Science Killed Racism

Many of them already chant race isn't real so theoretically we can already start calling them race deniers.

 

I'm an ethnic or race based nationalist where I am ethnocentric as they generally come concerning the interests of European peoples however I don't believe in superiority or supremacy where I get very frustrated with the left calling everybody supremacists. It's so damn asinine and ridiculous.

If things don't change by 2080 in terms of fertility rates and population demographics we'll become a minority in our own nations in our descent into extinction, it has nothing to do with supremacy as it has everything to do with survival, the survival to merely exist!

 

Same thing is happening in America and the left is promoting it. They want those with European ancestory to become the minority.

 

Skin pigmentation is a good one. Many Asians are darker than most Africans. Africans can produce any color including very light-skinned and albinos. Pigmentation isn't racially exclusive. Associating skin pigmentation with "race" and not the sun is odd. Hair follicles vary wildly with Africans as well.

RE politics of resentment I agree that it was part of it. However, the British saw the Irish as the "black" of Europe and classed them accordingly. They really weren't "white" even in America until many sued and got the class changed.

 

No, the Irish have always been white and such sentiments from the British or British Americans had everything to do with political resentment going as far back to the times of Cromwell. It was a form of derogatory defamation or insults and nothing more.

I never said pigmentation or differing hair follicles is racially exclusive. I'm very familiar with racial diversity outside of white Europeans in other parts of the world.

That's where I was getting at in that race is a product of environment or the sun as you put it through thousands upon thousands of years in terms of natural evolution.

 

I think prejudice goes towards a predetermined intention of interaction. To "show" prejudice is to extend advantage or discriminate. Stereotyping goes to behavior. Superiority, I've opined is ingrained in human, like all other species DNA. I've never heard anyone else assert that Darwins natural selection theory, indeed how that manifests itself, violently, within an evolving species, relates to racial superiority. But the more I think about, the more self evident it's become. The whole of human history has been a struggle for dominance.

 

I would add that race is a product of the same subset of humans interbreeding over thousands of years resulting in certain physical and dare I say mental traits becoming dominant.

 

Differing physical traits most certainly but I'm not entirely confident in saying mental traits also. There are a lot of highly educated non-whites or non- Europeans out there and I've met a few of them.

 

There will always be individuals of any race that excell intellectually but in mass you can make some generalizations of intelligence based on race. Asians tend to be at the top of the scale based strictly on IQ while blacks in mass tend to score on the lower end. This doesn't mean you can't have plenty of stupid Asians and plenty of highly intelligent blacks though.

 

I don't think you can exclude INbreeding. Here's why ... inbreeding is going to bring about rapid, and marked mutations. With a single human breeding couple as both Darwinists and creationists must accept, it's very likely inbreeding played the most significant role in racial sub set developement. How mutations were received, revered, outcast, or killed undoubtedly factored in too. Beauty, superiority, is in the eye of the beholder.

 

Steve O ... you might be the 1st OP ever to have a thread on racism go all the way bad. Really hope my congadulations aren't proven premature. Nice work.

 

Racism is inherent and essential in the modern 'science!', darwinist worldview. It is absurd to try to distance the last 150 years of science from a racial evolution conclusion.

Human equality has no meaning in the Darwinist worldview. There is the assumed, logical conclusion that some humans will be more advanced, on the evolutionary scale.

 

usfan above, as always, has twisted Race into Racism/Cruelty.
Just some Filthy Grandstanding Distraction trying to tarnish science.
Acknowledging Races doesn't mean treating anyone differently

"In a very real sense,"..... we are also all Apes who started in Africa.

Stop being such a "Specieist" just because you're a "less hairy supremacist."

ALL Subpecies/Races started out as a single population then diverged.
ALL Species started out as a single population then diverged.
ALL living things start diverging when geographically separated and grow steadily more apart genetically
It's called "Evolution."

Craig Venter's Human Genome Project initially found we are 99.9% the same.
BUT then he retested (incl using his own DNA) and found the difference was "7x" as large and that we were more like "99%" similar.
So the average now used (Wiki etc) is 99.5%
Of course, Chimps are 98.6% Similar to us.
Leaving plenty of room for subspecies/Race.

And Surprise Zero-sci politicos...
Chimps aren't just Chimps either.
In Fact, there are two SPECIES of Gorrillas with 6 or 7 subspecies/Races
There are two SPECIES of Chimpanzee, each with 2 subspecies/Races.
And those two Primate relatives and their larger difference 'Species', and smaller difference Races, Never left Central West Africa, and did not face the strong selective/adaptive pressures humans did living from Desert to Himalayan to Tropical, etc.

It's fitting you posted your OP in politics because you know Nothing about Race, science, or evolution.
NOTHING

 

If there isn't any genetic difference between races, then why are almost all great sprinters black?

 

And let's look at bred in genetics in forming strong and weak characteristics in races. Why do you think blacks have become dominant in sports? For many generations blacks in the American south were bred like livestock by farmers who had breeding bucks that serviced his female slaves. These were the biggest healthiest strongest specimens just like with the farmers horses and cattle. Today we still have a lineage of black men from this intense breeding campaign that leads to a much higher percentage of them being big and strong than through natural breeding in whites.

 

Many of the posts in this thread is based on oversimplification and certain logical fallacies. The idea that all great sprinters are black is such an example. Many "black" groups simply don't have the body type conducive to sprinting. Those who are good sprinters are part of cultures (or are of a lineage of people) where sprinting was done often.

What is happening is people are using a few examples of a "race" and then painting the rest of that "race" with the same brush. The few examples is enough for racialist to justify the broad categorizations of "race" and it is moronic.

 

The point of the OP was that 'science!' is/was multicultural and sees everyone as equal. That is patently false, as most racist ideals from the last 150 years have been based on 'science!' It is bad science, imo, and is based on a lot of unproved assumptions, like universal common descent, but it is the dominant view among the status quo.

 

Can't speak for the OP, but I don't think that was his point at all. It seemed the basic point was that the idea of race is based on pseudoscience. And it is, I've seen the arguments for it. If he was going for everyone is equal, I can only assume that he means under the law. One person isn't the same as the next, regardless of whether they share the same so called race or not. So yeah, people should be seen as equal as in under the law.

 

I don't think you understand what racism is.

 

IMO, it IS pseudoscience, that provides the 'scientific' justification of racism. Unfortunately, it is widely indoctrinated and believed, and continues the false racialism narrative.
Given the lack of scientific methodology in these beliefs, and the diligence with which they are indoctrinated, it is no surprise the subhuman notion of 'inferior' races continues. Both in ivory towers and the ghettos, the belief in racial inferiority and superiority finds ample expression. Artificial quotas, based on forcing equality, when they believe otherwise, the soft bigotry of low expectations, and law of the jungle, animal expressions of territory and dominance.

 

I was with you until the end. Those in the "ivory tower and the ghettos" are just reacting to the nonsense spouted off by racialists.

 

-For starters, I said most great sprinters (not all), which is an important distinction.

- I believe what you are inarticulately trying to convey is the notion of cultural based selective breeding. I do not disagree that selective breeding could very well be the underlying reason. I wouldn't bet my life that cultural based selective breeding is what accounts for the difference, but it is certainly a very reasonable hypothesis. Whether or not that is the underlying reason, however, is entirely irrelevant. The OP is asserting that genetic differences do not exist between races because everyone is "out of Africa". My question to the OP is a legitimate challenge to that notion because if genetic differences do not exist, then one would logically conclude that there should be a relatively proportional distribution of great sprinters between various races. Something accounts for that difference, and it is hard to argue that the difference is NOT genetic. Whether or not the genetic difference is due to cultural based selective breeding does not dispel the notion that a genetic difference exists between various races. It doesnt matter how they got there, what matters is that they have arrived.

You may be tempted to try to argue that there are more great black sprinters simply because black culture partakes in sprinting more often. That argument makes sense with most sports, but not so with sprinting. You can argue that some cultures play more basketball, or more soccer etc, and that those cultures are therefore going to produce more greats in those particular sports. Sprinting is different. You cannot teach speed. You may be able to refine it a bit to maximize ones potential, but one is either born with world class speed or one is not. No amount of hard work is going to change that reality. There is a reason that you see mostly African Americans playing the speed positions ( wide receiver, running back, defensive back) in professional football. That reason is because African Americans genetically produce more people that are fast than does any other race. Everybody in the athletic world knows this to be the case. This is not perception. The stopwatch does NOT lie, nor is it racist.

- I am not "painting the rest of the black race" with the broad brush that you are asserting. There are plenty of blacks that are slow as molasses, and at no point have I said otherwise. All I have done is to correctly point out that most great sprinters are black, and then pontificated as to the reasons why that is the case.

-Your assertion that my question about a sprinter is a "logical fallacy", is in fact a logical fallacy.

 

Any article that starts with "scientific proof that race doesn't exist" is complete junk. People saying that are an embarrasment to science.

Because "race" is a colloquial word, it has no scientific definition. So they arbitrarily assumed a definition of the word that allowed them to say that it doesn't exist. It's the textbook definition of a strawman argument.

What they actually proved is that there are no human subspecies. The differences are too small.

However human populations can demonstrably be identified by their history, genetics, bones etc.

So the colloquial concept of "race" actually has a scientific basis. The differences are very small compared to animals (no subspecies), but are still enough to be identified and classified.

 

Race is Colloquial only if used that way
Race is just the word traditionally used by SCIENCE for subspecies when it comes to humans.

False.
The difference among human races are greater than that in many other subspecies/Races using any of several different genetics measures.

If human groups can be identified by their Bones and Genetics, there ARE races.
LOFL
You really are conflicted/confused/contradictory guy!

No it doesn't. in the case of 'Black', it's nickname for any person of dark color.
But sub-Saharans and Australian Aboriginals are both Colloquially 'Black', but are very different Races.

You're all over place, and mostly wrong
Colloquial has no basis... but then it does!!
"subspecies has been disproven."
NO it hasn't.
Proof doesn't exist in judgement calls like Race.
Proof is not even a Science word.
Proofs exist only in Math
Science deals in theories affirmed over time.

BTW, the OP article is Horrendous, and I emailed the author several times pointing out Many errors/Lies.
No response.
`

 

Winner winner, chicken dinner.