There is no such thing as the white race

Discussion in 'Race Relations' started by Guno, Feb 8, 2016.

  1. Krom

    Krom Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2016
    Messages:
    62
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Good luck finding that in Linnaeus, Buffon, Kant etc. You're re-defining race to mean genetic similarity because you've lost.
     
  2. Commander JT Verity MBA

    Commander JT Verity MBA Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2016
    Messages:
    45
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ancestry or genetic similarity. Ancestry is in Blumenbach and Darwin, genetic similarity in Mayr as an upgrade I agree with, both of which impugn you, none of it contradicted by anyone else. Enjoy your fail.
     
  3. Krom

    Krom Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2016
    Messages:
    62
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Erm, no, you fail. None of those scientists said race = genetic similarity. You are just posting more lies.
     
  4. Krom

    Krom Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2016
    Messages:
    62
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    [​IMG]

    Blumenbach's 'variety' (race) sub-divisions did not cover what you are saying. He didn't think twins, families, local villages, tribes etc. were varieties. He never kept subdividing genetic similarity. Kant didn't either. There's a quote on OpenPysch in the John Fuerst thread where Kant makes clear he doesn't think local breeding populations should be called races. Once I posted this - Fuerst never of course replied after he was debunked.:roll:
     
  5. Krom

    Krom Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2016
    Messages:
    62
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    "Indeed, Kant distinguishes rather sharply between races (Rassen), varieties or local variations (besondere Schliige)"
    source
     
  6. Krom

    Krom Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2016
    Messages:
    62
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
  7. Commander JT Verity MBA

    Commander JT Verity MBA Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2016
    Messages:
    45
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Who cares? You are just making authority based arguments and I don't believe a word you say anyway. If race was defined by ancestry a la Darwin (or if anybody chooses to define it as such) it necessarily scales down to two individuals. You don't have a point.
     
  8. Krom

    Krom Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2016
    Messages:
    62
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Biologists and anthropologists have known what you are posting is false, going back to the 1950s or 60s.

    "There are undoubtedly no two genetically identical populations in the world; this has nothing to do directly with the validity of race as a taxonomic device… differences between populations are population differences, nothing more." (Hiernaux, 1963)
     
  9. Krom

    Krom Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2016
    Messages:
    62
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    One of the UNESCO documents when race was heavily debated also cautioned about this:

    "It is unfortunate that the same word [race] should be used sometimes to describe the unit-populations and sometimes the groups in
    which these units are classified. Many people now are careful to reserve the term ‘population’ for the former and ‘race’ for the latter." (Hiernaux, 1969)

    So as usual you don't really have a clue what you are talking about. The consensus among scientists is breeding populations are not races, but races are groupings or clusters. If you scan earlier 19th century literature you find the same thing; Darwin distinguished between local breeding populations and races.
     
  10. Krom

    Krom Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2016
    Messages:
    62
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Sesardic admits -

    "In principle we might introduce names for hundreds or even thousands of human groups that we could call races on the grounds of their genetic differentiation. Why do we not do this? Dobzhansky again explains: ‘‘Obviously it would not be convenient to give racial names to inhabitants of the different counties of England or of the different departments of France. But everyone will agree that the Negroes, the Europeans, and the American Indians are clearly distinct ’’ (Dobzhansky, 1951, p. 661; italics added)" http://www.ln.edu.hk/philoso/staff/sesardic/Race2.pdf
     
  11. DoctorWho

    DoctorWho Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    15,501
    Likes Received:
    3,740
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Social order is based merely on perception, years ago, I was
    10 years old walking in a predominantly Hispanic neighborhood, and a Gang stopped me and wanted to know what Whitey was doing on their turf, and I explained I was a Hispanic in perfect Spanish, and they were impressed and accepted me as one of them.

    It is more perception than anything else.
     
  12. Krom

    Krom Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2016
    Messages:
    62
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    "The majority of human population geneticists and biological anthropologists, though they reject the race concept because of the arbitrariness of racial divisions, are prepared to divide the entire human species into more-or-less discrete panmictic units or demes despite the extensive continuities in breeding patterns and allelic distributions that exist. Biological anthropologist Jonathan Marks, for example, rejects the “typological” division of humans into a small number of discrete races because, circling the globe, one finds that traits are distributing continuously. He argues instead that it is the “small biopackages” called populations, not races, that are the “real units of human diversity” (1995: 274, 116). Similarly, human population geneticist L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza treats panmictic populations as real but characterizes attempts to classify “clusters” of populations into races as a “futile exercise” (Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi, and Piazza 1994, 19)." (Gannett, 2003)
     
  13. Krom

    Krom Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2016
    Messages:
    62
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Earnest Hooton (mentor of Coon) was one of the most renowned physical anthropologist in the early 20th century.

    Here's how Hooton defined race:

    "A race is a great division of mankind, the members of which, though individually varying, are characterized as a group by a certain combination of morphological and metrical features, principally non-adaptive, which have been derived from their common descent." (Hooton, 1946: 448

    Note Hooton's emphasis on "great". For Hooton, and virtually all 19th century and early 20th century physical anthropologists - race was considered to be only a large cluster of populations, not local breeding groups.

    21st century race realists no longer use the traditional definition of race, they're trying to re-define (as Commander JT Verity MBA is doing above) because the classic or ordinary race concept has been discredited. So be wary about this sort of trickery. Its like how creationists attempt to get creationism into the schools through 'intelligent design'.
     
  14. DarkSkies

    DarkSkies Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    4,522
    Likes Received:
    583
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Anecdotes are unacceptable as counters to centuries of what history sees as an imposed order from the "white" group onto the rest of the world. Apologies, but it falls far too short.
     
  15. DoctorWho

    DoctorWho Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    15,501
    Likes Received:
    3,740
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your short sighted view based on the opinions of scientists swayed by political hacks, like the type found in the old Soviet Union, regurgitating pseudoscientific hog wash for the purpose of sounding intellectual without really understanding anything or the ramifications of such false information.
     
  16. Gorgonite

    Gorgonite Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2016
    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    "Sarich and Miele (2004, 172) judge that the Dogon, Teita, and Bushmen (their terms) are distinctive races, as are people from Athens and Copenhagen (p. 210), but most of these groups don’t seem to qualify as races as ordinarily conceived (presumably at least in part because these groups do not have readily identifiable distinctive visible traits). Of course, Sarich and Miele are entitled to use the word “race” however they want. But their central and explicit aim is to vindicate the ordinary concept of race, and so they cannot soundly replace ordinary race-talk with some other kind of talk." (Glasgow, 2009)
     

Share This Page