Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by camp_steveo, Apr 15, 2018.
Progressives and Race Baiting SJWs hate this idea.
People with albinism look very different.
You are mistaken about genetic diversity. There are large ranges of genetic diversity within humans. You just can't predict someone's genetics by their appearance. Race is strictly determined by a persons appearance.
Do you think people with blonde and brown hair are different races too?
Genetic diversity occurs in DNA that isn't part of the 99% that all humans share.
'Racism' is a sub-category of something broader, which, for want of a better word, we could call 'tribalism' (even though that's not quite precise either).
Hatred, fear, distaste, of one group of humans for another group is a human universal, and it's not irrational. The English used to have contempt for the (Catholic) Irish, whom they saw as unintelligent, prone to superstition and violence, fit only for menial work. The Protestants in Northern Ireland have, or had, these feelings with a vengeance.
All over the world, when two groups with distinct identities get close to each other, trouble ensues, or is a possibility. This is true even when the two groups share most of their DNA: look at the way Africans of different tribes butcher each other, decade after decade; the way the Buddhists and Hindus of Sri Lanka (the Sinhalese and Tamils) have slaughtered each other; the way American Indian tribes fought each other; the way the South Slavs of the former Yugoslavia killed and ethnically cleansed each other, the way Sunni Muslims and Shi'a Muslims (and not just Persians and Arabs, but Arab Shias and Arab Sunnis) kill each other, the way Pakistani Muslims murder Pakistani Christians (and also Pakistani Ahmadi Muslims), and on and on and on and on.
You can put this down to competition for scarce resources. Probably our distant hunter-gatherer ancestors, when the human population was sparse, could just move on if unpleasant neighbors began turning up in the neighborhood.
But once land became scarce, you had to defend what you had.
Plus: for young men, primitive war is fun, when you win: you get loot, the pleasure of killing (and possibly torturing) enemies, and, especially, taking their women. (This fun and games aspect of war seems sometimes to have displeased the austere God of the Old Testament, and he had to specifically warn the Jews, in certain of their conflicts, that they had to kill ALL their enemies, including the women and children, AND the animals. But only sometimes.)
Technicalities about DNA play little role in immediate conflict. Where DNA similarities may be important is that if two warring peoples actually look very similar, it will be easier for them to merge with each other over time, which is the only long-term way to end 'racism' and all inter-tribal warfare. Make your babies with someone from a different 'race'.
But we shouldn't be over-optimistic: in the former Yugoslavia the peoples had had forty years of socialist indoctrination in the 'brotherhood of man, unity of the workingclass'; they were of the same genetic stock, spoke the same language, and there were hundreds of thousands of 'mixed marriages'. But when the time came to drive out the Other from your area, they didn't hesitate for long.
The US has been spared serious inter-tribal conflict. The existing peoples on the American continent were easily exterminated or pushed into 'reservations'. [American Indians are America's Palestinians. Boycott, Divest, and Sanction!] The Blacks are not a serious threat to white rule, just an ongoing annoyance. The small percentage of Asians just get on with making successful careers. The various European white tribes got mashed together pretty well -- this is where similarities in DNA help -- and even the Jews are out-marrying at a rate of more than 50%. Hispanics intermarry at a high rate, and in any case, don't (yet) challenge the national integrity of the US.
So the majority of the US population has never experienced tribalist warfare. That's what makes our foreign policy so naive: we think everyone else is like us.
I never brought race into it.
I was debating the poster who said all people are exactly the same.
Your doubt is irrelevant. If you can't counter the facts, then you must let the claim stand. Here's a peer-reviewed paper on identification of race by teeth, which the authors say is difficult but possible: http://www.ijofo.org/article.asp?is...me=2;issue=1;spage=38;epage=42;aulast=Rawlani
No one is arguing there is more than one human species extant. Race, on the other hand, would be more similar to breeds among domestic animals. Are there different breeds, with differing characteristics, different visual cues, different behaviors, etc.? Absolutely. Are there different races, with differing characteristics, different visual cues, different behaviors, etc.? Absolutely.
And yes, dogs and wolves are the same species. "For years, wolves and dogs were considered separate species: canis familiaris and canis lupus. However, more recently, scientists generally agree they are both a sub-species of canis lupus. Unlike dogs and foxes, wolves and dogs can reproduce, creating the controversial wolf-dog. When two animals can create a fertile offspring, they’re considered to be of the same species." https://www.rover.com/blog/wolf-vs-dog-whats-difference/
Yeah. In case you wondered, I am currently taking a diversity course and some of the material seemed like it was worth sharing with the PF. That, and I was ticked off about the Starbucks issue and how so many people were shrugging it off as nothing.
ETA: Personally, I consider myself basically a libertarian. I like anarchism, but it is not realistic in this world. Native American Iroquois Confederacy seems legit, but that is a bygone era. American classic liberalism or today's libertarianism is my brand.
Check this out.
How to read the genome and build a human being | Riccardo Sabatini
From your own link. https://biologyofbehavior.wordpress.com/2014/02/09/are-dogs-and-wolves-the-same-species/
The ability to create fertile offspring does not necessarily mean two animals are of the same species. That is a gross oversimplification. https://www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,5753,-22904,00.html
There is no evidence that any specific genetic variation relating to behavior, personality, etc. can be traced to phenotypic markers associated with race. You are just making things up. In fact there is far more genetic diversity between groups of people living in Africa than there is between white westerners. You are just latching on to simplistic ideas that fit your racist worldview.
"White" and "black" are social constructs, but genetic variation is not. Your science denialism is showing.
Well, it is useful in diagnosing and treatment of disease. Also for identification purposes.
Of course having a structure for ranking individuals is also useful.
Then again, we are all ancestors of the same group of apes, or if you go back far enough the same unicellular organism.
Then how do you know who is being discriminated against, who to attack for not believing you?
Liberalism seem to be a degenerative mental disease. When you start to say you can't tell the difference in racial identities, it's affecting vision as well.
Yet here I sit with my environmental and geospatial science degree.
Sure there are differences associated with geographic isolation. That does not mean what you think it does.
Come on guys. It aint that difficult.
This is all supported by studying the human genome. The modern species of humans left Africa in multiple waves over the last 50-70 thousand years. Mixed with neanderthals from Europe and Denosivans from Asia, migrating to the tip of South America by around 15,000 years ago. Since then we have all just been moving around intermarrying within the species. There is no sub-species or races. That would require complete isolation over a very long time.
If it did, then we would not have red birds and blue birds and dozens of varieties of finches, etc in the same country side by side- we would only have birds, and they would all basically look alike. Predominant features indicate a specific genetic combination. Unless you think what we call race is something resulting from nurture?
I agree DNA differences are small and in the details- but they damn sure are there, and differences are significant and obvious to everybody.
That does not mean inferiority- it means different.
It's 2018,we all have degrees.
We all have science degrees? Really?
I do, you do. Plenty of AGW deniers do too.
I don't see what your degree in environmental and geospatial science has to do with biology.
Separate names with a comma.