There is STILL no such thing as "race"! But there IS such thing as racism.

You know what's ironic? You say there that today there is only one 'race'... and I say that in about two or three hundred years there will be only one race (totally interbred). We're in agreement -- and only a short span of time apart (putting ~10,000 years of human history into perspective).

We're going to get there, Golem! We'd damn well better get there, or else we'll probably destroy ourselves first.... Now, we can either build on the reality of who and what we are, or fall into the trap of 'feel-good' delusion and ultimately fail.

But, here, in the meantime, although you'll immediately condemn the information contained in these two books as racist, promoting White supremacy, and other kinds of 'thought-crime', are some samples of the kind of painstaking research and the results that you utterly reject, perhaps without even considering it:

1. "A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race, and Human History", by Nicolas Wade
2. "Why Race Matters", by Michael Levin

And if nothing else, remember this: not everyone thinks that 'IQ' is some kind of myth, and not everyone rejects all the well-developed and long-accepted, bedrock principles of "Science (genetics, biology, anthropology...)"

 

Make your case, and use proper references and quotes, to support it, please.

 

How race is defined socially, or in people's perceptions, is different from its basis in genetic clustering associated with geographic ancestry, as described in my post #105 in this thread -- which refutes your OP, and which you have not addressed. Race as a social construct is based on how people look -- their phenotype -- which might have very little to do with their genetic race (geographic ancestry). In the USA, race has also been based on a legal framework that baldly contradicts genetic race: a person with one black African great-great grandparent and 15 white European ones was nevertheless considered legally black. Race is not just one thing, and we have to be careful not to fall into the trap of equivocation; but that does not mean it doesn't exist.

 

Geographic ancestry has NOTHING to do with genetic variance required to define "races". Ancestry does not map into "race". Not even close. People's "perception" is of no interest to me.

I did not address your point because "social constructs" are irrelevant in this discussion. I'm talking about scientific fact. There is no such thing as "races" in science. Not in Biology, not in Anthropology, not in Genetics,.... not in ANY science.

Race is not one thing. It's ZERO things. It doesn't describe anything. If it still exists in anything, then it should cease to exist because it's an absolutely useless concept for categorizing people. As useless as categorizing people by eye color or height. Other than for white supremacists to point to when they want to appear "superior" to a group that is not white, what other use is there for it?

Please make sure you keep in mind the bullet points in "Objections" section of the OP before responding to this question.

 

That is anti-scientific tripe, as Rosemberg et al. 2002 showed.

Again, that is just baldly false as a matter of indisputable objective fact. Race is all about geographic ancestry.

Facts are not interested in what is of interest to you. The concept of race derives exclusively from people's perceptions.

All the concepts of natural language, including race, are social constructs.

No, you are not. You are contriving excuses to avoid talking about scientific fact, such as your claim that race "should" disappear because you consider it "useless."

Again, you made this claim in your OP, but I refuted it in post #105. Race in human populations is merely not the same thing as subspecies in animals.

Already refuted in post #105.

What you think "should" be the case, and your opinions about what is useful and not useful, do not determine what is factually true.

In fact, categorizing people by height is quite useful. The military, for example, will not accept recruits who are above or below certain height limits.

That is a bald attempt to associate the scientific study of race with unsavory opinions.

Understanding human genetics and evolution.

I already refuted them.

 

''There is STILL no such thing as "race"! But there IS such thing as racism.''

If there is no such thing as race, then there is no such thing as racism. It simply can't exist without race also existing.
However, there is such a thing as color and religion, and an irrational prejudice towards those of color and religion.

 

Why? So that you can simply dismiss everything presented by both those authors as 'white supremacist racism'...? It wouldn't be the first time you've done that, because as soon as your 'woke' faction sees any information it disagrees with, it's automatically condemned as 'thought-crime' and rejected because it doesn't fit the 'feel-good', 'we're-all-the-same' narrative.

You want people to read material you reference, but you don't want to read material that others propose...? How is that fair?

Again, the supreme irony is that in about another two or three hundred years, we'll BOTH be right -- there will be one race, but only because of interbreeding, and a cooperative willingness on the part of all genetics researchers to work toward "building a better human being", composed of elements from ALL THREE of the races within humankind!

 

If race doesn't exist, better tell Hollywood to kill their policy on requiring X number of black people in order for a movie to to nominated for an award Same with Fortune penalizing your rating on their “Best Companies..” lists for not having enough diversity.

We better cancel DE&I policy across govt because we’re all the same, so why do quotas matter?

Better explain to all Leftsits to stop pushing quotas and AA and DE&I and just let the best people do the jobs regardless of color, sex, race, ethnicity and every other quota they can think up. Thanks. Appreciate it.

 

Read up on Papa Doc Duvallier who, along with his son, exploited Haiti cruelly.
And the DR has always had a closer financial tie to the US.
Nothing to do with race.

 

Cruel tyrants come in ALL colors and races....

 

The issue was Haiti and why it fared worse than the DR.
I didn't intend my comment to do anything but explain the situation.

 

Both of them are third-world countries, but Haiti is rated as having the worst economy in the Western Hemisphere. Here in the States we've been pouring 'foreign aid' of various kinds into Haiti for DECADES... it's truly a "bottomless pit"....

 

While I am visiting this thread, I have to say I dont know what is meant by race here.
Because ISTM that skin colour has, in common parlance , become merged with cultural identity. Dark skin immediately recalls certain music, sport, dress , dance, accent.
Course it isn't true universally. More and more often in the UK and France people of darker skin including from the Middle East are speaking with a perfect accent, dress beautifully and hold down really good jobs across the range from dentists to media and acting.
From long exposure to expect the stereotype, I am finally not surprised when I encounter dark people who could be white if I shut my eyes. And it is just fine.
Race does exist...as long as the population wants it to. Otherwise, it doesnt have to.

 

It has a different recent political history to the DR. Corruption does not recognise race.
That is the extent of the intent of my comment.

 

Are you attributing this to race?
There are many poor countries ruined by corruption run by white people too.. South Africa and other African countries come to mind.. Corruption is possible in any race.
Haiti's history is different than that of the DR. Duvallier virtually destroyed the place and frightened opposition through threats of voodoo and more common intimidation. Meanwhile the US was investing in the DR as a holiday destination.

 

No, I made no attribution to "race". Failed-states go right on in their state of failure anywhere the population takes no active interest in making its country a better place to live.

 

Read and learn:
https://www.npr.org/sections/money/...haiti-was-forced-to-pay-reparations-for-freed

 

No one, including myself, would dispute that the country of Haiti has had a very difficult time, going back all the way to gaining its independence. Many countries have.

In France, the population was wracked in the transitions from monarchy, to the "Reign of Terror", to Napoleon, to the Republic. Germany suffered from a monarchy, then lost a world war, then went through a chaotic period under a republic in which it, too, was forced to pay reparations, and then plunged into total fascism -- and lost another world war. In Russia, in China, in countless other countries, the process of evolving from one government to the next is rarely without great difficulty. We Americans can hope that someday Haiti can emerge from what it has turned into, but that must depend largely on Haitians....

 

Haiti is very corrupt, and it is very difficult to get out from under corruption without a revolution, with all the disruption and destruction that entails -- and sometimes even a revolution is not enough. Countries with Northern European culture in general have low corruption, whereas corruption is much greater in Africa, South and Southeast Asia, and South America.

 

A tad difficult living under two générations of corruption and a series of hurricanes.
Most of the population is concerned with having a secure roof.

 

Well it Is hardly a pivotal state but any population needs a purpose.
Maybe Americans should stop using it as a drugs transit stop.

 

You're right -- and they're also concerned with having stable ground underneath themselves. These unfortunate people live right on top of a relatively shallow, but very active earthquake fault, called the "Enriquillio-Plantain Garden Fault".

(Earthquakes and other aspects of Earth's seismicity have always been an intense interest of mine. )

 

My first response was to the post that suggested race is associated with poverty.
Maybe not yours but I merely suggested that the history of Haiti had nothing to do with race.

 

Did you have academic standing similar to Biden's who graduated in bottom 1/8?

Directly relevant. You used genetics in making your point and you do not understand it.

If one of those sunbathed a lot?

Historically isolated.

Can you quantify?

My point is that you do not understand basic Mendelian genetics.

 

Genetics IS my point. But in how many genes individuals differ is not. More relevant is the variance between populations. The variance of ANY two populations, regardless of skin color, is more or less the same (about 4.3%) and way below the variance required to be considered a different "race" (which is 25%). As the link I reference explains...

Or if one lives in Africa and the other in Alaska.

Oh. You mean like one in the 16th Century and the other in the 21st. Still questionable, but irrelevant.

The charts are in the link.

And my point is that races don't exist in genetics, biology, anthropology....or any science relevant to the topic. Since your "point" doesn't contradict mine, it's irrelevant to this conversation. I'll let you know when we open a thread in which I am the topic.

I, on the other hand, have proven mine. And you admit that you're not even debating that.

Which means my case is made. Thanks for playing