Why do so many in this forum put so much more emphasis on race than culture or language?

[Tooting Carmen]

As I wrote here: https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?352685-How-d-you-react-if-English-replaced-your-country-s-native-language-as-the-official-language/page3
"I just find the dissonance in values and priorities that many forum users have risible (not saying you specifically). They complain if their neighbourhood or city changes from 99% White to 93% White, but seem (at least by comparison) quite relaxed at seeing their native language disappear or being subsumed." Let us discuss.

[Jana]

As I wrote here: https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?352685-How-d-you-react-if-English-replaced-your-country-s-native-language-as-the-official-language/page3
"I just find the dissonance in values and priorities that many forum users have risible (not saying you specifically). They complain if their neighbourhood or city changes from 99% White to 93% White, but seem (at least by comparison) quite relaxed at seeing their native language disappear or being subsumed." Let us discuss.

Language and culture can change, race can not so racial changes are far more damaging than other two. It's pretty easy to get.

[Rædwald]

Race precipitates culture

[Tooting Carmen]

Language and culture can change, race can not so racial changes are far more damaging than other two. It's pretty easy to get.

People in North Africa and the Americas in particular would be interested to hear that. :)

[PierreUno]

As I wrote here: https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?352685-How-d-you-react-if-English-replaced-your-country-s-native-language-as-the-official-language/page3
"I just find the dissonance in values and priorities that many forum users have risible (not saying you specifically). They complain if their neighbourhood or city changes from 99% White to 93% White, but seem (at least by comparison) quite relaxed at seeing their native language disappear or being subsumed." Let us discuss.

Because you are a pseudo-intellectual dunce brainwashed by Jews with obvious tribal agendas e.g. Stephen Jay Gould and Franz Boas and the Tabula Rasa is scientifically invalid. Also, everyday human language e.g. English, German, Yiddish, French, Chinese or Dutch etc... are vastly more primitive than the international language of maths. 93% 'white' ? I am Germanic you are an inferior keltic monkey contained in a jail called Wales.

[Tooting Carmen]

Because you are pseudo-intellectual dunce

Now that is what I call pathological projection! xD

[Östsvensk]

Because white people who are racist would rather take a white person who speaks a different native language over a black person who speaks perfect English or Swedish etc.

Although one thing does not necessarily exclude the other. There are racists who hold to that language is a product of race.

[LaSentinelle]

As I wrote here: https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?352685-How-d-you-react-if-English-replaced-your-country-s-native-language-as-the-official-language/page3
"I just find the dissonance in values and priorities that many forum users have risible (not saying you specifically). They complain if their neighbourhood or city changes from 99% White to 93% White, but seem (at least by comparison) quite relaxed at seeing their native language disappear or being subsumed." Let us discuss.

Because most sane people realise that genes determine your behaviour, your intellectual potential and many other aspects of your life. Culture is a product of your environment, upbringing and your genetical potential. Your environment is created by people who have genes. Same with your upbringing. Different races differ genetically from one another. Which explains why we have so many different cultures. If a Welsh person goes to, say, France, Hungary, Sweden or Russia they might notice some differences, but these places would be very similar to both Wales and to one another because people from those places form a genetic continuum and cluster together and form a single race with different sub-races (or phenotypes). But if a Welsh person were to go to China (especially rural China), Thailand, Peru, Congo, Lesotho, Indonesia or some other place, preferably never touched by Europeans, they would find themselves in a completely new environment with a completely unfamiliar culture, values, people, behaviours, etc. They might see some similarities between those places and their home (Wales), but they would still be an alien in those places.
Simply put:
1. Everything is determined by genes.
2. Culture is a product of the collective labour of people who belong to the same genetic background.
3. This is why you look at Race first.
I've no idea why you put language there too, because language is probably the least impactful thing on determining who belongs to what race/cluster/phenotype/etc. A black person can speak perfect English with some obscure native accent like Kentish English, but they would never be an Englishman or an Englishwoman, they would always remain an African/Negroid. Same for a European person moving to Korea, Japan, Jamaica, whatever.
Languages change and evolve all the time, some go extinct and others take their place, but genes remain. I don't speak Old Norse or Proto-Indoeuropean, Scythian or Ostrogothic, but I have blood of all those people in me. They didn't go away, only their languages did. (To be fair, the languages also didn't go away, they just evolved into modern variants or left some substrate in a form of borrowings, place names, etc.)

[PierreUno]

Now that is what I call pathological projection! xD

Psychology and psychiatry are pseudo-sciences too just ask titans such as Imannuel Kant and Auguste Comte etc.. oh, wait ! you have no idea what I am talking about because you are a pseudo-intellectual dunce : psychiatry and psychology are chronotopic unlike philosophy and science. Liberals are way too satisfied with their ostensible 'intelligence' when they are generally humanists with little understanding of evolution and know next to nothing about Darwin himself but cherry pick Darwin's evolution against religion but not race/ethnicity. Liberalism is illogical and self-contradictory unlike maths, logic and philosophy so all liberals, including you, are in fact dunces.

[eastern]

because of interest in genetics.

but theres also a side of people who want to be nordic, believe in white supremacy or latin supremacy or whatever they believe in.

[PaganPoet]

As I wrote here: https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?352685-How-d-you-react-if-English-replaced-your-country-s-native-language-as-the-official-language/page3
"I just find the dissonance in values and priorities that many forum users have risible (not saying you specifically). They complain if their neighbourhood or city changes from 99% White to 93% White, but seem (at least by comparison) quite relaxed at seeing their native language disappear or being subsumed." Let us discuss.

For intenser mental masturbation.

[gixajo]

Maybe because anyone can adopt a culture or learn a language to be part of your group, and people need to feel that they belong to a special group, unique and better than others. Categorizing by race, something that is difficult or impossible to "falsify", allows us to prevent the entry of others whom we consider different or directly worse than us, from being part of our group.

Groups, group categorization, hierarchy of different groups, the need to be as high up as possible in that group ranking, clearly differentiating ourselves from other groups, especially those we consider to be below ours.

I don't know, it has been occurring to me while I was writing, and it seems to me an improvised theory quite acceptable. :)

Edit:I think that on a day-to-day basis we would realize that no, that real closeness with others is obtained more from a similar culture+language than just race, because shared language and culture makes us see reality in a very similar way, while "race" itself does not necessarily.

Maybe what many here lack is a real life experience to realize it, and not interested news and forums on the internet.

[gixajo]

The ideal would be, as always, to judge by individuals.

But those in charge find it more comfortable to use groups. It is easier to lead a flock, directing it with a single order than having to convince 150 sheep one by one.

It is easier to pit one herd against another for the same reason.

Also related to the sense of belonging to a group, worked hard by those in charge, so that each sheep loves its flock more than the other flocks.

[PierreUno]

?


Now that is what I call pathological projection! xD

What is matter cat got your tongue ? :

Real science is not chronotopic like history but on the opposite side of the spectrum along with philosophy. The body of doctrines of science and philosophy are general truths that can happen at any time or place. However, science and philosophy use different methods to ascertain those truths :

“In fact not long after psychology entered the lexicon, the noted philosopher Immanuel Kant dismissed the possibility of psychology as a natural science. The best it could hope for, he argued, given that psychology lacked any axiomatic basis (a system of undisputed a priori propositions from which to proceed), as well as the considerable problems associated with introspection, was to proceed empirically and produce a collection of facts which could be ordered and classified. As such it would at best comprise an historical doctrine of nature (Brysbaert & Rastle, 2013). This criticism finds echoes in Kenneth Gergen’s (1973) argument, toward the end of the 20th century, that psychology is not a science and should be considered a branch of historical knowledge, capable only of statements whose truths are contingent on time and place (see Chapter 2). Kant queried the value of introspection –the attempt to systematically make observations of one’s own mind –because not only does one alter, by observing, what is being observed, but what is doing the observing and what is being observed are one and the same. Karl Popper’s view of science was that it needs “points of view and theoretical problems” (2002, p.88). Psychology, when it began, had neither. Arguably this is still the case. Auguste Comte, the founder of sociology as well as the doctrine of positivism, made similar arguments. To him psychology’s subject matter, the soul, was beyond the reach of the senses and immeasurable. It could never attain the status of a science.”

Roberts, R. (2015) Psychology and Capitalism: The Manipulation of Mind. Alresford: Zero Books

As Conrad and Potter have summated of psychiatry’s diagnostic project here, the process is necessarily historically and culturally contingent:

“[c]ertain diagnostic categories appear and disappear over time, reflecting and reinforcing particular ideologies within the ‘diagnostic project’ (the professional legitimization of diagnoses), as well as within the larger social order.”

Conrad, P., and Potter, D. (2000) ‘From Hyperactive Children to ADHD Adults: Observations on the Expansion of Medical Categories’, Social Problems, 47(4): 559–582.

Roberts stated of the production of “facts” on pathology from the psychological sciences :

“[t]hese are arrived at outside the scientific arena and then imported into it by a system of smoke and mirrors to claim scientific backing for what are essentially political or moral judgments.”

Roberts, R. (2015) Psychology and Capitalism: The Manipulation of Mind. Alresford: Zero Books

“EVERY SO OFTEN Al Frances says something that seems to surprise even him. Just now, for instance, in the predawn darkness of his comfortable, rambling home in Carmel, California, he has broken off his exercise routine to declare that “there is no definition of a mental disorder. It’s bullshit. I mean, you just can’t define it.” Then an odd, reflective look crosses his face, as if he’s taking in the strangeness of this scene: Allen Frances, lead editor of the fourth edition of the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (universally known as the DSM-IV), the guy who wrote the book on mental illness, confessing that “these concepts are virtually impossible to define precisely with bright lines at the boundaries.” For the first time in two days, the conversation comes to an awkward halt.”

https://www.wired.com/2010/12/ff-dsmv/

“Receiving widespread attention in the mainstream media was the July 2022 article “The Serotonin Theory of Depression: A Systematic Umbrella Review of the Evidence,” published in the journal Molecular Psychiatry. In it, Joanna Moncrieff, co-chairperson of the Critical Psychiatry Network, and her co-researchers examined hundreds of different types of studies that attempted to detect a relationship between depression and serotonin, and concluded that there is no evidence of a link between low levels of serotonin and depression, stating: “We suggest it is time to acknowledge that the serotonin theory of depression is not empirically substantiated.”

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35854107/


The invalidity of psychiatry’s chemical imbalance theory of mental illness has been conceded by members of Establishment psychiatry—including Thomas Insel. In 2011, establishment psychiatrist Ronald Pies, Editor-in-Chief Emeritus of the Psychiatric Times, stated: “In truth, the ‘chemical imbalance’ notion was always a kind of urban legend—never a theory seriously propounded by well-informed psychiatrists.” In his book Healing, Thomas Insel acknowledged the need for Psychiatry to jettison the chemical imbalance theory, stating: “The idea of mental illness as a ‘chemical imbalance’ has now given way to mental illnesses as ‘connectional’ or brain circuit disorders.”

However, this “brain circuit” theory there is as little evidence for this new biological defect theory as there was for the now invalidated chemical imbalance theory; but acutely crucial to psychiatry’s usefulness for the ruling class which values any explanation for mental or emotional suffering that does not include an increasingly dehumanizing and alienating society—is some kind of ‘individual defect’ theory of ‘mental illness.’

Apropos to this new ‘brain circuit’ theory was a prescient insight stated by philosopher Baruch Spinoza :

“Indeed, as the multitude remains ever at the same level of wretchedness, so it is never long contented, and is best pleased only with what is new and has not yet proved delusory.” --Spinoza

“Published in the journal Neuron, Raymond Dolan—considered one of the most influential neuroscientists in the world—co-authored “Functional Neuroimaging in Psychiatry and the Case for Failing Better,” concluding, “Despite three decades of intense neuroimaging research, we still lack a neurobiological account for any psychiatric condition.”Reflecting on the more than 16,000 neuroimaging articles published during the last 30 years, Dolan and his co-authors concluded: “It remains difficult to refute a critique that psychiatry’s most fundamental characteristic is its ignorance. . . . Casting a cold eye on the psychiatric neuroimaging literature invites a conclusion that despite 30 years of intense research and considerable technological advances, this enterprise has not delivered a neurobiological account (i.e., a mechanistic explanation) for any psychiatric disorder, nor has it provided a credible imaging-based biomarker of clinical utility.”

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35981525/

[PierreUno]

The ideal would be, as always, to judge by individuals.

But those in charge find it more comfortable to use groups. It is easier to lead a flock, directing it with a single order than having to convince 150 sheep one by one.

It is easier to pit one herd against another for the same reason.

Also related to the sense of belonging to a group, worked hard by those in charge, so that each sheep loves its flock more than the other flocks.

So, when walking down the street , in any major city , you have AI powered computer glasses that can pull up the rap sheet or police and educational records of any random black male that passes you knowing that they committ more crimes than 'whites' in general ? Birds of a feather flock together and the odd bird who doesn't flock generally doesn't cause any problems. You are starting to sound like a dunce just like TootingCarmen don't obviously shit your pants that way.

[Petalpusher]

Language and culture can change, race can not so racial changes are far more damaging than other two. It's pretty easy to get.

I agree. Maybe to phrase it differently, languages can traverse races and endure time but once a native race has been disolved into something else, it's over, there is no going back to the original state and it will appropriate itself the land it lives on, whatever the language you speak. Once you are Brazil, well... you are Brazil. It's a more fundamental question as it's irreversible.

[axel.aleman]

Bueno yo prefiero una castiza de los suburbios de la Ciudad de Panamá a una parda proveniente de la península de Azuero cuya cultura es más cercana a la colombiana o una afram mezclada. También prefiero criollas cubanas, dominicanas, Boris, brasileñas o castizas de zonas bajas de la costa caribe colombiana o la costa venezolana

En mi caso la cultura es más importante que la raza y lo he aprendido aquí precisamente. Que la mayoría de los usuarios sigan con las misma necedades de siempre no es la regla

[PierreUno]

I agree. Maybe to phrase it differently, languages can traverse races and endure time but once a native race has been disolved into something else, it's over, there is no going back to the original state and it will appropriate itself the land it lives on, whatever the language you speak. Once you are Brazil, well... you are Brazil. It's a more fundamental question as it's irreversible.

Right, Brazil is more corrupt than 'white' or European (especially Western European societies) countries largely because of race of course the CIA destabilizing the place doesn't help but that doesn't matter when you have a Bismarck, Richelieu or Churchill etc.. to lead the way of a genetically sound demographic or whatnot.

[Tooting Carmen]

Right, Brazil is more corrupt than 'white' or European (especially Western European societies) countries largely because of race of course the CIA destabilizing the place doesn't help but that doesn't matter when you have a Bismarck, Richelieu or Churchill etc.. to lead the way of a genetically sound demographic or whatnot.

It is no worse than much of Eastern Europe in terms of corruption levels.

[PierreUno]

It is no worse than much of Eastern Europe in terms of corruption levels.

Why should I give a shit about slavics when I look NorthWestern European ? My Y-DNA can be found in Cornwall and my mtdna is the same as Queen Victoria's. My autosomal DNA is English or Dutch and Britain is one of the biggest supporters of the war in the Ukraine against Russia. I think the king of England recently made a great speech in Germany praising them for their role in the Ukraine and their role in working with Britain in finding alternative green energy sources.

[B01AB20]

Hard to explain with a logic reasoning, maybe because it's no logic or reasonable.
Hard to explain based on education and instilled values becuase I grew up with the mantra 'there's only a race the human race' and bla bla bla.
Hard to explain based on subliminal messages my mind is bombed everyday with, in the media, advertising, academia etc, because they're all spreading multicultural values.

But it's a inner feeling I can't ignore or counteract, it's a basic instinct like sex or self-protection.

Why?, don't know, but race is a basic and primordial thing to me, language and culture are just acquired things, outside of my inner self.

(joder, que trascendente me ha quedado ;) )

[alnortedelsur]

Excellent responses (against OP and his supporters) on here. Nothing more to add to the excellent responses given here (nothing else comes to my mind at this moment). Race is super important. Much more than what egalitarian liberals think.

[JerryS.]

You can change your language and adapt to a different culture, but your "race" will not change. Like being British is not the same thing as being English.

[Tooting Carmen]

Excellent responses (against OP and his supporters) on here. Nothing more to add to the excellent responses given here (nothing else comes to my mind at this moment). Race is super important. Much more than what egalitarian liberals think.

Not that I usually like to personalise things; nevertheless, let us not forget that you and I both have some non-white admixture, and as we know the correlation between genotype and phenotype can be very fuzzy. Therefore, if either one of us were three shades darker in skintone and/or with Amerindian eyes and cheekbones, would that give others the 'right' to hate and fear us?

[Creoda]

Not that I usually like to personalise things; nevertheless, let us not forget that you and I both have some non-white admixture, and as we know the correlation between genotype and phenotype can be very fuzzy. Therefore, if either one of us were three shades darker in skintone and/or with Amerindian eyes and cheekbones, would that give others the 'right' to hate and fear us?
Your ancestry does come out in both of your personalities though. If you were fully British or White would you be so concerned with foreign languages/cultures or constantly making threads about race-mixing? I doubt.

[Tooting Carmen]

Your ancestry does come out in both of your personalities though. If you were fully British or White would you be so concerned with foreign languages/cultures or constantly making threads about race-mixing? I doubt.

Maybe not as much, but I might still be interested in languages at least. And how does alnortedelusr's ancestry come out so vividly then?

[B01AB20]

Not that I usually like to personalise things; nevertheless, let us not forget that you and I both have some non-white admixture, and as we know the correlation between genotype and phenotype can be very fuzzy. Therefore, if either one of us were three shades darker in skintone and/or with Amerindian eyes and cheekbones, would that give others the 'right' to hate and fear us?

At least don't associate racism or racialism only with europeans. As you have said a few times blacks, asians and others can be equally racist too.

It seems a natural human feeling, or instinct, or whatever it is.

[PierreUno]

Maybe not as much, but I might still be interested in languages at least. And how does alnortedelusr's ancestry come out so vividly then?

What percentage is it and how can you be sure you have it without access to specialized experiences such as a scientific lab ? Some of this dna analysis stuff is possibly politically motivated.

[Tooting Carmen]

At least don't associate racism or racialism only with europeans.

I'm not - I am only saying how irrational much of it really is (as even you alluded to you

It seems a natural human feeling, or instinct, or whatever it is.

Tribalism arguably is, but not so much racism. (The former means "I hate you because you are different and a stranger", whereas the latter means "I hate you because you are inferior").

Also, would you (and alnorte too, for that matter) really find it easier to make friends with some monolingual Scandinavians or Slavs than some Latin Americans who happened to be dark-skinned?

[Tooting Carmen]

What percentage is it and how can you be sure you have it without access to specialized experiences such as a scientific lab ? Some of this dna analyse stuff is possibly politically motivated.

I haven't done a 23andme test yet, but my Mum has, and she came out 33% Amerindian 3% Black and the rest Caucasoid (Euro and some MENA). alnorte, however, has done a 23andme test - you can ask him about his results.

EDIT: My Mum's test was done with myancestryDNA, not 23andme.

[Creoda]

Maybe not as much, but I might still be interested in languages at least. And how does alnortedelusr's ancestry come out so vividly then?
It's obvious. How many fully European people do you know who act or express themselves like him.

[Tooting Carmen]

It's obvious. How many fully European people do you know who act or express themselves like him.

There are full Spaniards who as or more hysterical than him on this forum: CV and gallop come to mind, to name but two examples.

[Tooting Carmen]

Also, most people I have attended language courses with have no (known) ancestry from Spanish-speaking, French-speaking or Portuguese-speaking nations, so that argument is a nonsense too.

[PierreUno]

I haven't done a 23andme test yet, but my Mum has, and she came out 33% Amerindian 3% Black and the rest Caucasoid (Euro and some MENA). alnorte, however, has done a 23andme test - you can ask him about his results.

Yeah, well for me one day AncestryDNA was like you are 100% Euro e.g. Irish, Scottish and Norwegian then some years later was like bam ! You are now magically 1% SSA but sequencing.com (which I trust unlike genomelink) told me I was mostly British and Irish w/ 18% German/French and broadly northwestern European w/ like 2 or 3% Eastern Euro with no non-Euro ancestry that seems spot on since I am 25% Alsace/Lorraine France and G25 tells me I am minor non-white but that is made by a polack trying to tell me I am mostly Norwegain mixed w/ some Spanish so I ignore that polack science. However, at 33% then yeah It is hard for them to fake it but there was always the possibility of being secretly adopted , eh ? Smart people tend to be skeptical is all I am saying.

I don't trust American 23andme nor AncestryDNA nor Polack science per se.

[B01AB20]

I'm not - I am only saying how irrational much of it really is (as even you alluded to you earlier yourself).



Tribalism arguably is, but not so much racism. (The former means "I hate you because you are different and a stranger", whereas the latter means "I hate you because you are inferior").

Also, would you (and alnorte too, for that matter) really find it easier to make friends with some monolingual Scandinavians or Slavs than some Latin Americans who happened to be dark-skinned?

You're making-up things and pushing it to extremes, maybe because you feel personally involved.
For me to be 'racialist', 'racist' is very demonized word, only means I rather want to live in a homogeneous, regarding race, society. I don't hate people because of their race, language or whatever, I'm not a psycho, and the hate you mention is psychotic.

Of course it would be easier to make friends with latinamericans no matter what race they were. In fact latinamericans are better integrated and regarded in Spain than most other foreigners.
But I still want to live in a racially homogeneous society, it's healthier and natural.

Can you point out a multiculti society/country without strong racial and/or social tensions due to racial differences?

[Tooting Carmen]

You're making-up things and pushing it to extremes, maybe because you feel personally involved.
For me to be 'racialist', 'racist' is very demonized word, only means I rather want to live in a homogeneous, regarding race, society. I don't hate people because of their race, language or whatever, I'm not a psycho, and the hate you mention is psychotic.

Of course it would be easier to make friends with latinamericans no matter what race they were. In fact latinamericans are better integrated and regarded in Spain than most other foreigners.
But I still want to live in a racially homogeneous society, it's healthier and natural.

Can you point out a multiculti society/country without strong racial and/or social tensions due to racial differences?

Possibly Canada? (The Quebec issue notwithstanding). New Zealand is not too bad either. But generally I agree, homogeneous societies tend to be more peaceful and cohesive, at least insofar as they do not have large socioeconomic disparities, which isn't guaranteed.

N.B. And at least you have the honesty and decency re Latin Americans. (Would some other Spaniards on this forum do so though?)

[Occiput in Starlight]

I think some people living in the developed world who put a lot of emphasis on race do so in the pursuit of self-expression. Having a defined identity and a distilled sense of self is very important in the 21st century.

Today people undertake the road to a sense of self more consciously and strategically than ever before. We no longer become who we are just willy-nilly. We design and contrive our way to selfhood with dollars and wireless.

One guy may be polyamorous and organize his schedule around consuming anime, another guy might attend viking concerts and organize his beliefs around his haplogroup. Today pastimes don't just pass the time, and individuality is a muscle that can be trained.

[PierreUno]

Hard to explain with a logic reasoning, maybe because it's no logic or reasonable.
Hard to explain based on education and instilled values becuase I grew up with the mantra 'there's only a race the human race' and bla bla bla.
Hard to explain based on subliminal messages my mind is bombed everyday with, in the media, advertising, academia etc, because they're all spreading multicultural values.

But it's a inner feeling I can't ignore or counteract, it's a basic instinct like sex or self-protection.

Why?, don't know, but race is a basic and primordial thing to me, language and culture are just acquired things, outside of my inner self.

(joder, que trascendente me ha quedado ;) )

Maybe, two Americans know history (I am one of them) and I scored 90 percent on a pew research scientific knowledge quiz so I am racist because ironically I am not as ignorant and uneducated as the average American. The average American is a dumbfuck who thinks blacks are equal because they make low IQ rap, porn and are good at a lot of sports, Asians aren't that fucking stupid you better believe they know blacks are inferior not absolutely but in key areas that really matter.

[B01AB20]

Possibly Canada? (The Quebec issue notwithstanding). New Zealand is not too bad either. But generally I agree, homogeneous societies tend to be more peaceful and cohesive, at least insofar as they do not have large socioeconomic disparities, which isn't guaranteed.

Not that a racial homogeneity is a guarantee for social peace and happyness, I'm not so naive to say that. Religion and economics are causes of struggle and conflict. Look at India and Pakistan, same race but nevertheless their separation was a huge blood bath ans still today a big and deep hate is present between muslims and hindus.

And then why should we add to the list of possible social conficts the multicultural factor?. Or in other words, has the multiculti factor been some time a source of peace and harmony somewhere?.

Note that I'm rationalicing racialism now. I said first it was an instinct, but besides it is reasonable and based, lol.


N.B. And at least you have the honesty and decency re Latin Americans. (Would some other Spaniards on this forum do so though?)

YES OF COURSE, :picard2: , you're being unfair with us. Take off your head CV and gallop and you'll see things a bit more clear.

[Tooting Carmen]

Not that a racial homogeneity is a guarantee for social peace and happyness, I'm not so naive to say that. Religion and economics are causes of struggle and conflict. Look at India and Pakistan, same race but nevertheless their separation was a huge blood bath ans still today a big and deep hate is present between muslims and hindus.

And then why should we add to the list of possible social conficts the multicultural factor?. Ot in other words, has the multiculti factor been some time a source of peace and harmony somewhere?.

Note that I'm rationalicing racialism now. I said first it was an instinct, but besides it is reasonable and based, lol.

Many of the problems ascribed to multiracial nations aren't necessarily to do with them being multiracial per se, but to do with discriminatory laws and practices and their legacy. South Africa and much of the US practiced Apartheid for a long time, and Brazil and Cuba also used to have discriminatory laws regarding Blacks and property ownership etc, even though it didn't quite amount to full-scale Apartheid. And like you said, race/ethnicity aren't the sole causes of conflict: Northern Irish Catholics and Protestants look pretty much identical, yet even today they still have so-called "peace walls" between the two communities in the poorer parts of Belfast. (A BBC documentary about NI I saw hosted by a Black South African woman visiting it said that, in some ways, the divisions there were actually worse than in SA!)


YES OF COURSE, :picard2: , you're being unfair with us. Take off your head CV and gallop and you'll see things a bit more clear.

Those are two particularly extreme examples, but let's face it: most Spaniards in this forum (even more than some other Western nationalities, I would hasten to add) are quite right-leaning to varying degrees and would have been at least indifferent/tolerant if not outright supportive of Franco.

[B01AB20]

Maybe, two Americans know history (I am one of them) and I scored 90 percent on a pew research scientific knowledge quiz so I am racist because ironically I am not as ignorant and uneducated as the average American. The average American is a dumbfuck who thinks blacks are equal because they make low IQ rap, porn and are good at a lot of sports, Asians aren't that fucking stupid you better believe they know blacks are inferior not absolutely but in key areas that really matter.

So you're racist against blacks because they're inferior. OK.

But do you rather live in a multiculti society along with smart asians or in an homogeneous society with only average ignorant and uneducated (your words) white americans?

By 'homogeneous' I don't mean 100%, but above 90%.

[Beowulf]

Possibly Canada? (The Quebec issue notwithstanding). New Zealand is not too bad either. But generally I agree, homogeneous societies tend to be more peaceful and cohesive, at least insofar as they do not have large socioeconomic disparities, which isn't guaranteed.

N.B. And at least you have the honesty and decency re Latin Americans. (Would some other Spaniards on this forum do so though?)

I agree with B01AB20, Latin Americans are very integrated here even one of my best friends is son of Latin American parents

[Tooting Carmen]

I agree with B01AB20, Latin Americans are very integrated here even one of my best friends is son of Latin American parents

But do Spaniards make a distinction between White(r) Latin Americans and those who look blatantly Mestizo/Mulatto/Black/Amerindian, or not really?

[PierreUno]

I think some people living in the developed world who put a lot of emphasis on race do so in the pursuit of self-expression. Having a defined identity and a distilled sense of self is very important in the 21st century.

Today people undertake the road to a sense of self more consciously and strategically than ever before. We no longer become who we are just willy-nilly. We design and contrive our way to selfhood with dollars and wireless.

One guy may be polyamorous and organize his schedule around consuming anime, another guy might attend viking concerts and organize his beliefs around his haplogroup. Today pastimes don't just pass the time, and individuality is a muscle that can be trained.

Actuallly, most people wouldn't even think about race that much if liberals did not force people to mix socially. It is not about self worth since my IQ is at least in the 120s the average American black IQ is 85 that is like a profoundly mentally retarded chimp compared to me relatively speaking. You know scientific giants (titans) such as Charles Darwin and the godfather of DNA James Watson are considered racist right ? Who are anti-racist liberals ? Scientifically iliterate dumb fucks.

Multiculturalism: According to liberals, the necessity of having a society composed of many different ethnic, racial and sexual types in order to make people see that 'the only real race is the human race'; actually, a formula for social unrest and chronic unhappiness as a result of different ethnic, racial and sexual minorities all vying with one another for power and influence and hating each other as a result.

Intolerance: According to liberals, an irrational refusal to interact with others, usually because they belong to a different group; actually, the courage to stand up to liberal bullying and exercise one's right of free association.

Extremist: According to liberals, a wild-eyed bomb-throwing cross- burning hate-filled government-bashing rabble-rousing gun-loving lunatic; actually, a sensible person who wishes to preserve his culture, his country and his race, and who therefore does not appreciate having his nation, his own neighborhood or his own business overrun by alien hordes, druggies, welfarites, criminals, voodooists, homosexuals, AIDS carriers, or any of the other "diverse" groups which liberals are so assiduous in championing.



Equality: According to liberals, what all men have; actually, what all men don't have.

Discrimination: According to liberals, a horrible crime in which certain groups are treated unjustly and as inferiors for no good reason; actually, a natural reaction of reluctance by the members of one group to interact or mix with the members of a different group, usually because the two groups are different, it being natural for people to seek out others of their own kind.

Prejudice/Bigotry: According to liberals, an irrational dislike of the members of another group; actually, a sensible reaction of suspicion to those with whom one is unacquainted, or a rational reaction to the warnings which one has received from trusted persons about the members of certain groups.

Racism: According to liberals, hating others because of their skin tone; actually, having the sense to see that skin color is a marker of often- profound differences which lead people to take account of those differences -- differences which reinforce the natural desire of each person to live, work, marry and mingle with his own kind.


Hate: According to liberals, an undesirably-negative state of mind, usually exhibited for no good reason toward members of groups to which one does not belong; actually, the kind of emotion which sensible people exhibit toward bad things (as they might exhibit toward blacks because of their high crime rate and low achievement level), and which liberals exhibit in tremendous abundance toward anyone who questions their dogmas.

[Beowulf]

But do Spaniards make a distinction between White(r) Latin Americans and those who look blatantly Mestizo/Mulatto/Black/Amerindian, or not really?

No, the only Important thing is to respect each other even if you are Mulatto or Mestizo etc... In spain we don't really care about that, there would be people that yes but in this case in average we don't really care about that.

[B01AB20]

Those are two particularly extreme examples, but let's face it: most Spaniards in this forum (even more than some other Western nationalities, I would hasten to add) are quite right-leaning to varying degrees and would have been at least indifferent/tolerant if not outright supportive of Franco.

Franco was not specially racist IFAIK, and he tried to be good friend with Latinamerican countries, even with Castro and Allende.
Not a valid reason, not a logic reason for your prejudices against us man.

You could make a poll with that cuestion to be answered by spaniards here, I'm sure you'll be surprised.

[axel.aleman]

But do Spaniards make a distinction between White(r) Latin Americans and those who look blatantly Mestizo/Mulatto/Black/Amerindian, or not really?

Si pero Cristiano Viejo como no me metia con el me trataba bastante mejor que mongrels como Konan, Hasien y otros. En España cuando fui dos semanas no tuve ningun problema
Y eso que ademas de parecer dominicano tambien podria haberme confundido con alguien del Magreb

[PierreUno]

So you're racist against blacks because they're inferior. OK.

But do you rather live in a multiculti society along with smart asians or in an homogeneous society with only average ignorant and uneducated (your words) white americans?

By 'homogeneous' I don't mean 100%, but above 90%.

You think you are sophisticated but you aren't since Western culture is arguably superior to asian culture(s) and blacks are the bottom of the barrel here. Blacks are low IQ, criminal, and low achievement. Neil Degresse Tyson ? He writes books for laymans instead of other scientists because he is not that smart he is a token negro.

[PierreUno]

As I wrote here: https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?352685-How-d-you-react-if-English-replaced-your-country-s-native-language-as-the-official-language/page3
"I just find the dissonance in values and priorities that many forum users have risible (not saying you specifically). They complain if their neighbourhood or city changes from 99% White to 93% White, but seem (at least by comparison) quite relaxed at seeing their native language disappear or being subsumed." Let us discuss.

Racist: The term the liberal uses to call a man a nigger.

One of the most difficult of all things to endure for a crow, a raven, a wolf, or a human is to feel alone and separated from one's own kind. A sense of belonging is one of the most universal of all feelings -Lawrence Kilham (1989), quoted in Candace Savage, Bird Brains: The Intelligence of Crows, Ravens, Magpies, and Jays, Sierra Club, 1995: 61

In the present day the term racist is usually considered an insult, and hardly a day goes by without some white man saying how horrible he thinks racism is or apologizing for the racism of his ancestors. More than this, many acts presumed to be motivated by racism have now been made illegal, and others which are already illegal are given enhanced penalties when motivated by racism. But white racism -- which happens to be the only kind denounced by our wonderful liberal media, which gives a pass to the racism of blacks, hispanics, Jews and that of just about every other group -- is not only defensible, but actually desirable, while the opposing anti- racist liberal philosophy which advocates "equality", "integration", "tolerance" and "multiculturalism" is not only bad for most of those affected by it, but is in fact preparing the ground for the breakup of our nation on the rocks of racial strife.

To begin, let us ask what is generally meant by the term racist -- excluding, that is, the implication that those to whom it applies are somehow "evil". The answer is evidently something along the following lines:

A racist is a man who honors his race, reveres his ancestry, prefers -- like virtually everyone -- to be with his own kind, and believes that his genetic inheritance is worth preserving in the same way that liberals believe that the spotted owl, snail darter, American Indians and Australian aborigines are worth preserving.

From this definition it can be seen that there is nothing whatsoever the matter with being a racist, and indeed that if liberal logic is followed in the case of the spotted owl and Australian aborigines, then liberalism is compatible with every sort of racism -- not that liberals would follow their own logic, or any logic, for that matter.

Now it is true that racists are sometimes accused of "hate" in their attitude toward other races, and it must be admitted that there are probably some racists who do hate the members of other races in some fashion or another. Hate, however, has nothing to do with racism per se: While a man may love or care about his own race, this does not mean that he has any special negative feelings about other races, any more than a man who loves his family can be said to hate other families.

But if hate is not a part of racism per se, there is obviously an emotional distance between the feelings a man has for his own race and the feeling he has about the races which are not his own -- feelings which in some cases may be positive, in some indifferent, in some negative in one degree or another. And there is a very simple explanation for these feelings: If a group survives, this means its members have a special feeling for one another which keeps the group together, and thus a fortiori excludes outsiders. In fact, the success of a group's survival as a group is proportional to the intensity of the positive feelings which the members have for the group, and thus is proportional to the intensity of the negative feelings which the members have for other "competing" groups. Or to put it another way, negative feelings about other groups -- including hate -- are nature's way of insuring group survival. Thus we see that every group from families to nations depends on "love" for the group by the members and "hate" (in a relative sense) of other groups and their members.

In ordinary circumstances, group "love" and group "hate" are rarely evident in any population, but they do become evident -- and in fact can become extremely intense -- in circumstances in which the group is threatened. In wartime, for example, the enemy is often depicted as morally depraved monsters; but when the war is over, normal relations resume in which the former enemy becomes "normal". Certainly this situation occurred in both World Wars, the Cold War and the Viet Nam War.

Among those most often thought to exhibit race "hatred" are "rednecks", "skinheads", "Archie Bunkers" and other whites from the lower economic strata who are thought to be too stupid, uneducated or otherwise unsophisticated to understand the wonders and marvels of the highbrow liberal multicultural philosophy. Such people are indeed often unsophisticated, and frequently exhibit strong negative emotions toward nonwhites, with the result that they make themselves easy targets for liberal anti-racists, who have little difficulty in holding them up to contempt. As it happens, however, the liberals are too clever by half. The very reason that lower-class whites frequently exhibit such strong negative emotions toward nonwhites is precisely because it is lower-class whites who are the first to be directly threatened by nonwhites. This is because it is those on the economic margins who cannot afford to move to the suburbs to get away from the urban decay which blacks and other minorities inevitably bring; and thus it is these lower-class whites who must contend on a daily basis with the frequently-uncivilized behavior of such minorities. What all this means, then, is that the liberals who pride themselves on "compassion" for the "poor" and the "underclass" in fact follow policies which damage poor and underclass whites, but which leave the mostly-wealthy liberals unaffected. No wonder the rednecks, skinheads and Archie Bunkers are full of hate!

The urban decay which minorities bring -- and the hate which it generates in the white underclass that has to contend with it -- is actually part of a race war which is going on not only in America, but in the entire Western world. In fact, it is really more than a race war, since groups other than races are involved: ethnic minorities, women, homosexuals, the handicapped, children, and a great many others, with yet others constantly entering the fray. This war may perhaps better be characterized as a war of political correctness versus political incorrectness, or for simplicity, the PC war. But while this war has the appearance of being fought "for" a large number of disparate groups, even cursory examination leads to the conclusion that the PC war is actually a war against the white man and Western culture which he created. This is not merely indicated by the fact that whites are constantly denigrated as "racist" by the media mavens who are pushing this war in every Western country, but also because the powers-that-be who have embraced political correctness as official policy have also embraced the notion of erasing national boundaries -- boundaries which, for all practical purposes, are the boundaries of white nations. The significance of this erasure is that it will cause the white nations -- along with their cultures and genomes -- to disappear, both because of amalgamation with other white nations and -- most importantly -- because of Turd World immigration which national boundaries will no longer be able to restrain, and which will occur as a result of the attraction of Turd-Worlders for the easier living (and especially the welfare benefits) of more wealthy societies.

The obvious question raised by the above observations is, What is fueling the PC war? While there is perhaps no easy single answer, there are several factors which are playing a major role. One of these is the economic factor: Turd-Worlders work for less, and allowing open-border immigration drives down wages which large corporations have to pay, while permitting free trade allows companies to relocate overseas in the midst of even cheaper labor. Beyond this, the PC war gives large corporations a competitive advantage over their smaller rivals: Implementing affirmative action and other anti-racist programs costs money, and smaller companies have more difficulty in meeting the expenses than do the more-established ones.

Yet a second reason for the PC war is the abundance which white Western culture has produced. This occurs because white men -- unlike those of most other cultures -- possess a compassionate nature which makes them sympathetic to the less-fortunate, and this characteristic -- once exhibited as a messianic zeal to convert "the lesser breeds without the law" to Christianity and civilized ways of living -- has been transmogrified in the present secular age into a propensity toward welfare handouts, the relaxation of immigration restrictions, and other behaviors which ultimately endanger the very civilization which produced the benefits for which Turd-Worlders so hunger.

Of equal if not greater importance than company economics and Western abundance in fueling the PC war is a third factor -- the Jewish community. Altho Jews make up less than 3% of the American population, they are enormously wealthy and powerful, and in addition have a strong ethnic (or if you prefer, racial) identity. Furthermore, there has been a long history of Jewish persecution by white Christian culture, from well before the Inquisition to WWII Germany; and this has bred into Jews a profound anti-gentile mindset and a "never forgive, never forget" and "eye for an eye" Talmudic mentality whose logic seeks to repay the gentile community in kind for the Jews' historic sufferings, even tho Jews have long been accepted into Western society and most of those who persecuted them are long since dead. Evidently, then, Jews have both the means and the motive for fueling the PC war; and while the subject of their involvement is too complicated for this brief essay, the following are some facts which deserve to be noted:

Communism was an essentially Jewish phenomenon, and constituted a worldwide conspiracy for what amounts to Jewish political dominance.

In the late 1920s the American communist party decided to deliberately promote racial strife with the view to weakening America for a communist (hence Jewish) takeover.

For many of its early years, the major officials and lawyers of the NAACP were Jews.

A large portion of the activists in the Civil Rights movement were Jews.

Most of the major figures in the feminist movement were Jews.

Jews are a dominant force in newspapers, television and Hollywood, and these media have incessantly promoted the liberal anti-racist PC line.

Jews contribute more than half the operating funds of the (liberal) Democratic Party, dominate the Congress (Pat Buchanan called it "Israeli- occupied territory"), and hold more than 50% of the appointed posts in the Clinton administration and probably an even higher percentage of the Biden administration.

In the present day, the major enemy of free speech -- a specially- cherished value of Western culture -- is the Jewish community, which has forced passage of laws against questioning the Orthodox Jewish Version of the Holocaust in most of the countries of the Western world, and which seeks to stifle free speech on the Internet in the interests of political correctness.

In the paragraphs above we have pointed out that the PC war is a war against the white race and Western culture which whites created, and we also noted that, in many respects, the PC war is a war of Jew against white gentile. The PC war, then, is essentially a race war, and the survival of what is arguably the world's greatest race -- a race which is only 18% or less of the world's population, and hence is itself a minority in this worldwide context -- hangs in the balance.

And that's why I'm a white racist.

[Tooting Carmen]

Franco was not specially racist IFAIK, and he tried to be good friend with Latinamerican countries, even with Castro and Allende.

Franco was more isolationist and traditionalist rather than racist per se, I agree. (Certainly not much if at all more racist than supposedly enlightened democrats of his time like De Gaulle, Churchill, Roosevelt etc.) And as you know, I myself ages ago opened a thread about the Castro-Franco (semi) friendship.


Not a valid reason, not a logic reason for your prejudices against us man.

Don't get me wrong: in real life I love Spain and Spaniards, and I don't think the ones on this forum are such a representative cross section of Spanish political opinion, with all due respect.


You could make a poll with that cuestion to be answered by spaniards here, I'm sure you'll be surprised.

I already did years ago and several users (including you) answered. From what I recall, the results were, well, mixed and ambiguous.

[B01AB20]

You think you are sophisticated but you aren't since Western culture is arguably superior to asian culture(s) and blacks are the bottom of the barrel here. Blacks are low IQ, criminal, and low achievement. Neil Degresse Tyson ? He writes books for laymans instead of other scientists because he is not that smart he is a token negro.

Definitely I'm not enough sophisticated to understand someone as complicated as you. I use your own words and arguments to ask you a simple cuestion, but you keep saying blacks are incapable, (OK, we got it) and western culture is superior...

Only a guess, but maybe as an american you're not able to conceive what is to live in a homogeneous society, given your history, multiculti since the beginning, and the massive brainwashing of your powerful mass-media.

[B01AB20]

Don't get me wrong: in real life I love Spain and Spaniards, and I don't think the ones on this forum are such a representative cross section of Spanish political opinion, with all due respect.

Actually I think the ones on this forum right now are a more realistic representation of Spanish political opinion than ever was. Not so overwhelming right-wing leaning as it was.
Even we have some true moderates nowadays (not me of course because my racialist views)




I already did years ago and several users (including you) answered. From what I recall, the results were, well, mixed and ambiguous.

It's a pity I can't remember that.

[PierreUno]

Definitely I'm not enough sophisticated to understand someone as complicated as you. I use your own words and arguments to ask you a simple cuestion, but you keep saying blacks are incapable, (OK, we got it) and western culture is superior...

I answered your question dumbo through implication in the former part of my answer. In reality I would really like to live in SouthWest England if you want to know the real truth.


Only a guess, but maybe as an american you're not able to conceive what is to live in a homogeneous society, given your history, multiculti since the beginning, and the massive brainwashing of your powerful mass-media.

You mean like the invading Moors, Visigoths, and the current immigrant invaders to Spain ?


https://i.postimg.cc/9XwFVymT/Lily-Cole-as-the-Tudor-Queen-in-Channel-5-s-Elizabeth-I-945425.webp

https://i.postimg.cc/0Q0g25BT/defeat.webp

[B01AB20]

I answered your question dumbo through implication in the former part of my answer. In reality I would really like to live in SouthWest England if you want to know the real truth.



You mean like the invading Moors, Visigoths, and the current immigrant invaders to Spain ?


https://i.postimg.cc/9XwFVymT/Lily-Cole-as-the-Tudor-Queen-in-Channel-5-s-Elizabeth-I-945425.webp

https://i.postimg.cc/mkWxTzjN/defeat-of-the-spanish-armada-1588-n.webp

And what has to do with anything we're talking 'la Grande y Felicisima Armada'??? (original name in spanish, not very fortunate indeed)

You turned a normal exchange of opinions in a dumb nationalistic confrontation. It seems it is a custom of yours.

Ok, take a taste of your own medicine, you participated in this thread not so long ago.

https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?364497-The-not-so-invincible-english-armada

You're unstable and kind of irrational, always repeating the same arguments no matter where.

I leave you alone with your obsessions and I wish you a total recovery.

[de Burgh II]

Statistically speaking, homogeneous societies report more life satisfaction and are more culturally successful in cooperating to maintain said societies compared to heterogeneous societies. Whereas in heterogeneous/multiculti societies; there is a higher prevalence of social unrest, voluntary racial segregation and an increase in mental illness/mental disorders. Humans are instinctively tribal and a social species. In other words, people will instinctively gravitate towards their own in-group race they feel most comfortable with. You can't override one's instincts that was gifted to you by nature for this very reason.

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

I emphasize IQ above all else. Everything else is aesthetics. In the future genetic engineering and then eventually the melding of AI with humanity will make your petty squabbles irrelevant.

[PierreUno]

Statistically speaking, homogeneous societies report more life satisfaction and are more culturally successful in cooperating to maintain said societies compared to heterogeneous societies. Whereas in heterogeneous/multiculti societies; there is a higher prevalence of social unrest, voluntary racial segregation and an increase in mental illness/mental disorders. Humans are instinctively tribal and a social species. In other words, people will instinctively gravitate towards their own in-group race they feel most comfortable with. You can't override one's instincts that was gifted to you by nature for this very reason.

There are studies that show people go into turtle mode in their apartments in multi-cultural cities etc.. anyway, I basically agree with you more or less.

[rothaer]

Why do so many in this forum put so much more emphasis on race than culture or language?
As I wrote here: https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?352685-How-d-you-react-if-English-replaced-your-country-s-native-language-as-the-official-language/page3
"I just find the dissonance in values and priorities that many forum users have risible (not saying you specifically). They complain if their neighbourhood or city changes from 99% White to 93% White, but seem (at least by comparison) quite relaxed at seeing their native language disappear or being subsumed." Let us discuss.

I know that I do not answer the question, but I want to tell my take in brief:

As for Germans there is no White or non-White topic, neither is there a subrace topic.

All ethnic Germans are White like they have two arms and two legs. Germans have various typological subraces, which I never considered having any practical relevance (in spite of that I found it interesting). And after DNA tests do show that German individuals (and not just they, of course) have a genetic in line with their actual ancestry regardless of their typologial look, the individual subracial typology becomes even more irrelevant and not even interesting anymore. What is more interesting is the actual genetic.

But the only thing of relevance to me was and is the ethnicity, because the populations do exist in ethnicities as procreation communities and essentially all other conditions like genetics, language, culture, social loyalty and togetherhang are derived from and defined (with a certain spread) by that.

What I say, to me applies to Germany and Europe. If I would be a Brazilian I'd likely focus on other things, but that's another story.

[Occiput in Starlight]

"Now all my tales are based on the fundamental premise that common human laws and interests and emotions have no validity or significance in the vast cosmos-at-large.... To achieve the essence of real externality, whether of time or space or dimension, one must forget that such things as organic life, good and evil, love and hate, and all such local attributes of a negligible and temporary race called mankind, have any existence at all."

-H.P. Lovecraft

[axel.aleman]

Yo priorizó similitud cultural, aquí en Panamá los inmigrantes dominicanos como tienen la mayor similitud cultural son los que mejor se adaptan y la convivencia es buena. A diferencia de la vieja inmigración anglocaribeña y las nuevas inmigración sudamericana y centroamericana

[B01AB20]

You are retarded America was originally an English colony and was a WASP country up until at least the 1930s. I am unstable ? That is a meaningless non-scientific argument since your ICD is like your Catholic bible.

You forgot to address the 'irrational' qualifying term, lol.

don't know what is 'ICD', and honestly I'm as interested in know it as I'm in reading 'my Catholic Bible'.

The Bible, catholic or protestant, is a meaningless non-scientific argument.

I refrain from returning the insult to you, is a meaningless non-scientific argument., and besides it is not necessary to point out the obvious.

I feel more and more sophisticated every time I answer a post of yours, so I stop here and now before I die of overdose of sophistication.

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

And how does alnortedelusr's ancestry come out so vividly then?

The irony is you're both completely different people.

[Blondie]

Your ancestry does come out in both of your personalities though. If you were fully British or White would you be so concerned with foreign languages/cultures or constantly making threads about race-mixing? I doubt.

Tooting Carmen is a fetishist in the case of blacks. His obsession has nothing to do with his mixed background, i think. Its pure fetishism, just like when Morti makes threads about nazism or being white.

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

It's bad enough Tooting Carmen wants the Black cock, but the real crime is his interest in languages and concern for foreign cultures reveals an intellectual curiosity that is subversive to the White race.

[Token]

I think some people living in the developed world who put a lot of emphasis on race do so in the pursuit of self-expression. Having a defined identity and a distilled sense of self is very important in the 21st century.

Today people undertake the road to a sense of self more consciously and strategically than ever before. We no longer become who we are just willy-nilly. We design and contrive our way to selfhood with dollars and wireless.

One guy may be polyamorous and organize his schedule around consuming anime, another guy might attend viking concerts and organize his beliefs around his haplogroup. Today pastimes don't just pass the time, and individuality is a muscle that can be trained.

You just defined postmodernity very well. A Neo-Pagan guy who identifies with his haplogroup and autosomal results in a crap genetic test is as much subjugated by the postmodern ideology as a non-binary guy who waves a LGBT flag on the street. Hstory repeats ifself, first as tragedy, second as a farce.

[Incal]

As I wrote here: https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?352685-How-d-you-react-if-English-replaced-your-country-s-native-language-as-the-official-language/page3
"I just find the dissonance in values and priorities that many forum users have risible (not saying you specifically). They complain if their neighbourhood or city changes from 99% White to 93% White, but seem (at least by comparison) quite relaxed at seeing their native language disappear or being subsumed." Let us discuss.

1) Because this is a racialist forum. It's like joining a Pizza forum and ask why members don't like Sushi.

2) Most people on here are autists, aspies, introverts or very socially awkward. That kind of individuals just judge things by their looks, nothing else. Things like culture are concepts too abstract to them.

3) With the exception of Latin Americans and some Europeans, the rest of the members (mostly anglo or immigrants) are very low class. You can't expect a redneck to talk about language or culture.



Maybe not as much, but I might still be interested in languages at least. And how does alnortedelusr's ancestry come out so vividly then?

Because he lives in the US (weirdo HQ). Así que cada año que pasa se agringa más.

[Thracian]

A Kenyan man who grows up in UK and adopted to British society culturally and speak English fluently is still an African. He will be a foreigner always.

[bvnny]

Well, even tho on the banner it reads that this is "A European Cultural Community", I have always seen TA mainly as a forum about human phenotypes, so it doesn't surprise me that lots of users think more about race rather than culture or language.

Anyways, do I think that's right? Idk, frankly not smt I personally care much about either way (even tho I'm personally more prone to value someone's culture rather than his/her race, culture exchange is always interesting, independently of race).

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

Because he lives in the US (weirdo HQ). Así que cada año que pasa se agringa más.

It has less to do with being in the US and more to do with the Internet. He'd be this way whether he was living in Venezuela or the US because he'd have access to the internet. It's access to a peculiar online culture.

[Dandelion]

The US used to be more hilarious when more languages were spoken, with English as lingua franca. People were considered weird openly without any butthurt about it. Here's how Anglo Americans stereotyped NY Italian immigrants in 1936.

https://youtu.be/48N6aeI4Suc?t=211

[Chaos One]

1) Because this is a racialist forum. It's like joining a Pizza forum and ask why members don't like Sushi.

That's it. Basically speaking, if you want to enter the fray here, the rules are set for a long time and trying to go against the tide is basically losing your time.

The focus here is racialism (or racism). There're some spots which you can avoid this kind of discussion if you want, but after you just "join" the whole group of users, good luck trying to change the song. And for real, if people are here to discuss this, that it is and life goes on.

[Smeagol]

Race precipitates culture

Yup. A nation of Hottentots couldn't keep up European civilization no matter if they were all born and raised there.

[alnortedelsur]

Not that I usually like to personalise things; nevertheless, let us not forget that you and I both have some non-white admixture, and as we know the correlation between genotype and phenotype can be very fuzzy. Therefore, if either one of us were three shades darker in skintone and/or with Amerindian eyes and cheekbones, would that give others the 'right' to hate and fear us?

That is not our case because I'm well above 80% Euro and actually pretty close to 90% Euro, and your case (even though you haven't been tested) must be very similar to mine. Too little non-Euro admixture as for looking "obviously mixed" or anything other than pretty much plain European.

And you should stop reducing to be opposed to multi-racial/multi-culturalism as something evil, and portraying people who are against it, and who are on behalf of more homogeneous societeis, because they just want to preserve their own race and culture, as if they were haters, Nazi-like or ku klux klan like people. Things aren't that black or white as you portray them to be.

[Lemminkäinen]

As I wrote here: https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?352685-How-d-you-react-if-English-replaced-your-country-s-native-language-as-the-official-language/page3
"I just find the dissonance in values and priorities that many forum users have risible (not saying you specifically). They complain if their neighbourhood or city changes from 99% White to 93% White, but seem (at least by comparison) quite relaxed at seeing their native language disappear or being subsumed." Let us discuss.

You are right. People losing own language lose also culture. It has happened in many places, but people don't realize it because what is lost is not visible. All European cultures evolved from linguistic identity.

[Occiput in Starlight]

You just defined postmodernity very well. A Neo-Pagan guy who identifies with his haplogroup and autosomal results in a crap genetic test is as much subjugated by the postmodern ideology as a non-binary guy who waves a LGBT flag on the street. Hstory repeats ifself, first as tragedy, second as a farce.

Exactly, Sir.

[Tooting Carmen]

That is not our case because I'm well above 80% Euro and actually pretty close to 90% Euro, and your case (even though you haven't been tested) must be very similar to mine. Too little non-Euro admixture as for looking "obviously mixed" or anything other than pretty much plain European.

Perhaps so, but that still misses my main point that people shouldn't all of a sudden judge us and treat us badly if we by genetic happenstance looked a lot darker and less Euro than is actually the case.


And you should stop reducing to be opposed to multi-racial/multi-culturalism as something evil, and portraying people who are against it, and who are on behalf of more homogeneous societeis, because they just want to preserve their own race and culture, as if they were haters, Nazi-like or ku klux klan like people. Things aren't that black or white as you portray them to be.

See what I wrote to B01AB20. I generally agree that more homogeneous societies tend to be more peaceful and cohesive than more diverse ones, but the case is far from clear cut and there are many potential causes of conflict and division besides just race and ethnicity. After all, as I said Northern Irish Catholics and Protestants look pretty much identical, and NI is probably the whitest part of the UK, yet even today there are still "peace walls" dividing the two communities. And the one who thinks of things in terms of Black and White if anything is you (quite literally, in fact): you have a hatred (or at least severe dislike) of Blacks that goes beyond even the now-banned CV. (CV was a more generalised bigot, but even he didn't fixate on Blacks to anything like the same extent you do). Lastly, two of the three countries you have lived in have been multiracial since their inception, and yet one of them is the (a?) global superpower and the other one prior to the 1990's was considered a (relative) success story for Latin America.

[Tooting Carmen]

Yup. A nation of Hottentots couldn't keep up European civilization no matter if they were all born and raised there.

As if Finland and Albania were just as wealthy, developed and peaceful as each other...

[renaissance12]

I'm no a big fan of Scandinavia (only from a cultural point of view .. 5 of my best sport men all time are from Norway -Karsten Warholm -Erling Braut Haaland - and Sweden - Stefan Holm- Borg -Stenmark ...) but I'm a little sorry that in the next 100 years it will no longer be possible - in Italy- , to recognize whether a group of tourists comes from Scandinavia or from France or Spain.. and in 200 years it will no longer be possible to recognize whether the group of tourists comes from Scandinavia or from Egypt.. All the world will turn brown, a mix of Caucasian Chinese Indian and Negroes..and this change will be much bigger in Scandinavia.

30-40 years ago in Vicenza it was possible to recognize a group of american soldiers ( 35-40 % of them looked nordic ) .. Today ? No.

[catgeorge]

In my first year at Uni I dated a sweet smart honey Irish babe.
But she couldn't pronounce Greek food and that's a deal breaker.

I don't think I could have ever married a non Greek maybe Italian if I met the right one. But thats all history now.

[Grace O'Malley]

Perhaps so, but that still misses my main point that people shouldn't all of a sudden judge us and treat us badly if we by genetic happenstance looked a lot darker and less Euro than is actually the case.



See what I wrote to B01AB20. I generally agree that more homogeneous societies tend to be more peaceful and cohesive than more diverse ones, but the case is far from clear cut and there are many potential causes of conflict and division besides just race and ethnicity. After all, as I said Northern Irish Catholics and Protestants look pretty much identical, and NI is probably the whitest part of the UK, yet even today there are still "peace walls" dividing the two communities. And the one who thinks of things in terms of Black and White if anything is you (quite literally, in fact): you have a hatred (or at least severe dislike) of Blacks that goes beyond even the now-banned CV. (CV was a more generalised bigot, but even he didn't fixate on Blacks to anything like the same extent you do). Lastly, two of the three countries you have lived in have been multiracial since their inception, and yet one of them is the (a?) global superpower and the other one prior to the 1990's was considered a (relative) success story for Latin America.

NI is an unusual situation and was due to colonialism where Scots and some English were put into Northern Ireland to change the dynamics and create a loyal population for the British at the expense of the native Irish population also due to the long term discrimination of Catholics. So it's not correct to use that example as there are political and historical reasons why those populations were antagonistic.

[Tooting Carmen]

NI is an unusual situation and was due to colonialism where Scots and some English were put into Northern Ireland to change the dynamics and create a loyal population for the British at the expense of the native Irish population also due to the long term discrimination of Catholics. So it's not correct to use that example as there are political and historical reasons why those populations were antagonistic.

If you read what I wrote above, I make roughly the same point about the US and South Africa. In other words, the problem hasn't been their multiracial compositions per se, but the way certain groups were discriminated against both socially and legally.

[White Swan]

Someone probably already said this, but culture is downstream from race. Just like how your family has specific traits they inherited, so does your extended family (race).

[Grace O'Malley]

If you read what I wrote above, I make roughly the same point about the US and South Africa. In other words, the problem hasn't been their multiracial compositions per se, but the way certain groups were discriminated against both socially and legally.

In NI though crime has always been low. Most of the problems were due to sectarianism and the other issues in Northern Ireland which don't have to be gone over here. South Africa and the US have different issues. Northern Ireland has the lowest crime rates in the UK per capita. South Africa's crime rates are one of the highest in the world and the black population in the US has very high crime rates so there is some differences in this other than being discriminated against. My point was that the problems in Northern Ireland were political and there are different issues in South Africa and the US among the populations. Now that there is the GFA in Northern Ireland the population is very stable and as I've said crime rates are low. Problems that flair up are due to the unique issues of Northern Ireland with Unionists and Republicans.

[Mixdguy17]

Bcs being an asshole is easy and critical thinking is harder, xdxd.

[HannibaltheGreat]

That is not our case because I'm well above 80% Euro and actually pretty close to 90% Euro, and your case (even though you haven't been tested) must be very similar to mine. Too little non-Euro admixture as for looking "obviously mixed" or anything other than pretty much plain European.

And you should stop reducing to be opposed to multi-racial/multi-culturalism as something evil, and portraying people who are against it, and who are on behalf of more homogeneous societeis, because they just want to preserve their own race and culture, as if they were haters, Nazi-like or ku klux klan like people. Things aren't that black or white as you portray them to be.

You tend to think homogeneity in society is mainly about race when it isn't. In latin America, homogeneity is more aligned with culture. In africa they are all blacks but their problems isnt about them hating each other for being black. Its more often tensions between ethnic groups of each other.

One of the reasons Western europeans were more stable is because all the different sub groups mixed and formed a newer, more homogeneous identity that they all can all share. And they all adopted parts of other peoples culture. Usually, the group is the more dominant or i fluential culture.
While people like slavs, greeks croats albanians ect were killing each other for the last century till just recently. Refusing to mix and assimilate with each other for the most part. In africa, different ethnic groups that had historical contempt and hate for each other were put in the same borders, which eventually became their countries. They weren't divided up into their real ethnos. They were just divided up into borders made for different purposes.


The tensions tend to be either religious or ethnic (cultural) in most parts of the world. In most parts of the world, race is the least concern.

If you want to be with your "own" thats fine. But your own isn't some polish guy. Your own isn't russian, your own isn't greek, your own isn't french. Your own isn't scottish or irish.

It's venezuelan and spanish.

[Annihilus]

I am a cultural racist so culture>race

[Smeagol]

As if Finland and Albania were just as wealthy, developed and peaceful as each other...

Finns and Albanians aren't necessarily equal either. Finns have higher IQs. But they're obviously much closer to each other than they are to any colored races.

[Hulu]

As if Finland and Albania were just as wealthy, developed and peaceful as each other...

Why is this mongrel obsessed with Albanians

[Richmondbread]

Because it's common sense

[Mejgusu]

Language isn’t necessarily very important, but culture is. Culture defines advantages/disadvantages of an ethnic group, not some outdated nonsense like „race“. For example Roman/Greek culture made Europe advantaged, they brought civilization to Europe.

[Petalpusher]

Race precipitates culture

It precipitates everything, we wouldn't speak Indo European languages if IEs didn't invade westward in the last major part of Caucasian's ethnogenesis. We could speak however a Bantu language or Chinese, if Africans and East Asian had settled in West Eurasia instead.


Even in the small sample of this thread it's already very statistically significant with a clear pattern. You can't choose to save something you don't have anymore, it's not a choice if there is only one option left. Mixed people, even to small extent apparently, are going to choose language over race, because there is no other choice anyway for them as they don't have a unique defined race anymore. Bare a few exceptions for fancy purposes, the others will place race above language as the priority. So predictable it's not even funny.

[Aldaris]

You tend to think homogeneity in society is mainly about race when it isn't. In latin America, homogeneity is more aligned with culture. In africa they are all blacks but their problems isnt about them hating each other for being black. Its more often tensions between ethnic groups of each other.

'Black' isn't a race. Some groups of Africans that are labeled by people with no knowledge of genetics as just 'black' can be further apart than Europeans and east Asians. But that's just a remark, it's not that important.

I agree to some extent. It's often different ethnicities of the same race that hate each other, Gemans and Poles for example. But even being of the ethnicity (which I define as being of the same ancestry and culture) doesn't guarantee anything. Look at Russians and Ukrainians, Russians and Poles, Croats and Serbians. In all those three examples, those groups are not just the same race, but the same ethnicity aswell, yet they aren't exactly the best friends.


One of the reasons Western europeans were more stable is because all the different sub groups mixed and formed a newer, more homogeneous identity that they all can all share. And they all adopted parts of other peoples culture. Usually, the group is the more dominant or i fluential culture.

Here I disagree. If I was a pure Basque, I would not feel any ethnical connection to a Norwegian just because we would be both western European and in the same way, if I was a pure Czech I wouldn't feel any ethnical connection to Hungarians just because we would be both eastern European. 'Western European' or 'eastern European' aren't ethnic groups (though they are all the same race). So no, there is no 'homogeneous identity' in either case.

[Blondie]

Here I disagree. If I was a pure Basque, I would not feel any ethnical connection to a Norwegian just because we would be both western European and in the same way, if I was a pure Czech I wouldn't feel any ethnical connection to Hungarians just because we would be both eastern European. 'Western European' or 'eastern European' aren't ethnic groups (though they are all the same race). So no, there is no 'homogeneous identity' in either case.

Hungarians are unique east european group, but im sure you feel connection to other slavs and i think most slavs do same. This conflict between russians and ukrainians was made by CIA and its hate propaganda, but i am sure the average ukrainian or russian citizen dont hate each other, but maybe im wrong here.

[Mortimer]

It precipitates everything, we wouldn't speak Indo European languages if IEs didn't invade westward in the last major part of Caucasian's ethnogenesis. We could speak however a Bantu language or Chinese, if Africans and East Asian had settled in West Eurasia instead.


Even in the small sample of this thread it's already very statistically significant with a clear pattern. You can't choose to save something you don't have anymore, it's not a choice if there is only one option left. Mixed people, even to small extent apparently, are going to choose language over race, because there is no other choice anyway for them as they don't have a unique defined race anymore. Bare a few exceptions for fancy purposes, the others will place race above language as the priority. So predictable it's not even funny.

First define "race". Do you consider western eurasian to be a race, or european? Do you consider a greek cypriot who may look like maria pakakis to be the same race as a typical hallstatt nordid scandinavian? And is "race" ancestry or "phenotype"? What if two people with similar ancestries look very different and you could think they are different races, like that black and white twin, which they showed in the media some time ago?

https://edition.cnn.com/2015/03/03/living/feat-black-white-twins/index.html

[Mortimer]

As I wrote here: https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?352685-How-d-you-react-if-English-replaced-your-country-s-native-language-as-the-official-language/page3
"I just find the dissonance in values and priorities that many forum users have risible (not saying you specifically). They complain if their neighbourhood or city changes from 99% White to 93% White, but seem (at least by comparison) quite relaxed at seeing their native language disappear or being subsumed." Let us discuss.

I for once dont complain about either, im ok if all speak english and im ok if we all are mullatos or a mullato-euroasian race

[Aldaris]

Hungarians are unique east european group, but im sure you feel connection to other slavs and i think most slavs do same. This conflict between russians and ukrainians was made by CIA and its hate propaganda, but i am sure the average ukrainian or russian citizen dont hate each other, but maybe im wrong here.

Yeah, I consider Hungarians to be a unique ethnicity, I don't lump them neither with Slavs nor with other Uralic speakers.

And indeed I do feel a connection to all other Slavs. But it is actually quite rare for a Slav to be like that. The most hated nation in here is probably Russia, unfortunately. And we all know what Feiichy, Dušan and some other users post from time to time. I don't have to explain.

There is a certain tension between certain nations, but an average citizen usually doesn't care that much. An average Serb probably doesn't dream every night about gutting some Albanians and same would go for an average Russian and an average Ukrainian.

As for the recent war, you may very well be right, but that Jew doesn't give a rat's ass about Slavic lives.

[oszkar07]

Hungarians are unique east european group, but im sure you feel connection to other slavs and i think most slavs do same. This conflict between russians and ukrainians was made by CIA and its hate propaganda, but i am sure the average ukrainian or russian citizen dont hate each other, but maybe im wrong here.

Before the war, Im sure your right, now for many of them average folks on both sides I imagine their would be quite strong enmity, lots of death and destruction and brutal warfare ... people usually dont mentally recover from this quickly, then on top all the BS propanganda from both sides. Many Russians will see Ukes as "Nazi Demons", even though Im sure your avg Ukrainian is not a Nazi Demon. Now many Ukraininas will see Russians as monsters for the destruction and death toll against Ukraine . This enmity between these 2 quite similiar Slavic nations ...unfortunatly will probably last many years past the war.

That said , there are lot of avg Russian citizen was not in agreement about the war ...you just don't hear about this.

[Aldaris]

First define "race". Do you consider western eurasian to be a race, or european? Do you consider a greek cypriot who may look like maria pakakis to be the same race as a typical hallstatt nordid scandinavian? And is "race" ancestry or "phenotype"? What if two people with similar ancestries look very different and you could think they are different races, like that black and white twin, which they showed in the media some time ago?

https://edition.cnn.com/2015/03/03/living/feat-black-white-twins/index.html

I've made so many posts about this stuff I can't even count them, if you are interested.

[Mortimer]

I've made so many posts about this stuff I can't even count them, if you are interested.

You said "black" is not a race, on this page. Is "white" a race?

[Aldaris]

You said "black" is not a race, on this page. Is "white" a race?

Nopesy.

[Mortimer]

Nopesy.

So if you say black and white isnt a race, you are not mainstream. Because most people think black and white are races, so I think I have a point.

[Aldaris]

So if you say black and white isnt a race, you are not mainstream. Because most people think black and white are races, so I think I have a point.

'Because most people think'....

I go by genetics, not by what most people think. Most people are not biological taxonomists. Neither am I, but since I've joined, I've learned the basics.

[Petalpusher]

First define "race". Do you consider western eurasian to be a race, or european? Do you consider a greek cypriot who may look like maria pakakis to be the same race as a typical hallstatt nordid scandinavian? And is "race" ancestry or "phenotype"? What if two people with similar ancestries look very different and you could think they are different races, like that black and white twin, which they showed in the media some time ago?

https://edition.cnn.com/2015/03/03/living/feat-black-white-twins/index.html

There is an European race that is extremely close to one another at the scale of the globe and a greater Caucasian part of the same race on the periphery, in the sense those who are very predominently West Eurasian in origin. Then SSA, East Asian, Oceanian and Amerindian (although already an ancient intermediate). Basically there is only 5 races, peaking in each corners of the genetic landscape and everything in between are ancient mixes that we can call ethnicties, Like Indians are central Eurasians + Oceanians, in the same way Northeast Africans are ancient Eurasian mixed with SSA. If you don't believe in this, then you don't believe in anything, not even parternity tests or family matching through genetic, functionning on the exact same principles.

Thinking people who have different superficial traits as in pigmentation aren't the same race is as ridiculous as thinking two siblings with two different eye colors or the exact same skin tone, are not of the same race, while they have the exact same tree line of billions of ancestors since the cambrian period. Even twins can have slightly different pigmentation and that's the only thing that will manifest once in a while outside of being genetic carbon copies of each others, that's how irrelevant it is. If anything it's the testimony of Europe's selective pressure explosion during its ethnogenesis.
Those mixed races offsping anomalies are one in a billion. Africans are not Africans because they have a darker skin, no more than Chinese are East Asian because they have a slightly more yellowish tone than Europeans. Listening to some, the 5 most distinct and distant groups on the planet can't be different races but there should 58 races existing within a minuscule speck of a corner all of a sudden. It's not even ridiculous it's an insult to modern science, human intelligence and logical reasoning.

I know some people try hard to instigate here the same feeling of racism applied to white Europeans that other races supposedly experience, but i think you will have to do a little better than this.

[Mortimer]

There is an European race that is extremely close to one another at the scale of the globe and a greater Caucasian part of the same race on the periphery, in the sense those who are very predominently West Eurasian in origin. Then SSA, East Asian, Oceanian and Amerindian (although already an ancient intermediate). Basically there is only 5 races, peaking in each corners of the genetic landscape and everything in between are ancient mixes that we can call ethnicties, Like Indians are central Eurasians + Oceanians, in the same way Northeast Africans are ancient Eurasian mixed with SSA. If you don't believe in this, then you don't believe in anything, not even parternity tests or family matching through genetic, functionning on the exact same principles.

Thinking people who have different superficial traits as in pigmentation aren't the same race is as ridiculous as thinking two siblings with two different eye colors or the exact same skin tone, are not of the same race, while they have the exact same tree line of billions of ancestors since the cambrian period. Even twins can have slightly different pigmentation and that's the only thing that will manifest once in a while outside of being genetic carbon copies of each others, that's how irrelevant it is. If anything it's the testimony of Europe's selective pressure explosion during its ethnogenesis.
Those mixed races offsping anomalies are one in a billion. Africans are not Africans because they have a darker skin, no more than Chinese are East Asian because they have a slightly more yellowish tone than Europeans. Listening to some, the 5 most distinct and distant groups on the planet can't be different races but there should 58 races existing within a minuscule speck of a corner all of a sudden. It's not even ridiculous it's an insult to modern science, human intelligence and logical reasoning.

I know some people try hard to instigate here the same feeling of racism applied to white Europeans that other races supposedly experience, but i think you will have to do a little better than this.

I just wanted to hear your opinion. Most white nationalists and many other people disagree that all western eurasians are the same race as europeans. Im not claiming anything neither that there are 5 races nor 58 races, or 10 races. I just wanted to hear your opinion, because many people wont agree with eatch other.

[renaissance12]

I just wanted to hear your opinion. Most white nationalists and many other people disagree that all western eurasians are the same race as europeans. Im not claiming anything neither that there are 5 races nor 58 races, or 10 races. I just wanted to hear your opinion, because many people wont agree with eatch other.



Have you ever read the Giovanni Cabotto ( in old Venetian ) letters he sent from London to Venice at the end of XV century ?
...He described the English he met/found in the street as curious monkeys who continually touched his clothes. They smelled so impressive ( argh.. the smell in VENICE was nothing compare them ) and they were not capable of understanding because they were very stupid, while in Venice such a thing never happened to him ( not because the language ) .. Certainly the English high society was very different because it was profoundly influenced by the French.

[Petalpusher]

I just wanted to hear your opinion. Most white nationalists and many other people disagree that all western eurasians are the same race as europeans. Im not claiming anything neither that there are 5 races nor 58 races, or 10 races. I just wanted to hear your opinion, because many people wont agree with eatch other.

I make a distinction between European, and Caucasian that encompasses a larger group, some people on the fringe of Europe tend to that, yet still part of the same race which is by the only logical definition, all the most distant groups from each others. Otherwise we have to shift those definition towards something like species (Neanderthal, Sapiens and Denisovans). Eurasian Sapiens are part Neanderthal and Denisovan (rather in east Asia and Oceania for the latter). Funnily enough, nobody questions the idea of species, or making it invalid because "it's a spectrum" like for genders. At least it surely was a million years ago.

[tk'es]

do you know what balance and harmony mean?

[Mortimer]

I make a distinction between European, and Caucasian that encompasses a larger group, some people on the fringe of Europe tend to that, yet still part of the same race which is by the only logical definition, all the most distant groups from each others. Otherwise we have to shift those definition towards something like species (Neanderthal, Sapiens and Denisovans). Eurasian Sapiens are part Neanderthal and Denisovan (rather in east Asia and Oceania for the latter). Funnily enough, nobody questions the idea of species, or making it invalid because "it's a spectrum" like for genders. At least it surely was a million years ago.

If you make a distinction between caucasian and european, you could make distinctions somewhere else too. Then there are 10 races or 15 races and not 5. I dont know if your approach is more logical then any other.

Wikipedia says

While the concepts of race and ethnicity are considered to be separate in contemporary social science, the two terms have a long history of equivalence in popular usage and older social science literature. "Ethnicity" is often used in a sense close to one traditionally attributed to "race", the division of human groups based on qualities assumed to be essential or innate to the group (e.g. shared ancestry or shared behavior). Racism and racial discrimination are often used to describe discrimination on an ethnic or cultural basis, independent of whether these differences are described as racial.

Also I do not get really what is "racial" I always assumed racial is what you look like, like if you have another pigmentation, hair texture, nose shape, skull shape etc. so you could make many distinctions with africa too or within asia or western eurasia too if you wanted. Otherwise racial could also be shared ancestry, shared behaviour, shared civilisation, like you say race doesnt matter what your pigmentation is and blacks are not black because of their dark skin (you just said that). Is racial something which is in your personality? Or intelligence what if you look very white but have the personality and IQ of a darker race street thugh? So to me it is not logical. But I just ask questions because I want to understand it.

Is there a "racial" difference between these two twins?

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/real-life-stories/black-white-twins-meet-sisters-5256945

Again I dont question anything, just ask questions.

[Petalpusher]

If you make a distinction between caucasian and european, you could make distinctions somewhere else too. Then there are 10 races or 15 races and not 5. I dont know if your approach is more logical then any other.

Wikipedia says

While the concepts of race and ethnicity are considered to be separate in contemporary social science, the two terms have a long history of equivalence in popular usage and older social science literature. "Ethnicity" is often used in a sense close to one traditionally attributed to "race", the division of human groups based on qualities assumed to be essential or innate to the group (e.g. shared ancestry or shared behavior). Racism and racial discrimination are often used to describe discrimination on an ethnic or cultural basis, independent of whether these differences are described as racial.

Also I do not get really what is "racial" I always assumed racial is what you look like, like if you have another pigmentation, hair texture, nose shape, skull shape etc. so you could make many distinctions with africa too or within asia or western eurasia too if you wanted. Otherwise racial could also be shared ancestry, shared behaviour, shared civilisation, like you say race doesnt matter what your pigmentation is and blacks are not black because of their dark skin (you just said that). Is racial something which is in your personality? Or intelligence what if you look very white but have the personality and IQ of a darker race street thugh? So to me it is not logical. But I just ask questions because I want to understand it.

Is there a "racial" difference between these two twins?

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/real-life-stories/black-white-twins-meet-sisters-5256945

Again I dont question anything, just ask questions.


They are of the exact same mixed race heritage, between their two parent's race despite their difference in skin color and appearance. By grasping at this straw, you are proving the point further, to a extent that very rarely exist though. African Albinos, do they still look African and are African? yes.


"Thanks to a rare scientific quirk resulting from their mother and father's mixed-race pairing, they were both born with different coloured skin. Their mum Donna is half Jamaican while father Vince is white.

Races are defined by biological truth, on average they will display a wide array of different characteristics, individually less so, yet no Chinese parents never ever got a surprise Cameroonese as their biological kid. Same way for sex and genders, masculine women don't turn up magically as biological males because they would flaunt a mindset more traditionally associated with men. Except the same types of straws implicating rare conditions, there are only biological males or biological females in humanity. The difference for races is there have been mixes, intermediates while on the other hand groups remaining in higher isolation, naturally departing from other groups, in a lighter but similar process than speciation. The same than of all life that have ever existed went through since microbial forms. Isolation> raciation> speciation.

As for the genetic definition per say, it's really not that complicated to comprehend that the 2 most distant points are always gonna be more distant to each others than any intermediate between those two points and that they are the most defined form of raciation, but you can indeed make an infinite amount of points between the two extremes. If you like to all call them races help yourself, but then you can't pretend a Congolese, an European and a Chinese are of the same race anymore, because there would be logically more of a different race than any other intermediate races you ve just made up. I mean come on, it's only when races are brought up, people come up with such ludicrous misconceptions.

https://i.postimg.cc/85Y6gVbq/77SGlTU.png

It's straightforward to establish the 3 most distant points from each others are Euros, SSA and East Asians. Oceanians and Amerindians lay in a different plan only visible in 3D (picture rather a sphere) but also distant to the others 3 and even to East Asians. Everything going left from Europe is more African and everything going down is more Eastern Eurasian, it's that simple to define the main current races inhabiting the planet. We can replace the word by whatever is less offensive or tainted for some, it's still going to be the same end result and principle. The only interesting debate on the subject is on the rate of mutation and the scale of it leading to raciation against speciation or what was its peak in human history (we are still very close but past it). Of course no race denying warrior has the means to come to this field.

[Mortimer]

Of course no race denying warrior has the means to come to this field.

I dont "deny race" I just try to understand what it is. Am I the same race as this boy? https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?372202-Classify-gypsy-boy-and-gypsy-group

In my humble opinion we look like from different planets, but on a PCA we would form a cluster, probably, I cluster close to gypsy groups, or the closest to gypsy groups. Closer then to anyone else.

https://i.ibb.co/BTsqVF3/PCAMytrueancestry.jpg (https://ibb.co/CV0h5D8)

Odelia thinks a Gypsy boy cant be blonde, in another thread, and told me that if you are half russian half gypsy but look like a russian or putin you should call yourself russian. What if you look like that, but your twin brother looks dark? Like in the case of the mixed race SSA twins? That could exist for gypsies too? I try to understand what race I am.

[Petalpusher]

I dont "deny race" I just try to understand what it is. Am I the same race as this boy? https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?372202-Classify-gypsy-boy-and-gypsy-group

In my humble opinion we look like from different planets, but on a PCA we would form a cluster, probably, I cluster close to gypsy groups, or the closest to gypsy groups. Closer then to anyone else.

https://i.ibb.co/BTsqVF3/PCAMytrueancestry.jpg (https://ibb.co/CV0h5D8)

Odelia thinks a Gypsy boy cant be blonde, in another thread, and told me that if you are half russian half gypsy but look like a russian or putin you should call yourself russian. What if you look like that, but your twin brother looks dark? Like in the case of the mixed race SSA twins? That could exist for gypsies too? I try to understand what race I am.

Gypsies/Roma groups are rather diverse (even on pca), they range from being almost fully European to being something like Pakistaneses, with a whole gradient in between. Looks will simply reflect that, often not as much individually but on average it certainly will, also because the things you look for in people's appearances are only defined by a handful of genes out of millions to tap into, making the genetic lottery appear more random than it truely is.

You are overwhelmingly caucasian with some ancient ASI and south Asian input, some more than others. Much like middle easterns are largely caucasians with a bit of SSA and other things. You have some more recent European in your case, there s not much else to tell you, just part of the larger pred caucasian grouping. I don't care what Odelia thinks, the truth is you are gypsy with mixed European ancestry, so identify as that and get over it. The truth is always better.

[Mortimer]

Gypsies/Roma groups are rather diverse (even on pca), they range from being almost fully European to being something like Pakistaneses, with a whole gradient in between. Looks will simply reflect that, often not as much individually but on average it certainly will, also because the things you look for in people's appearances are only defined by a handful of genes out of millions to tap into, making the genetic lottery appear more random than it truely is.

You are overwhelmingly caucasian with some ancient ASI and south Asian input, some more than others. Much like middle easterns are largely caucasians with a bit of SSA and other things. You have some more recent European in your case, there s not much else to tell you, just part of the larger pred caucasian grouping. I don't care what Odelia thinks, the truth is you are gypsy with mixed European ancestry, so identify as that and get over it. The truth is always better.


Seems a bit like you contradict yourself. You group me as part of the pred. larger caucasian grouping, then you say im a "gypsy" as if you exclude me from the rest or all the others from your grouping, i guess you would do the same with jews (who are even more caucasian then i am). So I had a point, that racial is not truth or anything just how someone feels, but you are also correct, there is a difference of the most extreme points, but like you said then there are only 3 races, max 5, but there is lot more diversity inbetween or why you think im not white or different then the rest.

Edit: Also I have to argue with more then one person (or you) so I have to reason what everyone said, often contradictory things, but always to disfrenchise, or marginalise or discriminate my people. Always the negative side of the coin.

[Petalpusher]

Seems a bit like you contradict yourself. You group me as part of the pred. larger caucasian grouping, then you say im a "gypsy" as if you exclude me from the rest or all the others from your grouping, i guess you would do the same with jews (who are even more caucasian then i am). So I had a point, that racial is not truth or anything just how someone feels, but you are also correct, there is a difference of the most extreme points, but like you said then there are only 3 races, max 5, but there is lot more diversity inbetween or why you think im not white or different then the rest.

Edit: Also I have to argue with more then one person (or you) so I have to reason what everyone said, often contradictory things, but always to disfrenchise, or marginalise or discriminate my people. Always the negative side of the coin.

That's exactly what gypsies are. They are a lot more Caucasians than they are ancient Indians, Oceanians or whatever other groups. There s no contradiction, it's the word gypsy you apparently can't cope with, but that's not my concern if you have more prejudices towards your own than even i have.

Btw i never treated you badly or insult you for the sole reason you are gypsy, i always answer your posts seriously and in a calm manner as much as possible, which is the only form of non discrimination on a forum. If you were only European that would be exactly the same.

[Mortimer]

That's exactly what gypsies are. They are a lot more Caucasians than they are ancient Indians, Oceanians or whatever other groups. There s no contradiction, it's the word gypsy you apparently can't cope with, but that's not my concern if you have more prejudices towards your own than even i have.

Btw i never treated you badly or insult you for the sole reason you are gypsy, i always answer your posts seriously and in a calm manner as much as possible, which is the only form of non discrimination on a forum. If you were only European that would be exactly the same.

Like I said I have to reason what ALL people said, so i try to put that into a bigger picture. You personally didnt discriminate me, so its ok. I also do not attack you, you seem a bit "pissed off" like you think im a "race denying warrior" or "anti-white" or "say you discriminate me" when i simply ask questions (not only you) and try to make a picture of it, Aldaris said "black is not a race", he argues also with genetics, and he is also a ethno-nationalist like you (no offense but i assume you identify as identitarian) but it seems you two have different opinions, you think black is a race, he doesnt.

[reboun]

As I wrote here: https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?352685-How-d-you-react-if-English-replaced-your-country-s-native-language-as-the-official-language/page3
"I just find the dissonance in values and priorities that many forum users have risible (not saying you specifically). They complain if their neighbourhood or city changes from 99% White to 93% White, but seem (at least by comparison) quite relaxed at seeing their native language disappear or being subsumed." Let us discuss.

1) TA is a highly racialist forum.
2) Although the banner on the website says TheApricity A European Cultural Community, most people here are usually focused on genetics and physical anthropology rather than the culture of the nations.

[HannibaltheGreat]

They are of the exact same mixed race heritage, between their two parent's race despite their difference in skin color and appearance. By grasping at this straw, you are proving the point further, to a extent that very rarely exist though. African Albinos, do they still look African and are African? yes.



Races are defined by biological truth, on average they will display a wide array of different characteristics, individually less so, yet no Chinese parents never ever got a surprise Cameroonese as their biological kid. Same way for sex and genders, masculine women don't turn up magically as biological males because they would flaunt a mindset more traditionally associated with men. Except the same types of straws implicating rare conditions, there are only biological males or biological females in humanity. The difference for races is there have been mixes, intermediates while on the other hand groups remaining in higher isolation, naturally departing from other groups, in a lighter but similar process than speciation. The same than of all life that have ever existed went through since microbial forms. Isolation> raciation> speciation.

As for the genetic definition per say, it's really not that complicated to comprehend that the 2 most distant points are always gonna be more distant to each others than any intermediate between those two points and that they are the most defined form of raciation, but you can indeed make an infinite amount of points between the two extremes. If you like to all call them races help yourself, but then you can't pretend a Congolese, an European and a Chinese are of the same race anymore, because there would be logically more of a different race than any other intermediate races you ve just made up. I mean come on, it's only when races are brought up, people come up with such ludicrous misconceptions.

https://i.postimg.cc/85Y6gVbq/77SGlTU.png

It's straightforward to establish the 3 most distant points from each others are Euros, SSA and East Asians. Oceanians and Amerindians lay in a different plan only visible in 3D (picture rather a sphere) but also distant to the others 3 and even to East Asians. Everything going left from Europe is more African and everything going down is more Eastern Eurasian, it's that simple to define the main current races inhabiting the planet. We can replace the word by whatever is less offensive or tainted for some, it's still going to be the same end result and principle. The only interesting debate on the subject is on the rate of mutation and the scale of it leading to raciation against speciation or what was its peak in human history (we are still very close but past it). Of course no race denying warrior has the means to come to this field.

Races arent described by " BIOLOGICAL Truths"
They are associations with phenotypes
Mixed people can look one way or another and people percieve them as one race vs another.
In the United States, 1 drop of Black blood made you black, for example. They also did a paper bag test that wasn't biological in truth to be able to vote. The concept of race is largely socially relative and has nothing to do with "biological truths."

[Smeagol]

Races arent described by " BIOLOGICAL Truths"
They are associations with phenotypes
Mixed people can look one way or another and people percieve them as one race vs another.
In the United States, 1 drop of Black blood made you black, for example. They also did a paper bag test that wasn't biological in truth to be able to vote. The concept of race is largely socially relative and has nothing to do with "biological truths."

Race is a biological reality as all real anthropologists know. That doesn't mean some people didn't have ideas about race that weren't based on reality.

[alnortedelsur]

Perhaps so, but that still misses my main point that people shouldn't all of a sudden judge us and treat us badly if we by genetic happenstance looked a lot darker and less Euro than is actually the case.

I have always spoken up against people who gratuitously judge and mistreats individuals based on their race, culture or national origin, even when those non white individuals aren't messing with anybody or doing anything wrong. I have told you this even in private messages, and you have even given me likes for speaking up against such people.

Once again, you see all this like white or black (figurative sense), like when assuming that people who are against multiculturalism and the globalist agenda of flooding mostly white-European western countries with massive non-white immigration are always ass holes and bullies full of hate, who randomly attack any non-white immigrant they come across in the street.

I start thinking you are starting suffering early Alzheimer, or you conveniently ignore it.


See what I wrote to B01AB20. I generally agree that more homogeneous societies tend to be more peaceful and cohesive than more diverse ones, but the case is far from clear cut and there are many potential causes of conflict and division besides just race and ethnicity. After all, as I said Northern Irish Catholics and Protestants look pretty much identical, and NI is probably the whitest part of the UK, yet even today there are still "peace walls" dividing the two communities. And the one who thinks of things in terms of Black and White if anything is you (quite literally, in fact): you have a hatred (or at least severe dislike) of Blacks that goes beyond even the now-banned CV. (CV was a more generalised bigot, but even he didn't fixate on Blacks to anything like the same extent you do). Lastly, two of the three countries you have lived in have been multiracial since their inception, and yet one of them is the (a?) global superpower and the other one prior to the 1990's was considered a (relative) success story for Latin America.

You said it all in what is marked in bold. Your isolated Northern Ireland example doesn't demonstrate that racial homogeneity isn't important. I never said cultural homogeneity isn't important (which explains the particular problem of Northern Ireland), but racial homogeneity is very important as well.

I don't hate blacks, or otherwise I would downplay when they are killed by a psychopath, like for example in heinous crimes like the ones I see on Discovery Channel, like when an innocent person is killed by a psychopath for monetary reasons, like to get paid by a life insurance, or raped and killed by a sexual motivated criminal, to put a couple of examples. With crimes like that, I am outraged, regardless of the race of the victim, no matter is he/she is white, black, Asian, mestizo, yellow, blue or green, and I think the perpetrator of such crimes (YES, even if the criminal is white and the victim is black) deserves either death penalty or life in prison without parole. I talked to you about all of this on a private message, but you conveniently ignored it.

But yes, I severely dislike blacks at collective level, due to how socially, economically and politically backwards they are (I have serious suspicion of that being due to blacks having higher rates of low IQ individuals) compared to other human races. Though that doesn't mean that I dislike all and each one of them, to the point that I could not even be friends with some cool black person, who is an awesome human being.

Lastly, the big prosperity of US is not due to any fucking multi racial multiculturalism. US used to be like close to 90% white-European until few decades back, aside of having a huge territory with infinite possibilities and natural resources. That today is the super power that it is, is still due to being such a big country with so many resources, and because of the big impulse still going on that comes back from the days it used to be close to 90% white, and still having a very large white-European descent population to help maintain such impulse. Nevertheless, the country is slowly going into decline and decadence as it gets more multiracial and less white as years pass.

Venezuela has always been a very problematic country. Even during its best moments (much of it due to the oil prosperity, and thanks to recent European immigration), it has always been a country that is less than what would be expected, though it could have been worse, if it was racially blacker than it is, and not the country with significant white/mestizo input that it is.

[Blondie]

Races arent described by " BIOLOGICAL Truths"
They are associations with phenotypes
Mixed people can look one way or another and people percieve them as one race vs another.
In the United States, 1 drop of Black blood made you black, for example. They also did a paper bag test that wasn't biological in truth to be able to vote. The concept of race is largely socially relative and has nothing to do with "biological truths."

Dont take seriously the american race determination, its a joke, including this "one drop rule" or arabs, turks, somalis etc are "whites" but spaniards arent etc. Phenotype has nothing to do with it either. If your genetic is located inside the european cluster (two extreme values are finns and sicilians) then youre white. This is the definition of white race, but much better if you identify yourself with ethnicities like russian, polish, italian, spanish, english etc instead of race which is a new world thing.

[Smeagol]

Dont take seriously the american race determination, its a joke, including this "one drop rule" or arabs, turks, somalis etc are "whites" but spaniards arent etc. Phenotype has nothing to do with it either. If your genetic is located inside the european cluster (two extreme values are finns and sicilians) then youre white. This is the definition of white race, but much better if you identify yourself with ethnicities like russian, polish, italian, spanish, english etc instead of race which is a new world thing.

Arabs and Turks are white in America, but not Somalis. Also, Spaniards are counted as both white and Hispanic because the government understands that Hispanics can be of any race but they keep track of them for statistical purposes.

[Blondie]

Arabs and Turks are white in America, but not Somalis. Also, Spaniards are counted as both white and Hispanic because the government understands that Hispanics can be of any race but they keep track of them for statistical purposes.

Sure, but it doesnt change the fact, the american racial determination is incorrect.

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

Dont take seriously the american race determination, its a joke, including this "one drop rule" or arabs, turks, somalis etc are "whites" but spaniards arent etc. Phenotype has nothing to do with it either. If your genetic is located inside the european cluster (two extreme values are finns and sicilians) then youre white. This is the definition of white race, but much better if you identify yourself with ethnicities like russian, polish, italian, spanish, english etc instead of race which is a new world thing.

In the US Spaniards are classified as Hispanic (they are, after all, the original Hispanics) but Hispanic is not used as a racial term but rather as an ethnic/cultural term. On the US Census, you're asked whether you're Hispanic or not, and then about your race separately.

Initially, in 1970 they 'tested' different labels, such as South American but too many White Americans from southern states got confused and thought it referred to them :picard1: Latino was added on because some South Americans and Mexican descended Americans take offense to the term Hispanic (because of colonization), and also not all South American are Spanish speakers, such as Brazilians. I think the Canadians have a more logical label for the census: simply Latin Americans (which is what Latino basically means). It makes more sense just to use a geographical term, imo.

https://i.imgur.com/aMAyM4E.png

This is why Latinos are lumped in with Whites in FBI crime statistics even if they're obviously a mixed-race person (unless they're obviously Black Latinos).

Hence these humorous moments.

https://i.imgur.com/HoaIXdA.png

[Mortimer]

Races arent described by " BIOLOGICAL Truths"
They are associations with phenotypes
Mixed people can look one way or another and people percieve them as one race vs another.
In the United States, 1 drop of Black blood made you black, for example. They also did a paper bag test that wasn't biological in truth to be able to vote. The concept of race is largely socially relative and has nothing to do with "biological truths."


Sure, but it doesnt change the fact, the american racial determination is incorrect.

I think he has a strong point, it depends on the observer and who gets to decide who is correct, even all the armchair anthropologists on TA have slightly different opinions to eatch other? They think they are correct you think you are correct. Also I always assumed racial is skin colour, but that is also not true. But as teenager and without any knowledge of the world and anthropology i associated race with skin colour.

[Blondie]

I think he has a strong point, it depends on the observer and who gets to decide who is correct, even all the armchair anthropologists on TA have slightly different opinions to eatch other? They think they are correct you think you are correct. Also I always assumed racial is skin colour, but that is also not true. But as teenager and without any knowledge of the world and anthropology i associated race with skin colour.

This is your problem. Many japanese or korean has white skin, but they dont belong to white race. Just like many indian has black skin, but racially they are not blacks.

[Mingle]

Everyone does. People will only prioritize language/culture over genetics if the populations are both the same race or close enough. If you're comparing two wholly foreign peoples (e.g. Black vs. Chinese vs. European), then you'll see race take priority. Otherwise, not really, especially not among neighboring populations.

[Mortimer]

This is your problem. Many japanese or korean has white skin, but they dont belong to white race. Just like many indian has black skin, but racially they are not blacks.

That is true, but I didnt know that back then, when i was 15 years or like that. Also others around me told me that. Like he is a "white turk" if he has white skin, and a "brown turk" if he has "olivish skin".

[Petalpusher]

Races arent described by " BIOLOGICAL Truths"
They are associations with phenotypes
Mixed people can look one way or another and people percieve them as one race vs another.
In the United States, 1 drop of Black blood made you black, for example. They also did a paper bag test that wasn't biological in truth to be able to vote. The concept of race is largely socially relative and has nothing to do with "biological truths."

33% of young Americans believe the earth may or may not be round. What people think is irrelevant through history, especially American census and when it comes to the biological truth.

A transgender who looks like a female, is still a male biologically, in every cells of his being, yet most of the population agree, under social threat however, that they should be officially recognized as females, as much as biological females. The same so called social constructs were applied to race before. The most bigoted ideas ever, defying the very basic nature of reality all come from the left these days.

I reckon it might be confusing to live amonst triracial-quadriracial mixed individuals blurring all the lines, which is rather unique on earth, but as science advanced we don't need brown paper bags anymore. We have better means now, which all confirms very easily even at the drop of saliva which main race(s) you belong to with absolute certainty and repeatibility. Time to get the update.

[Mortimer]

33% of young Americans believe the earth may or may not be round. What people think is irrelevant through history, especially American census and when it comes to the biological truth.

I do not think it is irrelevant, because people around you shape your reality, for example there were "white slaves", fact is they were slaves, so it was pretty much reality. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jefferson/mixed/onedrop.html

Hitler killed 6 million jews because he believed they are not "aryans", but jews are white right?

There is a saying, a million flies cant be wrong, even Goebbels said repeat a lie a million times and it becomes the truth.


but as science advanced we don't need brown paper bags anymore. We have better means now, which all confirms very easily even at the drop of saliva which main race(s) you belong to with absolute certainty and repeatibility. Time to get the update.

Not even that is clear to me. Ok if you set the bar at 100% european then ok, but sometimes someone is a bit less but socially white, do you consider alnortedelsur to be white?

I remember this funny add... with "white people" who are technically "not white" because of a genetic test...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8uvAn6Mk-s&t=3s

[Incal]

Everyone does. People will only prioritize language/culture over genetics if the populations are both the same race or close enough. If you're comparing two wholly foreign peoples (e.g. Black vs. Chinese vs. European), then you'll see race take priority. Otherwise, not really, especially not among neighboring populations.

Not in South America.

[HannibaltheGreat]

Race is a biological reality as all real anthropologists know. That doesn't mean some people didn't have ideas about race that weren't based on reality.Race isnt real. For example Logic the rapper looks white. But he is half black.


https://youtu.be/1qR8zFJ2vHI

But no one will view him as mullato. phenotypically, he is white. Whiter than some full europeans here.

[Mingle]

Not in South America.
New World ex-colonies are different, they have no historic sense of ethnic identity. Ethnicity is more like a regional identity or a nationality there. If we look at old ethnic identities in South America like Quechua, Aymara, etc. then the same would apply to them.

[HannibaltheGreat]

New World ex-colonies are different, they have no historic sense of ethnic identity. Ethnicity is more like a regional identity or a nationality there. If we look at old ethnic identities in South America like Quechua, Aymara, etc. then the same would apply to them.

Same with Brits from north america. No ethnic identity. They are British but keep thinking they are americans, or texans, or alabamians or canadians, Floridians ect.

[Tooting Carmen]

I have always spoken up against people who gratuitously judge and mistreats individuals based on their race, culture or national origin, even when those non white individuals aren't messing with anybody or doing anything wrong. I have told you this even in private messages, and you have even given me likes for speaking up against such people.

Once again, you see all this like white or black (figurative sense), like when assuming that people who are against multiculturalism and the globalist agenda of flooding mostly white-European western countries with massive non-white immigration are always ass holes and bullies full of hate, who randomly attack any non-white immigrant they come across in the street.

I start thinking you are starting suffering early Alzheimer, or you conveniently ignore it.



You said it all in what is marked in bold. Your isolated Northern Ireland example doesn't demonstrate that racial homogeneity isn't important. I never said cultural homogeneity isn't important (which explains the particular problem of Northern Ireland), but racial homogeneity is very important as well.

I don't hate blacks, or otherwise I would downplay when they are killed by a psychopath, like for example in heinous crimes like the ones I see on Discovery Channel, like when an innocent person is killed by a psychopath for monetary reasons, like to get paid by a life insurance, or raped and killed by a sexual motivated criminal, to put a couple of examples. With crimes like that, I am outraged, regardless of the race of the victim, no matter is he/she is white, black, Asian, mestizo, yellow, blue or green, and I think the perpetrator of such crimes (YES, even if the criminal is white and the victim is black) deserves either death penalty or life in prison without parole. I talked to you about all of this on a private message, but you conveniently ignored it.

But yes, I severely dislike blacks at collective level, due to how socially, economically and politically backwards they are (I have serious suspicion of that being due to blacks having higher rates of low IQ individuals) compared to other human races. Though that doesn't mean that I dislike all and each one of them, to the point that I could not even be friends with some cool black person, who is an awesome human being.

Lastly, the big prosperity of US is not due to any fucking multi racial multiculturalism. US used to be like close to 90% white-European until few decades back, aside of having a huge territory with infinite possibilities and natural resources. That today is the super power that it is, is still due to being such a big country with so many resources, and because of the big impulse still going on that comes back from the days it used to be close to 90% white, and still having a very large white-European descent population to help maintain such impulse. Nevertheless, the country is slowly going into decline and decadence as it gets more multiracial and less white as years pass.

Venezuela has always been a very problematic country. Even during its best moments (much of it due to the oil prosperity, and thanks to recent European immigration), it has always been a country that is less than what would be expected, though it could have been worse, if it was racially blacker than it is, and not the country with significant white/mestizo input that it is.

My point is not that the US is as powerful and rich as it is because of its multiracial makeup. Rather, its multiracial makeup hasn't hindered it from being so rich and powerful. And while I don't deny differences in average IQ between groups etc, at the same time the state of African Americans would certainly not be AS dire as it is had there not been the Jim Crow laws and practices long after slavery ended. Furthermore, much of the 'decline and decadence' you and many others (partly rightly and partly wrongly) lament, such as the growing attempts to deny biological sex, comes mostly from middle and upper class Whites, and most non-White Americans would if anything be baffled by it.

[Smeagol]

Race isnt real. For example Logic the rapper looks white. But he is half black.

He is not half Negroid, but half American Negro. Looking up pictures of his family, his black father appears to be something like a mulatto himself so this guy is around a quadroon and looks it.

https://imgur.com/EYqH6xh

So I'm not sure why you think the existence of mongrels somehow means race doesn't exist.

[Tooting Carmen]

He is not half Negroid, but half American Negro. Looking up pictures of his family, his black father appears to be something like a mulatto himself so this guy is around a quadroon and looks it.

https://imgur.com/EYqH6xh

So I'm not sure why you think the existence of mongrels somehow means race doesn't exist.

The point is not to deny race, but that race is a spectrum not an absolute, in contrast to e.g. biological sex, and also the link between genotype and phenotype can be very flimsy.

[HannibaltheGreat]

He is not half Negroid, but half American Negro. Looking up pictures of his family, his black father appears to be something like a mulatto himself so this guy is around a quadroon and looks it.

https://imgur.com/EYqH6xh

So I'm not sure why you think the existence of mongrels somehow means race doesn't exist.

Because it doesn't. I had people think I am Middle Eastern or indian/ South asian and jewish a few times (by jews themselves) think I was jewish. And I dont have those ancestries.

I am hispanic, latin American.

[Smeagol]

Because it doesn't. I had people think I am Middle Eastern or indian/ South asian and jewish a few times (by jews themselves) think I was jewish. And I dont have those ancestries.

I am hispanic, latin American.

So what? Ordinary people not being exactly able to place a mongrel does not somehow mean race doesn't exist.

[HannibaltheGreat]

So what? Ordinary people not being exactly able to place a mongrel does not somehow mean race doesn't exist.

Yea, it doesn't exist because I am not that race. But people still confuse me for that sometimes. I dont share blood with these people.
If race was a real thing, then i shouldn't be mixed up with people I have no genes and common ancestors with...

[Smeagol]

The point is not to deny race, but that race is a spectrum not an absolute, in contrast to e.g. biological sex, and also the link between genotype and phenotype can be very flimsy.

No, race is an absolute. Races can be clearly distinguished both by genetics and physical anthropology. The existence of mongrels who have inherited traits (usually the worst traits) from both races and belong to neither, doesn't change that. It's a terrible argument.

[Smeagol]

Yea, it doesn't exist because I am not that race. But people still confuse me for that sometimes. I dont share blood with these people.
If race was a real thing, then i shouldn't be mixed up with people I have no genes and common ancestors with...

Unfortunately you didn't inherit much in the way of IQ from your white side.

[HannibaltheGreat]

Unfortunately you didn't inherit much in the way of IQ from your white side.Unfortunately, this is not even a good counter arguement. This is just ad hominen. Sounds like you dont have a counter argument for the fact I dont share genes and common ancestors with people that other think I look like.

[Tooting Carmen]

No, race is an absolute. Races can be clearly distinguished both by genetics and physical anthropology. The existence of mongrels who have inherited traits (usually the worst traits) from both races and belong to neither, doesn't change that. It's a terrible argument.

But that argument denies the variation within the big meta races. Are Cretans just as genetically European as Danes? Are Somalians just as genetically SSA as Senegalese? Etc etc.

[Smeagol]

Unfortunately, this is not even a good counter arguement. This is just ad hominen. Sounds like you dont have a counter argument for the fact I dont share genes and common ancestors with people that other think I look like.

It's not my problem if you can't see the logical flaws with your own "arguments."

[HannibaltheGreat]

It's not my problem if you can't see the logical flaws with your own "arguments."it sounds like you can't make the counterargument. That's what it sounds like.

[Smeagol]

But that argument denies the variation within the big meta races. Are Cretans just as genetically European as Danes? Are Somalians just as genetically SSA as Senegalese? Etc etc.

Cretans are just as Caucasian as Danes and all Europeans cluster very tightly together on PCA plots compared to the rest of the world. Of course Cretans are shifted toward the Middle East as compared to Northern Europeans but pure Middle Easterners are Caucasian anyway. So many modern Middle Easterners/North Africans are mixed with Negroes and can't be considered fully Caucasoid. Somalis are mulattoes.

[Smeagol]

it sounds like you can't make the counterargument. That's what it sounds like.

The problem is you never made an argument in the first place.

[Tooting Carmen]

Cretans are just as Caucasian as Danes and all European cluster very tightly together on PCA plots compared to the rest of the world. Of course Cretans are shifted toward the Middle East as compared to Northern Europeans but pure Middle Easterners are Caucasian anyway. So many modern Middle Easterners/North Africans are mixed with Negroes and can't be considered fully Caucasoid. Somalis are mulattoes.

Cretans do have a Middle Eastern shift and admixture which also does come up sometimes in their phenotypes, in a way that would be rare to non-existent among Danes. They also cluster closer to Northern Middle Easterners than to Scandinavians. Also, only some Gulf Arabs, principally Yemenis and Omanis, score significant SSA. As well as some North Africans, of course.

[HannibaltheGreat]

The problem is you never made an argument in the first place.


It's not my problem if you can't see the logical flaws with your own "arguments."

Make up your mind. And please do not try to distract. Just make a counter argument

[Smeagol]

Cretans do have a Middle Eastern shift and admixture which also does come up sometimes in their phenotypes, in a way that would be rare to non-existent among Danes. They also cluster closer to Northern Middle Easterners than to Scandinavians. Also, only some Gulf Arabs, principally Yemenis and Omanis, score significant SSA.

Middle Easterners without significant SSA admixture (Like Assad) are not a separate race from Europeans, but it's not true that it's only "some Gulf Arabs" with significant SSA.

[HannibaltheGreat]

Middle Easterners without significant SSA admixture (Like Assad) are not a separate race from Europeans, but it's not true that it's only "some Gulf Arabs" with significant SSA.Are europeans seperate from south asian? Because many middle easterners look like south asians also.

[Petalpusher]

So what? Ordinary people not being exactly able to place a mongrel does not somehow mean race doesn't exist.

"Race doesn't exist because mixed races exist". It's just brillant the more you read it, i think we can all stop there.

[Tooting Carmen]

"Race doesn't exist because mixed races exist". It's just brillant the more you read it, i think we can all stop there.

Race clearly does exist, but it is a spectrum and not an absolute like biological sex is.

[HannibaltheGreat]

"Race doesn't exist because mixed races exist". It's just brillant the more you read it, i think we can all stop there.You have to answer the question also.
If I dont have genes from x populations and Race is biological true / expressed in phenotypes. Then why would people think a person looks like those groups even if they share no genes...

We dont share genes with each other. They should never look alike to other people. Genetically distinct. It doesnt matter if we are mixed. Because we share no genes with those populations. Now if I look like people from populations I am actually mixed with that makes sense. Quite obviously.

As europeans are mixed themselves from older population groups.
Middle easterners dont typically score european and score european ancestry in big quantities if they do either.

[Blondie]

Race isnt real. For example Logic the rapper looks white. But he is half black.

phenotypically, he is white. Whiter than some full europeans here.

No, he is not:

https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/fbd78e83aea96ce9fad83d89f9487512.jpg

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/ad/93/dd/ad93dd09462546008d7e96a071580d62.jpg

He has visible negroid traits. I would be curious for his genetic test, i think hes 85-90% white and 10-15% african or something like that.

[HannibaltheGreat]

No, he is not:

https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/fbd78e83aea96ce9fad83d89f9487512.jpg

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/ad/93/dd/ad93dd09462546008d7e96a071580d62.jpg

He has visible negroid traits. I would be curious for his genetic test, i think hes 85-90% white and 10-15% african or something like that.He looks southern southern euro. He has no "negroid" traits

Square jaw, no prognastism. Euro Nose bridge and nose. You literally just have a photo of him with tan.
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/8d/07/32/8d0732fbe0ec7cf527895f108e80d1ed.png

[Mortimer]

He looks southern southern euro. He has no "negroid" traits

Square jaw, no prognastism. Euro Nose bridge and nose. You literally just have a photo of him with tan.
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/8d/07/32/8d0732fbe0ec7cf527895f108e80d1ed.png

He looks white by eyeballing, but on close observation he has negroe hair

In this photo for example it is visible, but because he usually has a buzzcut it is not visible

https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/fbd78e83aea96ce9fad83d89f9487512.jpg

But you have a good point, I generally agree with you and your arguments, I made similar arguments.

[HannibaltheGreat]

He looks white by eyeballing, but on close observation he has negroe hair

In this photo for example it is visible, but because he usually has a buzzcut it is not visible

https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/fbd78e83aea96ce9fad83d89f9487512.jpg

But you have a good point, I generally agree with you and your arguments, I made similar arguments.He doesn't. You're not looking accurately
https://i.pinimg.com/736x/c2/b0/a9/c2b0a910a4c30ae6b2186dd7651e7669--young-sinatra-rapper.jpg

https://media.pitchfork.com/photos/5a6f4a1296e4026450728eb8/4:3/w_524,h_393,c_limit/2logic_.png

[Mortimer]

He doesn't. You're not looking accurately
https://i.pinimg.com/736x/c2/b0/a9/c2b0a910a4c30ae6b2186dd7651e7669--young-sinatra-rapper.jpg

https://media.pitchfork.com/photos/5a6f4a1296e4026450728eb8/4:3/w_524,h_393,c_limit/2logic_.png

In this photo he does look a bit negroe (nose, general shape of face) but im sure it wouldnt be visible to most, if they didnt know it or not under scrutine observation...

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/c2/b0/a9/c2b0a910a4c30ae6b2186dd7651e7669--young-sinatra-rapper.jpg

[HannibaltheGreat]

In this photo he does look a bit negroe (nose, general shape of face) but im sure it wouldnt be visible to most, if they didnt know it or not under scrutine observation...

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/c2/b0/a9/c2b0a910a4c30ae6b2186dd7651e7669--young-sinatra-rapper.jpg

He doesn't at all. He looks like a regular american. Maybe part jewish.

[Mortimer]

"Race doesn't exist because mixed races exist". It's just brillant the more you read it, i think we can all stop there.

Race does exit, but it depends on society, cultural context etc. too, so it is both...

Race in biology (that exists)

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

In biological taxonomy, race is an informal rank in the taxonomic hierarchy for which various definitions exist. Sometimes it is used to denote a level below that of subspecies, while at other times it is used as a synonym for subspecies.[1] It has been used as a higher rank than strain, with several strains making up one race.[2][3] Races may be genetically distinct populations of individuals within the same species,[4] or they may be defined in other ways, e.g. geographically, or physiologically.[5] Genetic isolation between races is not complete, but genetic differences may have accumulated that are not (yet) sufficient to separate species.[6]

The term is recognized by some, but not governed by any of the formal codes of biological nomenclature. Taxonomic units below the level of subspecies are not typically applied to animals.[7]

[Mortimer]

He doesn't at all. He looks like a regular american. Maybe part jewish.

Im sure he would be taken as a regular american much more then I would, I agree. But in this photo he does look a bit negroe, in the other one which i posted too, but i guess it is only visible under scrutine observation in some photos.

[HannibaltheGreat]

Im sure he would be taken as a regular american much more then I would, I agree. But in this photo he does look a bit negroe, in the other one which i posted too, but i guess it is only visible under scrutine observation in some photos.Ok, sure bud.

[Smeagol]

Fun fact: You can always tell (at least in person) if someone has negro ancestry by a bluish tint in the half-moons of their fingernails.

[Petalpusher]

You have to answer the question also.
Which question? Some South Americans looking like South Asians? Id be happy to explain why because it actually makes a lot of sense.


If I dont have genes from x populations and Race is biological true / expressed in phenotypes. Then why would people think a person looks like those groups even if they share no genes...

We dont share genes with each other. They should never look alike to other people. Genetically distinct. It doesnt matter if we are mixed. Because we share no genes with those populations. Now if I look like people from populations I am actually mixed with that makes sense. Quite obviously.

That alone tells me you don't understand how genetic works or even what is DNA. You share +99% of your genes with other humans, +97% with mices and even 50% with plants. By your logic we should almost look like mices...No, the differences are in the genotypes and their frequencies, the dna alphabet that codes for proteins (A,T,C,G). Furthermore the difference you are looking for yourself to make up your definition or non definition of race, is an extremely small amount of all the genotypes expressed. I could go much further than this as to why exactly but let's just say that 1/3 of all your genes expressed making proteins are tied with the human brain alone, this is the highest proportion of genes expressed in any part of the body. This amount dwarfs into oblivion those linked to your (outdated) view of races. That doesn't mean they won't have some level of consistency because there are fewer genotypes concerned, again no newborn Chinese will ever look Cameroonese but it makes it subject to more random variation on the most superficial traits specially in case of recent race mixes. As well as other selection mechanisms through history, indeed because it's direclty visible by other humans.

James Watson who discovered the double helix structure knows full well that the biggest difference in races are by a landslide involved with the brain, as it's the most complex organ we posess, and that's why he commented on it, before getting canceled by new age bigots who don't understand any of this ironically.

This is real culprit how this thought process is flawed, and why making a parallel with gender/sex is relevant. Are you able to tell apart mama bear and papa bear at first sight? A female dolphin or male dolphin? etc...not really, yet there are with absolute certainty biological females and males in those species. Would you say since they look very much the same, their biological sex doesn't exist? See.. only considering how things look will often lead to erroneous conclusions. It's a bit easier with humans, mostly for the reason we lately in our evolution had the "luxury" to favor sexual vs survival traits. Another clue here why Europeans look supposedly more diverse compared to other races, when they are actually the least.

[HannibaltheGreat]

Which question? Some South Americans looking like South Asians? I'd be happy to explain why because it actually makes a lot of sense.


That alone tells me you don't understand how genetic works or even what is DNA. You share +99% of your genes with other humans, +97% with mices and even 50% with plants. By your logic we should almost look like mices...No, the differences are in the genotypes and their frequencies, the dna alphabet that codes for proteins (A,T,C,G).

But are we the same race as mice then? According to you, we share 97 percent with mice...

Would you call a dauschund a different race of dogs?

Would you call then dwarves a different race of humans?

We dont share ancestry with mice. Nor can we reproduce with mice. Dont sound ridiculous.




Furthermore the difference you are looking for yourself to make up your definition or non definition of race, is an extremely small amount of all the genotypes expressed. I could go much further than this as to why exactly but let's just say that 1/3 of all your genes expressed making proteins are tied with the human brain alone, this is the highest proportion of genes expressed in any part of the body.

No, that's the modern definition of race. It's based on phenotypes very heavily. That's its foundation. That is why they are skull measurements and all that.





This amount dwarfs into oblivion those linked to your (outdated) view of races. That doesn't mean they won't have some level of consistency because there are fewer genotypes concerned, again no newborn Chinese will ever look Cameroonese but it makes it subject to more random variation on the most superficial traits specially in case of recent race mixes. As well as other selection mechanisms through history, indeed because it's direclty visible by other humans.


No, but people say some san people look asian when san people are the most genitcally distant sub saharan group... more distant than cameroonians...
Also, some Australian abos and melanesians look subsaharan despite being genitically distant and closer to Southeast asians.


Also, this is how I know you dont actually believe race is about actual biology. You are using phenotypes.

Would you say a miniature French pointer dog and pinscher dog are different races of dog from a dauchund? Even dauchunds were made from both these dogs? Would you say they are even different species?




James Watson who discovered the double helix structure knows full well that the biggest difference in races are by a landslide involved with the brain, as it's the most complex organ we posess, and that's why he commented on it, before getting canceled by new age bigots who don't understand any of this ironically.


No it shows genetic differences in populations. There is no race. There is differences between afghanistan people and scando, but you place them in the samecategoryy over phenotype and skulls. Even when they have genetic differences and afghani people are also close toSouthh asians while scandos are not.




This is real culprit how this thought process is flawed, and why making a parallel with gender/sex is relevant. Are you able to tell apart mama bear and papa bear at first sight? A female dolphin or male dolphin? etc...not really, yet there are with absolute certainty biological females and males in those species. Would you say since they look very much the same, their biological sex doesn't exist?


Biology is real, race isnt. We define sex by their sex chromosomes in addition to sex characteristics such as genitelia.



See.. only considering how things look will often lead to erroneous conclusions.


Yes, which is why you tried to separate cameroonian and chinese as races based on looks. Not actual genetic difference. You only use differences in popularion genetics to support this scenario. Even though the logic is flawed and you still tried tobuse phenotypes as an argument for race.



It's a bit easier with humans, mostly for the reason we lately in our evolution had the "luxury" to favor sexual vs survival traits. Another clue here why Europeans look supposedly more diverse compared to other races, when they are actually the least.

No... this alone tells you that race is arbitrary

DNA reflects ancestry.. that is real. Race isn't.

Race catagorizes people based on phenotypes. It's an association of looks, and people categorize you on that. Not your actual genetic origins. Thats why people categorize mullatos as black even when in reality they are european mixed. And sometimes even come out looking somewhat like middle eastern. Even if they have none.

It isn't biologically real. Andaman islanders and some negritos look like subsaharans.

Negritos are called that because they were seen as black pygmies. Even though they are genitically distant from pygmies in sub sahara

And your example with the chinese and cameroonians? Cameroonians and chinese never look alike, so they are different races

Can you apply the same logic to an andaman or melanesian to mullatos, san people, and sub saharans?
If they have andaman islanders melanesians or negritos that look like san, subsaharan or mullato then they are the same race?

Race isnt real. Traits are, but traits can resemble each other even if they are in populations that are distant from each other or not really related.
As neanderthals to european homosapians even when east sians and native americans have more neanderthal ancestry than europeans.
Neanderthal have more similar physical traits to europeans

[lei.talk]

https://i.imgur.com/u7leimb.png

https://i.imgur.com/GBTFyn2.gif (https://archive.org/details/lerazzeeipopolid01bias/page/n8/mode/1up?view=theater)

these books are some of the reasons
meine kleine über-mädchen (https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?73486-quot-it-is-so-easy-that-a-six-year-old-girl-can-do-it-quot&p=2414175&viewfull=1#post2414175) thinks the unique habitats
of the many speciated varieties of humans
should be preserved for those uniquely adapted humans
to thrive unpolluted by the genes of fremdvölker and métissage


https://i.imgur.com/u7leimb.png

https://i.imgur.com/jrzjVHF.png (https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renato_Biasutti)https://i.imgur.com/u7leimb.png

[Petalpusher]

But are we the same race as mice then? According to you, we share 97 percent with mice...

Would you call a dauschund a different race of dogs?

Would you call then dwarves a different race of humans?



We dont share ancestry with mice. Nor can we reproduce with mice. Dont sound ridiculous.





No, that's the modern definition of race. Its based on phenotypes very heavily. Thats its foundation. That is why they skull measurements and all that.





No, but people say some san people look asian when san people are the most genitcally distant sub saharn group... more distant than cameroonians...
Also some austrilian abos and melanesians look subsaharan despite being genitically distant and closer to south east asians.


Also, this is how I know you dont actually believe race is about actual biology. You are using phenotypes.

Would you say a miniature French pointer dog and pinscher dog are different races of dog from a dauchund? Even dauchunds were made from both these dogs? Would you say they are even different species?




No it shows genetic differences in populations. There is no race. There is differences between afghanistan people and scandos but you place them in the same catagory over phenotype and skulls. Even when they have genetic differences and afghani people are also close to south asians while scandos are not.



Biology is real, race isnt. We define sex by their sex chromosomes in addition to sex characteristics such as genitelia.


Yes which is why you tried to seperate cameroonian and chinese as races based on looks. Not actual genetic difference. You only use difference in popularion genetics to support this scenario. Even though the logic is flawed



No... this alone tells you that race is arbitrary

DNA reflects ancestry.. that is real. Race isn't.

Race catagorizes people based on phenotypes. Its an association of looks and people categorize you on that. Not your actual genetic origins. Thats why people categorize mullatos as black even when in reality they are european mixed.

It isn't biologically real. Andaman islanders and some negritos look like subsaharans.

Negritos are called that because they were seen as black pygmies. Even though they are genitically distant from pygmies in sub sahara

And your example with the chinese and cameroonians? Cameroonians and chinese bever look alike, so they are different races
Can you apply the same logic to an andaman or melanesian to mullatos, san people, and sub saharans?
Is they have andaman islanders melanesians or negritos that look like san, subsaharan or mullato then they are the same race?

Race isnt real. Traits are, but traits can resemble each other even if they are in populations that are distant from each other or not really related.
As neanderthals to european homosapians even when east sians and native americans have more neanderthal ancestry

You are confused about so much things, i don't even know where to begins with this torrent of nonesense and falsehood, in strange english on top of it, so im not sure it's worth since you don't seem to be able to understand the ironical tone of some sentences. But let's say someone else might find it interesting.
With a difference of 0.5% genes you are another species of Hominids, with 1.5% you are a Chimp, so... yes mices are another species. You were saying previously "x" sharing a lot of genes with "y" should look the same or shouldn't if they don't, that's not how it works, and it's not based on the amount of genes shared as it's been established with mices and humans. You likely didn't know that minutes ago.


You don't seem to realize you are proving yourself wrong by saying different races can look similar like Oceanians and SSA. They don't really though, but they parted ways on other elements than skin color that are constituing the vast majority of the dna that matters, which is the whole point since the beginning: How people look (especially in your terms) is often a terrible oversight of the biological reality and you keep doing it over and over, with those outdated ideas of the brown paper bag, claiming this proves race doesn't exist.

The best example are Papuans who didn't have to change as much in superficial traits from Africans than other races. In short they went from one jungle to another, then developped their own mutations in isolation during at least 50 000 years, like every other major races. However there are even blonde Papuans/Bougainvilles, what's your conclusion with this? Are they mixed, are they another race, another explanation,... or it's just a random amino acid change in one gene TYRP1 and some unknown allele which is still anecdotally debated. The important part is they remain genetically indistinguishable from other Salomon islanders, as they should, but both very much from other groups.


In the grand scheme of things the main races of Europeans, Africans and East Asians won't look like each others, for the most part because they had to entirely adapt physiologically to their new environements, that means a lot more than skin color which alone is not the reason they are 3 different races.

[Hellenas]

Why do so many in this forum put so much more emphasis on race than culture or language?

Because skulls are harder than amphoras and words.

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

Fun fact: You can always tell (at least in person) if someone has negro ancestry by a bluish tint in the half-moons of their fingernails.

It means you have cyanosis. It has nothing to do with race.

[Smeagol]

It means you have cyanosis. It has nothing to do with race.

Cyanosis is a bluish discoloration all over the skin. Blue half-moons are the last stronghold of Negro blood. At least that's what I was told growing up.

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

Cyanosis is a bluish discoloration all over the skin. Blue half-moons are the last stronghold of Negro blood. At least that's what I was told growing up.

You shouldn't believe everything you were told growing up. Cyanosis also affects fingernails.

[HannibaltheGreat]

You are confused about so much things, i don't even know where to begins with this torrent of nonesense and falsehood, in strange english on top of it, so im not sure it's worth since you don't seem to be able to understand the ironical tone of some sentences. But let's say someone else might find it interesting.
sure I am confused. :p


With a difference of 0.5% genes you are another species of Hominids, with 1.5% you are a Chimp, so... yes mices are another species. You were saying previously "x" sharing a lot of genes with "y" should look the same or shouldn't if they don't, that's not how it works, and it's not based on the amount of genes shared as it's been established with mices and humans. You likely didn't know that minutes ago.
They don't have the Same mutations.
So if a "white" person scored 1.5 percent Sub Saharan African on their DNA test does that mean they are not white no more?
So if a Person scored 1.5 percent Neanderthal DNA or greater does that mean they are no longer Homosapians but a new "race"?



You don't seem to realize you are proving yourself wrong by saying different races can look similar like Oceanians and SSA. They don't really though, but they parted ways on other elements than skin color that are constituing the vast majority of the dna that matters, which is the whole point since the beginning: How people look (especially in your terms) is often a terrible oversight of the biological reality and you keep doing it over and over, with those outdated ideas of the brown paper bag, claiming this proves race doesn't exist.

Many do do though or look like a Mullato or East African.
Melanasian
https://scitechdaily.com/images/blond-pacific-islander-girl.jpg

https://i0.wp.com/onwestpapua.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/35.jpg?resize=600%2C450&ssl=1


https://ocdn.eu/pulscms-transforms/1/wXFk9kpTURBXy8xNDc4YzhkN2ViMWE5MTExMzQ3ODcwYTc2ODY yY2RlZi5qcGeRlQLNAfTNAU7Cw94AAaEwBQ

https://www.curlcentric.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Introducing-the-Melanesians-889x667.jpeg
https://assets.survivalinternational.org/pictures/1234/ind-wp-dani-adg-11_940.jpg

Africans
https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/dfV6P6Aat5iToTp9MuxMj8-1200-80.jpg


https://i2-prod.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article9834460.ece/ALTERNATES/n615/Baka-Tribe-Of-Central-Africa-Struggle-For-Survival.jpg



The best example are Papuans who didn't have to change as much in superficial traits from Africans than other races. In short they went from one jungle to another, then developped their own mutations in isolation during at least 50 000 years, like every other major races. However there are even blonde Papuans/Bougainvilles, what's your conclusion with this? Are they mixed, are they another race, another explanation,... or it's just a random amino acid change in one gene TYRP1 and some unknown allele which is still anecdotally debated. The important part is they remain genetically indistinguishable from other Salomon islanders, as they should, but both very much from other groups.


Right, Phenotypically similar, Yet not very closely related. But "Races" are supposed to be Phenotypically different? Why would use the Chinese and the Cameroonian before and use phenotype to explain Race difference then. But here you want to ignore Melanesians are phenotypically similar to Sub Saharan?




In the grand scheme of things the main races of Europeans, Africans and East Asians won't look like each others, for the most part because they had to entirely adapt physiologically to their new environments, that means a lot more than skin color which alone is not the reason they are 3 different races.

So Afghanistan People Are European now? Really? Did the Nordic and Neolithic Hunter gatherer European and Forest Dwelling European evolve to stop resembling the desert dwelling middle eastern and the Afghani people phenotypically?
Afghani people and Arabs are Europeans now?:

Really? so Tropical South East asians such as Philippines or Cambodians are the same race as northern like Siberian Kamatchka, Altai mountain Indigenous peoples or or North Koreans Asians? Slender Flat nosed South East Asians are the same race as Stocky Builty North Asians Slender San Peoples? Or Barrel Chested Andean Native Americans? Or Sammi People from Finland are the Same race as Kamatchka People? Which one is it? Same race as Cold Adapted Asian people or Tropical Sub saharans? I mean they both have Flat noses, and full flips very often.


definition of Race: Race is a categorization of humans based on shared physical or social qualities into groups generally viewed as distinct within a given society.


Defining race
Modern scholarship views racial categories as socially constructed, that is, race is not intrinsic to human beings but rather an identity created, often by socially dominant groups, to establish meaning in a social context. Different cultures define different racial groups, often focused on the largest groups of social relevance, and these definitions can change over time.

It doesnt say anything about Genetics

https://www.genome.gov/genetics-glossary/Race#:~:text=Race%20is%20a%20social%20construct,na tions%2C%20regions%20and%20the%20world.


Race is a social construct used to group people. Race was constructed as a hierarchal human-grouping system, generating racial classifications to identify, distinguish and marginalize some groups across nations, regions and the world. Race divides human populations into groups often based on physical appearance, social factors and cultural backgrounds.

Race has nothing to do with Genetics. Its an association of phenotypes. Its a way people try to categorize humans by physical characteristics. Its not genetic

[SilverKnight]

As I wrote here: https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?352685-How-d-you-react-if-English-replaced-your-country-s-native-language-as-the-official-language/page3
"I just find the dissonance in values and priorities that many forum users have risible (not saying you specifically). They complain if their neighbourhood or city changes from 99% White to 93% White, but seem (at least by comparison) quite relaxed at seeing their native language disappear or being subsumed." Let us discuss.


Because me like them white, freckles with red hair and kinda thick

[HannibaltheGreat]

new rule, If you carry a dwarf gene you are part of of the Dwarven race. If you are under 5'5 but dont have the dwarf gene you are part of the midget race

[Petalpusher]

sure I am confused. :p


They don't have the Same mutations.
So if a "white" person scored 1.5 percent Sub Saharan African on their DNA test does that mean they are not white no more?
So if a Person scored 1.5 percent Neanderthal DNA or greater does that mean they are no longer Homosapians but a new "race"?



You still don't understand 1.5% of admixture, which is a frequency of divergent genotype, is not the same as having 1.5% different genes, so understanding any other principle is completely hopeless.

Race used to be more or less a construct indeed because we didn't have any other means apart from observations, even astute ones, unlike yours. With the advent of genetics it's now a biological reality based on empirical evidences that confirms for the most part what we always thought, with some nuances and newly found paradigms. We tend to replace the word race for ethnicities, groups, etc...as it's not as triggering for people like you but we all know we mean race. That would be so strange that all the livings had speciation and raciation for millions of years but humans did not.

[HannibaltheGreat]

You still don't understand 1.5% of admixture, which is a frequency of divergent genotype, is not the same as having 1.5% different genes, so understanding any other principle is completely hopeless.

Race used to be more or less a construct indeed because we didn't have any other means apart from observations, even astute ones, unlike yours. With the advent of genetics it's now a biological reality based on empirical evidences that confirms for the most part what we always thought, with some nuances and newly found paradigms. We tend to replace the word race for ethnicities, groups, etc...as it's not as triggering for people like you but we all know we mean race. That would be so strange that all the livings had speciation and raciation for millions of years but humans did not.

Yea yea, sure
Basically, you have no sufficient rebutal but to ignore it all

[Mortimer]

You still don't understand 1.5% of admixture, which is a frequency of divergent genotype, is not the same as having 1.5% different genes, so understanding any other principle is completely hopeless.

Race used to be more or less a construct indeed because we didn't have any other means apart from observations, even astute ones, unlike yours. With the advent of genetics it's now a biological reality based on empirical evidences that confirms for the most part what we always thought, with some nuances and newly found paradigms. We tend to replace the word race for ethnicities, groups, etc...as it's not as triggering for people like you but we all know we mean race. That would be so strange that all the livings had speciation and raciation for millions of years but humans did not.

I think it is not only another word, but also another concept, when we speak of human biodiversity we do not speak of "race" in the traditional sense, in the traditional sense for example it was considered unnatural to be a mullato, like something like a mule between a donkey and a horse, i always wondered if the word mullato is related to the word mule, thats why also laws forbidding such companionships, or death penalty by the KKK for such things. Did you watched Mudbound on netflix? The KKK said that the mullato is not a child but "a unnatural abomination" and that the punishment for that crime is death, but because he had a very good white friend, he got away with just his "tongue" being cutt off so he was mute for the rest of his life.

[axel.aleman]

Because me like them white, freckles with red hair and kinda thick

I prefer mediterranean white girls with dark hair
And Pred. Euro Hispanic giros. Some northern african and middle east girls too

[Petalpusher]

I think it is not only another word, but also another concept, when we speak of human biodiversity we do not speak of "race" in the traditional sense, in the traditional sense for example it was considered unnatural to be a mullato, like something like a mule between a donkey and a horse, i always wondered if the word mullato is related to the word mule, thats why also laws forbidding such companionships, or death penalty by the KKK for such things. Did you watched Mudbound on netflix? The KKK said that the mullato is not a child but "a unnatural abomination" and that the punishment for that crime is death, but because he had a very good white friend, he got away with just his "tongue" being cutt off so he was mute for the rest of his life.

Yes, mulatto comes from the allusion to the origin of mules, the hybrid mixing of horses and donkeys.

Bruno was burned at the stake for believing in many worlds ("exoplanets" in modern terms). Those who supported this were seen as heretics, along with commoners believing in other worlds made of demons, justifying their heresy. Yet today they were both right on Bruno's principle, many other worlds exist, at least. Maybe one day we will even find out they are inhabited by "demons". Idiots can also harbor parts of the truth.

[Figueiredo]

"Why do so many in this forum put so much more emphasis on race than culture or language?"

Because our race is our roots and our base. And nothing is more important than honoring, celebrating and defending our race.

[lei.talk]

Fun fact: You can always tell (at least in person) if someone has negro ancestry
by a bluish tint in the half-moons of their fingernails.

the blue of the moon
will not be the only tinted anatomical detail

(particularly on females).



http://www.theapricity.com/forum/images/icons/icon6.png a higher standard: if your lunela is not pink..https://i.imgur.com/u7leimb.png

https://i.imgur.com/Qx9hk0c.gif (https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?175544-Are-Europeans-without-pink-nipples-true-Europeans&p=3663043&viewfull=1#post3663043)

[B01AB20]

To emphasise the importance of language and culture, and even of multiculturalism in occasional contexts, this video shows how important was for expansion and advance of culture and civiliaztion the multiculti acceptance and attitude of one of the most important kings of Castille, Alfonso X The Wise.

I'm in favor of homogeneous societies, but it would be cynical to deny how multiculturalism affected positively in certain moments.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbQ41vGvqHU

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

I'm imagining gullible people on this forum checking the fingers nails of every White person they meet. Pale blue lunula indicates diabetes, for example. There are a few possible medical reasons. None of them is racial.

[Tooting Carmen]

I'm imaging gullible people on this forum checking the fingers nails of every White person they meet.

LMAO.

[InmostLight]

I'm imagining gullible people on this forum checking the fingers nails of every White person they meet. Pale blue lunula indicates diabetes, for example. There are a few possible medical reasons. None of them is racial.

Watch women here with a "Cherokee princess" ancestor start busting out the heavy nail polish

[lei.talk]

consider how many female readers
followed the image-embedded url-link in my post

and promptly opened their blouse
to determine if they were "good enough"

or were for ever destined to be the victims of ancestral métissage:


their tainted tint proof of fremdvölker pollution.


I'm imagining gullible people on this forum
checking the fingers nails of every White person they meet.