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

So you "point out" facts about ME to other members? I hate to break it to you, but THEY also know that, when you change the subject to ME, it's because you have no arguments to rebut what I say. At least the intelligent ones.

And, in any case, why would I stop reading your posts? They might not have much content, but at least they can often lead to very funny responses.

 

Did you know the most racist state in this country is Hawaii followed by Massachusetts? Why is the left consumed with and consumed by race and racism?

 

@Golem

"social constructs" can be (must be) reconstructed in a more constructive fashion. reinforcing the situation is the wrong direction.

race as a social construct is the basis, by the way, of critical race theory.

“Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and no city or house divided against itself will stand." matthew 12:25

 

Golem, when you talk about racism, what you're actually talking about is discrimination and/or bigotry which is something we all do - I discriminated against every other woman on the planet when I chose my wife. Another example of bigotry would be your constant referencing of whites in your examples of who you believe are racists.

Let me ask you a very serious question that I've already asked on this board although I forget where.

Back in my college days one of my classes had an impromptu discussion about evolution. In that discussion, it was pointed out that dogs have evolved into specialized categories, ie, some dogs are big and strong, some are aggressive, some are protective, some are small, some are herders, etc. Do you think it's possible the same specialized evolution occurred with humans according to their needs based upon where they lived? If you look at people from the African continent, for centuries they weren't as developed as Europe, as such, they relied on superb physical attributes to hunt and fight off the tribe next door, and the best of the best got to marry the chief's daughter. If you look at Europe, they developed methods of living where extraordinary strength and physical attributes weren't as important as in Africa. With Europe free from the physical struggles of every day survival, they went on to design and build tall buildings and big ships, they got seriously involved with the arts and developed many advanced forms of music, and of course, there is science, and all of that placed less of a need for physical strength. In a physical contest consisting of speed and strength 10 random Africans would almost certainly defeat 10 random Europeans. More than likely Europeans of the time would not survive as well if they were forced to live like Africans in Africa, and Africans would be out of their element if they were dropped into Europe and I have no idea on how long it would take either group to catch up. Do you agree with any of this? Probably a better example would be the people of some lost tribe in Brazil or the people on that isolated island in the Indian Ocean, how many generations do you think it would take for them to fully catch up with us? I would imagine some would catch up quite quickly, but depending on how they evolved in order to survive where they live, others could take a lot longer.

In my original post, I provided a link to a UCLA study suggesting intelligence is inherited - that's the kind of evolution I'm talking about here. If physical attributes can be inherited, then why not the cerebral attributes? Google UCLA intelligence is inherited and it pops right up.

I'm just throwing this out there and I don't have all the answers. I just know that humans have evolved with different physical characteristics due to their environment and needs, so it's very conceivable the human brain also evolved based upon those same needs.

 

I thought our friend, @Golem , always prides himself on the scholarly research he conducts before issuing his findings to we, the unwashed-masses.... But what is 'scholarly' about denying that there are at least THREE races within humankind?!

First, why would you imagine for a moment that humankind does not consist of different races?! There are many distinct differences between at least the three main races, those that are Caucasoid (White), Mongoloid (East-Asian, or "Oriental"), and Negroid (Black) -- and, no, none of those differences are identified in order to rain on anyone's "feel-good" parade! Honestly, you are an educated person, Golem... so why would you indulge your mentality in any kind of faddish 'woke' idiocy that preaches there are no races within humankind?!

May I make just one suggestion? Peruse this sixty-page analysis entitled, "Thirty years of research on race differences in cognitive ability", by Dr. Phillipe Rushton and Dr. Arthur Jensen. Please note that this work is recent, bearing a copyright from 2005, by the American Psychological Association: https://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf

Different races excel in different areas, and that's part of what contributes to the overall success of humankind throughout the world, since the 'dawn of time'. Denying that is anti-scientific, anti-intellectual, and, ironically, it is also quite RACIST...!

 

Early man hunted, sang and danced around the fire, and had sex. I don't think we have improved on that.

 

Ok. Let's clarify, and not confuse...

From the Critical Race Theory framework, what you say is true. From a non-CRT framework it's what I have been describing.

Hoping to avoid typical strawman arguments from the right, I did not use the CRT framework that they abhor. And this shouldn't make much of a difference because the MAIN topic of this thread is "race" (the fact that it doesn't exist) and not "racism"

No! Evolution doesn't occur in individuals. Evolution happens in the gene pool.

The particular physical changes of one population (i.e., ethnicity) attributable to the environment do not carry genetically.

I read the rest of your post, but it's based on Lamarckism. A theory of evolution that was debunked by Darwin.

 

I agree with that. In Africa, a strong muscular man had a better chance of survival, was a better hunter and provider, and was probably the preferred man rather than a skinny nerd who may have been good at science if given the chance. The strong man had a better chance of passing his genes on than the nerd did regardless of his potential intelligence.

It's hard to believe that humans evolved, right down to specific body parts, based on their specific needs but their brains did not.

 

The fact that you ask that question indicates that you haven't read the OP, given that it's answered there.

The rest of your post describes a theory that was debunked even before it was revived in Germany in the 1930s. Then there was another attempt mostly in the late 60s and early 70s by White Supremacist "sweethearts" (I'm not saying that the researchers themselves were white supremacists) like Rushton, Jensen, Shockley,... and others. All of them debunked by one of my favorite science popularization authors of all time: evolutionary biologist Stephen J Gold. But this is not about throwing author names at each other's faces. My point is explained on the OP. And that's where you should have started.

As for the opening paragraph of your post... you, of all posters here, should know not to challenge my research when I open a thread. It should be clear by now that, even though I COULD be wrong when I post something, that has never happened when I open a thread. And it may happen in the future, but it's so unlikely that you will pick up a mistake unless you do a much more thorough research. And that includes finding out if the "authorities" you use as basis have been debunked. The ones you mention most definitely were... decades ago.

 

Post counts "An just not the left" mind you! It has been my experience, racial debates are a thing of the left and on most social media platforms it's more about recognition "Thumbs up" then the actual topic! NO MATTER how the topic is proven wrong the creators will simply deny and insist their theories trump all other peer review scientific fact.. NOT THIS THREAD MIND YOU!!

It's the internet, or another fulfilling and productive day for those allergic to fresh air and sunshine..

 

I, "of all people", would like to know for the record if you are saying that this research paper by Dr. Rushton and Dr. Jensen, published in 2005, is considered by yourself to be "debunked". Link: https://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf

 

What I consider debunked or not is irrelevant. I have no idea why you guys on the right insist on making debates about ME. The only thing that matters is what science considers debunked. Better to not comment, then to try to change the subject (to me) after your comment is debunked, don't you think?

The answer to your question is yes... it is considered 100% debunked by science. Again: reading the OP would make your questions unnecessary.

 

So your initial statement that a person with very black skin could differ from the one with very white one by only 2 gene was a mistake or a lie. They differ by at least 100 genes: those responsible for skin color. So the probability of the event is about 4^(-100)=10^(-60).

And given that these two people came from distinctly different isolated populations they typically differ by a lot more genes.

 

Can't deconstruct it into people quit depending on it. Dependence on race seems to come strictly from the left.

I'm perfectly happy, I was perfectly happy with it being superficial but the left wasn't having that.

 

Definitely not a lie. I don't know if it's a mistake. I don't think so. But it's irrelevant to my point.

The skin color is determined not only by genes, but also by the environment. So it appears to me that it IS possible that a very black skin person would vary from a very white one by 2 genes having to do with skin color.

Again: irrelevant to my point, though.

What "isolated populations" are you talking about? You can find a very white person and a very black person in just about any large city in the U.S.

The genetic variance between 2 random persons within the same "perceived race" is way more than the genetic variance between two different ethnic populations. I'm talking about the concept of "race".

Let's cut through the crap. What is your point? Did you have a point that would be relevant to this thread? You seem obsessed with a very minor side note.

 

As a favor to you, I will reread the OP... and I hope you are not so dismissive of the 2005 research work I provided to you that you would not even peruse it!

Science-deniers need to remember that although people were careful to close all the portholes on the Titanic, the damned thing sank anyway....

Confront at least the possibility that differences between the long-established racial identities does not necessarily entail the diminishment of anyone on the BASIS of race!

Ok, I'm going straight to your OP now....

 

How can I not be dismissive? It's old news. There have been huge advances in genetics in the last 20 years. I read about all these theories from SJG a long time ago. There is no basis. It has been declared dean and laid to rest decades ago. Even before 2005. But the final nail in the coffin happened right after the human genome mapping was complete, and no genetic evidence was found.

So expecting me to read this would be like expecting me to read Lamarck to dispute Darwinism, or Ptolomeo to attempt to rebut Newton.

The ONLY reason any of these theories even appear in the public mind is because white supremacists have tried to perpetuate them. But science is science. You can't dispute science using just wishful thinking.

 

I'm still trying to do 'justice' to this topic, but I wonder if sweeping conclusions aren't being drawn from elementary findings, like the fact that all humans have 46 chromosomes. "Elementary, my dear Golem". There's been little, if any, doubt that all three races are members of what we know as 'humankind', but in simply driving straight down to DNA, are we ignoring many other contributing data bases? I'm still examining.

My questions... if we're all so entirely and exactly 'the same' then how is it that Black athletes are so clearly and overpoweringly superior to those of the Caucasian or East-Asian races? If all races are so entirely 'the same', then why do some races consistently score higher in IQ tests of many different constructions -- over and over -- and others score less...? If all races are so precisely 'the same', then why is it that only the Caucasian and East-Asian races have produced the most consistently-advanced civilizations in the history of mankind? I'm still examining.

 

Absolute nonsense! They aren't!

Because IQ tests don't measure intelligence.

Europeans just happened to live closer together, so they have been fighting each other, so they developed more advanced ways to kill people, which allowed them to enslave black people and American natives.

I'm trying to take your claims seriously and respond to them briefly, but you are spewing white supremacist propaganda.

Everything you mention is due to the environment in which each ethnic group has lived. The genetic variance between groups is negligible. You put a large group of people of ANY skin color in a different environemnt, and they'll grow up differently, and with different skills

So you can now stop trying to find arguments in white supremacists websites. It's all nonsense.

 

The genetic variance between myself and my brothers are even more negligible. I am around the 120 IQ level and they are around the 110 to 100 level. That "negligible" bit of genetic difference had enormous impacts on our life results. My net worth is far far more than the three of them combined. I made my living working with my brain and they made theirs working with their hands. We had the same environment and the same parents.

I am interested in your theory of why Haiti (Black) is perhaps the worst failure on earth while the Dominican Republic (Latino) is doing just fine. Same island, same resources, same environment. Astoundingly different results.

 

Is this the same as how there is no such thing as gender, but we still have to be forced to recognize a person's gender preference?

 

"White supremacists websites"...?! When did I ever quote anything from a White supremacist website? In fact, the more compelling recent research papers into race and genetics propose the same result: that the race that is the most mentally-advanced is not (NOT) the White race at all! No, Golem -- if you would trouble yourself to read something other than the works of 'woke' think-tanks, you would be amazed to see that today, the EAST-ASIAN ("Oriental") race is considered to have the highest overall IQ. Whites ("Caucasians") are Number #2! Does that make you feel better...?

Oh, and be assured, I'm descended from Germanic stock, without a drop of "Oriental" blood in my body, so I have no "axe to grind" in trying to promote the superiority of the East-Asian race!

I know you don't like IQ tests, and I dispute your opinion about them as providing valid, consistent measurements of individuals, and, racial groups of them.

But, really, I can't believe that anyone who has even a passing interest in sports in our American racial 'mixing bowl' could fail to notice that in both the NFL and the NBA, the vast majority of players are Black -- despite the fact that in this country, Blacks make up only 14% of our population! Gee! Could the difference be 'racial'? Here's just one example of why Black athletes excel over others in sports: https://www.uab.edu/news/research/item/1489-longer-tendons-make-faster-runners-suggests-uab-research#:~:text=Hunter's previous research indicates that,excel in sports involving running.

The thrust of the main point with this is to state that, yes, there are different races within humankind -- but this is NOT a bad thing, Golem. Consider: within the next two or three hundred years, the population of this planet (if we don't kill each other off) will be entirely interbred! And, with the beneficial, creative uses of genetics research and development, humans in the future will enjoy the benefits of ALL THREE RACES! Is that a bad thing...? We can already grow a better potato, tomato, and breed healthier livestock... so, why not a better human being?

 

You want me to explain the difference between a nation that was the main source of slavery since colonization, to the capital of the Viceroyalty?

This is not the place to ask for lessons on basic history.

But if you are implying that it's because they are "different races", that is absolute nonsense! The genetic variance between populations is, at a maximum, of 4.3% (as the study I referenced on the OP demonstrates), which is the same as ANY two populations. Probably much less than the maximum, since they both occupy the same island.

 

Don't assume I know what idiotic nonsense Tucker Carlson and Alex Jones told you and you believed.

 

The nonsense about race was studied by serious researchers decades ago, but now it's only perpetuated in white supremacist websites.

So if you're looking at studies from the 70s or 80s, you can put those away too. I already explained the impact on the topic after the human genome mapping was complete: the "race" theory was laid to rest forever....

I LOVE IQ tests. I do them all the time. They're a lot of fun. But they don't measure intelligence. I wish they did.

But, again, what I love or wish is irrelevant.

You keep insisting on that. Please explain what that has to do with "race" in your mind.

You said it well "in THIS country". I can't believe you don't understand how the historical differences in THIS country have affected how the interests of each ethnic group have evolved. Here, for example (just an example) good education has not been as accessible to black folk as it has to white people. So you would be less likely to find black people in a library than you would in the neighborhood park shooting hoops.

Don't compare the number of black players in the NBA with the population. Compare them to the number of people who play basketball.

All of this is a very complex historical, economic and educational matter... but NOTHING involved in this being what it is is genetic. It is all environmental.

If you think it's genetic, show a genetic study showing where this "race difference" exists. You won't! Because it's NOT genetic. Therefore, there is no such thing as "race".

What is a bad thing is that you deny science. Science (genetics, biology, anthropology...) says there is no such thing as "race". It's also a bad thing that white supremacists are the only ones who have any interest in denying scientific fact, because they require the concept of "race" in order to call themselves "superior". Why would anybody else deny science?