So now you are arguing against a strawman that I support incest? WTF dude? The only purity is the pure lol factor of each of your posts.
Like a bad marksman, you keep missing the target. A genetic predisposition, maybe? [video=youtube;TbXFyNv7c-8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbXFyNv7c-8?t=13s[/video]
Because they're not racist. To (*)(*)(*)(*) off white folks, I guess...I don't know, you tell me? Why does that matter? Why does that matter? Is there a One-Drop rule in effect where you live?
I have been warned by the "Black Powers"(Moderaters) to play nice or go home!....So, I will relieve myself on this forum....not nice to f**k with mother nature....you'll turn out doing handstands in the swimming poole (genes)...there are whites and blacks for a reason....have any noticed that there are way more black men with white women than white men with black women? I think a black wants a trophy wife, and if he has a white woman he thinks he has arrived , its only the children that suffer......good by and good luck...will not stay on an unbalanced forum...this why the nation will fall , look at Detroit or any other city that has black management...look at South Afrika, the blacks have brought it back down to a jungle....they manage to tear down social order , and never build a nation...the natives are restless!
“The best evidence for the genetic basis of race-IQ differences comes from trans-racial adoption studies of Oriental children, Black children, and Mixed-Race children. All these children have been adopted by White parents at an early age and have grown up in middle-class White homes.” http://human-stupidity.com/stupid-d...erences-in-intelligence-how-i-changed-my-mind https://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com/2008/07/23/racial-differences-in-skull-shape/
Race and Blood http://thewhitenetwork-archive.com/2013/03/05/race-and-blood-part-1/ Racial differences in skeletal structure originally arose when small genetic changes developed in populations isolated by geography. Now, as world travel increases and people of different racial backgrounds intermix and produce children, it is becoming harder to differentiate individuals of different races. But there are some key features of the skull that can help forensic anthropologists: http://jenjdanna.com/blog/2012/7/10/forensics-101-race-determination-based-on-the-skull.html
If you search my name "EgalitarianJay" on the first link you will see that I responded to that blog entry almost 6 years ago. If you haven't already you should watch this debate. Graves responds to the adoption study results and picks Rushton apart point by point: [video=youtube;lUjo31DChcE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUjo31DChcE[/video]
Rushton Graves discussion about Race & IQ In video 9, Rushton is extremely convincing and, sorry, Graves and others sound embarrassingly like fools. You could hear the spectators giggling about some of the contorted evasive answers. Race does not exist. Asked if they had 100 Chinese in a shower, 100 Kenyans in a shower, 100 Englishmen. Can they identify which is which? They still could somehow argue how they could not sort this out. EgalitarianJay, thank you very much for these videos. They are very informative. I will watch them all. From what I have seen so far, they make me much more certain in my conviction. If these arguments is all they can come up with, then there is no way to refute Rushton. I have a hard time how serious scientist can fudge and fumble like Rushton’s opponents and still be taken seriously https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eRtjgKlt8s&lc=x5c6_v6B2Xvdss8ptKblXTGmqZyC-R6OqWBN-lzKgZI
From the video: Rushton: Dr. Graves can I ask you a question? If you take North America, people like Francis Galton wrote that the American Indians were very taciturn in temperament, very quiet and passive. Whereas Black Africans were very talkative and social. And even when they were raised by White settlers Blacks grew up as sociable and Indians grew up as quiet and my question for you is: Here you have two so-called despised peoples the American Indians and the Blacks yet they have utterly different temperaments. Why should they have utterly different temperaments under your theory? Under my theory which is genetic it makes perfect sense. Graves: I think that is a good question. In fact Francis Galton's cousin Charles Darwin noticed the exact opposite. So it does depend on the observer. Darwin wrote in The Descent of Man, he traveled around the world, and he was impressed by the similarity of human temperaments so much so that he argued against the Polygenists of his era that humans were in fact the same species. So this question of how we identify behavioral traits is not an inconsequential question it does depend on the observer. And of course in my theory I can argue and would argue that there are gene by environment interactions. Darwin: Every one who has had the opportunity of comparison, must have been struck with the contrast between the taciturn, even morose, aborigines of S. America and the lighthearted, talkative negroes. Source: The Descent of Man
How and Why Scientists Lie About Race http://spawktalk.blogspot.com/2014/12/how-and-why-scientists-lie-about-race.html
This is the opinion of the webmaster for the blog. Notice that he does not address any of Graves' technical arguments. He chose to focus on comments made by Disotell in response to a question. His description is not accurate. Disotell said that you could sort them out easily however if you sampled them at a genetic level you would not be able to show a significant degree of differentiation between the groups. Graves critiqued Rushton's evolutionary arguments and showed that they were invalid (Graves, 2002). I outlined the problems with Rushton's work quoting Graves in this thread. Rushton did not respond to Graves in print. No racist has been able to provide feedback on Graves' critique and show that he was wrong.
Give of us a list of Graves' lies and valid criticisms of his work (by actual scholars). I would be interested in specific criticisms of the article I just linked to where he refuted Rushton. I had another biologist look at it and he said: You are ofcourse aware that Robert Sussman also commented on Graves' critique. Google Scholar lists 21 citations of the article which isn't a lot but then again not many people have paid attention to Rushton. Those that have are usually not impressed by what they read. Example: So again list the lies that you claim Graves has made and cite some scholars who have made valid criticisms of his work particularly the article in question. I would also be interested in your own personal criticisms.
The scholars such as Sussman you look to for support are equally dishonest. It was hilarious when Sussman came here after publishing "The Race Myth" and was unable to explain why race was a myth. Anyone interested in critiques of Grave's work can google text from it. You'll find this same poster spamming the same stuff. It's all been dealt with and I don't suggest anyone waste their time going over it again here. No serious scholar published in a science journal bothers with it.
I find this whole practice where you tell people to google text or provide links to searches of text to be intellectually lazy. You're also telling people to ignore my request probably because you know they can not make a legitimate criticism of the work. Rayznack accused Graves of being a habitual liar. OK so let him name the lies! You're not going to get away with character assassination on here. If you think you can discredit a scholar with Graves' credentials then go ahead and try to do it as I did with Rushton. The scholars that I cited are credible and have had their papers published in scientific journals. The truth is that you can not discredit this research so you make excuses why no one should bother with it.
They certainly have a lot more which is why it is no surprise that so Black men will end up with White wives.
When they are five times easier to find... no, it's not a surprise. Does anyone ask why more folks have three-leaf clovers?
That's not an example. That's just another google link for a keyword search. We all know I have discussed this topic before. The question is how many scholars have actually provided feedback on Graves critique of Rushton and issued negative criticisms? And if none have can you or anyone else that has a problem with Graves issue criticisms?
The reason you can't is because no one to my knowledge has actually challenged Graves on this issue. To do so you would have to have a working knowledge of evolutionary biology. So why are there no evolutionary biologists saying things like, "Graves is wrong. Rushton is right."? Rushton never responded to Graves in print. Graves presented his arguments in front of Rushton at a video taped panel discussion then he wrote two papers in 2002 with similar arguments. I made this point years ago on The Phora in my debate with Frank who emailed Rushton for comment. This is the only comment we have ever gotten from Rushton on this topic. And ofcourse Graves replied: Notice the part in bold. Graves is an expert on Life History Evolution and Rushton is not. Evolutionary Biologists who study Life History Evolution generally do not regard r/K selection theory as valid. This was verified in my email conversation with David Reznick. Reznick is an evolutionary biologist who is a colleague of Graves. When I asked him about the validity of r/K selection theory and the relevance of Rushton's work he had never even heard of Rushton! He read Graves' paper and said Graves was right and Rushton was wrong. That's just one example supporting my position. Rushton is generally not taken seriously by evolutionary biologists on this subject. Now E.O. Wilson a co-author of r/K selection theory did endorse Rushton's book Race, Evolution and Behavior but he never critiqued his work. You can't say that Graves is two obscure of a scholar for anyone to pay him any attention either. His book The Emperor's New Clothes: Biological Theories of Race at the Millennium has 332 citations on Google Scholar. Graves has been in several documentary films and was interviewed on CNN during the James Watson controversy. He's clearly a notable scholar. If there were glaring flaws in his work other scholars would point them out. On the other hand we know that Rushton has received a lot of criticism. Graves is just one of many scholars who criticized him. When it comes to credibility on race and human evolution Graves has it and Rushton didn't. So if you are serious about discrediting Graves you are going to need to do some research on evolutionary biology or talk to a biologist and get some feedback. Didn't you take a class on the subject from John Maynard Smith? You should have enough scientific literacy then to make a new thread and critique Graves yourself.
Race Is Not A Social Construct by Robert Locke 'The dumbest idea of the twentieth century was Martin Heidegger’s statement, made in defense of the Nazis, that the United States and the Soviet Union were metaphysically identical. This wasn’t even original, being a transcription into Heidegger’s convoluted system of Nietzsche’s statement that communism is just capitalism for the masses. But the second dumbest idea has to be that race is just a social construct. As I have written before, social constructivism is one of the Left’s favorite current ideas. Its application to race resurfaces from time to time, most recently in an article by Joseph L. Graves, Jr. in an issue of American Outlook, magazine of the nominally conservative Hudson Institute, whose cover theme is “the illusion of race.” Dr. Graves, a geneticist at the University of Arizona, is also the author of The Emperor’s New Clothes: Biological Theories of Race at the Millenium, which has a similar message. This idea needs to be refuted before it goes any further. Lest you imagine that only obscure intellectuals believe this, Niger Innis of the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) has publicly signed on to this belief. It has also been expressed in such books as Ashley Montagu’s Man’s Most Dangerous Myth, Stephen Jay Gould’s The Mismeasure of Man, Audrey Smedley’s Race in North America, and Glenn Lowry’s The Anatomy of Racial Inequality. Before we wade into Graves’s theories, let’s just briefly snip the metaphysical knot he’s got his mind tied into that makes him take this bizarre view. Human classifications of race are indeed social constructs. This is why, for example, in America everyone with detectable black blood is considered black, while in South Africa people of mixed blood are classified as “colored” and were treated differently than pure blacks under apartheid. Fine. But this doesn’t mean that the racial differences themselves, as opposed to the language used to talk about them, are social constructs. That’s pretty much it. The other metaphysical knot Graves is tied up by is the idea that if two sorts of things are different, there must exist qualities that every X has and that only X’s have. That is to say, there are no gray areas. But of course you can have different types of things that have gray areas between them. For example, there are cars, and there are pickup trucks, and there are also some odd hybrids. But this doesn’t mean that there is no basis for distinguishing between cars and pickup trucks. This is true even though you can’t give me a precise formula for either. The third confusion about race is that since races form a spectrum, rather than categories, there is no basis for dividing them into groups. But this is like saying that since colors form a spectrum, we can’t distinguish green and red. Now that we’ve gotten that out of the way, let’s look at Graves’s self-described motivation for his research. He writes that, “Racist ideology has always relied on the mistaken assumption that significant biologically based differences exist between various groups of humans. In particular, racist ideology has always assumed that social inequality resulted from the biological inequality of races. Thus they saw racial differences as determining an individual’s morality, character, intelligence, athleticism, and sexuality, among other features. They also thought that these features were immutable and passed directly on to offspring. Seen in this way, society would never change, and injustice could never be eliminated from it... According to this thinking, the European stood at the pinnacle of human perfection, and all other races were to be measured against him. For this reason, they thought it legitimate to declare the African slave as chattel and to deprive the American Indians of their sovereignty.” In other words, he’s against racism, and he thinks that if people believe in the existence of race at all, they will inevitably be racists. Now his objective is honorable in a way, in that he’s trying to get rid of racism, but his method is based on an obvious empirical falsehood: the idea that everyone in the world who believes in the existence of race is a racist. This isn’t an empirical truth, let alone a logical necessity. Martin Luther King believed in races. Was he a racist? One can believe in races and believe in equality between them. Or not, in which case you are a racist. But these are two independent issues. You can even be a racist without believing in race as a biological fact. A racist can hate those who are apparently racially different, even if he admits there is no biological basis for his hatred. People hate people who are different in ways they know are socially constructed, like religion, all the time. So “proving” that race is a social construct won’t stop racism. It’s as false, and as silly, as trying to combat anti-Semitism by proving that Jews don’t exist. So Graves’s crusade, in the name of which he waxes convoluted about various biological phenomena, is pointless to begin with. There’s no point even defending his theories as a salutary myth to end bigotry. So now we can start unraveling what he actually says with a clear head and a clear conscience. Let’s trace Graves’s illogic step by step. He writes, “Skin color, hair type, body stature, blood groups, disease prevalence: none of these unambiguously corresponds to the “racial” groups that we have socially constructed... These physical traits do vary among geographical populations, although not in the ways most people believe. For example, Sri Lankans of the Indian subcontinent, Nigerians, and Australoids share a dark skin tone, but differ in hair type and genetic predisposition to various diseases.” Basically, what he has said is that physical traits of people do vary geographically, but not according to the crude traditional racial classification of “black, white, red, brown, yellow.” One can find “black” people anywhere from Senegal to Australia, but upon examination of other characteristics than mere skin tone, they turn out not to be members of the same group. Fine. So traditional racial categorizations are wrong. But this doesn’t mean that there doesn’t exist a more sophisticated categorization of races that takes in the complexity of the real situation. Next comes the scientific core of Graves’s argument. He says, “Modern biology defines geographical races as equivalent to subspecies. Subspecies are units that are intermediate to legitimate species. .. No such level of genetic variation exists within anatomically modern humans. There is more genetic variation within one tribe of wild chimpanzees than has been observed within all existing humans!” Fine; let’s concede this is true. But all this proves is that races are not subspecies. Obviously, they are a less profound, but still real, form of physical difference. The fact that modern biology “defines” races as equivalent to subspecies is just arbitrary dogma, not science. There is no experimental observation that proves that races are equivalent to subspecies, nor could there by, as definitions are not empirical facts. One can define words to mean whatever one wants, subject to the constraint of actual usage. This is a deliberate attempt to sweep race under the rug by waving a dictionary. Next, Graves goes into a long and complex discussion of human genetics. His point is that the degree of genetic difference between different races (which don’t exist, of course, but he can still compare them somehow) is very small. Of all the genes in the human genome, only a miniscule percentage differ between races. This is true, but he neglects the well-established fact that even the tiniest genetic differences can have significant consequences for the organism. Fatal genetic diseases can be caused by a single gene. The size of a difference is not the same as its significance. The next step in Graves’s genetic argument is that there can’t be races because genetic variation between races (again, which don’t exist) is far less than genetic variation within races. That is to say, the average genetic difference between one African and another African is far more than the genetic difference between Africans as a group and Europeans as a group. True again, but it doesn’t prove a thing. The genetic differences among accountants are far larger than the genetic difference (presumably zero) between accountants and architects, but this doesn’t mean that one can’t meaningfully categorize people into accountants and architects. It just means there are a lot of other categorizations – according to other characteristics – that would also be valid. All Graves has proved is that race is a fairly small difference between people as biological differences go. No dispute here, so long as we remember that small doesn’t have to mean insignificant. And the significance of race, as opposed to its mere existence, is an entirely separate issue. Graves goes on with a few other observations that confirm his view that race is a relatively superficial kind of human difference. He quantifies degrees of genetic difference and shows evidence that human races have evolved separately only to a very small degree. Again, fine. Then he drops a huge chunk of sophistry on his readers: “In February of 2001, Celera Genomics CEO Craig Venter commented that it was not possible to distinguish at the genome level between people who were ethnically African-American, Chinese, Hispanic, and white.” Fine, but all this means is that our technology is limited. If there were really no race-based genetic differences between these groups, then why do African-American parents produce black babies? Why do Chinese parents produce Asian babies? If the genome is responsible for heredity, race must be in the genome. Finally, we come to the core error that Graves makes. He writes that, “our social construction of race was contingent upon the assumption that significant biological variation between groups” In other words, traditional racial classifications were based on the idea that race is a profound characteristic and we know now that it is a superficial one; therefore they are wrong. But we’ve already conceded that. We know that traditional racial classifications are wrong because they categorize black Africans and black Australian Aborigines as both “black” and therefore similar, when in fact they’re quite different. We also know they are wrong because race is superficial, not profound. But this just means that we’ve got to classify the races according to a more sophisticated scheme than the old black-white-red-brown-yellow scheme, and must bear in mind that racial differences, though real, are actually quite small, biologically speaking. But this doesn’t mean they don’t exist. On some level, Graves knows he’s flying in the face of common sense, because he tries to provide an alternative explanation of what we’re really talking about when we think we’re talking about race. He writes that, “In reality, the differences between groups we have been describing as resulting from biological race are really the result of cultural evolution.” Now, I can see how this is true in the case of silly stereotypes like blacks eat watermelon. But is their skin tone a result of cultural evolution? If not, then it’s a real physical and genetic fact. Finally, Graves lets the cat out of the bag and owns up to his ideological agenda, writing that, “To begin the deconstruction of racism, we must ask ourselves what role racist ideology plays in modern society.” Now I presume none of us have a problem with getting rid of racism, so it’s hard to be too hard on him, but the key word here is “deconstruct.” As I have written before, this word is a flag that should warn the reader that Graves is a believer (at least in part) in deconstructionism, a trendy left-leaning philosophy that holds that everything is a social construct. His objective may be admirable, but the method he’s using is pure sophistry. He concludes with a list of the reasons racism is bad that I find perfectly OK. I don’t believe race is just a social construct; I believe it exists by nature. But I’d like to point out that even if it were just a social construct, it wouldn’t follow that it doesn’t exist, let alone that it doesn’t matter. To prove this, let’s look at class, which clearly is a social construct, since it is constructed by society through the distribution of income and wealth. Now classes definitely exist, and one can make reasonable generalizations about working-class Americans or upper-class Americans or whomever. This is true despite the difficulties attendant to deciding exactly where to draw the lines between the classes, how many classes to recognize, et cetera. So even if Graves were right, which he isn’t, he’d still be wrong. In conclusion, something needs to be said about the authority of science in ideological questions. Graves would very much like us to believe that science has simply “shown” certain things, and that we should defer to him because he understands mitachondrial DNA and we don’t. But as I believe I have demonstrated, all of his strictly scientific claims can be totally true without his conclusion, that races do not exist, following logically from them. There is a big difference between scientific facts and the interpretation of those facts. I think it is worthwhile to note for all time that scientists cannot be trusted when they have ideological motivations to claim one thing versus another. They can only be trusted on ideologically neutral scientific questions, and we should not be intimidated by them when they talk about other things. All Graves has proved is that the old social Darwinist or Nazi theories of race as a biologically profound difference among humans are wrong. But (almost) nobody today believes in them, anyway. So is the denial that race exists a harmless, if comical, sophistry, the sort of thing that confirms Orwell’s observation that some ideas are so ridiculous that only intellectuals can believe in them? Unfortunately not. As mentioned above, denial of the reality of race is a variety of social constructionism. And the key danger of social constructionism is that if reality is a social construct, this implies that one can change reality by changing the way people construct it. Since, according to social constructionism, society constructs reality by the way people think and talk about reality, this means one can change reality by forcing people to think and talk differently. And this implies that brainwashing and speech codes are a desirable tool for enforcing favored social outcomes. After all, people are being coerced by society to construct reality in a certain way already, so we’re not imposing any more coercion than was there already! It is no accident that the Left is so keen on these things; they subscribe to a systematic ideology that holds that these things can reshape reality to their liking. If race is an illusion, it follows that it is legitimate to brainwash schoolchildren into believing this, and to punish them when they believe otherwise. It follows that we can require adults to speak in certain ways. It follows that anyone who disagrees is not just exercising their right to a political opinion, they are wrong about a scientifically demonstrable fact and should be silenced. So denying the reality of race is very sinister indeed. Note: Readers write to me all the time asking how to win the argument when someone says X. If someone tells you race doesn’t exist, ask them if Martin Luther King spent his whole life hallucinating. And you can have all sorts of fun with people who deny the existence of race but still believe in affirmative action.' Race Is Not A Social Construct By: Robert Locke FrontPageMagazine.com
