The Myth of Race: The Troubling Persistence of an Unscientific Idea

I meant to say explain how human populations are actually different species. Do you have a definition of species that is different from the dictionary?

 

"Confusing politically defined with biologically defined race"

https://right.orain.org/wiki/Argume...ically_defined_with_biologically_defined_race

Also the video claims there isn't a "race chromosome". Is that supposed to be funny?

 

There are indeed biological and social definitions of race and they are different. The video focuses on social definitions of race and how they have changed over time. The narrator also talks about how race has been used to justify social hierarchies. Racism has its roots in the decision to categorize people and label them as fundamentally biologically different in order to rationalize institutional discrimination.

The video got that right. It didn't explain as well why race doesn't exist on a biological level. The no race chromosome argument wasn't good. It would be better to say that human populations don't structure genetically in to distinct groups that are commonly called races.

 

Yes they do.

 

Firstly, why should we take anything you cite from Nisbett with any validity since his work has been questioned by other scholars in his field?

Secondly, this specific study you cite here has already been debunked as well: Ability differentials between nations are unlikely to disappear.

Abstract

Comments on the original article, "Intelligence: New findings and theoretical developments," by R. E. Nisbett, J. Aronson, C. Blair, W. Dickens, J. Flynn, D. F. Halpern, and E. Turkheimer (see record 2011-30298-001). This comment challenges Nisbett et al's argument that Flynn effect gains will eliminate cross-national IQ inequalities "by the end of the 21st century and falsify the hypothesis that some nations lack the intelligence to fully industrialize" (p. 140). The present authors find that this optimism is not justified by the evidence. In Europe and the United States, Flynn effects are indeed rare in cohorts born after about 1980. Furthermore, it is necessary to distinguish between accelerated childhood development and higher adult intelligence.

 

'A longstanding orthodoxy among social scientists holds that human races are a social construct and have no biological basis. A related assumption is that human evolution halted in the distant past, so long ago that evolutionary explanations need never be considered by historians or economists.

New analyses of the human genome have established that human evolution has been recent, copious, and regional.In the decade since the decoding of the human genome, a growing wealth of data has made clear that these two positions, never at all likely to begin with, are simply incorrect. There is indeed a biological basis for race. And it is now beyond doubt that human evolution is a continuous process that has proceeded vigorously within the last 30,000 years and almost certainly — though very recent evolution is hard to measure — throughout the historical period and up until the present day.'


http://time.com/91081/what-science-says-about-race-and-genetics/

 

More..........................on the biological basis of race>>>>>http://www.amerika.org/social-reality/the-biological-basis-of-race/



The Unpopular Truth
The truth is unpleasant and therefore unpopular:
Humans have invented a social "reality" that denies reality itself.


http://penetrate.blogspot.com/2009/09/biological-differences-between-races.html

 

Are you speaking of type #1 racists like yourself or type #2?

 

I am not a racist of any sort.

 

You say that racism only dates back to the Spanish Inquisition. There is a passage in the History of the Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire by Edward Gibbons in which one of the Roman Emperors was describing the Huns, whom some scholars believed were asiatics, in an undeniably 'racist' way, saying that the only way he knew them to be human was because the ate and defecated out of the same orifices that other humans do. He described their physical characteristic as "short of stature, with a broad chest and a large head; his eyes were small, his beard thin and sprinkled with gray; and he had a flat nose and a swarthy complexion, showing the evidences of his origin. 'HIs origin" implies that the Romans did, in fact, categorize people into racial groups, although modern day historians deny this.

The very fact that the Romans believed anyone who was not a Roman and who did not speak their language was a barbarian proves there was bigotry and even racism in the Roman Empire. The Romans were chauvinistic and very xenophobic and that is clear in the way they listed those not of their kind as barbarians. It was a them and us attitude and this is a form of racism.

The biblical Hebrews were racists and xenophobes and called everyone who was not a Hebrew--Gentiles. There is plenty of evidence of racism in ancient Egypt and in ancient Greece; there is evidence of racism between the different tribes of Africa.

I am not quite sure why you picked the Spanish Inquisition, a Christian 'institution', as the root of all racism, but from what I have read, racism has been around since the beginning of mankind.

 

We went through this before didn't we?

Full Definition of racism

1) a belief that is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

2) racial prejudice or discrimination

You believe the black race is inherently superior at some things. Therefore you are a type #1 racist.

 

I don't believe in racial superiority. I believe that some populations have adaptive traits that are advantageous in certain ways not that any race is better than another which is what that definition is talking about.

 

But if one race is superior than another "in certain ways" then it is superior in general, if the other race is not superior in ANY other way. My point in our discussion was that if one race has some specific superiority, then isn't it possible that the race which was inferior in that respect might be superior in another? I just asked the question, without making any claims, but you wouldn't "go there". You stopped after admitting that blacks were superior in a certain way. And you are camouflaging the point by mixing in what seems to be a reference to morality by objecting that one race is can't be "better" than another. "Better" sounds like a moral issue. I'm not saying that any race is morally better or worse than another. But you can be a racist and not believe that. I am, and so are you.

 

I'm not a racist. By the way, why did you omit the word "race" from your first definition? It should read:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism

"a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race"

Obviously I don't believe this. I believe that race is a socially constructed, biologically meaningless category. I recognize geographically based genetic variation including in certain physical characteristics.

That's not the same thing as believing in race. When they say that race is a primary determinant of "traits and capacities" they are obviously talking about mental characteristics which other definitions specifically mention. Clearly I don't believe in that and have been combating racism on this message board. I am an anti-racist, Egalitarian. Trying to label me as a racist is intellectually dishonest.

 

I guess Bob is a Semite and is angry about the racist Spanish Whites pushing back the invasion of Spain. The original invasion wasn't racist though, it was diversity.

 

I have invited Dr. Sussman back to the board to answer questions.

 

Unless they are cognitive, in which case you refuse to acknowledge their existence, correct?

 

If they don't exist then they don't exist.

 

I was emphasizing the second half of the statement prefaced by "a belief that...".

You are obviously referring to race when you use the terms "black" and "white", which you do. You also said that you couldn't account for the obvious superiority of blacks (which means the black race) in running and jumping sports by mere socioeconomics or the possibility that they may "try harder". Therefore I can only conclude that you believe that genetic variation among the human species can and does provide an advantage for one race over another in certain areas of endeavor. So you are a racist (per definition #1) like most people are. What's wrong with that? It's only common sense and honesty that leads to that conclusion, and does not necessarily support prejudice or justify a desire to discriminate against anyone based on their race. That is the harmful type of racism (#2) which I am not accusing you of.

 

@ invaderzim

The issue is less about the data from Rushton or other hereditarians, but how they arbitrarily divide humans into 3 categories:

"Rushton starts with an a priori faith in the existence of "the races," of which there are basically three: "Caucasoid," "Mongoloid," and "Negroid." His justification for this is the undocumented assertion that this is how "a team of extraterrestrial scientists" would perceive things if they should arrive on earth "to study human beings" (p. 1). No criteria are ever set up to decide how these groups are established or what traits should be used in determining membership. This means that his acceptance of "race" is ultimately arbitrary and subjective." (Brace, 1996)

Since these racial groupings are arbitrary, if they are changed - you end up with different average IQ scores etc.

There are populations in Europe with significant lower IQ's than others, so why are they all grouped together?

 

A lie. Rushton defines races by shared ancestry, as they have always been defined. Did you read Rushton's book? Brace is a liar.

 

The groupings are arbitrary. Secondly note that you contradict yourself on these races. Rushton has Caucasoid/Mongoloid/Negroid, but you've posted Europeans are a genetic cluster separate to Turks and Levantines etc. Yet, Rushton's Caucasoid pools together Europeans with Turks, Levantines and even other West Asian populations. So your races don't even agree with Rushton's, this discordance is because the divisions are subjective, not objective.

 

You are unaware that taxa subdivide? Never see a tree diagram?

 

Where are the barriers for the Caucasoid? If you reply the Saharan desert, how do you explain ancient Egypt and Nubia both east-Saharan civilizations? Desert tribes also dwell in the west-Sahara.

 

This message is hidden because TombRaider is on your ignore list.