (e.g. Pioneer fund) are extremely low, to almost non-existent.

Not at all.

Also he is not a Neo Nazi at all. He is a libertarian you fucking idiot.

[LightHouse89]

We people are free to classify things we see around us giving them some labels. Why can't I call a black thing black if it is indeed black and not white?:confused: Why should I pretend it has a different color or no color at all?

The American definition of one who is white is one is comes from Europe. Its that simple.

What left wing people here [in USA] are trying to claim is that 'white' is a social construct. As in what? Ethnic groups do not exist? That is the most absurd statement I have ever heard. Ethnic groups are socially constructed? Maybe we need to re-look at the definition of what a social construct is.

''Social construction is something you might not be aware of. You are somewhat living in segregation depending on what gender, race and class you are. Race, class and gender don't really mean anything. They only have a meaning because society gives them a meaning.''

Does this statement make any sense? Not really. How can gender be made up?

The next argument a Progressive can now claim is that we should have the right to change species.

Come on you cannot take these people seriously. They are fruitcakes.

[LightHouse89]

I think we can say that race is a rough biological construct which can be refined through social construction.

Yes and no. Is gender too made up? Maybe within the DNA but is it really a social construct? This is pure lunacy.

[Pyramidologist]

We people are free to classify things we see around us giving them some labels. Why can't I call a black thing black if it is indeed black and not white?:confused: Why should I pretend it has a different color or no color at all?

The issue in science is whether species, races and so on are useful (e.g. do they capture a lot of variation and how well do they do this) not if they are ontologically "real" in the sense of being extra-mental or independent of the mind. However there is a completely different position in philosophy regarding race. Some academic philosophers only regard what can be demonstrated to be mind-independent to be "real". But regardless, the vast majority of biologists do not regard races to be a useful category:

"It is a misconception that anti-realists about biological race believe that 'race' is totally uncorrelated with any biological difference: we just believe that it does not capture very much biological difference, and that it does not capture that difference very well." (Hochman, 2014)

[LightHouse89]

The issue in science is whether species, races and so on are useful (e.g. do they capture a lot of variation and how well do they do this) not if they are ontologically "real" in the sense of being extra-mental or independent of the mind. However there is a completely different position in philosophy regarding race. Some academic philosophers only regard what can be demonstrated to be mind-independent to be "real". But regardless, the vast majority of biologists do not regard races to be a useful category:

"It is a misconception that anti-realists about biological race believe that 'race' is totally uncorrelated with any biological difference: we just believe that it does not capture very much biological difference, and that it does not capture that difference very well." (Hochman, 2014)

Yes. I am really a woman born with a penis. :rolleyes:

[Cleitus]

The issue in science is whether species, races and so on are useful (e.g. do they capture a lot of variation and how well do they do this) not if they are ontologically "real" in the sense of being extra-mental or independent of the mind. However there is a completely different position in philosophy regarding race. Some academic philosophers only regard what can be demonstrated to be mind-independent to be "real". But regardless, the vast majority of biologists though do not regard races to be a useful category:

"It is a misconception that anti-realists about biological race believe that 'race' is totally uncorrelated with any biological difference: we just believe that it does not capture very much biological difference, and that it does not capture that difference very well." (Hochman, 2014)

Its not about the genetical difference itself but about how the gene patterns are expressed you fool. Western academics and philosophers are intellectual whores.

[Cleitus]

Yes. I am really a woman born with a penis. :rolleyes:

There is no real genetical basis for your penis, its a social construct.

[Gooding]

The American definition of one who is white is one is comes from Europe. Its that simple.

What left wing people here [in USA] are trying to claim is that 'white' is a social construct. As in what? Ethnic groups do not exist? That is the most absurd statement I have ever heard. Ethnic groups are socially constructed? Maybe we need to re-look at the definition of what a social construct is.

''Social construction is something you might not be aware of. You are somewhat living in segregation depending on what gender, race and class you are. Race, class and gender don't really mean anything. They only have a meaning because society gives them a meaning.''

Does this statement make any sense? Not really. How can gender be made up?

The next argument a Progressive can now claim is that we should have the right to change species.

Come on you cannot take these people seriously. They are fruitcakes.

I agree. In America, your ethnicity is the most visible thing in the world. If you want to see what our society considers you to be, look in a mirror. If that's a "s social construct," then the sense of sight is a " social construct." Such pseudo- intellectual bullshit as to make one vomit. We are what we are. If we were the base model for our society, then we got to determine the morals and standards by which that society functions. If a bunch of Leftists don't like it, then they may relocate to a place more suitable.

[LightHouse89]

I agree. In America, your ethnicity is the most visible thing in the world. If you want to see what our society considers you to be, look in a mirror. If that's a "s social construct," then the sense of sight is a " social construct." Such pseudo- intellectual bullshit as to make one vomit. We are what we are. If we were the base model for our society, then we got to determine the morals and standards by which that society functions. If a bunch of Leftists don't like it, then they may relocate to a place more suitable.

Yes. Reality is there whether these fruitcakes wish to alter that or not. I laugh at these people because they are already claiming that being a human being is infact a social construct.

[Pyramidologist]

I disagree. The fact still remains that races are a biological reality and biological construct.

Again look at populations not the worthless ramblings of one of these pseudo scientists.

Clown, show me a biologist who argues there are human races. Virtually none exist for the simple reason the scientific evidence doesn't support them.

White nationalists and neo-nazis are then left with "political correctness" conspiracy theories (despite the fact it is those arguing for human races who are politically motivated and biased).

[Feral]

Clown, show me a biologist who argues there are human races. Virtually none exist for the simple reason the scientific evidence doesn't support them.

White nationalists and neo-nazis are then left with "political correctness" conspiracy theories (despite the fact it is those arguing for human races who are politically motivated and biased).

https://kenanmalik.wordpress.com/2012/03/04/why-both-sides-are-wrong-in-the-race-debate/

[LightHouse89]

There is no real genetical basis for your penis, its a social construct.

Tomorrow I will change species. I hate being a human being. This is not my original form. I have always felt like a bird not a human. So I should have the right to change species.

People who would make such statements like the one above here [as an example] would have been locked away in a mental asylum somewhere less than 50 years ago. Today pseudo intellectuals would suggest that it is true. Mankind is a social construct.

Social construction is a joke because it really tells us nothing and supports absurd claims to support the agenda they believe in. It doesn't matter if it is true or not all that matters is that we are all social constructs. It is irrelevant if we are 'social constructs' we exist and therefore we are! LOL. I will be white no matter what whether these other social constructs agree with me or not. I am still who I am. I am apart of a broader mass of 'individuals' or a larger population which is defined as a race of people. One could claim they are a race or ethnic group.

Oh God but you have .1% non European ancestry. So you cant be white. :rolleyes: No not at all. No matter what at the end of the day this social construct crap is propaganda fueling the far left.

It is irrelevant if the world is a social construct as it is right there in front of us to see. Existentialism disproves that I am a social construct.

[Leto]

However there is a completely different position in philosophy regarding race. Some academic philosophers only regard what can be demonstrated to be mind-independent to be "real".
Philosophy? Lol. That's hardly a science, to begin with. Philosophy is not better than religion you hate. Every philosopher had/has his own views. I can become a philosopher too. All I need to do is write some abstract stuff full of bookish terms and there you go, the world has one more philosopher. Philosophy MUCH less real than race.:)

[Neon Knight]

Yes and no. Is gender too made up? Maybe within the DNA but is it really a social construct? This is pure lunacy.Of course gender is real. What I'm really saying is that biology gives us rough racial types which often overlap with each other but we can sharpen those divisions by bringing in things like culture and politics. E.g: that woman we were talking about yesterday, Geri Haliwell - 1/2 Spanish, 1/4 British, 1/4 Swedish; she could be classed as Britannic, Iberian, or Scandinavian depending on whether she grew up in Spain, England or Sweden. But she could never be classed as North African or Indian.

[Highlands]

I don't think there are genetically "pure" races but they are quite distinct.

[Pyramidologist]

https://kenanmalik.wordpress.com/2012/03/04/why-both-sides-are-wrong-in-the-race-debate/

Is not a biologist. His only academic position was once a research psychologist at the University of Sussex. His undergraduate degree was in neuroscience.

Like I posted earlier, the few academics still arguing for race are psychologists. They have a poor understanding of biology.

[LightHouse89]

Clown, show me a biologist who argues there are human races. Virtually none exist for the simple reason the scientific evidence doesn't support them.

White nationalists and neo-nazis are then left with "political correctness" conspiracy theories (despite the fact it is those arguing for human races who are politically motivated and biased).

Well lets see 'clown'.

It is reality. If I walk down the street and see a black man I am aware that he belongs to a different race of people. Whether he and I are social constructs is irrelevant. He is black and I am white.

Is it possible that evolution is a social construct?

To claim that no races exist is like claiming it doesn't snow in New England during December. Race exists whether it is a social construct or not.

I don't care what your pseudo scientists 'claim'. They have made many claims which have been disproven before.

Here the definition of Race- or ahem social constructs I should say to be politically 'correct'.


A group of people identified as distinct from other groups because of supposed physical or genetic traits shared by the group. Most biologists and anthropologists do not recognize race as a biologically valid classification, in part because there is more genetic variation within groups than between them.

2. A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the Celtic race.

3. A genealogical line; a lineage.

4. Humans considered as a group.

5. Biology
a. A usually geographically isolated population of organisms that differs from other populations of the same species in certain heritable traits: an island race of birds.

b. A breed or strain, as of domestic animals.

6. A distinguishing or characteristic quality, such as the flavor of a wine.

adj.
1. Of or relating to race; racial: race relations; race quotas.

2. Of or relating to forms of popular entertainment made by and largely marketed to African Americans in the early 1900s: race literature; race records.

I don't need to use scientific studies to prove anything. Race is real. Its there whether your grape sized brain accepts that or not.

[Neon Knight]

Analysing a saliva sample and correctly identifying the person who gave it as being from a certain part of Europe is no social construction.

[Feral]

Is not a biologist. His only academic position was once a research psychologist at the University of Sussex. His undergraduate degree was in neuroscience.

Like I posted earlier, the few academics still arguing for race are psychologists. They have a poor understanding of biology.

You could've at least read the article. It mentions biological anthropologists on both sides of the debate about race.

[LightHouse89]

Of course gender is real. What I'm really saying is that biology gives us rough racial types which often overlap with each other but we can sharpen those divisions by bringing in things like culture and politics. E.g: that woman we were talking about yesterday, Geri Haliwell - 1/2 Spanish, 1/4 British, 1/4 Swedish; she could be classed as Britannic, Iberian, or Scandinavian depending on whether she grew up in Spain, England or Sweden. But she could never be classed as North African or Indian.

Well yes. My point is how does that disproves race exists? That's my point. She doesn't look Scandinavian to me. Or maybe an atypical one. Race considered a 'social construct' because people think it means physical inherited traits one might inherit.

I disagree. I look at haplogroups for example as one indicator. People here shun from that but I think it is evidence to suggest races exist to a degree. Not the sole answer but to me that is basically proof races exist. Clines to me could be used as an example but I do not agree with them or that theory.

I disagree with these politically motivated studies especially the one here in the US made by 'scientists' to suggest it is all an illusion. How can it be when North America whites are mostly North Western Eurasians genetically? For a long time they were the only people to be classified as 'white' and I still agree with this belief. It is irrelevant if someone were to tell me that is a social construct. It is still what it is as that is who we share relation to.

Where would I cluster genetically if I am 75% British Islander, 12.5% French [half northern france the other half from the south] and 12.5% North Western German? Sure the one southern euro ancestor might throw it somewhat off but I am sure would cluster with British populations and other North Western euros.

But this still makes one a social construct? :rolleyes:

Even this theory proves the world populations are not the same.

It doesn't disprove that the white race doesn't exist. :cool:

[LightHouse89]

I don't think there are genetically "pure" races but they are quite distinct.

Define purity. I am pure. Are you?

[Neon Knight]

Well yes. My point is how does that disproves race exists? That's my point. She doesn't look Scandinavian to me. Or maybe an atypical one. Race considered a 'social construct' because people think it means physical inherited traits one might inherit.

I disagree. I look at haplogroups for example as one indicator. People here shun from that but I think it is evidence to suggest races exist to a degree. Not the sole answer but to me that is basically proof races exist. Clines to me could be used as an example but I do not agree with them or that theory.

I disagree with these politically motivated studies especially the one here in the US made by 'scientists' to suggest it is all an illusion. How can it be when North America whites are mostly North Western Eurasians genetically? For a long time they were the only people to be classified as 'white' and I still agree with this belief. It is irrelevant if someone were to tell me that is a social construct. It is still what it is as that is who we share relation to.

Where would I cluster genetically if I am 75% British Islander, 12.5% French [half northern france the other half from the south] and 12.5% North Western German? Sure the one southern euro ancestor might throw it somewhat off but I am sure would cluster with British populations and other North Western euros.

But this still makes one a social construct? :rolleyes:

Even this theory proves the world populations are not the same.

It doesn't disprove that the white race doesn't exist. :cool:I am close to your position. Like I said above:
Analysing a saliva sample and correctly identifying the person who gave it as being from a certain part of Europe is no social construction. I think the whole argument can be solved by saying 'racial types' instead of 'races'.

[Pyramidologist]

You could've at least read the article. It mentions biological anthropologists on both sides of the debate about race.

None I can see? It references the Sarich & Miele (2004) book. Sarich is dead, and that book is now over a decade old.

There are virtually no contemporary biologists involved in this debate at all. Even the Sarich book was anachronistic and panned in review when it appeared.

And Malik is a show-writer after $$$, not a scientist. He tries to make out he is offering a "third alternative" to the race debate, neither pro, nor anti. Completely false, since all he can do is revive all the obsolete arguments from "race realists". His book doesn't offer anything new.

[LightHouse89]

You could've at least read the article. It mentions biological anthropologists on both sides of the debate about race.

It seems like a silly argument to try to disprove something that is ingrained in man. I find it highly suspicious but interesting to a degree. Thankyou for posting it by the way. I am still unconvinced race doesn't exist because in my country my government is funding these projects [the Dems using our tax dollars to debunk what they perceive as racist thinking or science]. Sure 'white race' doesn't mean much outside of where I live or in many places that's because they never had to 'color code' themselves.

There was a time when the only Americans were simply just people of colonial descent and north western euro descent. That originally is what is or was for almost 200 years considered an American. Even the nations laws sad someone of 'white ancestry pertaining to Europe' and of Good moral character could be Americans. These were the laws of this nation up until the 1960s when cultural Marxism took over.

To claim it was racist to make those laws is absurd. The preferred people to come here were to be protestants and of north European extraction because they are 'racially or ethnically' similar to us, culturally similar to us and religiously. I mean it is common sense and makes sense to me. It doesn't appear to make sense to anyone else. It frustrates me for some reason because it is just so simple you don't even need a scientist to explain it. But again an interesting read and I am glad it doesn't claim entirely that ethnic groups don't exist. It almost strengthens my belief but I think it is a bit flawed too.

[LightHouse89]

I am close to your position. Like I said above: I think the whole argument can be solved by saying 'racial types' instead of 'races'.

Yes this is what I meant. But this ass clown claims that isn't reality when it is reality hahaha. I would dare say 'European' isn't necessarily a race. He would then attack my viewpoint then.

Here the US is getting rid of the term 'white' to replace it with 'European' which to me is a disaster. I refuse to ever categorize myself as a European.

[Leto]

Here the US is getting rid of the term 'white' to replace it with 'European' which to me is a disaster. I refuse to ever categorize myself as a European.
It is a logical term, I would say. There are African-Americans, Asian-Americans, Hispanic/Latino-Americans, Native-Americans and, finally, European-Americans. Bi-racial/Multiracial Americans can also be a separate category.

[Pyramidologist]

Analysing a saliva sample and correctly identifying the person who gave it as being from a certain part of Europe is no social construction.

Yes, and forensic scientists can identify geographical ancestry with an accuracy of 70-80% just by looking at a skull.

The categorization though is still socially constructed:

"Sauer explains “the successful assignment of race to a skeletal specimen is not a vindication of the race concept, but rather a prediction that an individual, while alive was assigned to a particular socially constructed ‘racial’ category” (1992:107). Forensic anthropologists have samples of bones from many geographic areas, and can classify bones according to what race society has assigned to people with ancestry in those geographic areas. However, examining the bones provides a probability estimate of likely race assignment: “In ascribing a race name to a set of skeletonized remains, the anthropologist is actually translating information about biological traits to a culturally constructed labeling system that was likely to have been applied to a missing person” (1992:109)."

"Given an original sample of bones classified into social groups, a forensic anthropologist can with high probability predict to which group another case of bones belong. They can separate Japanese from Chinese from Vietnamese, or northern Japanese from southern Japanese. Or, and perhaps most incredibly, “white males born between 1840 and 1890 can be separated from white males born 1930 to 1980 very well, and they are distinguished by time, and would appear to qualify as different races” (Ousley. et al. 2009)

"Forensic anthropologists sort real physical variation into categories we have made socially relevant. “There are so many possible distinctive biological races that the concept is virtually meaningless. We can only concur with Howells’ modification of Livingstone’s 1962 quote: ‘There are no races, only populations’” (Ousley et al. 2009:74). (Livingstone’s original quote [1962:279] was “There are no races, there are only clines”.)"

http://www.livinganthropologically.com/anthropology/race-reconciled-debunks-race/

So Analysing a saliva sample and correctly identifying the person who gave it is not a good argument for race at all. Are the Amish then a race? How about Southern Japanese?

[LightHouse89]

It is a logical term, I would say. There are African-Americans, Asian-Americans, Hispanic/Latino-Americans, Native-Americans and, finally, European-Americans. Bi-racial/Multiracial Americans can also be a separate category.

I disagree. I am not the same as an 'Italian American' or an Spanish American. I am from a specific breed of people and I don't want that to wash away. Luckily my crowd tend to keep to ourselves. Thank God for religion and different sects because it would seem that is how you keep 'pure'. Freedom of Association.

[LightHouse89]

Yes, and forensic scientists can identify geographical ancestry with an accuracy of 70-80% just by looking at a skull.

The categorization though is still socially constructed:

"Sauer explains “the successful assignment of race to a skeletal specimen is not a vindication of the race concept, but rather a prediction that an individual, while alive was assigned to a particular socially constructed ‘racial’ category” (1992:107). Forensic anthropologists have samples of bones from many geographic areas, and can classify bones according to what race society has assigned to people with ancestry in those geographic areas. However, examining the bones provides a probability estimate of likely race assignment: “In ascribing a race name to a set of skeletonized remains, the anthropologist is actually translating information about biological traits to a culturally constructed labeling system that was likely to have been applied to a missing person” (1992:109)."

"Given an original sample of bones classified into social groups, a forensic anthropologist can with high probability predict to which group another case of bones belong. They can separate Japanese from Chinese from Vietnamese, or northern Japanese from southern Japanese. Or, and perhaps most incredibly, “white males born between 1840 and 1890 can be separated from white males born 1930 to 1980 very well, and they are distinguished by time, and would appear to qualify as different races” (Ousley. et al. 2009)

"Forensic anthropologists sort real physical variation into categories we have made socially relevant. “There are so many possible distinctive biological races that the concept is virtually meaningless. We can only concur with Howells’ modification of Livingstone’s 1962 quote: ‘There are no races, only populations’” (Ousley et al. 2009:74). (Livingstone’s original quote [1962:279] was “There are no races, there are only clines”.)"

http://www.livinganthropologically.com/anthropology/race-reconciled-debunks-race/

"Analysing a saliva sample and correctly identifying the person who gave it" is not a good argument for race at all. Are the Amish then a race? How about Southern Japanese?

If I did a thread comparing New Englanders to British/Irish people who would have similar shaped skulls and 'traits' would you still claim we are not a real people? Better yet that we share zero relation to old world populations such as though who live in the British Islands?

Again to me a race is a population of people who share common genetics, common culture and common traits.

This was since the founding of my nation the determining factor of who was 'white'. Not to mention it included generally people who came from this region of Eurasia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwestern_Europe

Mind you that's how it was here from 1776 to 1965. Only a minority of Southern Euros came here.

[Neon Knight]

So Analysing a saliva sample and correctly identifying the person who gave it is not a good argument for race at all. Are the Amish then a race? How about Southern Japanese?It is a good argument for different genetic groups being associated with different geographical locations. What is your definition of race? Do you think lions are a race?

[Leto]

Mind you that's how it was here from 1776 to 1965. Only a minority of Southern Euros came here.
See the numbers for yourself.

http://firepic.org/images/2015-02/16/krfjcxclufgf.png (http://firepic.org/)

[Highlands]

Define purity. I am pure. Are you?

Almost 100% Balkan, I think.
What I mean is that Caucasoids have overlapping components with other races, but this doesn't change the fact that old world ethnicities are quite distinct.

[LightHouse89]

See the numbers for yourself.

http://firepic.org/images/2015-02/16/krfjcxclufgf.png (http://firepic.org/)


You fail to understand that these ethnic groups that came over in the later periods keep to themselves. My ancestors did not inter marry with Southern Euros or what not. What I am trying to say is most 'white' americans can be divided into different groups. As you can see people here look different and have various ancestries which correlate to the religions they follow.

I for one am basically 75% from the British Islands. The other amount or backgrounds are from countries which share some similarities with the British Islands. Its only until more recet times these groups may have mixed.

Also what regions of the USA are we looking at? Look at the ethnic make up of 'whites' where I come from. People from the British Islands added up make up over 50% if not more of the population.

[LightHouse89]

Almost 100% Balkan, I think.
What I mean is that Caucasoids have overlapping components with other races, but this doesn't change the fact that old world ethnicities are quite distinct.

The overlaps are meaningless. Being 'caucasian' is even meaningless because it isn't a race of people. I agree you are 100% Balkaner unless you have mysterious ancestors from elsewhere. But I agree with your statement.

[Leto]

You fail to understand that these ethnic groups that came over in the later periods keep to themselves. My ancestors did not inter marry with Southern Euros or what not. What I am trying to say is most 'white' americans can be divided into different groups. As you can see people here look different and have various ancestries which correlate to the religions they follow.

I for one am basically 75% from the British Islands. The other amount or backgrounds are from countries which share some similarities with the British Islands. Its only until more recet times these groups may have mixed.

Also what regions of the USA are we looking at? Look at the ethnic make up of 'whites' where I come from. People from the British Islands added up make up over 50% if not more of the population.
Yes, I see, but you mentioned 1965. My table shows that between 1890 and 1919 (100-120 years ago) America received 11+ million (!) Southern and Eastern Europeans. That's a LOT. Then came the Racial Integrity Law which halted their mass immigration. Of course, today descendants of those Europeans are pretty much assimilated.

[Casandrinos]

Almost 100% Balkan

Lel at the Balkan race :icon_lol:

[Highlands]

Lel at the Balkan race :icon_lol:

Balkan race = Quadracial with extra nigga input :icon_lol:

[alfieb]

More liek 100% Caucasus Albanian

[LightHouse89]

Yes, I see, but you mentioned 1965. My table shows that between 1890 and 1919 (100-120 years ago) America received 11+ million (!) Southern and Eastern Europeans. That's a LOT. Then came the Racial Integrity Law which halted their mass immigration. Of course, today descendants of those Europeans are pretty much assimilated.

You do realize it may be a lot but the population already here were much larger and the nation itself is huge.

It depends where you go. If you go to New York city almost all of the white people there are Italians or Greeks. Or a mix of those ancestries. If you go to rural New England they are almost exclusively descended from the original founding stock Americans. Everyone here knows this :p I am glad the Racial Integrity Act was passed though and it would seem we need another one of those fast before my nation turns into South America.

[Leto]

You do realize it may be a lot but the population already here were much larger and the nation itself is huge.

It depends where you go. If you go to New York city almost all of the white people there are Italians or Greeks. Or a mix of those ancestries. If you go to rural New England they are almost exclusively descended from the original founding stock Americans. Everyone here knows this :p I am glad the Racial Integrity Act was passed though and it would seem we need another one of those fast before my nation turns into South America.
Yeah, the Caribbean is an inexhaustible source of mulattos. However, statistics show than almost 40% of immigrants in the US now are from Asia. At least they tend to be educated and not very criminal.

[Casandrinos]

Balkan race = Quadracial with extra nigga input :icon_lol:

Pure mongrel race


Produce pretty chicks though.

But hard to get if you lack the extra nigga charm :icon_lol:

[LightHouse89]

Yeah, the Caribbean is an inexhaustible source of mulattos. However, statistics show than almost 40% of immigrants in the US now are from Asia. At least they tend to be educated and not very criminal.

Irrelevant. I dont care who follows the law or not. I do not want them living here in large numbers.

Keep New England, New England! :cool: We have our ways of discouraging foreigners from coming here. We will return to those dark arts.

[Feral]

Mí postura es la misma de siempre: El discurso actual del etnopreservacionismo no se adapta a tiempos modernos ni posee las capacidad de imponerse o defenderse de estos. El propósito no ha de cambiar, opino yo, sino la manera de realizarlo. Espero que haya quien se de cuenta de que es ésto a lo que apunto, de lo contrario el hilo se va a tornar muy monótono e insípido.

He dicho. :coffee:

[Gooding]

Analysing a saliva sample and correctly identifying the person who gave it as being from a certain part of Europe is no social construction.

This right here.

[Dormammu]

LOL @ all these pitiful soon to be extinguished butthurts who thumbed down the initial message. It's all what they can do now, as they lack the courage to do something in public. Game over.

[StonyArabia]

Racial purity is a myth it always has been. Even in the isolated population there will be admixture that has seeped in.

[Unome]

This thread is a social construct

These words are a social construct

[Neon Knight]

Racial purity is a myth it always has been. Even in the isolated population there will be admixture that has seeped in.In terms of race I think pure = homogeneous; if any admixture becomes evenly distributed amongst the population then it is a pure group again.

[Dr. Robotnik the Subbotnik]

No shit.

[Äijä]

LOL @ all these pitiful soon to be extinguished butthurts who thumbed down the initial message. It's all what they can do now, as they lack the courage to do something in public. Game over.

Most are not scared, they are waiting when they have an opportunity to win a result they want.
White devil is like that, sneaky and smart.

[Dormammu]

Most are not scared, they are waiting when they have an opportunity to win a result they want.
White devil is like that, sneaky and smart.

The time is now and you're pussying now. You lack the adequate T levels for that.

[Velda]

There's no genetic pure race?


This is a Native American?

http://www.africanfoods.co.uk/images/african-woman-smiling.jpg
[...]
Yes, all races are the same… cannot tell anybody apart?

I do understand, what you mean: These fotos show the differences between races.
Some people may think, that those people should mix, all, so that there would be no races any more. If there were no races any more, there would not be any race, who could claim to be superior. Then, there would be eternal peace, all people would be kind and friendly to each other, if all people would be equal. (this is the hopeful wish behind it)

Why? Because they would not define their identity upon their genes, upon ther ethnical origin or upon their ancestor's traditions. If they would not feel related to that, they are willing to believe in whatever is told them, some left-wing politicians may think. Those left-wing politicians may think, it would be a good idea to extinguish racism by extinguishing races.

I just wrote about the TV in Germany, muliculturalism is often to be seen on TV, e.g. in series. It is officially told to be a good thing.

E.g. found this in my local supermarket's advertising paper: It's just the rainbow family: (clickable to enlarge)
http://www.bilder-upload.eu/thumb/6bf33c-1424529258.jpg (http://www.bilder-upload.eu/show.php?file=6bf33c-1424529258.jpg)
http://www.bilder-upload.eu/thumb/98e4f5-1424531695.jpg (http://www.bilder-upload.eu/show.php?file=98e4f5-1424531695.jpg)
http://www.bilder-upload.eu/thumb/a053f2-1424531770.jpg (http://www.bilder-upload.eu/show.php?file=a053f2-1424531770.jpg)

[Äijä]

I do understand, what you mean: These fotos show the differences between races.
Some people may think, that those people should mix, all, so that there would be no races any more. If there were no races any more, there would not be any race, who could claim to be superior. Then, there would be eternal peace, all people would be kind and friendly to each other, if all people would be equal. (this is the hopeful wish behind it)

Why? Because they would not define their identity upon their genes, upon ther ethnical origin or upon their ancestor's traditions. If they would not feel related to that, they are willing to believe in whatever is told them, some left-wing politicians may think. Those left-wing politicians may think, it would be a good idea to extinguish racism by extinguishing races.

I just wrote about the TV in Germany, muliculturalism is often to be seen on TV, e.g. in series. It is officially told to be a good thing.

E.g. found this in my local supermarket's advertising paper: It's just the rainbow family: (clickable to enlarge)
http://www.bilder-upload.eu/thumb/6bf33c-1424529258.jpg (http://www.bilder-upload.eu/show.php?file=6bf33c-1424529258.jpg)
http://www.bilder-upload.eu/thumb/98e4f5-1424531695.jpg (http://www.bilder-upload.eu/show.php?file=98e4f5-1424531695.jpg)
http://www.bilder-upload.eu/thumb/a053f2-1424531770.jpg (http://www.bilder-upload.eu/show.php?file=a053f2-1424531770.jpg)

Well they are in reality doing this only to whites, the others are not facing genocide.

[Unome]

That actually is a childish fantasy, "Equality = Peace".

Equality actually invites war, hatred, fear, and social chaos. Why, you ask? Because equal people/values compete most fiercely of all, to improve themselves over those "equal" with them. Competition is an inherent aspect of nature. Males naturally compete, based on biology. Because females naturally favor (feel sexual attraction to) "winners, never losers". Women don't want to fuck losers. And equality means "all equally losers".

So neither females nor males actually want "Human Equality". That is just a myth/lie/illusions.

The reality of sexuality invites competition (Inequality). I am pro-inequality, for the record. In fact I will even argue that the world is more peaceful than ever before, precisely because of growing inequality and disparity. Inequality brings real peace to the world (One Global Military Superpower insures that a major, nuclear war doesn't occur).

[Jägerstaffel]

They are descended from North Western Euros and believe me anyone can be amish. If tomorrow I wished to become Amish I could do it. So to claim they are genetically pure in the sense that they are different than the average white American is bad shit insanity.

The majority of American Amish are Swiss-German and tend to marry within their own community rather than American society as a whole.


Amish populations have higher incidences of particular genetic disorders, including dwarfism (Ellis–van Creveld syndrome),[38] Angelman Syndrome,[39] and various metabolic disorders,[40] as well as an unusual distribution of blood types.[41] Amish represent a collection of different demes or genetically closed communities.[42] Since almost all Amish descend from about 200 18th-century founders, genetic disorders that come out due to inbreeding exist in more isolated districts (an example of the founder effect). Some of these disorders are quite rare, or unique, and are serious enough to increase the mortality rate among Amish children.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amish#Health

They are distinct from the average white American and do not regularly accept converts/newcomers into their communities.

[lei.talk]

What is your definition of race? Do you think lions are a race?






The liger is a hybrid cross between a male lion (Panthera leo)
and a female tiger (Panthera tigris).
Thus, it has parents with the same genus but of different species. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panthera_hybrid#Table_of_names_for_hybrids)


:pound:
"It is true that some putative species of Panthera show low Fst as human populations.
But guess what?
They're now being removed from scientific literature.
Most biologists now don't recognize Panthera species." (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?159259-There-s-no-genetic-pure-race&p=3400147&viewfull=1#post3400147)
:pound:

[LightHouse89]

I do understand, what you mean: These fotos show the differences between races.
Some people may think, that those people should mix, all, so that there would be no races any more. If there were no races any more, there would not be any race, who could claim to be superior. Then, there would be eternal peace, all people would be kind and friendly to each other, if all people would be equal. (this is the hopeful wish behind it)

Why? Because they would not define their identity upon their genes, upon ther ethnical origin or upon their ancestor's traditions. If they would not feel related to that, they are willing to believe in whatever is told them, some left-wing politicians may think. Those left-wing politicians may think, it would be a good idea to extinguish racism by extinguishing races.

I just wrote about the TV in Germany, muliculturalism is often to be seen on TV, e.g. in series. It is officially told to be a good thing.

E.g. found this in my local supermarket's advertising paper: It's just the rainbow family: (clickable to enlarge)
http://www.bilder-upload.eu/thumb/6bf33c-1424529258.jpg (http://www.bilder-upload.eu/show.php?file=6bf33c-1424529258.jpg)
http://www.bilder-upload.eu/thumb/98e4f5-1424531695.jpg (http://www.bilder-upload.eu/show.php?file=98e4f5-1424531695.jpg)
http://www.bilder-upload.eu/thumb/a053f2-1424531770.jpg (http://www.bilder-upload.eu/show.php?file=a053f2-1424531770.jpg)

Race mixing is an abomination.

[LightHouse89]

The majority of American Amish are Swiss-German and tend to marry within their own community rather than American society as a whole.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amish#Health

They are distinct from the average white American and do not regularly accept converts/newcomers into their communities.

Yes but they also marry outside of that. I could marry an Amish woman if I became Amish. Not that I would want to. Maybe a Mormon girl or Presbyterian. However there are different Amish communities. The Amish community of New York state for example is largely English speaking for example. One of my cousins married an Amish girl from Pennsylvania. He owns a large farm in rural New York and they have 4 children together. :)

[LightHouse89]

Racial purity is a myth it always has been. Even in the isolated population there will be admixture that has seeped in.

Lawled so hard. Only minorities in the west believe this crap.

[LightHouse89]

In terms of race I think pure = homogeneous; if any admixture becomes evenly distributed amongst the population then it is a pure group again.

Well the majority of ethnic groups in most old world countries do not have much of any admixture. The sad thing is today this is changing and the impacts will be drastic and not very good for North Western Europe.

Good bye blonde hair, blue eyes, red hair, grey eyes etc... say hello to the new mulatto afroid race.

[Neon Knight]

Well the majority of ethnic groups in most old world countries do not have much of any admixture. The sad thing is today this is changing and the impacts will be drastic and not very good for North Western Europe.

Good bye blonde hair, blue eyes, red hair, grey eyes etc... say hello to the new mulatto afroid race.Let's hope it doesn't end up like this:

http://i657.photobucket.com/albums/uu295/Alchemyst/Wagon-Box%20Fight_zpskx8mcgur.jpg

[Feral]

Oh, the tergiversative bandwagon effect of stupidity...

[Neon Knight]

Oh, the tergiversative bandwagon effect of stupidity...
http://i1.cpcache.com/product_zoom/831888491/are_you_suggesting_coconuts_migrate_mug.jpg?side=B ack&height=250&width=250&padToSquare=true

[Unome]

I do understand, what you mean: These fotos show the differences between races.
The standard of every different race is its purist manifestation.

Only a fool or a liar would confuse the origins and places of the different human races.

You do not mistake a Native Amerindian for an Australian Aboriginal, and vice-versa, nor an East Asian Oriental for an Afrikan, etc.

[Desaix DeBurgh]

" Steve Sailer, 1998: "A Race Is An Extremely Extended Family"
Making Sense of the Concept of Race: A Race Is An Extremely Extended Family


For a number of years, mainstream anthropologists have been trying to discredit the Concept of Race by claiming that races are just arbitrary social constructs without biological underpinnings. Just flipping through today's newspaper, however, demonstrates that the non-anthropologists of the world are paying no attention. As one editor recently observed, "Without race, what would we have to write about?"

Underlying much of the attack on the concept of race is repugnance at the mass murders that Nazis used racial thinking to justify. Of course, in this century even more people have been murdered by Marxists in the name of equality and the malleability of human nature. So, it's clear that humans are facile both at murdering other humans they find inconvenient and in developing ideological rationalizations for mass murder.

I believe that the relevant lesson of history is that, on the whole and in the long run, truth is more beneficial to humanity than obfuscation, lies, ignorance, and wishful thinking. And, even if it's not, the truth is a hell of a lot more interesting. Therefore, since race is obviously such an important topic, we deserve a clear discussion of what it means.

Most of the criticism of the concept of "races" focuses on the lack of agreement over how many races there are, what to call them, and precisely who belongs to them.

In contrast, scientists who defend the validity of the race concept make many good points, but their replies tend to be confuse the average person. I believe the problem is that they start from the wrong end of the stick; in fact, the wrong ends of two sticks. (1) They attempt to reason down from the species to the race, and (2) They attempt to argue that humans can be sorted into races based on their differing characteristics. These are the techniques used in classifications of non-human animals, so it's natural to explain race in these terms.

Unfortunately, confusion tends to follow.


Clearly, humanity is now one species. (But our unity is fairly recent development, possibly brought about by our genocide of competitors like the Neandertal.)

Trying to explain the concept of race by starting from the concept of species is fraught with uncertainties. The modern definition of a species, a group that can produce fertile offspring, is of fairly recent origin. (It's informative to note that although Darwin titled his book "The Origin of Species," he possessed no clear definition of "species".) Also, there are many grey areas between animal species and animal races. Consider a male animal and a female animal selected from populations that are similar but not identical in appearance, and thus might or might not be members of separate species. Sometimes, biologists find that they don't mate in the wild (implying they represent separate species), but they do successfully breed in captivity if they are kept from their preferred partners (implying they represent merely separate races). Sometimes, science cannot tell at all if they could successfully breed: they won't mate in the wild because they have plenty of more preferred partners around, and they won't mate in captivity with anybody at all, because captivity makes them feel shy or out of sorts. So, with "species" providing such a wobbly foundation, it's not surprising than many people feel uncomfortably moving on to the even less clear-cut realm of "races".

Nor is trying to define races as populations that differ in physical characteristics a persuasive starting point for thinking about race. Jared Diamond followed this logic out to the point of logical absurdity in his October, 1994 Discover Magazine article "Race Without Color" by claiming that we could define races on any physical characteristic we chose, with say Norwegians and Nigerian Fulanis belonging to the Lactose Tolerant race and Japanese and Nigerian Ibos belonging to the Lactose Intolerant race.

Obviously, Diamond's logic leads to a travesty of reality. It is difficult to determine whether he meant it seriously. Diamond is far too logical and realistic to normally write something that stupid, yet on one subject, he often writes nonsense: race. Whether this article was an amusing hoax, or whether he really believes it, or whether he was just pandering to a market hungry for politically correct obfuscation is impossible to determine by anyone who doesn't have access to his conscience. Despite, or, more likely, because of its high flapdoodle content, "Race Without Color" has become quite influential, inspiring in part a subsequent Newsweek cover story claiming that race doesn't exist.

That biological realists have not successfully buried such a transparently bogus claim is evidence that they are neither making themselves clear, nor that they are even thinking that clearly themselves. The reason that defining Fulanis and Ibo as belonging to separate races is ridiculous is because the true definition of races is not built on any particular trait, it's built on ancestry. We all intuitively know that Fulanis and Ibos are more racially similar with each other because they have more recent ancestors in common with each other than they do with Norwegians or Japanese. Race starts with boy meets girl, followed by baby.

It's important to note that the standard critique of the concept of "race" -- nobody can agree on their number, name, or precise constituents -- applies even more so to the concept of "extended family". Yet nobody doubts the reality of extended families.

Vince Sarich has rightly pointed out that races are what mathematicians call "fuzzy sets," which is not an insult these days: "fuzzy logic" is a booming field in mathematics and computer science. Nonetheless, I suggest that describing races to the average reader in terms of a cutting edge realm of mathematics is not a winning tactic. Instead, simply give the reader an analogy he can immediately understand: extended families. Everybody knows that extended families are fuzzy: the reader defines his own extended family more broadly when making up his Christmas card list than when thinking about who he'd donate a kidney to or hit up for a loan. That doesn't mean there is no biological reality underlying extended families. Everybody knows that their can be some social fictions in defining a family (many people dote on their adopted nephews as much as their biological ones), but they also understand that there are limits to social constructionism (most would dote more upon a nephew who was adopted into the family as a beguiling baby than as a pimply teenager). The absurdity of Diamond's putative Lactose Tolerant race is revealed by analogy to extended family. What response would I get if I sent the DuPont family Diamond's article and a letter pointing out that by analogizing from Diamond's logic, we could posit the existence of a Six-Letters-In-The-Last-Name Family to which both Dupont and Sailer belong, so therefore please cut me in on the family fortune?

Now the crucial step is point out that the reason extended families provide such perfect analogies for races is because they are actually the same thing. A RACE IS SIMPLY AN EXTREMELY EXTENDED FAMILY.

Why are extended families even fuzzier than races? Or, to put it another way, why are races more coherent, cohesive and longer lasting than extended families? The difference stems from the degree of outmarriage (exogamy). While extended families share a lot of genes (the next time you're looking at a picture of another Kennedy caught in a scandal, notice how much he looks like other Kennedys), their genetic distinctiveness fades back into the average for the general population with which they intermarry as you move outward to more distant relatives or you move forward or backward in time. The partial exceptions are extended families that intermarry heavily. The most famous examples are the crowned heads of Europe, who for the last two centuries or could reasonably be considered to be one clan. Among Europe's extended family of royals, inbreeding has kept traits like hemophilia, weak chins, and jug ears around longer and more abundantly than would be found in a family with a greater aversion against first cousins marrying.

Yet, as you extend the boundaries of the extended family farther and farther out, you typically find that they start turning in upon themselves. Most families down through history have married almost exclusively within some sort of population that's more restricted than the entire human species. Thus, while traits unique to a family fade with time (forward or backward) and outward to more distant relatives, a racial group's biological traits can remain quite stable over fairly long periods.

This of course doesn't mean that racial groups are permanent or immutable. It all depends on the degree of exogamy. Racial groups can change rather rapidly -- e.g., Mexicans could be considered a reasonably distinct racial grouping that originated in 1519. California will possess a sizable population of Eurasians in the 21st Century.

Do the races actually differ genetically? Of course, they do -- by definition. If you have a group that's not defined by ancestry (e.g., Roman Catholics, left-handers, homosexuals, Hispanics, etc.), you don't have a racial group.

Do races differ enough genetically to matter practically? There is one small group of anthropologists who would answer "Of course". They are the forensic anthropologists, and they by far have the most down to earth, life or death responsibilities of all anthropologists. The police call them in when somebody finds a skeleton in the woods. The first step to identifying the dead person is to determine sex and race. In the U.S., at least, this is surprisingly easy.

In general, race plays a hugely important role in forensics. Eye-witness identifications of individual suspects are notoriously doubtful, yet their testimony about the race of the suspect they saw running away from the scene of the crime tends to be quite accurate and helpful. While many cultural anthropologists scoff that racial identifications are based purely on skin color, they're really based on the witness' gestalt of appearance. In our increasingly multiethnic society, average Americans are becoming more sophisticated about distinguishing by race and subrace. Consider four medium brown people: a typical African-American of 75% black, 25% white heritage; a dark Asian Indian; a dark Southeast Asian; and a dark Mexican. Few Americans who live in big cities would fail to distinguish the race of the African-American as being different from the others. I suspect that most of you reading this essay could in fact distinguish all four people and name the region their ancestors came from. (However, I would not expect the average American to be able to confidently distinguish African-Americans from, say, Australian aborigines, or, especially, certain Melanesians. However, that level of sophistication may well come about in future decades).

It's often said that most human biodiversity occurs between individuals within races, not between races. There is truth to this, but of course it differs by trait, by individual, and by racial grouping. For example, there is no variation at all among humans, racial or individual, in terms of the number of heads we have. Everybody gets one. At the other extreme, there is pervasive individual variation in fingerprints, yet fingerprints are close to useless for determining an individual's race. On the other hand, there is no overlap whatsoever in skin color between, say, the English and the Kalenjin of Kenya (albinos excepted). Most traits, however, show both individual variation and racial variation. Consider sprinting ability. There's lots of diversity within every group. Nonetheless, small average differences can have huge cumulative results -- that's why the man who owns the roulette wheel makes more money than the people who play it. If you still don't believe me, let's bet. You randomly pick 100 Mexican-American youths and I'll randomly pick 100 African-American youths, and I will bet you any amount of money you like that my guys will sprint faster on average over 100 meters than your guys. (In case you are wondering, up through 1997 of the 134 times humans had run 100m in less than 10 seconds, every single instance was accomplished by a man of West African descent.)

Clearly, the outer boundaries to out-marriage that define a racial group are not solid but probabilistic. An American of Norwegian descent is unlikely to have any black African ancestors in last 50 generations. In contrast, a Sicilian-American might well have some black ancestors. Geographic proximity matters. This truth has lead to the most rational assault on the concept of race, Ashley Montagu's "clinal variation" idea: the concept of race isn't useful because traits tend to vary incrementally across distances. There is some truth to this. The question is how much. Clinal variation would be a very useful model if the surface of the Earth resembled the Yucatan peninsula: dead flat, lacking in any kind of surface water, all limestone, and just generally featureless. In reality, Earth is covered with oceans, deserts, mountains, rivers, glaciers, and other natural boundaries. It would also improve the validity of the clinal model if human history -- conquests, migrations, enslavements, genocides, etc. -- had never happened. In general, reality tends to be lumpy. (This lumpiness extends all the way back to the Big Bang: if there hadn't been variations in density in the primal atom, the universe would be a thin, featureless broth today, rather resembling the clinal model on a cosmic scale.) Thus, areas where this clinal variation ought to exist (the Sahara, Central Asia, the Himalayas, the Atlantic Ocean, etc.) tend to be mostly unpopulated. In contrast, the places with the great big clumps of population (China, Europe, etc.) tend to be monoracial.

Consider clinal variation between black Africans and Southeast Asians. There'd be a lot of it except that the Indian Ocean gets in the way. In fact, there is one place where there is clinal variation between black Africans and Southeast Asians: Madagascar. But, this is an exception that proves the rule. Jared Diamond calls the ancient Malgasy settlement of Madagascar the most surprising fact in the history of geography. Or consider a place that's perfect for clinal variation: the Nile. As you go due south along the Blue Nile from the Mediterranean to Lake Victoria, as the sun climbs higher in the sky, clinal variation predicts that you should witness a smooth, harmonious, almost imperceptible change from light brown to very dark brown skins. Yet, if you've been the reading the foreign news for the last thirty years, you'll note there's been an almost nonstop civil war has gone on in the Sudan between the white northerners and the black southerners. So, even on the Nile, the elegant clinal model proves less realistic than the lumpy racial model.

Let me pause to suggest some terminology. "Race" is often used very broadly -- "the human race" vs. "the Irish race". Similarly, "family" is sometimes used very broadly: "the human family" or "the family of man." This vagueness can be salutary because it shows that there are no real hard and fast boundaries between races and families. However, I think it would be useful for descriptive purposes to generally refer to humanity as a "species" and to use "race" to refer to continental-scale genetic groupings. Australian-Papuans fill an entire continent and a huge island next door. Subsaharan Africans fill all but the northern fringe of the inhabitable ranges of Africa (I'll leave out the khoisan and pygmies for now). Whites or caucasians or whatever you want to call them inhabit the western half of Eurasia. East Asians inhabit the Eastern half. You can split East Asians into Northeastern Asians and Southeastern Asians, or lump them together. My reading of Cavalli-Sforza says either choice makes about the same amount of sense. Amerindians inhabit two continents, although you could also lump them with East Asians. So, while enumerating continental-scale races is not an exact process, and there are groups that don't fit this Big Picture, we probably don't have more than six continent-scale races. And if you lump like crazy and ignore the Australians, you can reasonably justify even the old-fashioned Negroid-Caucasoid-Mongoloid triad.

When referring to groups that are subsets of the continental scale races, I'd recommend "subraces. " The number of subraces is endless. Many might prefer "ethnic groups" to "subraces," as in Jews, Italians, Irish, English, Koreans, Japanese, and other groups that possess a fair degree of genetic distinctiveness, but don't monopolize anything close to a continent. The problem is that the term "ethnic group" comes with a lot of non-genetic baggage. For example, the U.S. government applies the term to all Spanish speaking people, no matter what their ancestry.

But isn't the example of Hispanics or Latinos a perfect illustration of the social construction of race? It's definitely a social construction of some sort (a language group?), but it's not a racial grouping. That the concepts of social constructs and genetic racial groups can complement each other is nicely shown by examining Latino baseball players. Baseball people think of major league baseball players as falling into three main groups: "whites", "blacks" (i.e., African-Americans), and "Latinos" (players who either speak Spanish or, arguably, come from a background of Spanish-speakers). Nobody ever lumps Spanish-speaking blacks with American blacks.

You see important cultural similarities among most Latin players, despite their coming from different nations and being comprised of three different ethnic groups in varying combinations: blacks like Sammy Sosa, whites like Jose Canseco, and Amerindians like Fernando Valenzuela, and various hybrids. Most notably, Latin ballplayers are usually free swingers: on average, they accept fewer bases on balls than white or African-American hitters. This tends to be true even of awesome sluggers like Sammy and Juan Gonzales. It seems reasonable to attribute the differences in number of walks between, say, black Dominicans and African-Americans to the Latin Caribbean's exuberant culture vs. the cult of cool that prevails among black Americans. So, this appears to be purely a cultural artifact, showing that the social construct model can provide useful predictions in this case.

On the other hand, despite cultural similarities, there are major differences in innate talent among Latin ballplayers that appear to follow ethnic lines: black Hispanic ballplayers have the best chance of making the big leagues, followed by black-white mixes, then white, with Mexican-Indians having the toughest time. The almost-all black Dominican Republic is the world's greatest producer of baseball talent, producing about 6 times as many major leaguers as baseball-mad Mexico, which has many times more people. The LA Dodgers' scout in Mexico, who is of course of Mexican descent himself, explained a few years ago that there were so few Mexican big leaguers because Mexicans tended to be slow and short because of short legs. (The only Mexican ballplayer to win a Cy Young or MVP is Fernando Valenzuela, who certainly relied more on brain, heart, coordination, and baseball-experience than on a perfect physique). The usual lynch mob started to form to get this scout, but then it dissipated because nobody could figure out exactly how to criticize what he said. In summary, racial biology seems to play a large role even in a field where almost no observers (except scouts) notices it.

Finally, many argue that there's no biological reality behind calling African-Americans "black" since most are some shade of brown, reflecting their mixed race heritage. The usual guesstimate is that African-Americans average about 25% white or Amerindian genes. While I was at UCLA I spent a lot of time hanging out with my Cameroonian friends, and I could soon reliably distinguish Africans from African-Americans by sight.

The theory of the social construction of blackness is particularly popular among intellectuals, in part because many famous black intellectuals are quite white in appearance (e.g., Lani Guinier looks like she was separated at birth from her identical twin Gilda Radner; also note Shelby Steele, August Wilson, W.E.B. Dubois, and the superb writer Jean Toomer; in contrast, my hero, Thomas Sowell is very dark).

Nonetheless, it is my observation that the vast majority of African-Americans appear to be no more than half white. Why is this? I think it stems from three social factors that were very powerful in American society until recently: the "one-drop" rule; the near absolute ban on black male-white female sexual relations; and the less onerous social aversion toward white male-black female relations, especially against interracial marriage.

I've been drawing hypothetical family trees to get some sense of what would have had to have happened in previous generations to lead to a current "black" being 3/4 white. The fewest number of interracial matings required is two: your parents and one pair of your grandparents. In the future this will not be uncommon, but until recently, it's been pretty unlikely -- there was just too much social (and often legal and extra-legal --e.g., lynchings) hostility against miscegenation for it too happen twice out of three couples.

Let's assume, however, that all the socially-defined miscegenation took place 4 and 5 generations ago in the 19th Century, and since then there have only been marriages among socially-defined "blacks." For you to end up as 3/4 white and 1/4 black, my crude model suggests that that would have required 4 of the 8 "marriages" among your great-great-grandparents to be miscegenations, and all 4 "marriages" among your great-grandparents to have been interracial. This combination strikes me as possible but very rare, consider the racial climate at the time. You can make up other family trees, but you'll find similar implications.

Also, keep in mind that the near-absolute ban on black male-white female couplings until recent decades means that 50% of the part black-part white individuals were locked out of almost any chance of mating with pure-whites.

Finally, since society and often the law frowned very heavily upon white male-black female marriages, and frowned upon white male-black female non-marital relations, I'd suspect that most of the interracial relationships produced only 1 or 2 children, in contrast to the 6 or 8 that were common in black-black marriages at the time.

All this suggests that mostly white "black" families would have tended to become blacker over time as they were most likely to mate with blacker blacks. This seems to explain why America has clearly distinct black and white populations, whereas Latin countries with different social rules have much more blended, less dichotomous racial groups. (I suspect that the difference is that white men in the slave sections of America tended to have enough white women around to provide them with the pleasures of family life, allowing them to focus on their pure white sons and ignore their half black sons. In contrast, the conquistadores tend to lack white wives, so they took paternal interest in their hybrid sons. If true, this could help explain why "half-breed" white/Indian hybrids were so much more socially accepted in America. For example, Winston Churchill's American grandmother was a major high society battleax, despite being the 1/4 Iroquois. On the frontier, white women were in short supply, so white men integrated their half-breed kids more into white society.

In summary, the concept of race appears to be a reasonable and useful one for helping us understand more about the reality of human existence."

http://isteve.blogspot.com/2014/05/steve-sailer-1998-race-is-extremely.html

[Wadaad]

" Steve Sailer, 1998: "A Race Is An Extremely Extended Family"
Making Sense of the Concept of Race: A Race Is An Extremely Extended Family

...

Consider clinal variation between black Africans and Southeast Asians. There'd be a lot of it except that the Indian Ocean gets in the way. In fact, there is one place where there is clinal variation between black Africans and Southeast Asians: Madagascar. But, this is an exception that proves the rule. Jared Diamond calls the ancient Malgasy settlement of Madagascar the most surprising fact in the history of geography. Or consider a place that's perfect for clinal variation: the Nile. As you go due south along the Blue Nile from the Mediterranean to Lake Victoria, as the sun climbs higher in the sky, clinal variation predicts that you should witness a smooth, harmonious, almost imperceptible change from light brown to very dark brown skins. Yet, if you've been the reading the foreign news for the last thirty years, you'll note there's been an almost nonstop civil war has gone on in the Sudan between the white northerners and the black southerners. So, even on the Nile, the elegant clinal model proves less realistic than the lumpy racial model.


...

Finally, many argue that there's no biological reality behind calling African-Americans "black" since most are some shade of brown, reflecting their mixed race heritage. The usual guesstimate is that African-Americans average about 25% white or Amerindian genes. While I was at UCLA I spent a lot of time hanging out with my Cameroonian friends, and I could soon reliably distinguish Africans from African-Americans by sight.

The theory of the social construction of blackness is particularly popular among intellectuals, in part because many famous black intellectuals are quite white in appearance (e.g., Lani Guinier looks like she was separated at birth from her identical twin Gilda Radner; also note Shelby Steele, August Wilson, W.E.B. Dubois, and the superb writer Jean Toomer; in contrast, my hero, Thomas Sowell is very dark).
...

http://isteve.blogspot.com/2014/05/steve-sailer-1998-race-is-extremely.html


Oh look, another American 'amateur'...Steve Sailer, havent heard that name in a decade. But typical of Americans, most of his observations seem to be made from his bedroom or sofa.

[Velda]

So if races are extendet families, that makes it clear, why one feels comortable with similar people.
They could be potentially relatives, share the same genes and it makes sense from a biological view to support them and trust them.
I once read, that nevertheless females instinctively tend to look for men with immune systems as different as possible to their own ones. This is because of the need to have healthy kids and avoid incest.

I read an article, that e.g. in some ethnical cultures, where it is common to marry within nieces and nephews, there is a high percentage of highly disabled and handicapped children. This is, what happens to lots of muslim people, who are forced into marriages by their familes e.g. in Germany.

Now, is it possible to find a link between the different immune systems and races? So, there are theories, that some people are genetically immune to Ebola, while people e.g. with the mt-DNA H3 might be highly protective against AIDS progression. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_H_%28mtDNA%29
So they probably had kids with both resistance to Ebola and HIV. Just - how does this go along with "races" vs. individuals?

In Sailer's article, he says, the best sprinters would have origin in west Africa, which can be understood as genetically? If evolution is seen as the survival of the fittest (which does not necessarily mean "the stongest") then those will survive, who will fit best into their social, cultural and biological environment. Will it be necessary to have blue eyes or red hair to survive? Will it be necessary to fight, to run fast? Will it be necessary to be resistant to heat, cold, mental stress, physical illness? Will it be necessary to have high fertiliy? Intelligent to solve problems? To be creative?

How are all these abilities linked to genetics? What is the factor of genetical mutations? All quite interesting facts to do reserach on.

[Neon Knight]

So if races are extendet families, that makes it clear, why one feels comortable with similar people.
They could be potentially relatives, share the same genes and it makes sense from a biological view to support them and trust them.
I once read, that nevertheless females instinctively tend to look for men with immune systems as different as possible to their own ones. This is because of the need to have healthy kids and avoid incest.

I read an article, that e.g. in some ethnical cultures, where it is common to marry within nieces and nephews, there is a high percentage of highly disabled and handicapped children. This is, what happens to lots of muslim people, who are forced into marriages by their familes e.g. in Germany.It seems there is a balance between related and unrelated for reproductive success, which is 3rd and 4th cousins: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-incest-is-best-kissi/

[Velda]

This article is very intersting. Thanks for giving the link.

"Scientists came to their conclusions after studying the records of more than 160,000 Icelandic couples [...]
The results of the exhaustive study are constant throughout the generations analyzed. Women born between 1800 and 1824 who mated with a third cousin had significantly more children and grandchildren (4.04 and 9.17, respectively) than women who hooked up with someone no closer than an eighth cousin (3.34 and 7.31). Those proportions held up among women born more than a century later when couples were, on average, having fewer children."

[Nurzat]

you're putting it wrong : no one says whiter people are genetically superior but aesthetically superior on average, this coinciding in this period with the superiority of the economic and social status of their countries so it's normal you want to be like the rich and beautiful northerners, it's not a genetic thing, it's an aesthetic preference

[LightHouse89]

Let's hope it doesn't end up like this:

http://i657.photobucket.com/albums/uu295/Alchemyst/Wagon-Box%20Fight_zpskx8mcgur.jpg

We might have to drive these savages from our ands by bayonet point. I think even to go as far as to drive out the liberals who created all of these problems. I don't blame the immigrants for all of this but I do not want them here either. I have zero respect for the liberals who poisoned our societies with this all to begin with. If anyone deserves to be tarred and feathered it is the white liberals of the western world.

I am less concerned with race and more about our ethnic group and our future. Either way I would be considered a racist for wanting to look out for my own people. We are told these lies that we are all individuals and all of this liberal BS. Its all so that they [immigrants] can stay in our lands and become the new masters of it. Its all a ruse and a lie that needs to be purged from our lands.

Mind you I am a New Englander and I fee a cultural and ethnic relation to people in the British Islands [indigenous peoples]. Hell we wouldn't be a country if it wasn't for the UK. My surname is from there, my blood is from there as is my culture. But yet we do not really exist. We are an illusion according to the cuckold minded liberals in charge of culture and politics here and over there.

No genetic study would convince me I am not related or akin to our cousins across the sea because that would be a down right lie. I firmly believe that we are also akin to other Anglo-Nations in the world especially Canada, Australia and New Zealand. We are a family and only the liberals, progressives and ethnic minorities in our lands wish to tear that apart with lies. To hell with them and we do not need them to dictate to us who we are as a people. Do we dictate to them who they are? No. Why do we have to accept these lies they promote?

[LightHouse89]

The standard of every different race is its purist manifestation.

Only a fool or a liar would confuse the origins and places of the different human races.

You do not mistake a Native Amerindian for an Australian Aboriginal, and vice-versa, nor an East Asian Oriental for an Afrikan, etc.

Empirical evidence isn't enough to dissuade these ass clowns.

One could even judge based on the cultures of the Anglosphere world that we are not the same as these other ethnic groups. We have similar cultures, customs etc... yet that just sprang up out of nowhere :rolleyes:

[Pyramidologist]

" Steve Sailer, 1998: "A Race Is An Extremely Extended Family"
Making Sense of the Concept of Race: A Race Is An Extremely Extended Family

Not a scientist but a political blogger/commentator. His interviews regularly appear on neo-Nazi or white nationalist sites. He's a racist clown.


Steve Sailer is a hardcore racist, misogynist, white supremacist, anti-Semite, Islamophobe, homophobe, classist, ableist, transphobe, transmisogynist, xenophobe, pseudo-scientist and all-round champion asshole and bigot who can arguably be credited (if such a resumé can be to someone's credit) as the godfather of pseudo-scientific on-line hate. If it's foul, fetid and attempts to give itself a biological and/or intellectual veneer, then Sailer will have had a hand in it somewhere, trust us. For example, Sailer crafted, christened and cruise-controlled the "Human Bio-Diversity"/HBD meme in an attempt to leverage the inadequacies and insecurities of white nerds/geeks for the racist/white-supremacist cause. His obsessive/obscene offspring therefore include the likes of geek-girl HBD-Chick and dweeb-duo Gregory Cochran and Henry Harpending at West Hunter, all three of whom parlay their ignorance, stupidity and non-existent grasp of elementary logic to promote a hi-hate, lo-intellect pseudo-scientific agenda of which even creationists would be ashamed to admit ownership.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Steve_Sailer

[LightHouse89]

Not a scientist but a political blogger/commentator. His interviews regularly appear on neo-Nazi or white nationalist sites. He's a racist clown.



http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Steve_Sailer

So anything counter to the Political controlled and driven 'anti race' machine is incorrect? typical of the likes of those who think like you.

Arguing that race or ethnicism exists does not have anything to do with who is superior or inferior but more with the fact that racial/ethnic groups are all infact different. But no matter what we will always have people like you claim 'there is no race other than the human race'. :rolleyes: please pass that government grown ganja my friend.

I tend to follow works like the one created by Brian Sykes which make reference to the fact of difference. Mankind is comprised of many races or ethnic groups. No matter what this PC driven bullshit of the 'human race' wont ever be truth. It isn't based on any truth other than to promote and support the globalist ideology.

Do you really believe everyone is the same? Are you nuts?

[Pyramidologist]

The whole "HBD" thing is a hoax. It's white nationalist kooks using it to make themselves appear more respectable or objective. Other terms have been coined or hijacked by these same people such as "racial realist" (i.e. Rushton).


Very few racialists call themselves "racialist". Instead, because straight-up racism isn't hip anymore, the euphemism treadmill rolls at full speed:

Human biodiversity or HBD: By being just one "bio" away from supporting "diversity" and by failing to mention race, human biodiversity is the most innocuous form of racialism, because it allows one to deny any racism -- because it's recognizing biodiversity, not being racist! Coined by Steve Sailer of VDARE.

Racial realism or race realism: Racial realists get a two-pronged advantage: First, they can deny their racism by -- "I'm not a racist, I'm a racial realist!". Second, they can paint non-racialists as "race deniers" or "racial difference deniers", which suggests a denial of the obvious facts.

And why race doesn't exist in humans:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Racialism#Scientific_consensus

[Smeagol]

Race pretty obviously exists. I don't need any scientific study to prove that. Just look at the difference between an Englishman, and an Australian Abo. I don't care what anyone says, they aren't the same race, and they aren't equals either.

[Pyramidologist]

So anything counter to the Political controlled and driven 'anti race' machine is incorrect? typical of the likes of those who think like you.

Arguing that race or ethnicism exists does not have anything to do with who is superior or inferior but more with the fact that racial/ethnic groups are all infact different. But no matter what we will always have people like you claim 'there is no race other than the human race'. :rolleyes: please pass that government grown ganja my friend.

I tend to follow works like the one created by Brian Sykes which make reference to the fact of difference. Mankind is comprised of many races or ethnic groups. No matter what this PC driven bullshit of the 'human race' wont ever be truth. It isn't based on any truth other than to promote and support the globalist ideology.

Do you really believe everyone is the same? Are you nuts?

1. Read the link I posted.
2. Can you name a single modern biologist who maintains human races exist?*

* Racialists always fail 2 and reply "scientists are politically correct!", "scientists are jooz!" "scientists are Marxists". Its all got to be some grand conspiracy theory usually involving Jews. You're a bunch of clowns.

[LightHouse89]

The whole "HBD" thing is a hoax. It's white nationalist kooks using it to make themselves appear more respectable or objective. Other terms have been coined or hijacked by these same people such as "racial realist" (i.e. Rushton).



And why race doesn't exist in humans:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Racialism#Scientific_consensus

But you are using politically motivate 'scientific' research that will in the near future be proven false too.

You are arguing and advocating for something that is infact itself politically motivated by the far left. So to claim far right wing people or more incorrect because they disagree with your politically 'correct' science is proof.

I think both sides are wrong or twist it to fit whatever agenda they have. The fact is race does exist because its what we see with our eyes. Good luck disproving reality. It wont ever happen. I think and bet my bottom dollar you are some middle class kid living in London or some city and you have minorities for friends.

Here you are using and citing from a left wing source. LOL hahahaha come on man. Are you serious? No sane scientist or geneticist would make such foolish claims be it in favor of the far right or far left.

Race is a reality and good luck disproving reality. Rationalwiki? Really? LOL I knew you were a Red Commie all along.

[Pyramidologist]

Race pretty obviously exists. I don't need any scientific study to prove that. Just look at the difference between an Englishman, and an Australian Abo. I don't care what anyone says, they aren't the same race, and they aren't equals either.

This has been dealt with 100000000 times. Trying learning something for a change.

"What is unclear is what this has to do with 'race' as that term has been used through much in the twentieth century - the mere fact that we can find groups to be different and can reliably allot people to them is trivial. Again, the point of the theory of race was to discover large clusters of people that are principally homogeneous within and heterogeneous between, contrasting groups." (Marks, 2010)

Unless you can demonstrate "clusters of people that are principally homogeneous within and heterogeneous between, contrasting groups" you aren't talking about race.

[LightHouse89]

1. Read the link I posted.
2. Can you name a single modern biologist who maintains human races exist?*

* Racialists always fail 2 and reply "scientists are politically correct!", "scientists are jooz!" "scientists are Marxists". Its all got to be some grand conspiracy theory usually involving Jews. You're a bunch of clowns.

When did I ever claim scientists were Jews with political agendas? I am not accusing Jews as the contributed to this Marxist crap.

I have not made claims. You are providing sources from left wing think tanks such as 'rationalwiki'. LOL. Talk about being political? Infact many Jews who are geneticists argue that race or ethnic identity is write real. They actually at least make sense with such claims. What you are trying to say is that the world is entirely one race and that we developed to look different because of climate and geographical location.

Sure that happened but the fact remains that we are all distinct and different and this is what makes us separate races. Why is this that difficult for you to understand? No matter what race is reality.

The fact geneticists cannot even get much of the information they produce correctly and or change it over time is proof they really do not have many answers. However populations [races] will always exist with or without genetic evidence. Good luck disproving that.

Rationalwiki? Really? I Lawled hard core after you accuse me and others of being Nutzis and yet you have the audacity to turn around and use a left wing source? LOL major fail for you.

Most o the sources you have provided here to 'prove' your claims come from left wing groups and think tanks. How do I know this? connect the dots! It isn't difficult. I haven't used a single neo-Nazi source or something endorsed by stomfront in my views here. But nice try.

You cannot disprove that I am different from Aframs. You cannot disprove that Germans are different than Japanese people. Good luck telling the world we are all the same. We are not and that's a visible fact you cannot erase. It is visible difference, there is an intelligence difference and there is cultural difference. It does not prove one is superior or inferior to anything. I am not arguing that my race is superior to others persay although I think we are good achievers judging by history [more recent].

I also realize there is a difference between me and the populations which comprise of Southern Europe and Eastern Europe.

But you would dare claim we are all the same which is a lie. It is dubious to claim otherwise and a waste of time.

If I took a genetic test which region of Europe would my DNA correlate with? Where do you think Aframs would cluster with in the old world? Where do you think 'Asian Americans' will or would cluster?

That alone is pure evidence that Race/Ethnic groups exist. Again sir! Good luck arguing against reality. You leftist morons try so hard to create a world vision of equality or indifference. You people are fucking insane.

[LightHouse89]

This has been dealt with 100000000 times. Trying learning something for a change.

"What is unclear is what this has to do with 'race' as that term has been used through much in the twentieth century - the mere fact that we can find groups to be different and can reliably allot people to them is trivial. Again, the point of the theory of race was to discover large clusters of people that are principally homogeneous within and heterogeneous between, contrasting groups." (Marks, 2010)

Unless you can demonstrate "clusters of people that are principally homogeneous within and heterogeneous between, contrasting groups" you aren't talking about race.

There is nothing to learn because the difference is obvious. You make claims that 'difference' is racist. Anyone and everyone who goes against this retarded opinion you have is automatically a Nazi. I find this all very amusing because 'difference' is reality. No serious person or reasonable person would ever claim the world is the same. Traits alone are what make us different. That doesn't even make sense.

[LightHouse89]

Race pretty obviously exists. I don't need any scientific study to prove that. Just look at the difference between an Englishman, and an Australian Abo. I don't care what anyone says, they aren't the same race, and they aren't equals either.

You don't even need science to prove we are all different. These leftists are beyond insane.

[Smeagol]

This has been dealt with 100000000 times. Trying learning something for a change.
"What is unclear is what this has to do with 'race' as that term has been used through much in the twentieth century - the mere fact that we can find groups to be different and can reliably allot people to them is trivial. Again, the point of the theory of race was to discover large clusters of people that are principally homogeneous within and heterogeneous between, contrasting groups." (Marks, 2010)

Unless you can demonstrate "clusters of people that are principally homogeneous within and heterogeneous between, contrasting groups" you aren't talking about race.[/QUOTE]

Whatever you want to call it, I don't know or care what the "official" definition of race is.

[Smeagol]

You don't even need science to prove we are all different. These leftists are beyond insane.

Yeah, even of you don't believe in race, I don't see why some people are so fanatic about proving it doesn't exist? I mean say they convinced everyone in the world that race didn't exist, then what? what was the point? To prove the equality of humans. Well even when not talking about races, there is no such thing as equality, and the people who argue intelligence doesn't exist because you can't measure it are delusional idiots. I mean that's like saying some special-ed kid was born equal to Einstein, or Newton since after all intelligence doesn't exist.

[Pyramidologist]

When did I ever claim scientists were Jews with political agendas? I am not accusing Jews as the contributed to this Marxist crap.

I have not made claims. You are providing sources from left wing think tanks such as 'rationalwiki'. LOL. Talk about being political? Infact many Jews who are geneticists argue that race or ethnic identity is write real. They actually at least make sense with such claims. What you are trying to say is that the world is entirely one race and that we developed to look different because of climate and geographical location.

Sure that happened but the fact remains that we are all distinct and different and this is what makes us separate races. Why is this that difficult for you to understand? No matter what race is reality.

The fact geneticists cannot even get much of the information they produce correctly and or change it over time is proof they really do not have many answers. However populations [races] will always exist with or without genetic evidence. Good luck disproving that.

Rationalwiki? Really? I Lawled hard core after you accuse me and others of being Nutzis and yet you have the audacity to turn around and use a left wing source? LOL major fail for you.

Most o the sources you have provided here to 'prove' your claims come from left wing groups and think tanks. How do I know this? connect the dots! It isn't difficult. I haven't used a single neo-Nazi source or something endorsed by stomfront in my views here. But nice try.

You cannot disprove that I am different from Aframs. You cannot disprove that Germans are different than Japanese people. Good luck telling the world we are all the same. We are not and that's a visible fact you cannot erase. It is visible difference, there is an intelligence difference and there is cultural difference. It does not prove one is superior or inferior to anything. I am not arguing that my race is superior to others persay although I think we are good achievers judging by history [more recent].

I also realize there is a difference between me and the populations which comprise of Southern Europe and Eastern Europe.

But you would dare claim we are all the same which is a lie. It is dubious to claim otherwise and a waste of time.

If I took a genetic test which region of Europe would my DNA correlate with? Where do you think Aframs would cluster with in the old world? Where do you think 'Asian Americans' will or would cluster?

That alone is pure evidence that Race/Ethnic groups exist. Again sir! Good luck arguing against reality. You leftist morons try so hard to create a world vision of equality or indifference. You people are fucking insane.

Who cares what online encyclopaedia or website it is from. The links on that page match genuine peer-reviewed science journals (not a retard's blog like Steve Sailor, lol).

At the end of the day I trust what scientists have to say, than white nationalist internet-bloggers who have a political agenda.

[LightHouse89]

Yeah, even of you don't believe in race, I don't see why some people are so fanatic about proving it doesn't exist? I mean say they convinced everyone in the world that race didn't exist, then what? what was the point? To prove the equality of humans. Well even when not talking about races, there is no such thing as equality, and the people who argue intelligence doesn't exist because you can't measure it are delusional idiots. I mean that's like saying some special-ed kid was born equal to Einstein, or Newton since after all intelligence doesn't exist.

A lot of this insanity is funded by the geopolitical elite who want the world ot be a United Nations. They want for example America to be some UN nation with dfferent ethnic groups and to even socially engineer new ones. That is why this is being promoted and supported by fruitcakes who live in a different world. To even suggest it isn't political is insanity. To not recognize that even the far right abuse these differences to promote an agenda is equally as insane.

I use history and my ethnic groups general past to make us specifically 'superior' however I realize this superiority is not going to be around forever and is already declining. However what this gentleman is doing is suggesting that difference does not exist what so ever.

The only people trying to prove this theory o his are equally as politically motivated. This is why I don't buy it and the fact remains that the international scientific community does not entirely agree with this concept is proof of why I shouldn't jump on it and the politically driven band wagon of supporting it. I don't jump on this topic by supporting either side because they are infact making it 'political'. The fact is it should not be political because how can it be true science? It isn't.

He is politically on the left and I can tell by his suggestion that he is equally as political as a Neo-Nazi would be. I am no Nazi but yet he claims I am. :rolleyes: He uses these black mail PC terms to try to discredit my opinion. What he doesn't realize is that an opinion is not right or wrong. It is not necessarily truth or untruth. Its actually a liberal tactic LOL.

Difference will always exist whether things change or not regarding race. But to claim there is no difference is pure insanity. Infact something a Nazi or a Commie would claim. Why they do this? I don't know. I think they are both equally insane to be honest.

If I took a genetic test I am sure almost if not 70% or more of my DNA would come from the British Islands. But ofcourse I would be in no shape way or form related to those people according to this ass clown. :rolleyes:

[LightHouse89]

Who cares what online encyclopaedia or website it is from. The links on that page match genuine peer-reviewed science journals (not a retard's blog like Steve Sailor, lol).

At the end of the day I trust what scientists have to say, than white nationalist internet-bloggers who have a political agenda.

Then if who cares then why do you discredit your opposition for using similar sources? You have to be a moron to not read this and laugh. You are pulling the same tactic.

Please tel me how many and what scientists claim that difference doesn't exist within populations? You will find politically motivated people who use genetic studies that do not even support such foolish claims.

Every scientific article I have read on this topic supports my opinion not what you are posting. I don't need to read political articles but apparently you do. You just dislike people on the far right which obviously is a bias. I don't necessarily agree with them on the 'what makes muh people differently from others' in the sense of a neo-Nazi stand point. I look at the differences based on populations. A population being examined can be considered a race because that is what they are. A population cluster is difference. But ofcourse you will claim otherwise.

This type of thinking that there is no difference is apart of a political agenda. To claim there is no difference in populations around the world is foolish to make. To even suggest that there isn't something fishy about it would be pure ignorance and stupidity.

Mind you science articles in America no longer speak about the differences of race, genetics or differences even in populations because the government considers it politically incorrect.

This whole topic is infact politically motivated by people on the far left and on the far right which makes the entire topic politically motivated. So with this knowledge I hold this simple truth in mind and take both sides with a grain of salt. I just know and realize there is a difference between me, an Afram, An Asian American, a Mestizo, A mongol and an Arab. To claim all of these mentioned groups are the same is bogus just as claiming to be superior to them based on genetics would be equally as insane.

Why? because neither the argument you are making is rational nor is the argument they are making rational. With this truth being self evident I can agree to disagree with you and leave it there. Difference is reality whether you or these PC sources you post accept that truth or not. Reality and Truth are not based on political agendas or 'human' emotions. What is A human? How can we even claim we are apart of this mythical race of the future?

I don't for a second buy into any of it because its bullshit. Please show me the genetics of a Human or give me pictures so I can see what they look like. The fact is the Neanderthal studies show more reality than this crap. Even that is laughable. The fact will always remain. Difference is reality. However will this reality change in the future? Possibly judging by the current geo political trends and if that is the case then the studies you post here will be fact in the future [sadly]. To not suggest that there is nothing political with your argument is infact ignorant. I know what the forces at be here are doing in my country and around the world with these laughable 'studies' be it in favor of the far right or the far left. To claim that these topics are not trying to prove something is rather odd.

I find the genetic studies on the British Islands to be a joke and something I firmly believed in for a long time and over time they have changed drastically. One group of scientists will suggest one thing and then a different group will have a different opinion or findings on the same topic. The same is happening now with what you posted here. In 10 years a different study will come out making other claims. So no I don't buy what you post as 'truth' but merely volatile genetic science which changes over time. To base an opinion on one simple genetic study is pretty dumb. That's all I have to say about it.

[LightHouse89]

"What is unclear is what this has to do with 'race' as that term has been used through much in the twentieth century - the mere fact that we can find groups to be different and can reliably allot people to them is trivial. Again, the point of the theory of race was to discover large clusters of people that are principally homogeneous within and heterogeneous between, contrasting groups." (Marks, 2010)

Unless you can demonstrate "clusters of people that are principally homogeneous within and heterogeneous between, contrasting groups" you aren't talking about race.

Whatever you want to call it, I don't know or care what the "official" definition of race is.[/QUOTE]

The problem isn't genetic but infact the usage of the term itself. To me race= population. The differences of populations around the world are obvious. To argue against this claim is insanity.

I am trying to approach this topic without being political mind you. I am not being political at all. I dislike the term 'Caucasian' mind you because it isn't a race but a broad phonotypical racial category that is modern and dangerous to use as far as I am concerned. They try to claim there is no difference between Arabs and Irish people or Afghans and Russians. It is just pure stupidity at work here and it is entirely political which to me is wrong. How can something political at least like this be rational? It isn't! Here for the entire nation's history our definition of what white means is a European. Mind you we specifically considered it to be North Western Europeans for example as they were considered culturally, ethnically, religiously and racially similar to the founding stock of the nation [because that is truth!]. Yet that idea was simply based on immigration policies which made sense at the time and today we see why it made sense compared to the nonsensical morons who rule us or have political power here.

I can see why the founding fathers considered that to be rational because it was rational. For most of the nation's history this was considered the ideal 'American' was someone from North Western European roots. I bet any more if we compared the DNA from white Americans [my particular ethnic group and others of North Western European ancestry] we would cluster with Natives of North Western European countries. Which would prove my argument [in terms of who is white I guess and ethnic affiliation in the genetic sense]. Culturally we would differ from them but certainly not genetically. Mind you we will have people claiming 'well you have .3% non white ancestry'....so? How would that disprove my argument in any way? It doesn't!

True Rationalism is based on reality not political agendas of the far right and far left.

[Desaix DeBurgh]

Who cares what online encyclopaedia or website it is from. The links on that page match genuine peer-reviewed science journals (not a retard's blog like Steve Sailor, lol).

At the end of the day I trust what scientists have to say, than white nationalist internet-bloggers who have a political agenda.

Steve Sailor is a retard ? I didn't realize that they handed out college degrees to people with retarded level IQs. You trust scientists more ? What about scientists who promulgate pseudo-science with the surreptitious agenda of altering Western society to make it better for the Jews such as Boasian anthropology ? :

http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/chap2.pdf

You are an idiot if you trust social scientists for not only is it rife with such left-wing Jewish cultural marxist agendas but it is also a big victim of confirmation bias.
.
Also, in the book "How To Read a Book" the intellectual Mortimer J. Adler said :

"There is so much social science in some contemporary novels, and so much fiction in much of sociology that it is hard to keep them apart."

The last revised edition of that book was in the 1970s and things have gotten a lot worse in sociology since then IMO. The social sciences are a complete utter joke and you talk about political agenda ? Haha the social sciences are a hotbed for leftist political ideology. I fail to see how a sociologist is more credible than Steve Sailor on the issue.

[LightHouse89]

Steve Sailor is a retard ? I didn't realize that they handed out college degrees to people with retarded level IQs. You trust scientists more ? What about scientists who promulgate pseudo-science with the surreptitious agenda of altering Western society to make it better for the Jews such as Boasian anthropology ? :

http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/chap2.pdf

You are an idiot if you trust social scientists for not only is it rife with such left-wing Jewish cultural marxist agendas but it is also a big victim of confirmation bias.
.
Also, in the book "How To Read a Book" the intellectual Mortimer J. Adler said :

"There is so much social science in some contemporary novels, and so much fiction in much of sociology that it is hard to keep them apart."

The last revised edition of that book was in the 1970s and things have gotten a lot worse in sociology since then IMO. The social sciences are a complete utter joke and you talk about political agenda ? Haha the social sciences are a hotbed for leftist political ideology. I fail to see how a sociologist is more credible than Steve Sailor on the issue.

I can agree with him that this argument is becoming increasingly too political. It should be approached differently and explained much differently [in terms of difference of race/ethnic groups etc..]. I will agree the topic of race is too broad which has allowed it to be stooped to a level where it has become too political to discuss without having liberals and right wing types having a temper tantrum over.

Science itself is a field that has become too political for its own good. Anything from the argument over global warming to genetics is becoming increasingly more and more political which I dislike. I take modern science with a grain of salt especially if it is political. The far left and the far right has too much power in either field which makes it in a way unscientific.

An opinion of someone on the far left and the far right however cannot be wrong whether you agree or disagree with what they believe in. An opinion cannot be wrong or right. It cannot be true or untrue. You have to walk into it with compelling evidence though to at least convince others of a specific stand point or to support an argument. This is something the far left and far right is incapable of doing. Not without being biased. So the topic of genetics has in fact become geopolitical as it either supports the idea race exists or it does not. It cannot disprove difference is reality one way or the other.

You cannot vote on whether or not the sky is blue or purple. You can hold an opinion that it is purple but without the proper evidence to support that claim will invalidate that opinion or make it seem crazy.

The fact the far left claims race doesn't exist is equally as insane as claiming one is superior to others based on genetics. Both are insane arguments that are not supported by real science or reality.

I can claim the Anglosphere is superior to the world because it holds so much geopolitical power which is truth whether the world finds that statement as racist or not. I actually suggested this in one of my college classes on civilization and was called a racist bigot. I laughed hardcore at the leftist agitator. I couldnt stop laughing. But hey his opinion was not wrong or right. He based his judgment off of a politically fueled argument. I on the other hand made a statement that was based on reality and truth. He didn't even need me to bring that up to begin with and it would still be true.

The fact remains that this topic is too geopolitical for me to take interest in. I do however know difference is reality be it racial or ethnic. If you wish to call different groups populations as oppose to race then fine with me. It still proves difference is reality. The left would then argue that reality is infact 'racist'. LOL

[Pyramidologist]

A lot of this insanity is funded by the geopolitical elite who want the world ot be a United Nations. They want for example America to be some UN nation with dfferent ethnic groups and to even socially engineer new ones. That is why this is being promoted and supported by fruitcakes who live in a different world. To even suggest it isn't political is insanity. To not recognize that even the far right abuse these differences to promote an agenda is equally as insane.

I use history and my ethnic groups general past to make us specifically 'superior' however I realize this superiority is not going to be around forever and is already declining. However what this gentleman is doing is suggesting that difference does not exist what so ever.

The only people trying to prove this theory o his are equally as politically motivated. This is why I don't buy it and the fact remains that the international scientific community does not entirely agree with this concept is proof of why I shouldn't jump on it and the politically driven band wagon of supporting it. I don't jump on this topic by supporting either side because they are infact making it 'political'. The fact is it should not be political because how can it be true science? It isn't.

He is politically on the left and I can tell by his suggestion that he is equally as political as a Neo-Nazi would be. I am no Nazi but yet he claims I am. :rolleyes: He uses these black mail PC terms to try to discredit my opinion. What he doesn't realize is that an opinion is not right or wrong. It is not necessarily truth or untruth. Its actually a liberal tactic LOL.

Difference will always exist whether things change or not regarding race. But to claim there is no difference is pure insanity. Infact something a Nazi or a Commie would claim. Why they do this? I don't know. I think they are both equally insane to be honest.

If I took a genetic test I am sure almost if not 70% or more of my DNA would come from the British Islands. But ofcourse I would be in no shape way or form related to those people according to this ass clown. :rolleyes:

They're not politically motivated. If you think so, are biologists who accept the theory of evolution, also biased? The consensus among biologists that humans races don't exist, matches the acceptance of evolution: 99.9% (there will always be a 0.1% minority of cranks). Indeed this is why the idea human races exist has been compared to flat earth (Diamond, 1994), the "phlogiston of our time" (Montagu, 1964) or belief in unicorns (Fish, 2002).

If you have evidence for human races then present it. So far you have posted nothing but gibberish. You also set up the straw man that those that deny race (which is virtually all scientists in relevant fields) are denying biological variation exists. This is obviously false. No two individuals are identical in genotype or phenotype. There's also a population structure to human variation that no scientist denies, but it is not, and never has been, racial.

[Velda]

In fact why using the term homo sapiens sapiens? One could cathegorize homo sapiens, that's all, no matter, if it was "hominidae".
What makes us draw the line "these are humans" vs. "these are apes"?

Same with human races: What makes us draw the line?

[Shepherd]

In fact why using the term homo sapiens sapiens? One could cathegorize homo sapiens, that's all, no matter, if it was "hominidae".
What makes us draw the line "these are humans" vs. "these are apes"?

Same with human races: What makes us draw the line?

well we can have kids with all other races, but not with apes

[Pyramidologist]

Steve Sailor is a retard ? I didn't realize that they handed out college degrees to people with retarded level IQs. You trust scientists more ? What about scientists who promulgate pseudo-science with the surreptitious agenda of altering Western society to make it better for the Jews such as Boasian anthropology ? :

http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/chap2.pdf

You are an idiot if you trust social scientists for not only is it rife with such left-wing Jewish cultural marxist agendas but it is also a big victim of confirmation bias.
.
Also, in the book "How To Read a Book" the intellectual Mortimer J. Adler said :

"There is so much social science in some contemporary novels, and so much fiction in much of sociology that it is hard to keep them apart."

The last revised edition of that book was in the 1970s and things have gotten a lot worse in sociology since then IMO. The social sciences are a complete utter joke and you talk about political agenda ? Haha the social sciences are a hotbed for leftist political ideology. I fail to see how a sociologist is more credible than Steve Sailor on the issue.

Kevin Macdonald, again not a biologist. He's some weirdo who writes anti-Semitic theories on Jewish psychology. Furthermore he's a white nationalist. How very non-biased...


In January 2010, MacDonald began acting as director of the newly founded political party American Third Position, which declares America a white Christian nation and advocates for limiting "non-white" immigration into the United States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_B._MacDonald#Affiliation

Your "sources" are all dubious, from white nationalists or other racists who have no credentials whatsoever in biology/relevant scientific fields.

[Pyramidologist]

In fact why using the term homo sapiens sapiens? One could cathegorize homo sapiens, that's all, no matter, if it was "hominidae".
What makes us draw the line "these are humans" vs. "these are apes"?

Same with human races: What makes us draw the line?

There are no human races. That's the whole point, the lines/boundaries (if imposed) are arbitrary.

[LightHouse89]

They're not politically motivated. If you think so, are biologists who accept the theory of evolution, also biased? The consensus among biologists that humans races don't exist, matches the acceptance of evolution: 99.9% (there will always be a 0.1% minority of cranks). Indeed this is why the idea human races exist has been compared to flat earth (Diamond, 1994), the "phlogiston of our time" (Montagu, 1964) or belief in unicorns (Fish, 2002).

If you have evidence for human races then present it. So far you have posted nothing but gibberish. You also set up the straw man that those that deny race (which is virtually all scientists in relevant fields) are denying biological variation exists. This is obviously false. No two individuals are identical in genotype or phenotype. There's also a population structure to human variation that no scientist denies, but it is not, and never has been, racial.

Not really. How is evolution entirely correct? There are many loopholes in this ideology as a whole. To claim we are all the same is insanity. We are not and you know that. You just refuse to accept reality so we are back at square one. I don't really care about biologists who are politically motivated [many of them are or get paid to make these statements by governments or special interest groups]. Obviously they will have biased outcomes.

I think you have posted gibberish. The fact remains a reality that human races do exist. Why? I see them every day. How can you tel me what I see is incorrect? I don't need a scientific study to determine what I see before my eyes. I laughed hardcore reading this last bit.

Straw man? LOL What I claimed is that different populations share similar DNA. I don't classify a race or group of people judged simply be an individual being looked at. You claim that there is no such thing as genetic populations and groups. That is your strawman for you.

You along with the Politically motivated people in charge of these studies are trying to disprove reality. The fact modern science is geopolitical today is proof that it is entirely biased and that was the point I was making. Good luck disproving that. This is common knwoeldge by people in the preservationist community because it is reality.

Just like differences in group populations [genetic] that difference is reality. Either way the Western man is superior in terms of intelligence to lets say a Afram who lives down the street in a ghetto housing project. Your claim would be 'well that's socio economical'...well is it? How can we make simplistic claims without evaluating why the afram living down the street from me is far less intelligent than me? Well I take note that why he is where he is is generally because many of them choose to be there. They like being dumb and to live without responsibility.

Not to mention even culturally these people differ from me. They have a different way of thinking and they live differently. They are different to me. However you claim that this difference isn't racial or in any shape ethnic. No we are the same people. Nothing matters in terms of genetic differences because both of us are exactly the same. All genetics come from Africa so we are both equals :rolleyes: .

The fact is this 'individual' [mind you the majority of this same population living within my nation is approximately the same in terms of behavior and group thinking] is different than me. Our skin color is different, our genetics come from different regions of the world, our culture is different, our religions are different and our intelligence is even different. Why? Because we are not the same two populations nor the same two individuals.

You are trying to discredit reality which is infact a Marxist tactic. The cultural Marxist tactic of this century is to conclude that nothing really exists in terms of populations because everyone is an individual. This is a fallacy and entirely politically motivated. Only a moron high on glue would disagree with that understanding.

The UN is even funding this propaganda throughout the Western world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Convention_on_the_Elimination_of_All _Forms_of_Racial_Discrimination

Everything you are posting is being pushed by this crowd who are the current rulers of the west. Its easier to rule societies without a sense of unity by discrediting they exist in the first place. This is social engineering. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Conference_against_Racism

I have not read too many mainstream articles suggesting that race, ethnics, populations etc.... do not exist at all. I am aware that in my country no mainstream scientific journals are allowed anymore to mention race, ethnic groups, genetics or anything relating to the topic period. Its new to America to ignore these things as the government wants to promote diversity [in the twisted sense of blending the world together here]. Any opposition to it is racism or classified as politically 'incorrect'. You do not think there is something odd happening here?

You recognize that there is something odd with it doesn't make you a racist in that sense [I am but for my own personal reasons]. To agree with the assholes promoting this crap is allowing a political charged idea to be forced onto you.

How in any way is this a good solution to the worlds problems or the one conflicting our societies? It isn't! So for me being against it and disagreeing with it I am thus far incorrect because my ideas are not or do not collaborate with 'mainstream' cultural Marxist theories which are popular with the political elite of my country.


So not only are my people non existent my nation is too. Why? A Nation is a people not just land boundaries. This would mean the aboriginals living here are also a social construct just like me.

I like how one sided your argument is. I really do. It doesn't convince me of anything. I have read plenty of books and articles written by biologists claiming the opposite of what you are promoting here. I think you are the average leftist in the Anglosphere trying so hard to eliminate race or differences because if this can be achieved then 'equality' is achieved. It is very obvious of how politically motivated this way of thinking really is. :cool: Only a moron would fall for it.

[Äijä]

Everything Lighthouse wrote is factual, there is no logical argument against it.

[LightHouse89]

There are no human races. That's the whole point, the lines/boundaries (if imposed) are arbitrary.

Not true at all. Lions aren't real either. They are all cats no such thing as species or breeds. Everything is equal and the same. :rolleyes:

[Pyramidologist]

Steve Sailor is a retard ? I didn't realize that they handed out college degrees to people with retarded level IQs. You trust scientists more ? What about scientists who promulgate pseudo-science with the surreptitious agenda of altering Western society to make it better for the Jews such as Boasian anthropology ?


Steven Ernest Sailer is an American journalist and movie critic for The American Conservative, a blogger, a Taki's Magazine and VDARE.com columnist, and a former correspondent for UPI

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Sailer

I have to ask what an American journalist/blogger and movie critic (lol?) has to do with biology. His master's degree is in finance and marketing. Is that what you consider a scientist? You're a total clown.

[LightHouse89]

Kevin Macdonald, again not a biologist. He's some weirdo who writes anti-Semitic theories on Jewish psychology. Furthermore he's a white nationalist. How very non-biased...



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_B._MacDonald#Affiliation

Your "sources" are all dubious, from white nationalists or other racists who have no credentials whatsoever in biology/relevant scientific fields.

Believe it or not Kevin McDonald isn't entirely wrong about everything he posts. He is obsessed with Jews which makes reading much of his works to get boring after awhile.

But none of your sources are either with the exception of one. The rest are entirely scientific articles written by left wing journalists. You can look them up [which I did] and find they come from left wing institutions and some of them have 'liberal arts' degrees. I have a liberal arts degree too so I know the brainwash that goes on in these places. :)

[Äijä]

Believe it or not Kevin McDonald isn't entirely wrong about everything he posts. He is obsessed with Jews which makes reading much of his works to get boring after awhile.

But none of your sources are either with the exception of one. The rest are entirely scientific articles written by left wing journalists. You can look them up [which I did] and find they come from left wing institutions and some of them have 'liberal arts' degrees. I have a liberal arts degree too so I know the brainwash that goes on in these places. :)

Really? :D

[LightHouse89]

well we can have kids with all other races, but not with apes

Watch out. I have heard a scientist actually claim that mating with them would be beneficial. Ofcourse we all know this to be non truth.

The same scientists here in America even claimed that we [americans especially middle class whites] were over populating the nation during the 1960s so we had to lower our population in order to arrive at an 'equilibrium' :rolleyes:. That at the time was accepted by the 'scientific community in America'.

Not everything they promote is correct. Infact much of modern science is again political which has rendered it rather untrust worthy.

[Shepherd]

Watch out. I have heard a scientist actually claim that mating with them would be beneficial. Ofcourse we all know this to be non truth.

The same scientists here in America even claimed that we [americans especially middle class whites] were over populating the nation during the 1960s so we had to lower our population in order to arrive at an 'equilibrium' :rolleyes:. That at the time was accepted by the 'scientific community in America'.

Not everything they promote is correct. Infact much of modern science is again political which has rendered it rather untrust worthy.
I ws referring to actual Apes- as in the animals haha

But yes Im aware of the scientists who promoted "over population" to stop whites from having kids

[Pyramidologist]

Believe it or not Kevin McDonald isn't entirely wrong about everything he posts. He is obsessed with Jews which makes reading much of his works to get boring after awhile.

But none of your sources are either with the exception of one. The rest are entirely scientific articles written by left wing journalists. You can look them up [which I did] and find they come from left wing institutions and some of them have 'liberal arts' degrees. I have a liberal arts degree too so I know the brainwash that goes on in these places. :)

This is obviously false. My sources from that link include:

Alan Templeton
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Templeton

John Relethford
http://www.oneonta.edu/academics/anthro/jhr.html

Norman Sauer
http://www.forbio.msu.edu/faculty_staff.html

Stephen Ousley
http://mai.mercyhurst.edu/personnel/stephen-d-ousley/

All experts in relevant scientific fields relating to human biological variation. In contrast you have some twat movie critic/journalist and an extreme fringe psychologist (whose own university has published statements distancing themselves from his work), both who have plenty of racist/political baggage.

[LightHouse89]

Really? :D

Yes. This equality and individuality shit is over emphasized where I believe it actually causes brain damage to modern youth everywhere.

I believe it was a waste of money degree but my parents told me to go for it because it was so versatile. I am going back for criminal justice right now. It is shocking at how human behavior even points out differences in terms of race. However there is something very dishonest of the CJ system here.

It lumps whites and latinos as the same crowd which is deceiving and dishonest. The media will claim otherwise but we all know why. We gotta make everyone equal. Get rid of 'muh people' mentality and everyone is equal. :rolleyes: Its very obvious what the left is doing in America because they have been doing it for a hundred years! Do people think this is all 'new' crap? You have to be a true moron to think so. Anyway this is what I mean. This is how they begin the process of erasing people.

Mind you this man is Jewish. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoWbriWaV4Q

Here is another commentary on something I am well aware of. I even asked my professors why the FBI does this. They don't have an answer sadly. But I have my own 'theories'.

Mind you no matter what the far left will still use the same tactics. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQK8H0z-irM

Mind you even the far left acknowledges differences however they just disagree with different opinions regarding differences in groups. Groups will always exist. This will be fact with or without the argument of genetics even. You don't need genetics to even consider the argument which is why I get my rocks off.

But here it is. The FBI list http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/tables/table-67

Mind you no category for latinos. LOL.