Let's talk about Race

The answers to my questions seem to already have been addressed by Stringer in the book African Exodus: The Origins of Modern Humanity which I am currently reading on Google Books. He tackles Rushton and racialist arguments in the chapter Africans under the skin using a lot of arguments that I am familiar with (ex. citing Beals, Smith and Dodd (1984) on the intelligence and brain size issue). It's very clear that Stringer doesn't endorse racialist ideas and believes that humans evolved in Africa. I mean he wrote a whole book on the issue.

But let's see what he has to say via email.....

 

What you write is PC garbage. There is no bright line for "behaviorally modern" and humans evolved all over the place. You just want to advocate Africa.

 

I don't see how theories on the origin of our species can be "PC garbage" unless you simply favor racist ideas about human nature and the "Out of Africa" theory of human migration is a threat to you (I don't see why it would be, Rushton accepted it and still made racist theories based on it) but the point is that these are Stringer's views on the subject. Modern Humans evolved in Africa. Interbreeding with archaic humans was minimal and of no evolutionary significance. Humans became behaviorally modern in Africa. The idea that humans are genetically differentiated in ways that lead to significant differences in cognitive ability is racist garbage which doesn't fit the scientific evidence from our knowledge of human evolution.

By the way here is Stringer's reply:

So there you have it. Summary points:

1. Humans evolved primarily but not entirely in Africa.

2. There was some interbreeding with archaic humans.

3. There wasn't enough time for major genetic changes in our species.

4. Only introgressed DNA could account for major changes and there's no evidence of that.

5. He doesn't rule out the possibility of some cognitive difference.

Of the 5 points the fifth is the only one that comes anywhere near agreeing with you. The paper that he attached explains why many scientists do not support Multiregionalism further distancing himself from your views.

Why we are not all multiregionalists now

 

And your point is? (I will overlook your use of the word Negroid, which is the invention of certain anthropologists and has no scientific meaning whatsoever)

 

Note how:

a) He doesn't say deep in SS Africa, or SS Africa at all - not supporting you.
b) He says nothing of your arbitrary bright line of "modern" - not supporting you.
c) He agrees that races may have cognitive differences, but (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)foots about absence of evidence, basically saying "I don't know from the DNA evidence" - not supporting you.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not making a point but stating what I believe to be facts. You know as well as I do what a Negroid is. I'm sure you could identify one.

 

a) He says humans have a recent African origin and elsewhere (the 2012 interview I cited) points to East Africa and further South for human origins - Not supporting you

b) In the article he linked to which he wrote he makes a distinction between modern and archaic humans - not supporting you

c) He says that major cognitive differences between regional populations are not supported by the evidence but doesn't rule out the possibility that slight cognitive differences may exist - not supporting you

 

This is false:

He says there is no evidence for major differences at the moment.

 

He still doesn't agree with you which was the point of this whole exchange.

 

He doesn't agree with you either.

In fact the "point of the exchange" was that you referenced WP referencing Stringer to back you up, and he doesn't.

 

On the Out of Africa origin of human migration he most certainly does back me up.

You argued that Sapiens originated in the "Eurasian ecozone" and that Stringer agreed with this point but in my personal communication with him directly on this topic he doesn't.

 

He said "Africa". Why do you think that is? You said "deep in SS Africa". Why not message again to clarify the point.

 

I will do that. However he does indicate that East Africa is the hotbed of research on this topic. And makes no suggestion that North Africa or West Asia is the region where humans originated as you claim.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/17/s...se-of-modern-humans.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&

 

Why did you say "deep in SS Africa"?

 

To clarify that humans, according to the evidence, did not originate in North Africa.

Africa is a big place but the evidence suggests a Sub-Saharan African origin, specifically East Africa around Kenya and Ethiopia. Stringer did say there may have been different locations in Africa where humans evolved but doesn't suggest a Northern origin. I don't know of any studies that suggest an origin of humans in Supra-Saharan Africa. If you have a study that best represents your position go ahead and share.

 

Why not just answer the question?

 

I did. Which studies agree with you?

 

Through a new analytical method, IBM and the Genographic Project find new evidence to support a southern route of human migration from Africa via the Bab-el-Mandeb Strait in Arabia before any movement heading north, and suggest a special role for south Asia in the “out of Africa” expansion of modern humans. Image credit: IBM

 

Dr. Stringer has replied:

So Stringer believes that there were different regions in Africa where humans evolved. He clearly opposes the Multiregional hypothesis and doesn't support an origin in the "Eurasian ecozone" so it appears that Mikemikev was incorrect about Stringer agreeing with him unless he'd like to share his personal messages with him to show what exactly he agreed to.

Anyway Mikemikev, I'd still like to see what studies you have that agree with your position on this subject.

 

ON RACES This is a horrible situation, and I am so sorry that I don't have any answers

I have never cared what color the skin was of the person next to me. And don't understand why anyone else would. Their actions? Now that would be a different story, As for stories to prove my point: I have two:

I was estrained from most of my family for nearly 35 years (another story) when we were re-united, tho I knew I now had three grand children, and also three Great Grand children, I knew nothing about them. And tho I didn't know it at the time, my daughter, for some reason) was afraid I wold disapprove. It seems that two of the Great Grands had been fathered by dark skinned fathers). One was half negroid, ( a bad description, but the closest thing to accuracy as I can come and the other was what I describe as a Caribian mixed breed).--- As far as I was concerned, their skin color didn't matter, they were my kin.

On that subject, I have to admit that three of the most beautiful girls (women) that I have ever seen were colored. And If I use the wrong term, please don't take offense. Negroid is a Race, but not necessary Black, It s difficult to know what tern is palatable to other people. Tho there are natives and locals which are so black they can be classified as “EBONY” others simple varied shades of brown, and in some cases very light and what passes as “white” So I question whether I should refer to people of color or mixed race as Colored, Negroid, or Black, (I use no other choices).

As for my second story, (and I think it is absolutely pitiful) I moved to my present residence less than a year ago, and brought with me two chihuahuas. One is very ftiendly, but the other is very cautious, and will gently warn people not to touch her unless she wants it. I have colored folk living on one side, which I knew befor I moved. And a couple of moths ago. Another colored family moved in two houses down in the other direction. They have three little children, about 5 to 8 years old. They have come to my porch asking if they could pet my dogs. But the one boy, when slightly repelled by my one dog. Said.
“He dosen't like my Brown skin”

ISN'T IT A SHAME THAT HE HAS BEEN TAUGHT AND ALREADY BELIEVES THAT PEOPLE (AND EVEN A LITTLE DOG) DON'T LIKE HIM BECAUSE OF THE COLOR OF HIS SKIN?

I explained to him and later to his parents letting them know my feeling towards the kids.

 

When did converstaion on this topic ever take a rest? We've been yammering on and on about race my entire life. All that time saying that we are afraid to have a discussion about race. How does this incessant babbling about race fix anything?

All some do is continually talk about race continually claiming we don't talk enough about race.

Shut up already!

 

Allow me to re-elaborate, because I certainly not only understand where you're coming from but I held pretty much the same position you did: That talking about race, in any meaningful matter only serves to dig up old wounds and that the talking itself doesn't serve us in the effort of moving past it. This is still true, in my opinion. But there's a greater truth that the race-baiters, the Obama's and Holder's have revealed to me.

They've revealed to me that anyone who holds a racial outlook in their ideology, quite frankly doesn't have the will or desire to love or live in this country. And I think those who opposed integration in the 60's knew this. I think they knew that many of these groups wanted the perks of being an American, but not the commitment that would come with it.

Basically, our African-American problem is no different from our Hispanic problem, for no matter how many patriotic Hispanic-Americans there are, it doesn't change the fact that there's 11+ million illegal immigrants. Likewise, there are those African-Americans who have made those commitments, who do believe in the USA. But there are just as many who hate this country, who've divided it amongst racial and anarchist lines.

We could have the greatest welfare system in the planet, and these people would still talk about race. We could indenture every Caucasian-American(even though the British-Americans have largely become a minority) and even then, I bet we'd still have some complaints. Probably something like "You haven't been slaves as long as "our people" have."

Basically, coming to terms with the African-American population is impossible. Not improbable, impossible. Because the terms are subjective, out of reach or if not outright counterproductive in truly fixing racial relations. Because it's impossible, I believe it's best that all those African-Americans who hold grievance against the US should return to their native Africa.


America for the Americans, Briton for the British, Canada for the Canadians, Africa for the Africans. A Nation is for its people, not for "all people". Our misunderstanding of that weakens the US.

 

So where is all the incessant talking taking us? The more we talk, the worse things get. That can't be a coincidence.

 

I don't think talking about race is harmful. You can have an open and civilized discussion about race between parties who genuinely want to improve race-relations. On the other hand talking to racists might not be helpful since they have an ideological agenda and will always see things their way. Their views are socially harmful and it may not be a good idea to even listen to them because it gives them a chance to spread their propaganda.

 

We've been talking for 50 years. It accomplishes nothing. It's an way to do nothing and claim you are doing something.

 

you kidnapped 18 million so called afrikans ( read that again ) and now you want to " send them back " ?

Dood, you really need to up your game, fix your ideology, suit up cuz if that's how you feel you are in for a life of torment. Why even bother posting an essay in the first place, you must feel bad about something.
The test of your post is poorly articulated, anger management could be a short term solution. No offense, there is different avenues. Anger management isn't a stigma, I hope I came across ok