Why are people in the middle east considered white?

Jews Re most closley rElated to west/south afrikans. Particularly Zimbabweans.

 

Reported for nonsense.

 

Truly amazing.

Reported for explaining something to someone. The bubba clan in Zimbabweans are blacks and they are the most authentic jews

 

Yes, I'm sure Blacks are welcomed in your synagogue. [/sarcasm]

 

Because of the invidious definitions of "race" created by the racist.

There is only one race and that is the Human Race. It was the racist that invented definitions of "race" based upon the color of a person's skin, which was easily identifiable, as a means of Racial Supremacy and Oppression.

 

It's a complete lie that the race concept was created to be "invidious". It was created to establish ancestral relationships. Race isn't defined by anybody outside the imagination of leftist "anti-racists" by "skin color". Was the taxonomic class "human" created to "oppress" non-humans? No, it's just because humans exist as distinct genetically similar group. It's the same with races. The fact that the race concept has been used to oppress people doesn't in itself invalidate the race concept. Some humans share more ancestry and genetic similarity than others, and can be grouped. This is an unassailable fact. Screaming about "oppression" to ignore this fact is a classic case of appeal to emotion.

 

I don't have a synagogu

 

I disagree-race isnt just determined by skin color, but also by facial features. For example, many European people and East Asians have the same skin color-but their features are totally different.

 

Wow. You're quite the scholar.

 

Whats with the sarcasm?

 

There are only a few classical races: white (caucasoid), black (negroid), yellow (mongoloid), red (american natives). Middle eastern people are usualy more similar in skin color and facial features to whites than blacks or mongoloids so thats where they were classified. I think it makes sense from the viewpoint of ancient knowledge.

In modern biology subspecies of humans (biological "races") are classified based on comparative genetics, which gives rise to genetic clusters of populations depending on their average genetic similarity or genetic distance. But you have to input the number of divisions by hand. And even for like, 7 divisions it still tends to lump some middle eastern people together with Europeans, so yeah we are genetically quite close.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genetic_clustering

 

You're talking about K-means clustering which is not respected these days. Using local maxima in PCA is the way to determine races. There are no preset numbers of divisions and races subdivide from major clusters any number of times.

 

That is true but the underlying fact is that it was always used as a rationalization by the RACIST to oppress others.

In the extreme it wasn't even anything discernable based upon features. In Nazi Germany even a white skinned blond-haired person appearing to be Scandinavian was classified racially as a Jew if they they were 1/4th Jewish. There was absolutely no way that these individuals could be considered to be of a different race, and many didn't have any Jewish religious beliefs, but they were still sent off to the death camps and murdered.

 

It's amazing that even the racists believe this BS much less other people.

From a genetic standpoint we can use an anology. "Race" is not a comparison of a Corvette and a Camero. It is a comparison of a green Camero and a blue Camero. To claim that a green Camero and a blue Camero are different cars is an absurdity but that's exactly what the racist is claiming.

 

If race doesnt exist from a biological perspective, how else do you explain the fact that not only do different groups of people look different, they even have different DNA? http://archive.news.softpedia.com/n...ongst-Human-Races-and-Populations-40872.shtml

http://www.science20.com/adaptive_complexity/what_our_genes_tell_us_about_race

 

Did you even read your sources? Both sources point to the fact that "different environments" result in the primary differences between the DNA of different groups and not "racial characteristics" of the individual. Over the last 200,000 years where the people lived changed their DNA to adapt to the evirnoment for survival and that had absolutely nothing to do with any "racial criteria" of the person.

For example your second source states:

http://www.science20.com/adaptive_complexity/what_our_genes_tell_us_about_race

One of the great claims by racists is that different races have different intelligence (of course the racist is always the smartest) but that is not supported by DNA evidence. There can be different DNA sequences that make one group that was historically exposed to small pox more resistant to the desease than another group that wasn't exposed but that has nothing to do with racial characteristics. It was a survival necessity that the body adapted to that was completely unrelated to racial differences. Some people have "white skin" because of where they lived environmentally while others have dark skin for the same reason but that, once again, is a difference based upon survival in an environment that has nothing to do with any other human trait.

The second article really puts all of this in perspective.

 

It cannot be ruled out, tough. It is possible that intelligence is influenced by gene or group or genes that vary considerably along racial lines in a population and account for a large part of variation in intelligence. The opposite is possible, too. We dont know nearly enough about the brain or the genome or environmental influences to prove it or rule it out. There are some clues in favor of both views but really nothing reliable yet. It is a question that lies on the intersection of genetics, neurology and sociology, all three very complex sciences where we have only scratched the surface.

 

Of course, it all makes sense now. Thanks, your post really clarified things and was not jibber ish at all. Good post

 

The modern concept was based on skull analysis and shared ancestry by the natural scientist Blumenbach, bizarre cultural Marxist conspiracy theories notwithstanding.

 

Your "anology" is false. Race is based on shared ancestry established by correlations in multiple phenotypic or genetic variations, not by "color".

 

You simply assert that any differences are not racial differences. Well if those differences are used to determine race or ancestry group, then they are racial differences. And then knowing race will be informative or predictive for those differences, validating the concept.

 

Further the "race was created by racists" slogan from neo-Marxists is meaningless. What can "racist" possibly mean in this context? Was species created by speciesists? Presumably to oppress non humans.

It's a lame guilt by association argument using a dishonest group term. You may as well call anyone who uses a knife a "knifist" who supports stabbings.

 

Introducing an 18th Century German racist (Blumenbach) as a rationalization of racism seems to be a rather stupid argument from any logical prespective. We already know that the concept of racial differences was created by racists.

 

"Appearance" has always been a major foundation for racism. It's easy for the racist to identify "race" based upon appearance. Even the racist you previously cited, Blumenbach, use "appearance" as a criteria when he referred to different skull shapes. Of course the racists go further in also identifying ethnic cultural and religious beliefs as a foundation for "racism" because those people are "different" and therefore assumed to be inferior.

 

Your argument is based upon racism and is invalid. We know that there are genetic codes in our DNA that result in different skin color, different eye color, different physical shapes, etc., but it doesn't make any of us less human nor do these insignificant differences have any relevance to our overriding "human" characteristics. We haven't, for example, found any correlations between skin color and intelligence encoded in our DNA.

We often find no correlation between DNA and racist classifications. Hitler slaughered the Jews based upon racism but the DNA reveals that the Jewish people of Europe are not racially different from other Europeans. Roughly 80% of European Jews have no genetic linkage to the Jews that existed in the Near East. They were Europeans that never migrated from Judea in the Middle East. Hispanics today are not a different race but instead are a different cultural group. "Hispanic" refers to culture and not race. That doesn't prevent "racism" from being highly evident related to Hispanics just like the historical "racism" against Catholics and Mormons in America.