Recovery Board  : RfM
Recovery from Mormonism (RfM) discussion forum. 
Go to Topic: PreviousNext
Go to: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicSearchLog In
Posted by: schrodingerscat ( )
Date: July 05, 2019 10:28AM

...does the Federal Government force us to identify ourselves as one of 5 different races on the US Census?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/05/2019 10:28AM by schrodingerscat.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: elderolddog ( )
Date: July 05, 2019 10:30AM

Simply to supply you with the ammunition needed to shoot down all who challenge you.

And it's good that you grant them the infallibility they desire.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/05/2019 10:30AM by elderolddog.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Jordan ( )
Date: July 05, 2019 10:39AM


Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: olderelder ( )
Date: July 05, 2019 11:10AM

Because government isn't biology.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Dave the Atheist ( )
Date: July 05, 2019 11:14AM

The government wants to know how to group you.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: jacob ( )
Date: July 05, 2019 11:28AM

I've stayed out of this because it's stupid. However, I have had a few thoughts as I've read through the threads.

1. There is no biological definition of race. The subjective markers that are observed are not genetically significant enough to rise to subspecies and so race is a general term used to identify genetically insignificant subjective markers.

1a. Given the subjectivity of racial definitions the fact that there is racism isn't that surprising.

2. The genetic differences that are observed are real and I don't know anyone on this earth that would deny this.

2a. Your insistence that they are significant makes you a racist.

3. I've just blown my wad, so please feel free to explain to me why your insistence that insignificant genetic differences that mean a great deal to you in spite of overwhelming objective scientific proof of their insignificance doesn't make you racist.


As for the current question. Since you are a hyooj fan of argumentum ad verecundiam. Why can't you figure this out?

I'll explain.

The Federal Government isn't an authority.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: dagny ( )
Date: July 05, 2019 12:38PM

Apparently Koricat thinks some alleles should be grouped together in ways he can classify by sight because some non-scientist in the Government wants to know who has which combinations of alleles.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: schrodingerscat ( )
Date: July 05, 2019 03:36PM

dagny Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Apparently Koricat thinks some alleles should be
> grouped together in ways he can classify by sight
> because some non-scientist in the Government wants
> to know who has which combinations of alleles.
No. I accept the scientific fact there are proven, testable, significant genetic differences between races that you can test yourself by sending in your DNA to any direct to consumer testing lab that will tell you, predictably. That you are 3% Neanderthal (on average) if you are not 100% African. And if you are 100% African there will be, predictably, 0% Neanderthal DNA in your genetic makeup.
Call that insignificant if you want, but it isn't insignificant to Paboo Svante, who mapped the Neanderthal genome.
If he is a racist for publishing his data, then I am in good company, but name calling doesn't change the DNA evidence.
If I am a racist, then so is the Federal government for forcing us to identify ourselves by race on the US Census.
If I am a racist, then so is the NIH for publishing the scientific facts I stated above.
I'm an anti-racist. The story told by our DNA is anti-racist.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: dagny ( )
Date: July 05, 2019 03:51PM

I'm not viewing subspecies (e.g. Neanderthals) the same as expression of alleles (gene expression).
I look forward to a census question asking what extinct subspecies we came from. They are probably deciding what percentage is required for discrimination purposes as we speak. (Sarcasm!)

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Finally Free! ( )
Date: July 05, 2019 03:58PM

>" I accept the scientific fact there are proven, testable, ..."

This made me laugh. No, you don't. Scientific articles have been posted showing your statements to be inaccurate. You don't read them. You don't care about the actual science. This has been shown time and time again. Then, Articles from the government, showing why "race" is listed on the census have been posted, again, you ignore them.

You are a living and walking embodiment of confirmation bias. Unless it upholds your personal views you ignore them. If it does uphold your personal views, they are infallible, regardless of the source.

>"significant genetic differences between races that you can test yourself by sending in your DNA to any direct to consumer testing lab that will tell you, predictably."

Again, you ignore science on this. A quick search on the reliability of these services calls into question their results. Are they close, sure, but often sending your sample into multiple sources can lead to varying results, sometimes wildly. So, I wouldn't trust them for the large scale claims you're trying to make. They are for popular/entertainment use only, not for actual science you're trying to claim they are. And they make no claim about race, they stick to ancestry.

Beside, and again, as noted in the last thread you started on this topic. Geneticists have pointed out that the differences between what you are trying to call biological race is negligible.

You are no geneticist. Why do you refuse to listen to them when they say that race doesn't exist. Aren't you the appeal to authority to a fault guy? Shouldn't you be listening to the scientists when they say there is no such thing as biological race?

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Screen Name ( )
Date: July 05, 2019 11:52AM

Dennis Prager once stated that there are only two races: the decent and the indecent.

I find his belief spot on.

https://www.azquotes.com/author/11841-Dennis_Prager

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Henry Bemis ( )
Date: July 05, 2019 11:57AM

This is very easy to answer. There are three reasons:

(1) The Census Bureau is full of social scientists;
(2) Social Scientists are interested in demographics (information about population groups) because they think such data is useful to government entities in establishing social policy.
(3) How a person psychologically identifies based upon socially established racial constructs is part of that interest.

Notice that what is of interest here is not "the fact-of-the matter," but only how one psychologically identifies. If "the fact of the matter" was at issue, on your theory they would ask every person to get an ancestral DNA test and provide *the* answer to the racial question. But there is no such answer.

Now, suppose the Bureau wanted the "racial fact-of-the matter," and made the further demand that everyone submit to testing. And suppose some test came back, as they typically do, with a hodge-podge of percentage based "racial" identifications. How, then, would the census question be answered? What "race" would be the actual "fact-of-the-matter" and why!

Now, purpose further that you are confused about how to answer the question based upon the data provided, so you call the ancestral DNA company and ask to speak with someone who can identify your race without any ambiguity. You finally get to the chief geneticist, and she tells you something like this:

"All we basically do here is identify DNA markers that are statistically correlated with geographic locations and populations, including histories. These correlations are entered into a computer, and subject to analysis by a program that compares and weighs the data in accordance with what the programmer deems appropriate. Then, when an individual genome is provided to us we run it through the program and it spits out how a person's individual DNA compares with the population data as identified in the program. That is all we do."

Incredulous, you then ask: "What does this have to do with 'race?' In response, you get:

"Well nothing, really. Because it is all just statistical data comparisons. NOWHERE IS RACE DEFINED! THERE ARE NO NECESSARY AND SUFFICIENT CONDITIONS FOR ANY RACIAL CATETORIES. WE LEAVE THAT UP TO THE SOCIAL SCIENTISTS!" We do, of course, use identifying language, and categorical terms, like "Asian," "European," and "African," but these terms are merely labels for generalizations and useful discourse. THEY ARE NOT RACIAL CATEGORIES! Such categories have no meaning to us!"

Thus, there is literally NO genetic or biological fact of the matter as to one's "race." Even if someone's DNA analysis came back 99 percent African, there still is no racial category involved, and thus no genetic racial identification. This does not mean, of course, that there are not biological and genetic commonalities between people that are manifested through various physical appearances. But there is no sense in which this is "racial" unless arbitrary defined as a social construct.

O.K. Are we done?

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Finally Free! ( )
Date: July 05, 2019 12:06PM

>"O.K. Are we done?"

Of course we aren't done. Everything you've stated has been pointed out to the OP before, with references to government sites with full explanations and everything.

The OP (and others) simply refuse to recognize the separation of biology and sociology. In biology race means nothing, in sociology, race is important. They see things as black and white (sorry) either race is everywhere, or it's no where. The arguments have been knocked down over and over again.

I don't know if they are just trolling at this point, but I've lost count of the number of times this very question has been brought up in the last month alone. It serves no purpose to the mission of the board to rehash this over and over again.

I guess I'll go pop some more popcorn.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Finally Free! ( )
Date: July 05, 2019 12:21PM

>"If there's only one race, the human race, why ... does the Federal Government force us to identify ourselves as one of 5 different races on the US Census?"

I tried to find the thread where I answered this question for you already, it appears to have been lost to the great de-politicizing a short while ago. So, I'll re-post this, since, even though I remember you having acknowledged it then, you seem to have already forgotten it.

First, no one has said that race isn't real. It is, but it is sociological, not biological. Race, as a sociological idea, has had tremendous impact for history, government, society, and life in general for millions of people every day.

I hope we can agree that Government is a sociological thing. Even though there's no biological basis for "government" it does exist. As others have stated multiple times in the recent weeks, society cares very much for its social constructs, including race.

As to your base question, here's the link I posted last time you tried this argument (I mean, you obviously have access to the internet, is google blocked on your computer or something? for someone who claims to want to debunk false notions, you don't seem particularly good at researching things)

"Local, state, tribal, and federal programs use these data, and they are critical factors in the basic research behind numerous policies, particularly for civil rights. Race data are used in planning and funding government programs that provide funds or services for specific groups.

"These data are also used to evaluate government programs and policies to ensure that they fairly and equitably serve the needs of all racial groups and to monitor compliance with antidiscrimination laws, regulations, and policies."
- https://www.census.gov/acs/www/about/why-we-ask-each-question/race/

That's just a snippet, the whole page is a good read, I suggest you take a look.

Also, no one is "forcing" you to answer the question. Please feel free to skip the question and see if the cops show up at your house to arrest you... Or you could lie, we all know that you're OK with that, cultural appropriation is OK, especially if one gains from it, right?

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: anybody ( )
Date: July 05, 2019 12:27PM

https://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Terra-Incognita-Americas-poisonous-obsession-with-race-506890

"Everything that happens in America is about race. A woman makes a video about sexual harassment, it’s about race.

Someone wins an election, it’s about race.

Crime? Race. Police brutality? Race. Test scores? Race. Mortgages, hairstyles, voter IDs, immigration, health care – every single issue gets twisted, wrangled, molded, manipulated and jammed into a funnel of intellectual ignorance and banality until it comes out at the other end as a racial issue.

Since the civil rights movement of the 1960s when challenging racial stereotypes and institutionalized discrimination became the vanguard in the US, interest in race has not dissipated but increased.

It has had its moments of ebb and flow.

For instance there was a rise in racial consciousness in the 1960s and a decline in the 1980s. Then there were racial tensions in the early 1990s and the riots in Los Angeles, and the OJ Simpson trial. There seemed to be a sort of hiatus as America began to focus more on Hispanics, homosexual rights and then Islamist terrorism. But then race came back into the spotlight during president Barack Obama’s tenure and specifically after the Ferguson, Missouri riots.

However, issues of race are always there.

And they hover in the background, not in a healthy way but in a disturbing, obsessive way. The more America has become diverse, the more multicultural, the more common interracial and inter-ethnic marriage, the more people discuss race. This is interesting because there are more nonwhite people in America than at any time since independence.

“Children of color” are now the majority of children born in America according to NPR. Not only are there more non-white people but interracial marriage is at an all-time high. According to another article, 10% of all married Americans were with someone of a different race in 2015 and 18% of all new marriages were across the divide. In Honolulu the number is 42% and in Las Vegas 31%.

According to BET it is actually black Americans who object to interracial marriage the most. “One in five African-Americans actually believe marrying other races is bad for society.” Nevertheless 24% of black men who marry, marry someone of a different race, according to the article. 12% of black women do the same.

So America is more of a melting pot than ever before. Yet there are more headlines about “white” and “black” than ever before. If America is becoming more different shades of brown than ever before, why is it always trying to talk about “white people” more than ever before and more about “white privilege” than at any time in the past decades? Because American popular culture doesn’t like nuance. Steve Jobs and Ralph Nader are both of Middle Eastern background, but they are “white.” The 9/11 hijackers came from the wealthiest countries in the Middle East. But they are considered non-white because they are “Muslim.” Wasn’t the Boston Marathon bomber white? He came from the Caucasus, right? Like Armenians.

Are Armenian-Americans white or black or Hispanic? Those are the only allowable racial categories that exist in America.

Sometimes reduced to just “people of color” or “white.”

If people from Syria are “people of color” are people from Turkey, just across the border? And if they are “people of color” then aren’t people from Greece, some of whom have Turkish ancestors and vice-versa, “people of color”? And what about Macedonians? How do we know where to draw the line of “white”? Bosnians from Europe but who moved to Palestine in the 1880s – are they “people of color” or “white”? They probably never asked themselves this, unless they then moved to America and had to decide.

Oddly, in an America where many “white” people are not that white, there hasn’t been a rush of white people to flee whiteness and claim to be people of color.

Why is that? Why do Americans accept the definitions that popular culture has enslaved them by? Why do they accept being turned into masses of “whites” and “blacks”? Why don’t they rebel? Bob Marley, who was half white, like Barack Obama, sung “emancipate yourself from mental slavery, none but ourselves can free our minds.” Why can’t Americans emancipate themselves from the slavery of racial categories? Who benefits from the racial divisions in America and media’s constant focus on race? It’s unclear why Americans continue to run to their simplistic and narrow definitions of race. An article at PRI.org may shed some light on it when it discusses “love, race and white privilege.” It described an Indian-American man who wanted to date a Korean-American woman. She told him “I’ve only dated white men because I would want my children to have privilege.”

The same article describes a black woman whose relatives told her not to marry a white man. The article notes “marrying someone who’s white means someone who has benefited from those privileges historically. For instance having more wealth and disposable income.”

It seems that no matter how many people blur their racial origins through intermarriage, society in the US will still need them to be white in order to maintain its disastrous divisions and obsession with race. For instance a black and white couple who have kids will have kids that are either “black” or “white” because America demands this. It requires everyone to be divided. It cannot countenance the increase in people who have mixed background because a central pillar of society is race and racism.

When you apply for jobs, mortgages, university, or fill out the census, you are always asked to be “white” or “black,” you cannot be both. Even though tens of millions of Americans, maybe more, are not of one race, they are required to define themselves as such.

Martin Luther King said he dreamed of a country where people would be judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin. King was murdered and his dream became a nightmare. People are increasingly only judged for the color of their skin in America. Even when your skin is neither white nor black, the Nazi-like race experts are there to tell you that you to need to step into one box or another.

As someone who hasn’t lived in America for more than a decade, I look back across the ocean at this race-obsessed landscape and think how the discussion of race poisons the mind. The world is not white or black, it’s many different, diverse groups.

American civilization refuses to accept that diversity and in so doing has caused lasting damage to hundreds of millions of Americans and has impacted the world for the worse. Only a new generation of Americans can seek to reduce the disastrous focus on race as an explanation for everything. Judging by social media and the unwillingness of people to challenge racial definitions and constructs, it doesn’t appear this generation will question race. Maybe the next one will. "

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Roy G Biv ( )
Date: July 05, 2019 02:10PM

From the US Census Bureau....

"The racial categories included in the census questionnaire generally reflect a social definition of race recognized in this country and not an attempt to define race biologically, anthropologically, or genetically."

Can you just be done with this now?

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: elderolddog ( )
Date: July 05, 2019 02:13PM

He's going to argue WITH US that what you showed us is a cop out and that we need to help him set the record straight.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Roy G Biv ( )
Date: July 05, 2019 02:27PM

His arguing about it, rather than accepting it for what is is, is a cop out :)

His response to your reply way up there at the top under the OP indicates he is more interested in a debate/ discussion with himself that anyone else. He's the only one that really cares about what he say's. The argument is in HIS mind. Must be tough.....especially when you come to the realization that you didn't do enough for politics in Poland when you had the chance!

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Brother Of Jerry ( )
Date: July 05, 2019 03:57PM

It matters not what anyone says here. The exact same complaint with the exact same misrepresentations will be made again in a few weeks, and a few weeks after that, ad infinitum.

IMHO, a slow-motion case of OCD.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: elderolddog ( )
Date: July 05, 2019 03:59PM

I.e., needle-stuck-in-a-groove-itis.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Finally Free! ( )
Date: July 05, 2019 04:01PM

Yes, this exactly. I really need to stop posting in these threads, it's driving me a bit crazy and I'm starting to realize I'm living the commonly held definition of insanity. There will be no growth or change in the OP or others on this topic.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Lot's Wife ( )
Date: July 05, 2019 04:02PM

That is true of several different constant topics on RfM.

Frustrating, no?

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Finally Free! ( )
Date: July 05, 2019 04:04PM

Extremely.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: dagny ( )
Date: July 05, 2019 04:13PM

Well, at least Koricat isn't posting a cherry picked quote from a famous atheist/agnostic as proof for his definition of Dog.

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him study science.

BoJ said slow motion OCD. That's how it seems to me too.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Lot's Wife ( )
Date: July 05, 2019 04:17PM

True.

But I believe Kori is fundamentally a good man. I don't believe he would ever hold another person's ethnicity against him. Rather than argue with Kori, I'd rather disengage.

I find some of the other discussions more disturbing. The racism, the ethnocentrism, the misogyny, the surreptitious political manipulation: those are more disturbing to me because they entail real consequences for real people.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: dagny ( )
Date: July 05, 2019 04:34PM

Agree.

Some of the others are disturbingly like the trends we are seeing throughout the Internet for derailing, getting people riled up and divisive using misinformation and fake accounts with an agenda in mind. I hope it isn't true, but those techniques have spread like wildfire.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Finally Free! ( )
Date: July 05, 2019 04:35PM

Personally, while I don't think Kori would hold another person's ethnicity against them, some of his posts have caused me lose respect for him. Like, when he boasted about his son lying about his race on a college application form, gaining unexpected grant money from it and refusing to return it. He did walk a back from it a bit, but he originally posted it as though he was proud of the story.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/05/2019 04:36PM by Finally Free!.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Lot's Wife ( )
Date: July 05, 2019 05:05PM

I agree with that. Kori is stubborn and he has done some things--like the application discussion and the attacks on missionaries--with which I don't feel comfortable.

But he seems a man of goodwill, and there are too few of those in today's world. I hope he can become more flexible in some of our debates since I would enjoy engaging with him more constructively; but whether that is possible or not, I imagine he is a net positive in his community and the world.

We need more net positives.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: elderolddog ( )
Date: July 05, 2019 06:05PM

I regret that I am net gross.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Lot's Wife ( )
Date: July 05, 2019 06:52PM

I think all that sentence requires is an exclamation point.

!

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: schrodingerscat ( )
Date: July 05, 2019 11:02PM

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I agree with that. Kori is stubborn and he has
> done some things--like the application discussion
> and the attacks on missionaries--with which I
> don't feel comfortable.
>
> But he seems a man of goodwill, and there are too
> few of those in today's world. I hope he can
> become more flexible in some of our debates since
> I would enjoy engaging with him more
> constructively; but whether that is possible or
> not, I imagine he is a net positive in his
> community and the world.
>
> We need more net positives.

Thank you. I didn't agree with my son, who checked the African American box on his college application. Despite being native American. I only told the story because at the time, I did think it was racist. That was before we mapped the Neanderthal genome. Up until a few years ago we assumed there was no genetic difference between Africans and non Africans. And I used to think the US Census was racist. I even wrote in,"Other, not a racist" on the census form. A census worker called me and said "nor a racist wasn't a race and insisted I pick one of the 5 races. I told him I wasn't white, or black, or yellow or brown or red, that I was more of a biege."
He said beige isn't a choice.
I said well how would I know, is there a test I can take to tell me?
At the time there wasn't, so he said, no sir, your name sounds Eastern European, is that right?
I said, so why'd you even bother calling?"
He said Im just gonna mark you down as white, ok?
But that all changed when we mapped the human genome and the Neanderthal genome and compared them.
People who say theres only one race totally ignore Neanderthal DNA in non Africans and even more signoficant Denisovan DNA in Asians.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Lot's Wife ( )
Date: July 05, 2019 11:58PM

> But that all changed when we mapped the human
> genome and the Neanderthal genome and compared
> them.

Geneticists don't think anything changed.


-------------

> People who say theres only one race totally ignore
> Neanderthal DNA in non Africans and even more
> signoficant Denisovan DNA in Asians.

Geneticists don't agree. Their views on race haven't changed.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: schrodingerscat ( )
Date: July 06, 2019 12:09AM

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > But that all changed when we mapped the human
> > genome and the Neanderthal genome and compared
> > them.
>
> Geneticists don't think anything changed.
>
>
> -------------
>
> > People who say theres only one race totally
> ignore
> > Neanderthal DNA in non Africans and even more
> > signoficant Denisovan DNA in Asians.
>
> Geneticists don't agree. Their views on race
> haven't changed.

There didn't used to be a genetic test for Neanderthal DNA before Paboo Svante at Max Plank Institute sequenced Neanderthal DNA.
Now there is.
I tested DNA and it came in slightly below average for Neanderthal DNA.
You can too, and unless you are 100% African, it will test positive for Neanderthal DNA, every time.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Lot's Wife ( )
Date: July 06, 2019 12:13AM

Scientists have been aware of the DNA, the Neanderthal and Denisovan contributions, and the tests a lot longer than 23andme.com. And yet no credible expert has reached your conclusion.

That should give you pause for thought.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: dogblogger ( )
Date: July 06, 2019 12:09AM

Because that's not the standard used by the most knowledgeable practitioners for reasons already explained numerous times

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Henry Bemis ( )
Date: July 05, 2019 07:14PM

What I don't understand is why these proposed genetic racial distinctions are so important to those wanting to adopt prejudicial attitudes, or engage in discriminatory conduct.

After all, social and cultural constructs are very powerful. And nobody is saying that they are neither socially baseless or irrelevant. Otherwise, we would not be talking about such things as affirmative action and reparations.

But more importantly, the fact that "race" is not biologically based does not mean that there are no genetic commonalities within populations, or that such commonalities cannot be associated with common traits within communities of people. Of course, you cannot get biologically based behavioral dispositions out of these commonalities (IMHO) but you couldn't get that anyway even if "race" was genetically based. (There are no genes that program for behavioral dispositions.)

In short, if one wants to find an excuse for prejudice they do not need genetic racial categories, they just need recognizable distinctions in the population and a desire to exploit such distinctions in a prejudicial way.

So, my question for SC is what is the big deal. Why this stubbornness? What is it you are trying to show here? After all, eventually it *does* seem very disingenuous.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: anybody ( )
Date: July 06, 2019 09:16AM

In 1540, Francisco Vázquez de Coronado explored what would be the southwestern and midwestern USA and found nothing except pueblos, desert, mountains, and an endless sea of grass. No gold.


That same year, Hernando de Soto explored what would be the southeastern USA. He didn't find any cities or gold either. He did leave behind diseases via sex and pigs. After European contact, disease wiped out almost 90% of the eastern Native American population over the next hundred years.


By the time the English latecomers came to America in the 1580s, there weren't enough eastern native people who could put up much large scale resistance. They also brought many women and children with them --- unlike the Spanish and French -- and didn't mate with native women as much as the French and Spanish did. They were looking for a new life and not to go back to Europe with new riches. But they still needed to make the land pay and they did this with native crops like maize and tobacco. To do this they were going to need a lot of labour. At first, they tried using forced native labour but that didn't work out so well. Indentured labourers from Britain kept dying off. Then in 1619, a ship landed in Virginia by chance with a small number of African slaves acquired from the Portuguese. They didn't die off in the heat as easily. That's how it all started.


By the mid seventeenth century, indentured and slave labour generated a lot of wealth in the colonies. Tobacco and sugar were labour intensive and any disruption in labour cost them money. There also weren't any real laws governing slavery except for mediaeval customs left over from the Roman Empire. Who was a slave and who wasn't? What was the status of the offspring? Class was the great social divide in that era and after several rebellions, the wealthy planters began to introduce racial hierarchy in place of the traditional European class system to prevent their workers from joining forces against them. This was new. This hadn't existed before. And by the beginning of the eighteenth century, it was the law.


This is how the racial caste system began in America. You had to know what someone's "race" was to determine their place within the hierarchy. Slavery is distasteful even for slavers and they developed a philosophy of religious justification to give themselves peace of mind. The enslaved were no longer thought of as human beings but merely as animals. Scientific racism did the same in the nineteenth century.


Then Darwin and evolution changed things. Where did humans come from? Apes? Impossible! Anthropology and DNA in the twentieth century really shook things up. White people -- who were made in God's image -- are the descendants of black Africans? Ridiculous! No Way! We're human! Blacks are animals!


Stop grasping at straws. There is no "white" human species. There is no separate white "race." There is only one "race." The Human Race.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 07/06/2019 10:45AM by anybody.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: schrodingerscat ( )
Date: July 06, 2019 10:49AM

anybody Wrote:
> Stop grasping at straws. There is no separate
> white "race." There is only one "race." The Human
> Race.

Vapid cliches don't alter genetic test results or facts, no matter how often you repeat them.
Obviously if Africans have 0% Neanderthal DNA and Eurasians have 3% Neanderthal DNA, on average, that is a significant genetic difference, considering a 1.2% variance in DNA is the difference between us and chimpanzees/bonobos.
Why am I so stubborn?
Facts are stubborn.
Test results are stubborn and they don't lie.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: anybody ( )
Date: July 06, 2019 11:40AM

http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2017/science-genetics-reshaping-race-debate-21st-century/

"Members of the alt-right are enthusiastic proponents of ancestry testing as a way to prove their “pure” white heritage (with Scandinavian and Germanic ancestry being among the most desirable) and to rule out undesired descent from any other groups (including, unsurprisingly, Africans and the Ashkenazi Jews, but even certain European groups, such as Italians and Armenians). The belief in white superiority, and the need to preserve it, drives the alt-right movement—and genetics is both the weapon and battle standard of this new, supposedly “scientific” racism.

Those who disagree with alt-right ideologies may assume that the alt-right is merely spewing ignorant nonsense. This is certainly true for some of the alt-right. What is perhaps a more difficult truth is that many of the alt-right do, in fact, understand biology and genetics to an impressive extent, even if this understanding is flawed.

For instance, alt-right proponents have stated, correctly, that many people with European and Asian descent have inherited 1-4% of their DNA from Neanderthals ancestors, and those of African descent do not have Neanderthal heritage. They are similarly correct that Neanderthals had larger skulls than humans. Based on these facts, some within the alt-right have claimed that Europeans and Asians have superior intelligence because they have inherited larger brains from their Neanderthal ancestors.

However, this claim ignores that while there is evidence for the effect of Neanderthal DNA on certain traits, there has been no evidence for its effect on intelligence. Furthermore, scientific research indicates that the Neanderthals were not necessarily more intelligent simply because they had larger skulls. Unsurprisingly, the alt-right tends cherry-pick the ideas that align with their preconceived notions of racial hierarchies, ignoring the broader context of the field of human genetics.
Fighting racism with understanding

Just as the alt-right is no longer an easily dismissed fringe group, their arguments have some factual basis, and cannot be swept aside as the babbling of the scientific illiterate. The alt-right is not clumsy in their use of science and genetics in their battle for their “ideals.” Those who oppose the alt-right, and other racist entities, must arm themselves with the same weapons: education, namely scientific and genetic literacy.

Mounting scientific evidence has shown that humans are fundamentally more similar than different from each other. Nonetheless, racism has persisted. Scientific findings are often ignored, or otherwise actively misinterpreted and misused to further racist agendas of extreme political groups. Opponents of these forces must, through their own education and awareness, combat these misleading interpretations and representations of scientific findings.

Today, the question of “race” is no longer merely a political and social issue: as science has rapidly advanced, it has become irrevocably intertwined. The genome contains powerful insights about our biology that could unite us as a species, but which could also be dangerous and divisive if used without understanding. As we look forward to 2017 and onwards, it becomes ever more important to understand what our DNA says about what it means to be human."



https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/04/how-europeans-evolved-white-skin

"Most of us think of Europe as the ancestral home of white people. But a new study shows that pale skin, as well as other traits such as tallness and the ability to digest milk as adults, arrived in most of the continent relatively recently. The work, presented here last week at the 84th annual meeting of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists, offers dramatic evidence of recent evolution in Europe and shows that most modern Europeans don’t look much like those of 8000 years ago.

The origins of Europeans have come into sharp focus in the past year as researchers have sequenced the genomes of ancient populations, rather than only a few individuals. By comparing key parts of the DNA across the genomes of 83 ancient individuals from archaeological sites throughout Europe, the international team of researchers reported earlier this year that Europeans today are a mix of the blending of at least three ancient populations of hunter-gatherers and farmers who moved into Europe in separate migrations over the past 8000 years. The study revealed that a massive migration of Yamnaya herders from the steppes north of the Black Sea may have brought Indo-European languages to Europe about 4500 years ago."

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Jordan ( )
Date: July 06, 2019 12:44PM

"There is no "white" human species. There is no separate white "race." There is only one "race." The Human Race."

You cannot have a subdivision of 100%, you either have subdivisions or no subdivisions. There are either races or no race.

No one has said whites are a separate species. They do have a number of distinctive features including diversity of eye color, hair color and nose shape which is much less common elsewhere, but is probably one reason why whites tend towards individualism (not always beneficial).

What is hypocritical is when people project white ideas onto non-white people and claim them as proxy whites. The idea we are all African is a form of neo-colonialism, and a justification of how whites exploited the place. It is not the wonderful egalitarianism it pretends to be.

Modern society preaches variety, but leads to homogeneity. Already you have cities on different continents which are largely interchangeable in terms of architecture, retail, food outlets, language etc. That isn't diversity at all. Globalization DESTROYS human diversity.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Lot's Wife ( )
Date: July 06, 2019 02:24PM

> No one has said whites are a separate species.
> They do have a number of distinctive features
> including diversity of eye color, hair color and
> nose shape which is much less common elsewhere,
> but is probably one reason why whites tend towards
> individualism (not always beneficial).

Do you have proof either that "whites" are more "individualistic than non-whites? If so, do you have evidence that that peculiarity stems from different superficial physical traits?

Let me guess: you have absolutely no evidence of either contention.


---------------------
> What is hypocritical is when people project white
> ideas onto non-white people and claim them as
> proxy whites.

What are "white ideas?"



--------------------
> The idea we are all African is a
> form of neo-colonialism, and a justification of
> how whites exploited the place.

Are you asserting that humans did not originate in Europe?

Let me guess: you have no evidence from any credible source.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: anybody ( )
Date: July 06, 2019 03:07PM

not because of "individualism..."

Race or ethnicity has nothing to do with ideology -- you don't carry philosophy in you DNA.

This would be funny if it weren't so sad...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/06/2019 03:08PM by anybody.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Jordan ( )
Date: July 07, 2019 12:24PM

I would discuss Europe, Mrs Lot, but tou don't seem to know where it is nor where it ends.

Maybe you need to go to Africa and twll the locals, "I belong here as much as you. I'm an African." See how far you get.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: babyloncansuckit ( )
Date: July 06, 2019 09:36AM

That we’ve run out of Mormon things to talk about is a good sign.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: schrodingerscat ( )
Date: July 06, 2019 10:57AM

babyloncansuckit Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That we’ve run out of Mormon things to talk
> about is a good sign.
While race and genetics are much larger than MORmONism, it is relevant to those of us who were raised to believe seriously white supremacist narratives.
My argument is that science debunks bogus racial/racist narratives, like Joseph's Myth, even though people really don't want to believe they're descended from Neanderthals, as this thread clearly illustrates.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: anybody ( )
Date: July 06, 2019 11:44AM

for transplant. That will shake thinks up.

Then things will be really interesting...

I'm done with this. You can pat yourself on the head and tell yourself that you are "special" since you have Neanderthal DNA and therefore a member of a separate species -- "Whew! I'm part Neanderthal! I evolved outside of Africa! I have nothing to do with them! Yaay!"

If that makes you feel better, then good for you -- but you are wrong.

I seem to recall Mormonism did the same thing with religious mumbo jumbo instead of scientific terms.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/06/2019 11:49AM by anybody.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: elderolddog ( )
Date: July 06, 2019 11:52AM

Being able to feel Special is euphoric.

But I keep my special needs to myself...

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: schrodingerscat ( )
Date: July 07, 2019 11:19AM

anybody Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> for transplant. That will shake thinks up.
>
> Then things will be really interesting...
>
> I'm done with this. You can pat yourself on the
> head and tell yourself that you are "special"
> since you have Neanderthal DNA and therefore a
> member of a separate species -- "Whew! I'm part
> Neanderthal! I evolved outside of Africa! I have
> nothing to do with them! Yaay!"
>
> If that makes you feel better, then good for you
> -- but you are wrong.
>
> I seem to recall Mormonism did the same thing with
> religious mumbo jumbo instead of scientific terms.
I never implied or suggested Whites are superior to any other race and neither does the DNA evidence. It actually suggests just the opposite of what white supremacists have long claimed, that that white race is pure. Mormonism is full of references to white being pure, wholesome. Righteous, while black skin is always demonized as a curse, wicked, evil.
When in fact Africans are the only race that is pure Homo Sapiens Sapiens. The rest of us are mutts, hybrids between HSS and other, more archaic Homos, humans.

"In May 2010, Pääbo and his colleagues published a draft sequence of the Neanderthal genome in the journal Science. He and his team also concluded that there was probably interbreeding between Neanderthals and Eurasian (but not Sub-Saharan African) humans. There is growing support in the scientific community for this theory of admixture between archaic and anatomically-modern humans,"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_P%C3%A4%C3%A4bo
The leading archaic human geneticist, who mapped Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA and compared them to our DNA, drew the conclusion that Non-Africans have significantly more Neanderthal DNA than Africans.
I agree with the science.
You are in denial of science.
You are wrong.

Read a book.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: dogbloggernli ( )
Date: July 07, 2019 11:54AM

but that doesnt constitute race

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: schrodingerscat ( )
Date: July 07, 2019 12:03PM

dogbloggernli Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> but that doesnt constitute race

Were Neanderthals a different race from Africans?

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: dogbloggernli ( )
Date: July 07, 2019 12:09PM

no. they were a different species

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: schrodingerscat ( )
Date: July 07, 2019 01:29PM

dogbloggernli Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> no. they were a different species

How could they produce fertile offspring if they were a different species?

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: elderolddog ( )
Date: July 07, 2019 01:31PM

Sheer dogged determination! Look what it's done for you!

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: schrodingerscat ( )
Date: July 07, 2019 02:06PM

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sheer dogged determination! Look what it's done
> for you!

Determination doesn't change scientific facts.
Even though we are 98.8% genetically identical to Chimps/Bonobos, we can't reproduce with them because we have 23 Chromosomes and they have 24, like all the other apes, besides us.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: dogbloggernli ( )
Date: July 07, 2019 01:48PM

because the definition of species is very loose and often breaks down. Its an inhereited idea from earlier days that works well enough but is not itself rigourous.

Any modern discussion of species will include hybridization.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: elderolddog ( )
Date: July 07, 2019 01:53PM

> Any modern discussion
> of species will include
> hybridization.


The blessing that is hybridization was my go-to move when, in my youth, I would hit on White women!

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: schrodingerscat ( )
Date: July 07, 2019 02:02PM

dogbloggernli Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> because the definition of species is very loose
> and often breaks down. Its an inhereited idea from
> earlier days that works well enough but is not
> itself rigourous.
>
> Any modern discussion of species will include
> hybridization.

Right. So Non-Africans are a hybrid (breed, race) of Homo Sapiens/Neanderthals. While Africans are pure Homo Sapiens Sapiens, which is a hybrid (breed/race) of our predecessor, Homo Sapiens Idaltu and any number of the 13 other sub-species (breeds) of Homos who coexisted with Idaltu in Africa, 200,000 years ago.
Therefore race does in fact have a scientific, testable. Predictable, repeatable, basis.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: dogbloggernli ( )
Date: July 07, 2019 02:24PM

except no one agrees with you.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: dogbloggernli ( )
Date: July 07, 2019 02:52PM

schrodingerscat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> dogbloggernli Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > because the definition of species is very loose
> > and often breaks down. Its an inhereited idea
> from
> > earlier days that works well enough but is not
> > itself rigourous.
> >
> > Any modern discussion of species will include
> > hybridization.
>
> Right. So Non-Africans are a hybrid (breed, race)
> of Homo Sapiens/Neanderthals. While Africans are
> pure Homo Sapiens Sapiens, which is a hybrid
> (breed/race) of our predecessor, Homo Sapiens
> Idaltu and any number of the 13 other sub-species
> (breeds) of Homos who coexisted with Idaltu in
> Africa, 200,000 years ago.
> Therefore race does in fact have a scientific,
> testable. Predictable, repeatable, basis.

And so goes the argument for (a subset of) eugenics...

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: dogbloggernli ( )
Date: July 07, 2019 02:01PM

schrodingerscat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> dogbloggernli Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > no. they were a different species
>
> How could they produce fertile offspring if they
> were a different species?

Your definition of species fails for all asexually reproducing species, parthenognic species and so on just for a quick example.

Options: ReplyQuote
Go to Topic: PreviousNext
Go to: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicSearchLog In


Sorry, you can't reply to this topic. It has been closed. Please start another thread and continue the conversation.