science vs the social construct
===============================================
Posted by: Lot's Wife ( )

Date: July 02, 2019 05:46PM

That should close out the thread
================================================

I don't get it. Please explain.

So LW's argument, your argument,
it seems is that there is zero genetic difference between the 5 different races of people the US census requires you to identify as.
I identify as "Mixed Race" because I am a hybrid, between Homo Sapiens Sapiens, Neanderthal and Denisvovan, according to my DNA test results.
I am Native American, Asian, European and African.
About as mixed as you can get.
If we buy into the "Out of Africa" model of migration that archeologist have been proving since Darwin came upon evolution, that theory is now proven fact. Proven by DNA and the predominant narrative in Evolutionary Biological terms.
Now if a St. Bernard has VERY specific DNA that you can test and it will tell you exactly how many generations ago his ancestors wandered out of the woods and made friends with humans, who began breeding them and acting and looking like humans. We totally created them and the other 84 breeds that came from them.
We are inter dependent upon our best friends.
The advantage we had over the much more hearty, larger brained Neanderthals in Europe, was that we befriended dogs and they befriended us. We made an alliance with them so that we could outhunt and out compete and out breed the Neanderthals, while fucking as many of them as we could. I'm pretty sure early Homo Sapiens, Idaltu's, were quite eager to fuck anything that walked upright and looked them in the eye. There were at least 13 other kinds of humans in Africa alone, back then. And I'm pretty sure they had something like a watering hole where they all got together and pro-created, which is probably why there are more different kinds of Africans as there are "others", non-Africans.
We are ALL mutts, hybrids.
Those different sub species of humans, Homo's, became different breeds of people, just like a St. Bernard and a Chiuahua can interbreed. They've got certain genetics that determine their size and appearance and athleticism. Those genes are as testable in my mutt as they are in me.
I got my daughters's pound puppy's DNA back and he's half Jack Russel and half Pomeranian. My partner got her's tested and she's Jewish and English.
But it's true we are ALL from Africa, if you go back about 60,000 years ago, which is about the time we made it up to the Middle East, the Cradel of Civilization.
And then we started breeding with anything that was already there. Some of those matings were with homonids who had been in Europe and Asia for well over 300,000 years, and were still enough like us to reproduce with us. Which is where white people come from. We're Neanderthals. And Asians are Neanderthal/AFrican Hybrids who mated with Denisovans, who were in Asia for longer than Neanderthals were in Europe.
And they migrated from there.
There's not much genetic evidence in the tropics, due to the heat and decay and all, but there's a good chance that the Aborignals and New Guinean's migrated out of Africa before any of us, which would explain why they still have extremely dark skin and kinky hair and other features we would associate with Africans.
If I have genetically proven DNA results that show that I"m European, and that I am 3% Neanderthal and 4% Denisovan, that would mean that I am 7% more ancient Human DNA(Neanderthal/Denisovan) than an African.
And a European is 3% on Average, more of a hybridized human than an African.
The white supremacists had it upside down,
Africans are the only "Pure" race of humans.
We're all fucking bastard mongrels compared to them.
Our African ancestors headed off to Europe and did what humans do, fed, fought and fucked their way through Europe and Asia, with something closer to Chimpanzees than Homo Sapiens Sapiens.
Africans stuck with Africans.
But there were at least 14 different sub-species of humans in Africa at the time of our predecessor, Homo Sapiens Idaltu, Wise Elder Man, the First Man.
And he might have had his choice of one of them who was closely enough related to us to reproduce fertile offsrpig.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/03/2019 09:45PM by koriwhore.

The answer to the question, as multiple people pointed out, is that in biological terms "race" is not a meaningful concept; but in social and political terms, it is--which is why "racism," also a social and political phenomenon, is a substantial notion. That's all that can reasonably be said about the topic, as anybody, Henry, and several other people noted.

If you have evidence that any serious geneticist believes "race" is a biologically useful term, please provide it. Otherwise, the topic is moot.

'in biological terms "race" is not a meaningful concept'

It's not meaningful that some of us are adapted to tropical conditions, some to arctic conditions and some to milk drinking and some to high levels of fat consumption... And also those physical differences aren't biological either. Clearly when someone has a big prominent nose, or epicanthic folds, or tight curly hair, these are nothing to do with their genes, but the results of personal choice and plastic surgery.

Since race doesn't exist in your view, "transracials" (or whatever they call themselves) are okay, because it's all imaginary and not meaningful

Where has anyone said race doesn't exist? I see lots of people staying that it's a social construct, i.e. it's real. Please continue to puposefully misconstrue what people are saying. It showcases you "intelligence" very well.

"Social construct" is a gibberish left wing phrase used to justify attempts at true social engineering and to destabilize society. Even if we are to take the concept seriously, the idea of "social constructs" themselves would have to be a "social construct".

Race and gender are not social constructs, they are physical realities. As I have said elsewhere there is no sharp dividing line between races, but that doesn't mean that they don't exist.

Remember the Kennewick Man controversy? If he looked like Patrick Stewart, how could he be Native American? Well he was and the truth was turned out to be more complex than people realised.

Another example comes from the ancient world. We find no mention of modern era type racism in the the classical literature. Differences were noticed (Aethiops = burned face) but not the type of white European racial superiority that we are familiar with -- something that did not come into existence until the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.

As others have said racism has many components but the main this that to be "racist" you have power over the subject group *and* a classification based on inherent traits.

Don't confuse ethnocentrism with racism. They are not the same.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/04/2019 02:39AM by anybody.

The only thing that is really going on here is that some people still can't believe or accept they are the descendants of dark woolly haired sub-Saharan black Africans and look for anything that might show even the tiniest bit of difference to claim they are different when in fact they are the same.

The traits we call "race" are of recent origin and come and go.

There is great variety of skin tone and skull shapes even amongst present-day Africans.

Modern Europeans only developed light skin and straight hair only a few thousand years ago after the end of the last Ice Age.


https://www.indy100.com/article/cheddar-man-black-skin-dark-bias-uk-ethncity-dna-first-britons-black-racism-8198721

https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/cheddar-man-mesolithic-britain-blue-eyed-boy.html

I am not on Jordan's side.
He makes the same argument as white supremacists. But even broken clocks are right twice a day.
Like the Harvard geneticist said, the white supremacists are not wrong to say Europeans are part Neanderthal and that Neanderthals had larger brains. But there's no evidence bigger brain meant, more intelligent.
In fact, they were less well suited for survival, since they went extinct.

Kori, I know you are not a white supremacist. You are not like Jordan and his ilk.

But you have not produced a single scientific study that validates the idea that race is a biologically meaningful concept. Does that not give you pause? If your idea is compelling, why can't you show us reputable scientists who agree?

I did try to find a paper referencing what you're stating, but couldn't find it.

The closest I came to was this paper:
"They used information from sequenced genomes of ancient Neanderthal DNA to identify Neanderthal DNA fragments in living humans on chromosomes 1 and 18 that correlated with reduced cranial roundness. "
...
"The Neanderthal variants lead to small changes in gene activity and only push people slightly towards a less globular brain shape,"
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/12/181213142153.htm

But that was about roundness, i.e. shape, not size.

While I was looking for your geneticist, I did find the following interesting articles...

"Thus, there is no evidence that the groups we commonly call 'races' have distinct, unifying genetic identities. In fact, there is ample variation within races (Figure 1B).

"Ultimately, there is so much ambiguity between the races, and so much variation within them, that two people of European descent may be more genetically similar to an Asian person than they are to each other (Figure 2)."
...
"In the biological and social sciences, the consensus is clear: race is a social construct, not a biological attribute."
http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2017/science-genetics-reshaping-race-debate-21st-century/

And this one...

"Neandertals had larger brains than we now do. But modern humans roaming around Africa and Europe 90,000 years ago had brains about the same size as Neandertals, albeit with larger temporal lobes."
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2002/02/skull-and-face-changes-define-modern-humans/

I like the part where it says that modern humans IN AFRICA had brains about the same size as their Neandertals contemporaries.

I found a bunch more along similar lines, but I want to go to bed and tomorrow is a holiday in the states and I'm all out of popcorn. I look forward to reading what I'm sure will continue to be a well researched, totally fact based, non-mud slinging discussion.

I pray Kori pays attention to this. He is not a racist and should be able to adjust his position in accordance with science. Jordan and some of the others are not capable of seeing that far.

I hope Koriwhore gets it. I think they are close.

I've never said white people were superior. A lot of white people have their noses in the gutter or guzzle cheap wine out of cartons in the park.

It is remarkable--is it not?--that while inebriated in a homeless shelter I can still run circles around your pathetic, mealy-mouthed ass?

Scatology again. I recommend that cheap cider out of a plastic bottle. It has never seen an apple in its life, but drink enough of it, and you will rapidly be in no position to care.

Now, if you will excuse me, I need to go back to my processed TV Dinner.

I'm sorry my language is too harsh for you. I just don't think that "mealy-mouthed" restraint is appropriate when addressing vile ideas expressed by vile people.

The only thing that is really going on here is that some people still can't believe or accept they are the descendants of dark woolly haired sub-Saharan black Africans and look for anything that might show even the tiniest bit of difference to claim they are different when in fact they are the same.

The traits we call "race" are of recent origin and come and go.

There is great variety of skin tone and skull shapes even amongst present-day Africans.

Modern Europeans only developed light skin and straight hair only a few thousand years ago after the end of the last Ice Age.


https://www.indy100.com/article/cheddar-man-black-skin-dark-bias-uk-ethncity-dna-first-britons-black-racism-8198721

https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/cheddar-man-mesolithic-britain-blue-eyed-boy.html


Another interesting thing is so-called "blackfishing" controversy:

https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-46427180

Forget about the social media marketing part and think about this. There is enough similarity between white Europeans and African Americans for them to look alike just with changes in hair and skin colour.

People move. Genes get passed around. Human traits come and go.

But we are still all the same.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/04/2019 03:32AM by anybody.

You have no idea how much I appreciate your objectivity and command of facts. It is a breath of fresh air in an age of resurgent ignorance.

The fact is that Cheddar Man never traveled outside Europe and was not an African. His existence has been hijacked by those who wish to have Europe colonized in a similar way to the white Europeans colonized Africa and tried to take over that continent by mass migration.

Dark skin, by the way, is not an advantage in the higher latitudes of Europe since it makes you even more pronw to S.A.D. and Vitamin D deficiency, which is why Cheddar Man's descendants evolved skin tones which were more suitable. That is fact, not bigotry. Just as it is a plain fact that whites in the Tropics get sunburn easily.

How do you even manage the cash register?


---------------
> The fact is that Cheddar Man never traveled
> outside Europe and was not an African.

Show where anyone disputed that. You make a declaration of the obvious and act as if it is anything but oblivious.

Explain also how it in any way contradicts what anybody, and the articles she offers, state.


------------
> His
> existence has been hijacked by those who wish to
> have Europe colonized in a similar way to the
> white Europeans colonized Africa and tried to take
> over that continent by mass migration.

That is one of the most tendentious nostrums you have ever produced. No one is hijacking anything. They are explaining how Europe was settled.

You are the one who is irrationally asserting a parallel with modern debates. It is difficult to imagine a more flaccid and transparent attempt, to conflate historical reality with your personal political preferences.


-----------------------
> Dark skin, by the way, is not an advantage in the
> higher latitudes of Europe since it makes you even
> more pronw to S.A.D. and Vitamin D deficiency,
> which is why Cheddar Man's descendants evolved
> skin tones which were more suitable.

You do this all the time. A poster presents an argument with supporting evidence. You dispute the conclusion but then turn around and adopt the underlying facts, announcing them as the product of your great mind as if that somehow supports your point--which it does not.

There was a coherent argument in that article, with evidence and conclusions. You mischaracterize the conclusions and then act as if you brought us the evidence, which is as stupid as it is dishonest.


--------------
> That is fact,
> not bigotry.

See? You are boldly defending the scientist's facts after having rejected his conclusions. That is pathetic.


----------------
> Just as it is a plain fact that
> whites in the Tropics get sunburn easily.

And here you move to the utterly trivial. Is that insightful? Does it bolster your rejection of the science?

Does it give you a little shiver?

The Cheddar Man debate is more about the appearance of the people who are coming to live in the UK, not those who have deep roots there. That is the metadiscourse.

Cheddar Man is not an argument for immigration either way.

Even if all the poor people in the world emigrated to the developed world, the problems caused would be massive. If half emigrated it would not solve poverty in the developing world. There would also be massive jnfrastructure and pollution problems.

So when they say Cheddar Man is dark skinned, they are really trying to say what difference does it makes if most of England ends up black. It's irrelevant in some senses.

This is typical Jordan bullshit.


--------------
> The Cheddar Man debate is more about the
> appearance of the people who are coming to live in
> the UK, not those who have deep roots there.

False. The appearance of Cheddar Man is anthropology. The scientists at work in this field are not drawing implications in present terms. You are the one superimposing your own political scheme.


--------------
> That
> is the metadiscourse.

"Metadiscourse" is a "cultural construct" or "narrative" propounded by people with very little understanding of language or anthropology. It is a "cultural Marxist's" attempt to avoid thought.


-----------------
> Cheddar Man is not an argument for immigration
> either way.

That was my point. You denied it (see above) and now you are embracing it. That's pathetic.


----------------
> Even if all the poor people in the world emigrated
> to the developed world, the problems caused would
> be massive. If half emigrated it would not solve
> poverty in the developing world. There would also
> be massive jnfrastructure and pollution problems.

Didn't you just say Cheddar Man is an argument for modern immigration? Then why did you just go from Cheddar Man to modern immigration?

Why, frankly, is your political obsession in this thread at all?


---------------
> So when they say Cheddar Man is dark skinned, they
> are really trying to say what difference does it
> makes if most of England ends up black. It's
> irrelevant in some senses.

That's the most foolish thing you've said all day--well, I take that back. But it is certainly among the top ten.

anybody Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
There is enough similarity
> between white Europeans and African Americans for
> them to look alike just with changes in hair and
> skin colour.

That is because so called African Amedicans have a substantial percentage of white ancestry, and not all from rape and horror. They should technically be called Eur-African Americans. Some of them are very pale (and they're often the most militant funnily enough). Then you have the Colin Powells of the world qho are whiter than I am!

The USA has the "one drop" idea, so if someone is very white looking then rhey need fractional black ancestry to be black. Obama was constantly being described as "black" and in some ways he was - but if you look at pictures of his white mother, she looked more like him than his father did.

Whoosh.

From within the construct, it can seem to be all there is.

dogblogger Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> From within the construct, it can seem to be all
> there is.
like fish swimming in the ocean completely unaware of "water"

Well, there are flying fish who then must be unaware of both water and atmosphere...

The answer is simple: don't fly. Just stay under the water in your ocean; or your sea; or your pond; or, in some people's cases, your three-gallon fishbowl. That way you can swim among your own prejudices and are never challenged by the realities beyond the plastic plant and the Sally, Dick and Jane book resting next to you on the child's desk.

Just stay in your tiny little world where your beliefs are never subjected to the scrutiny of logic. There's a smug happiness in there which attracts a certain kind of fish.

I think he totally knows what he is. His efforts to be subtle reveal that imo. It’s a game for him - make his point and maintain deniability. Get him in the right environment and he’d spill the beans I’m guessing.

Probably true.

:(

https://owlcation.com/stem/8-Neanderthal-Traits-in-Modern-Humans

Traits we (non-Africans) inherited from Neanderthals

1. Skin color
2. Hair color
3. Eye color
4. Tendency towards mental disorder
5. Tendency to get sunburnt.
6. Skin disorders
7. Blood clotting
8. Sleep patterns

If that is not a genetic basis for racial differences I have no more to say on the subject.

And I couldn't be more opposed to white nationalism or white supremacy.
The story contained in our DNA debunks racial superiority of any kind. It debunks the entire concept of "purity" because Africans are the only race (breed) who can claim 100% Homo Sapiens Sapiens DNA.
Every other race are half breed or mutts comparatively.
But even Africans are hybrids.
We all are, and that should unite us instead of divide us.

"That should unite us not divide us"

When we all live under a global government, and every person and every place looks practically identical, it will not be the paradise some people think it is.

At worst it will be an oppressive dictatorship and at best another corrupt pseudo-democracy where politicians will make even more bucks iff the billions than they do today.

It will also be a panopticon where your every behavior, statements, locations and purchases, maybe even your thoughts themselves, will be monitored as if you are a prisoner. And if you oppose it, they will accuse you of patriarchy, Xphobia or some other means to shut you up.

Man, you need help. A discussion of ancient anthropology is not an invitation for you to engage in your paranoid rants.

Cheddar Man is dead. He can't steal your bodily fluids. And no one wants to oppress you; they just want you to go away.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Man, you need help. A discussion of ancient
> anthropology is not an invitation for you to
> engage in your paranoid rants.
>
> Cheddar Man is dead. He can't steal your bodily
> fluids. And no one wants to oppress you; they
> just want you to go away.

From what I read, Cheddar man is only 10,000yrs old. HSS have been in Europe for 40,000 years and Neanderthals were there for 300,000yrs before HSS arrived and promptly replaced them, after fucking them.

Yes. He's been dead a very long time and is no threat to Jordan's bodily fluids.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes. He's been dead a very long time and is no
> threat to Jordan's bodily fluids.

You chose a bad day to give up glue sniffing. And don't call me Shirlwy.

Why? Have you run out of refills at the convenience store whose register you operate?

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Man, you need help. A discussion of ancient
> anthropology is not an invitation for you to
> engage in your paranoid rants.
>
> Cheddar Man is dead. He can't steal your bodily
> fluids. And no one wants to oppress you; they
> just want you to go away.

Cheddar Man would be utterly bemused by the way people like you try to use him to justify ill thought out social engineering. I wish we could somehow get him to speak today, he would out some myths to bed.

It takes impressive foolishness to claim that a discussion of a 10,000 year old body is proposition of a political view today.

Do you have any evidence to support your interpretation or are we to take as true based on your overwhelming intelligence and objectivity?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/05/2019 03:55AM by Lot's Wife.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It takes impressive foolishness to claim that a
> discussion of a 10,000 year old body is
> proposition of a political view today.

No it doesn't. Archeology and paleontology are politicized and have been for at least two centuries. It's not supposed to be, but it is.

When Piltdown Man was discovered (and thought to be real), he was presented as representing nativism, i.e. he was a true Englishman. (The hoaxer had very helpfully put a kind of primitive cricket bat near his bones. Maybe a cup of tea would have gone too far.)

In Tibet, the Chinese government conducts historical research which is designed to enhance their suzerainty over the place. In Great Zimbabwe, archeologists claimed for years that the town was built by a non-black civilization.

National Socialists were also very keen on archeology, and used to finance missions everywhere.

In this case, the press releases clearly support current political trends.

"Suzerainty" is a big word. It does not, however, mean what you think it does. China's relationship with Tibet is one of sovereignty, not suzerainty.

Rather than tell us that the press releases on Cheddar Man evince a contemporary political motive, why don't you show us those releases. It's not that we don't trust your objectivity; it's just that. . .

We don't trust your objectivity.

Yeah, I just read and watched some of the press releases. There isn't a political agenda to them--unless you think that his blue eyes and his inability to digest milk are politically motivated lies.

Is that what you have in mind, Jordan? Is the assertion that he couldn't digest milk a conspiracy designed to brand the beverage unnatural to Britain in order to destroy the UK dairy industry? That seems a little strange.

If I am missing something, spell it out and document it. Otherwise, take your metadiscourse and other jargon and get back behind the counter.

https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/dtcgenetictesting/neanderthaldna

NIH article on biological, physical, neurological and immuniological, traits non-Africans inherited from Neanderthals,

It seems to me that genetically that makes non-Africams significantly different different from Africans.
And Asians are significantly, provably, genetically tested, predictably, to contain more archaic Human Neanderthal/Denissovan) DNA than any other race.
How is that scientifically meaningless?

It isn't scientifically meaningless.

What is scientifically meaningless is the association with those factual observations with the concept of "race."

We've said this a hundred times, but there is vastly more genetic variance between African peoples than between Asians and Europeans or between either of them and Africans. Any logical system of differentiation would posit 8 or 10 or 12 races of Africans, and everyone else would be a subset of one of those races. That is genetic fact.

Whenever someone wants to distinguish between Asian and European "races," they are demonstrating that they are completely ignoring the underlying genetics. There is no way under heaven that Africans are one race, or two, or six, and Europeans and Asians are two different ones.

There is more than one race which is native to Africa for sure. And we should acknowledge that diversity. There are blonde African natives (Berbers), and Bushmen who are quite different to Bantu. We shouldn't try and bleach them all into proxy white Americans.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It isn't scientifically meaningless.
>
> What is scientifically meaningless is the
> association with those factual observations with
> the concept of "race."
>
> We've said this a hundred times, but there is
> vastly more genetic variance between African
> peoples than between Asians and Europeans or
> between either of them and Africans. Any logical
> system of differentiation would posit 8 or 10 or
> 12 races of Africans, and everyone else would be a
> subset of one of those races. That is genetic
> fact.
>
> Whenever someone wants to distinguish between
> Asian and European "races," they are demonstrating
> that they are completely ignoring the underlying
> genetics. There is no way under heaven that
> Africans are one race, or two, or six, and
> Europeans and Asians are two different ones.

So take it up with a judge.
Fact is
There are proven genetic differences between Africans and all the rest of us, non-Africans.
Between Asians and non-asians.
Between Europeans and non-Europeans.
Who are you to determine something is scientifically meaningless?
Its meaningful to Paboo Svante at the Max Plank Institute, which is why he put it in his book on the subject, "Neanderthal zman"
Its meaningful to Science magazine or they wouldnt publish it.
Its meaningful to NIH or they wouldnt publish it.
Its meaningful to the human genome project or they wouldnt publish it.
How the fuck is it "not scientifically meaningful" to you?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/04/2019 11:32PM by schrodingerscat.

I give up, Kori. You haven't changed.

I think it depends on what you want to do with the data.

If I stand a Chihuahua and a great Dane next to each other and tell you, nay, insist, that they are different races of dogs, based on an obvious list of comparisons that I've drawn up, what's your response?

you fell for the marketing

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think it depends on what you want to do with the
> data.
>
> If I stand a Chihuahua and a great Dane next to
> each other and tell you, nay, insist, that they
> are different races of dogs, based on an obvious
> list of comparisons that I've drawn up, what's
> your response?
Breed and race are synonymous.
There are genetic tests for dog breeds just like there are genetic tests for race in humans. Ive paid for both, numerous times on numerous people and dogs.
They are extremely accurate, dependable, and predictable.
My DNA test indicated I was 2.8% Neanderthal and 4% Denisovan. Which is predictable, given I am European and Asian. Africans have neither, because their ancestors never contacted Neanderthals or Denisovans.
My dog is 50% Jack Russel Terrier and 50% Pomeranian.
Totally predictable, testable and reliable.

and Mormonism is fake.

I'm going to try and point out some basic things here.

There were *NO* settled people on this planet until the end of the last Ice Age.

Humans followed their food sources as the climate changed over the millennia. The Americas were the last continents to be settled and Europe was the next to last. Humans are not native to Europe.

Some humans (Neanderthals) did make it through the Ice Age in Europe but very, very few. Their ancestors followed a similar path out of Africa to follow their food and adapted (hair, light skin, etc) to live in harsh environment. By the time modern humans showed up (ca. 50,000 BC) things are still harsh but not bad. People were competing for food. Neanderthals weren't cut out to run and run and run to chase down their food like modern humans are. Why did they die out? Nobody really knows but some of them did breed with modern humans.

That doesn't make them a separate species.

Then it started getting even colder again and the ice crept back. A few people survived in Spain, the Balkans, and other refuges in southern Europe. By the time things started to get warmer, some people migrated back into Northern Europe. Things were harsh but people had to survive and they went wherever their food went. These were Cheddar Man's people -- and his relations were found at other sites on the continent.

Then much later (5000 BC) people from North India and the mid-east started to show up in Europe. They were short, dark haired with brown eyes and light skinned but not "white" and they didn't always have to chase down their food. They could grow some of it. They displaced Cheddar Man's people and their descendants would go on to build megalithic monuments all over Europe including Stonehenge. These are the people the Romans would later call "Brittunculi" -- "dirty little Brits." Then the Celts came from west Central Asia and displaced them and only a few of them are left now (the Welsh.)


The point I'm trying to make here is that this common view that so many people were raised with is just not true:

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."
--Judge Leon Bazile in Caroline County Court, 1958


White people are not native to Europe. White people as we know them didn't even exist until a few thousand years ago. Breed traits we call "race" are ephemeral adaptations that come and go and are not fixed. Humans are all the same species and did *not* originate on different continents but migrated from Africa at different times in history.

I'm sorry to burst your bubble but there's absolutely *nothing* special about being "white."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/04/2019 04:58PM by anybody.

Makes sense.

Now where the hell did the Neanderthals come from?

"White people are not native to Europe."

Hawaiians arrived in Hawaii in 300, and Maori in NZ in 1200. Native Americans have also been in the Americas for under 20,000 years.

Are any of these people "native"?

Or are the Europeans just to be singled out as "non-native"?

Buy a dictionary. Native means indigenous; and both mean original or naturally occurring. It follows that when a new people arrive, the people who were there earlier are "natives."

So in the cases you list, yes, Europeans should be singled out as "non-native." You may not like it, but that's what the words mean.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Buy a dictionary. Native means indigenous; and
> both mean original or naturally occurring.
> It
> follows that when a new people arrive, the people
> who were there earlier are "natives."

> So in the cases you list, yes, Europeans should be
> singled out as "non-native." You may not like it,
> but that's what the words mean.

No, you're not wriggling out of this one. Europeans and their ancestors have been in Europe longer than some of these other groups including Native Americans. Some of these places - the Pacific Islands - were colonjzed when classical civilizations were in Europe, or even during the later Medieval period (New Zealand).


It
> follows that when a new people arrive, the people
> who were there earlier are "natives."

Well, you completely contradict yourself there. It was stated Europe had waves of migration introducing agriculture, and later metal working etc. Around the time New Zealand was colonized Saracens tried to invade Europe, as did the Turk, so according to your logic of when a "new people arrive", then the Europeans are native, since new groups have continuously been arriving or trying to and still are.

Several peoples in Europe - the Sami (Lapps), Celts, Basques and certain tribes in European Russia all have resemblences to tribal native peoples elsewhere and have retained tribal structures into modern times.

You can't have it both ways.

Here's the judge from Loving v. Virginia again --

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

--Judge Leon Bazile in Caroline County Court, 1958

Humans are *not* native to Europe or America -- they migrated there.


"White" people with light skin and "white" facial features weren't created by God and just dropped down from the sky one place.

As humans followed their food supply up the Nile rift valley up into the middle east and central Asia, offspring with lighter skin fared better under those conditions. Eventually some of those people from Central Asia made it to Europe. Their appearance adapted and changed along the way.


Bottom Line -- Human racial traits are adaptations to local conditions that come and go. As humans migrate they interbreed and eventually all humans will have the same general features again.

Must be scary to think your descendants will wind up looking like something that you were taught to hate.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/05/2019 09:47AM by anybody.

> No, you're not wriggling out of this one.
> Europeans and their ancestors have been in Europe
> longer than some of these other groups including
> Native Americans. Some of these places - the
> Pacific Islands - were colonjzed when classical
> civilizations were in Europe, or even during the
> later Medieval period (New Zealand).

So you are making the controversial statement that Europeans are native to Europe? Uh, yes. The question is whether it is unfair to treat Europeans as non-native in the Americas, Hawaii, etc. The answer to that inquiry is that no, it is not unfair to reserve the term "natives" for people already living in an area.



----------------
> Well, you completely contradict yourself there. It
> was stated Europe had waves of migration
> introducing agriculture, and later metal working
> etc. Around the time New Zealand was colonized
> Saracens tried to invade Europe, as did the Turk,
> so according to your logic of when a "new people
> arrive", then the Europeans are native, since new
> groups have continuously been arriving or trying
> to and still are.

What is the confusion here? If Europeans live somewhere and a new group moves in, the older population are indigenous or native. Is that unclear to you?


------------------------
> Several peoples in Europe - the Sami (Lapps),
> Celts, Basques and certain tribes in European
> Russia all have resemblences to tribal native
> peoples elsewhere and have retained tribal
> structures into modern times.

Monumental irrelevance.

"These are the people the Romans would later call "Brittunculi" -- "dirty little Brits." Then the Celts came from west Central Asia and displaced them and only a few of them are left now (the Welsh.)"

The Celts were firmly ensconced there when the Romans arrived. Welsh is far from the only living Celtic language. There are another five.

"Racism" is just another name given to the hatred you feel for people whose skin tone is not exactly the same as yours.

To sum this up...

There is no such thing as "race" in the sense that human races are different species.

It doesn't matter if you were told that you were special from birth and were on the right side of the Lord and God blessed you with white skin. All humans are the same species.

There is only one "race" -- the human race.


https://psmag.com/social-justice/white-nationalism-is-driven-by-a-perceived-loss-of-status


"White populists complain they are losing ground to minorities in terms of status and power. At the same time, they assert with increasing belligerence that their country is the greatest in the world. On its face, this pair of claims is puzzling: Why would your allegiance grow to a society you feel is treating your people poorly?

A"ccording to a new study, it makes perfect sense from a psychological perspective. Researchers Nikhil Sengupta of the University of Oxford and Danny Osborne and Chris Sibley of the University of Auckland argue that the negative feelings arising from perceived group decline can be counteracted by the conviction that your country is strong and powerful.

"In other words, if one group you identify with (whites) no longer provides the same comforting sense that you are a part of a powerful "we," you can latch onto the strength of a different group you identify with—Americans, or Poles, or, in the case of this study, New Zealanders. And when you do, it's more important than ever to proclaim the mightiness of that substitute entity.


https://www.livescience.com/60157-what-motivates-white-supremacists.html

"Racism and racial beliefs generally aren't based on logic, at least not in the sense of an objective scientific logic," John Cheng, a professor of Asian and Asian-American studies at Binghamton University in New York, told Live Science in an email. "As beliefs, they are the products of individual and collective psychology. In other words, people have a way of believing what they want to believe."



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 07/05/2019 09:31AM by anybody.

anybody Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> To sum this up...
>
> There is no such thing as "race" in the sense that
> human races are different species.
>
> It doesn't matter if you were told that you were
> special from birth and were on the right side of
> the Lord and God blessed you with white skin. All
> humans are the same species.
>
> There is only one "race" -- the human race.

Let's dispense with that non sensical cliche. If there's only one race, the human race, why does the US Census force you to identify as one of 5 races?

I agree there is only one sub-species of humans remainining on Earth today, of the 16 sub-species that have existed, but the DNA of some of those sub-species (races, breeds) still exist in modern Humans (HSS)
Neanderthals were a different race (Sub-species, breed) that evolved in Europe for 250,000 years before we HSS, showed up from Africa, We interbred with them and created a hybrid race, Europeans. Same is true in Asia with Denisovans.
And yes there's more genetic diversity in Africa than there is outside of Africa, because our predecessor, Homo Sapiens Idaltu, had her choice of 13 other sub-species (breeds, races) of humans who co-existed with her in Africa to choose from 300,000 years ago.

And you're right, being white doesn't make you superior, it makes you part Neanderthal, who were not as well adapted to a warmer climate, based upon the fact they died out and we survived. Although they existed in a frozen Europe for 200,000 years before Homo Sapiens came into existence, so we've got about 200,000 years to go before we can claim we are a superior race to Neanderthals.
And given the fact we developed Nukes and passed them out like Halloween candy to religious and atheist zealots, the chances of us making it another 100 years are slim to none.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/05/2019 10:22AM by schrodingerscat.