posted
^ He is neither-- he's not Jewish at all, but only plays fanboy to a Jewish author simply because of his racist premise. Apparently the problem with Sshaun is that he has no idea what the very premise of race is.
There are two main premises to the theory of race. The first is that populations can be divided based on both their physical appearance, and the second is that this division is further supported by genetic ancestry. All of this has long been debunked by science. First of all, division based on physical appearance are not clear cut because human phenotypic variation is so great and population features grade into one another. For example, it is a fact that humans possess the greatest variation of cranio-facial features, yet racialists try to label features like long narrow faces and long narrow noses "caucasian" while the opposite-- broand noses and faces "negroid". There are Africans with both features as well as Eurasians with both features. And second of all, the second premise that such physical distinctions are marked by lineage has been totally debunked by genetics which shows blacks of Africa and blacks of the Pacific who can look exactly alike in appearance are actually the most distant in genetic lineage whereas whites of Europe share closer ancestry with Africans due to recent African admixture. With both premises refuted-- the conclusion is there is no such thing as 'race'.
quote:Originally posted by rasol: "I can explain...you see...it's because.......Europe had no Cows"
LOL @ Sshaun's intentional ignorance. Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: since you are stuck in your own myopia of NEEDING race in order to prop up long discredited views of biology and history, I can't expect more of you. There is no such thing as race in human beings because different races don't interbreed in the animal species. THAT is one of the things that defines race. Humans are but one race. But since you don't understand biology, you think it is OK to remain ignorant. Trick question: is a tabby cat a different race from a siamese cat?
You're confusing race/breed with species. Those are two different things. We all belong to one species.
posted
Yes it has, so please stop going around flaunting that same link that Brace has already responded to and refuted, along with the rest of the scientific community at large.
There are two main premises to the theory of race. The first is that populations can be divided based on both their physical appearance, and the second is that this division is further supported by genetic ancestry. All of this has long been debunked by science. First of all, division based on physical appearance are not clear cut because human phenotypic variation is so great and population features grade into one another. For example, it is a fact that humans possess the greatest variation of cranio-facial features, yet racialists try to label features like long narrow faces and long narrow noses "caucasian" while the opposite-- broand noses and faces "negroid". There are Africans with both features as well as Eurasians with both features. And second of all, the second premise that such physical distinctions are marked by lineage has been totally debunked by genetics which shows blacks of Africa and blacks of the Pacific who can look exactly alike in appearance are actually the most distant in genetic lineage whereas whites of Europe share closer ancestry with Africans due to recent African admixture. With both premises refuted-- the conclusion is there is no such thing as 'race'.
We all belong to the same species, thus we all have things in common. Ditto for dog breeds. Therefore human populations are not completely distinct. This doesn't mean that race doesn't exist.
Tell any layman that race doesn't exist, and you'll be rightfully laughed at. The layman is not confined to focusing on artificial fragments of human biology. Instead, he sees the overall. He is not 100% correct in his assessment of race, because racial divisions overlap, but he is accurate 90% of the time or more.
It's like comparing how many hair follicles that a group of White and Blacks have. You'll have some Blacks with more, some Whites with less and vice versa. They overlap. You cannot conclude that because this trait overlaps that there is no White or Black. It's as absurd as saying that Humans are the same as a fruit because both are composed of 70% water. You have to look at the combined features and frequencies, not single isolated portions. When you do, you see race.
Posts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
There are two main premises to the theory of race. The first is that populations can be divided based on both their physical appearance, and the second is that this division is further supported by genetic ancestry. All of this has long been debunked by science. First of all, division based on physical appearance are not clear cut because human phenotypic variation is so great and population features grade into one another. For example, it is a fact that humans possess the greatest variation of cranio-facial features, yet racialists try to label features like long narrow faces and long narrow noses "caucasian" while the opposite-- broand noses and faces "negroid". There are Africans with both features as well as Eurasians with both features. And second of all, the second premise that such physical distinctions are marked by lineage has been totally debunked by genetics which shows blacks of Africa and blacks of the Pacific who can look exactly alike in appearance are actually the most distant in genetic lineage whereas whites of Europe share closer ancestry with Africans due to recent African admixture. With both premises refuted-- the conclusion is there is no such thing as 'race'.
We all belong to the same species, thus we all have things in common. Ditto for dog breeds. Therefore human populations are not completely distinct. This doesn't mean that race doesn't exist.
Tell any layman that race doesn't exist, and you'll be rightfully laughed at. The layman is not confined to focusing on artificial fragments of human biology. Instead, he sees the overall. He is not 100% correct in his assessment of race, because racial divisions overlap, but he is accurate 90% of the time or more.
It's like comparing how many hair follicles that a group of White and Blacks have. You'll have some Blacks with more, some Whites with less and vice versa. They overlap. You cannot conclude that because this trait overlaps that there is no White or Black. It's as absurd as saying that Humans are the same as a fruit because both are composed of 70% water. You have to look at the combined features and frequencies, not single isolated portions. When you do, you see race.
You fail to understand two crucial facts.
1) Lay people should not be used as references in a scientific argument for obvious reasons. It is irresponsible.
2) Overlap of traits following a cline isn't the best evidence against any race concept; genetics is. This is what ultimately lead to its disuse in scientific discourse.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
hahaha this view was never widely held. It was propaganda intended to show the evils of religion and how religion stifled scientific progress.
I get you point though. The fact that *everybody* (except me) on this board proclaims race doesn't exist doesn't mean it's true. Obviously it's not. Genetics is still in its infancy. To use genetics and our present understanding to say race doesn't exist is premature and irresponsible.
Posts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
Actually it was the dominant view of the European middle ages.
That's simply heresay from the propagandist camp.
No, it's been well documented historically for anyone familiar with world history. The only proganda comes from you and the garbage you try desperately to impose on this forum. Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
If race exists, then why do people like Aboriginals, South Asians, Melanesians, and Negritos look so much like blacks of African descent? Why is it that there are pure black Africans with straight noses and thin lips like whites? Why are there pure black Africans with yellowish skin, zygoma, and eyes with the epicanthic fold like East Asians? The majority of the features that people who aren't of black African descent have were always been present in blacks in Africa. Sure there are several differences like hair texture, skin color, hair and eye color, but that does not mean there are different races. As others on this site have said, they are called population groups. You need to sit back, read, and learn on this site as I am.
Posts: 603 | From: Mobile, Alabama | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ebony Allen: You need to sit back, read, and learn on this site as I am.
Actually, I wouldn't at all be surprised if he had some kind of congenital learning deficiency. All indication seems to allude to that possibility.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata: No, it's been well documented historically for anyone familiar with world history. The only proganda comes from you and the garbage you try desperately to impose on this forum.
The scientific community at the time knew the world was round, the majority thought it was flat though
Posts: 2642 | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Early Europeans by and large actually knew nothing about a globe, and wasn't exposed to such information by the Greek authors since it was introduced to them by Muslims. Of course the point being that you can't judge a book by its cover, and definitely don't base your views on an appeal to popularity (directed at Shaun).
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not necessarily! With the evidence available to those who seek it, they still manage to propagandize their dogmatic agenda of a white or at least white by proxy Ancient Egypt. Europeans have twisted the minds of the peoples of the world so badly that many can't even believe what they see or prefer to hide their head in the sand when it comes to world civilization and who they really are on the earth. There are two key components to this indoctrination. 1) MEDIA, MEDIA, and especially the mass MEDIA/TV; we have been seeing white people superimposed on the image of ancient Egyptian for so long that its almost just a "given" like the blond hair blue eyed Christ. If a lie is repeated long enough some will believe it; even against common sense and facts that state otherwise. 2) The ARAB-Egyptians desire to be accepted as "white" and their desire to connect with AE even if their ancestry clearly is in west Asia or Europe.
With admitting that AE were black Africans then the whole world civilization axis is flipped 180 and the truth of some other peoples in the Levantine and Mediterranean becomes clearer and more connected with blacks. They will fight this tooth and nail!
So with the almost total control of the mass media and the need for many modern Arab-Egyptians to have pseudo-pride that the AE looked like them (against the overall evidence) this is a colossal fight- NO war!
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Just to get back to the topic of this thread, I believe a time will come when Eurocentrists will have no choice but to let go of Egypt.
Why?? Simply because you can maintain a lie for only so long! That's why.
With all the overwhelming evidence of Egypt's African identity, it's even a miracle or rather pure insanity that Eurocentrics keep their hold on Egypt. Again, I believe the only reason why is because all this evidence is simply not well known in the general public, and of course Eurocentrism like all dogma maintains its position of power through ignorance.
Posts: 318 | From: PA. USA | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: since you are stuck in your own myopia of NEEDING race in order to prop up long discredited views of biology and history, I can't expect more of you. There is no such thing as race in human beings because different races don't interbreed in the animal species. THAT is one of the things that defines race. Humans are but one race. But since you don't understand biology, you think it is OK to remain ignorant. Trick question: is a tabby cat a different race from a siamese cat?
You're confusing race/breed with species. Those are two different things. We all belong to one species.
No YOU are confusing race/breed with a species. A race or breed is not necessarily a subspecies. Brown humans and white humans are not separate breeds. They are all of the same species and same breed. Skin color alone does not create a different breed of human, subspecies of human or race. Breeds in animals many times come from mixing different sub species of a particular animal. These sub species can have radically different genetic structures, even though they are in the same family. The closest relative on the human family tree is the Ape. There are no human subspecies or breeds. As I said, your myopic thinking which wants to JUSTIFY a social categorizations of humans like dog breeds or cat breeds because of trivial differences like skin color are purely illogical racialist fantasy dogma. They have no basis in fact and are unscientific. Skin color is not a deep genetic difference and most descriptions of "race" boil down to skin color, which is not any sort of deep scientific understanding of a person's genetic make up. It is just part of the social conditioning of humans which sometimes uses any trivial marker that can be used to group people and create a common identity. Language, culture, religion and other things are also similar ways of such grouping. Skin color and other even more subtle physical traits can also be used for this. The inanity of this position is seen in the fact that some think that the Jewish people are a RACE. They are not. They are part Europeans, Levantines and Africans, therefore no different than any other people across the globe genetically. But some idiots just want to cling to Bullsh*t because it makes them feel good.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: I believe Ancient Egypt was Black or at minimum majority Black (and/or hybrid). This is one among many points I would take up against Hart.
There was no minimum majority black or whatever the hell that means. They were not "hybrids" either. They were only black.
Posts: 603 | From: Mobile, Alabama | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: I believe Ancient Egypt was Black or at minimum majority Black (and/or hybrid). This is one among many points I would take up against Hart.
There was no minimum majority black or whatever the hell that means. They were not "hybrids" either. They were only black.
The only general consensus that I'm aware of is that Ancient Egypt is considered by many to have been a cosmopolitan multicultural society.
Posts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: I believe Ancient Egypt was Black or at minimum majority Black (and/or hybrid). This is one among many points I would take up against Hart.
There was no minimum majority black or whatever the hell that means. They were not "hybrids" either. They were only black.
The only general consensus that I'm aware of is that Ancient Egypt is considered by many to have been a cosmopolitan multicultural society.
If you mean multiracial society, no. It was not. There is no evidence for that.
Posts: 603 | From: Mobile, Alabama | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: We're all humans, we're all more alike than we are different, but that doesn't mean we're the same. We're obviously not.
If you're talking about an individual basis, then you're right.
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: I believe Ancient Egypt was Black or at minimum majority Black (and/or hybrid). This is one among many points I would take up against Hart.
There was no minimum majority black or whatever the hell that means. They were not "hybrids" either. They were only black.
The only general consensus that I'm aware of is that Ancient Egypt is considered by many to have been a cosmopolitan multicultural society.
It was cosmopolitan in the sense that there were contacts and trade relationships between Egypt and various other places in the Mediterranean and elsewhere. However, cosmopolitan does not mean that the Egyptian population was primarily made up of non native people. During the dynastic period most of the Egyptian people primarily derived from indigenous Nile Valley and African ethnicities, along with some ethnicities from outside of Africa. The predominance of Non African ethnicities in Egypt didn't rise until after the dynastic period of Egypt.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You have to wonder that during the Greek period of rule in Ta-Meri, why, even after the many Persian invasions and the Greek, and all of the so-called "admixter," they still considered the Egyptians "Black?"
That is because it was understood, even in that late of a period, the the majority, indigenous population was a Black African society - even after the mass migrations due to the invasions.
Posts: 853 | From: Houston | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^And some of the Levantines going into Kemet would have had African (Black - goes without saying) ancestry themselves, from peoples such as the Natufians.
Posts: 140 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: since you are stuck in your own myopia of NEEDING race in order to prop up long discredited views of biology and history, I can't expect more of you. There is no such thing as race in human beings because different races don't interbreed in the animal species. THAT is one of the things that defines race. Humans are but one race. But since you don't understand biology, you think it is OK to remain ignorant. Trick question: is a tabby cat a different race from a siamese cat?
You're confusing race/breed with species. Those are two different things. We all belong to one species.
No YOU are confusing race/breed with a species. A race or breed is not necessarily a subspecies. Brown humans and white humans are not separate breeds. They are all of the same species and same breed. Skin color alone does not create a different breed of human, subspecies of human or race. Breeds in animals many times come from mixing different sub species of a particular animal. These sub species can have radically different genetic structures, even though they are in the same family. The closest relative on the human family tree is the Ape. There are no human subspecies or breeds. As I said, your myopic thinking which wants to JUSTIFY a social categorizations of humans like dog breeds or cat breeds because of trivial differences like skin color are purely illogical racialist fantasy dogma. They have no basis in fact and are unscientific. Skin color is not a deep genetic difference and most descriptions of "race" boil down to skin color, which is not any sort of deep scientific understanding of a person's genetic make up. It is just part of the social conditioning of humans which sometimes uses any trivial marker that can be used to group people and create a common identity. Language, culture, religion and other things are also similar ways of such grouping. Skin color and other even more subtle physical traits can also be used for this. The inanity of this position is seen in the fact that some think that the Jewish people are a RACE. They are not. They are part Europeans, Levantines and Africans, therefore no different than any other people across the globe genetically. But some idiots just want to cling to Bullsh*t because it makes them feel good.
I cannot accept the position that race doesn't exist. It requires a lot of intellectual acrobatics and dishonesty to come to such an obtuse conclusion. The view will never gain wide acceptance because it is cleary and simply untrue. It's not a matter of simply skin color. If it was, an anthropologist wouldn't be able to tell human skeletons of different races apart. There is nothing wrong with accepting that different races exist. To deny this reality only stifles legitimate debate (that's the intent) and does more harm than good.
Posts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
People who place undo pride in tribalistic notions do so to compensate for a lack of pride in their personal achievement.
Therefore the underacheiving low self esteem whites of America and Europe will always be the primary -pawns- for racists [the NAZI's of Europe, the Klan of the US].
This is all you've managed to relate or contribute so far to this forum.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Race as a biological identifier does not work. The human family base is black and african. Others are variants with some being more inbreed and more recessive than others. Once you understand this from a true and correct prospective then it brings clarity.
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: since you are stuck in your own myopia of NEEDING race in order to prop up long discredited views of biology and history, I can't expect more of you. There is no such thing as race in human beings because different races don't interbreed in the animal species. THAT is one of the things that defines race. Humans are but one race. But since you don't understand biology, you think it is OK to remain ignorant. Trick question: is a tabby cat a different race from a siamese cat?
You're confusing race/breed with species. Those are two different things. We all belong to one species.
No YOU are confusing race/breed with a species. A race or breed is not necessarily a subspecies. Brown humans and white humans are not separate breeds. They are all of the same species and same breed. Skin color alone does not create a different breed of human, subspecies of human or race. Breeds in animals many times come from mixing different sub species of a particular animal. These sub species can have radically different genetic structures, even though they are in the same family. The closest relative on the human family tree is the Ape. There are no human subspecies or breeds. As I said, your myopic thinking which wants to JUSTIFY a social categorizations of humans like dog breeds or cat breeds because of trivial differences like skin color are purely illogical racialist fantasy dogma. They have no basis in fact and are unscientific. Skin color is not a deep genetic difference and most descriptions of "race" boil down to skin color, which is not any sort of deep scientific understanding of a person's genetic make up. It is just part of the social conditioning of humans which sometimes uses any trivial marker that can be used to group people and create a common identity. Language, culture, religion and other things are also similar ways of such grouping. Skin color and other even more subtle physical traits can also be used for this. The inanity of this position is seen in the fact that some think that the Jewish people are a RACE. They are not. They are part Europeans, Levantines and Africans, therefore no different than any other people across the globe genetically. But some idiots just want to cling to Bullsh*t because it makes them feel good.
I cannot accept the position that race doesn't exist. It requires a lot of intellectual acrobatics and dishonesty to come to such an obtuse conclusion. The view will never gain wide acceptance because it is cleary and simply untrue. It's not a matter of simply skin color. If it was, an anthropologist wouldn't be able to tell human skeletons of different races apart. There is nothing wrong with accepting that different races exist. To deny this reality only stifles legitimate debate (that's the intent) and does more harm than good.
Posts: 318 | From: PA. USA | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
People who place undo pride in tribalistic notions do so to compensate for a lack of pride in their personal achievement.
Therefore the underacheiving low self esteem whites of America and Europe will always be the primary -pawns- for racists [the NAZI's of Europe, the Klan of the US].
This is all you've managed to relate or contribute so far to this forum.
People who place undo pride in tribalistic notions do so to compensate for a lack of pride in their personal achievement.
Therefore the underacheiving low self esteem whites of America and Europe will always be the primary -pawns- for racists [the NAZI's of Europe, the Klan of the US].
This is all you've managed to relate or contribute so far to this forum.
The AAA doesn't have the last say on race, unfortunately.
The fact remains that humans cluster GENETICALLY based on geography, and these are where the races reside. I've already provided a link to Gill, an anthropologist who clearly says there is race. Thus the AAA you keep regurgitating is meaningless.
This has nothing to do with low self-esteem or other spurious projections. It's just a matter of seeing what is.
Note to self: never trust somebody who doesn't believe in race. They're willing to put ideology before rationality.
Posts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: since you are stuck in your own myopia of NEEDING race in order to prop up long discredited views of biology and history, I can't expect more of you. There is no such thing as race in human beings because different races don't interbreed in the animal species. THAT is one of the things that defines race. Humans are but one race. But since you don't understand biology, you think it is OK to remain ignorant. Trick question: is a tabby cat a different race from a siamese cat?
You're confusing race/breed with species. Those are two different things. We all belong to one species.
No YOU are confusing race/breed with a species. A race or breed is not necessarily a subspecies. Brown humans and white humans are not separate breeds. They are all of the same species and same breed. Skin color alone does not create a different breed of human, subspecies of human or race. Breeds in animals many times come from mixing different sub species of a particular animal. These sub species can have radically different genetic structures, even though they are in the same family. The closest relative on the human family tree is the Ape. There are no human subspecies or breeds. As I said, your myopic thinking which wants to JUSTIFY a social categorizations of humans like dog breeds or cat breeds because of trivial differences like skin color are purely illogical racialist fantasy dogma. They have no basis in fact and are unscientific. Skin color is not a deep genetic difference and most descriptions of "race" boil down to skin color, which is not any sort of deep scientific understanding of a person's genetic make up. It is just part of the social conditioning of humans which sometimes uses any trivial marker that can be used to group people and create a common identity. Language, culture, religion and other things are also similar ways of such grouping. Skin color and other even more subtle physical traits can also be used for this. The inanity of this position is seen in the fact that some think that the Jewish people are a RACE. They are not. They are part Europeans, Levantines and Africans, therefore no different than any other people across the globe genetically. But some idiots just want to cling to Bullsh*t because it makes them feel good.
I cannot accept the position that race doesn't exist. It requires a lot of intellectual acrobatics and dishonesty to come to such an obtuse conclusion. The view will never gain wide acceptance because it is cleary and simply untrue. It's not a matter of simply skin color. If it was, an anthropologist wouldn't be able to tell human skeletons of different races apart. There is nothing wrong with accepting that different races exist. To deny this reality only stifles legitimate debate (that's the intent) and does more harm than good.
Actually no anthropologist classifies races by skeleton. Please provide a citation for any modern anthropologists that view skeletal morphology as being based on race. Homo Sapien Sapien skeletal morpology is found all over the planet and is determined by environmental factors, not race. These same environmental factors also affect skin color, but do not define race. People with white skin inhabit a wide range of environmental zones and have various skeletal morphologies based on those climate zones. The same thing goes with people with dark skin. Therefore, there is no one skeletal morphology that can be said to be an identifier for the white race. And, more importantly, there is no one skeletal morphology that is strictly unique to whites alone. There are skeletal morphologies that are unique to populations adapted to living in certain environmental zones, such as the sahara or alps, but that does not define race. If that was the case there would be an alps race, a mediterranean race, a saharan race, a levantine race, a steppes race, a tropical race and so forth, which no anthropologist would agree with.
Bottom line, you know that when you say race you mean skin color and therefore skeletal variation is irrelevant to it. Therefore, you need to provide a citation from a modern anthropologist that says skin color equals race and I am sure that they wont. Skin color is not skeletal features and if you don't understand the difference you need not be talking about human biodiversity.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: since you are stuck in your own myopia of NEEDING race in order to prop up long discredited views of biology and history, I can't expect more of you. There is no such thing as race in human beings because different races don't interbreed in the animal species. THAT is one of the things that defines race. Humans are but one race. But since you don't understand biology, you think it is OK to remain ignorant. Trick question: is a tabby cat a different race from a siamese cat?
You're confusing race/breed with species. Those are two different things. We all belong to one species.
No YOU are confusing race/breed with a species. A race or breed is not necessarily a subspecies. Brown humans and white humans are not separate breeds. They are all of the same species and same breed. Skin color alone does not create a different breed of human, subspecies of human or race. Breeds in animals many times come from mixing different sub species of a particular animal. These sub species can have radically different genetic structures, even though they are in the same family. The closest relative on the human family tree is the Ape. There are no human subspecies or breeds. As I said, your myopic thinking which wants to JUSTIFY a social categorizations of humans like dog breeds or cat breeds because of trivial differences like skin color are purely illogical racialist fantasy dogma. They have no basis in fact and are unscientific. Skin color is not a deep genetic difference and most descriptions of "race" boil down to skin color, which is not any sort of deep scientific understanding of a person's genetic make up. It is just part of the social conditioning of humans which sometimes uses any trivial marker that can be used to group people and create a common identity. Language, culture, religion and other things are also similar ways of such grouping. Skin color and other even more subtle physical traits can also be used for this. The inanity of this position is seen in the fact that some think that the Jewish people are a RACE. They are not. They are part Europeans, Levantines and Africans, therefore no different than any other people across the globe genetically. But some idiots just want to cling to Bullsh*t because it makes them feel good.
I cannot accept the position that race doesn't exist. It requires a lot of intellectual acrobatics and dishonesty to come to such an obtuse conclusion. The view will never gain wide acceptance because it is cleary and simply untrue. It's not a matter of simply skin color. If it was, an anthropologist wouldn't be able to tell human skeletons of different races apart. There is nothing wrong with accepting that different races exist. To deny this reality only stifles legitimate debate (that's the intent) and does more harm than good.
Actually no anthropologist classifies races by skeleton. Please provide a citation for any modern anthropologists that view skeletal morphology as being based on race. Homo Sapien Sapien skeletal morpology is found all over the planet and is determined by environmental factors, not race. These same environmental factors also affect skin color, but do not define race. People with white skin inhabit a wide range of environmental zones and have various skeletal morphologies based on those climate zones. The same thing goes with people with dark skin. Therefore, there is no one skeletal morphology that can be said to be an identifier for the white race. And, more importantly, there is no one skeletal morphology that is strictly unique to whites alone. There are skeletal morphologies that are unique to populations adapted to living in certain environmental zones, such as the sahara or alps, but that does not define race. If that was the case there would be an alps race, a mediterranean race, a saharan race, a levantine race, a steppes race, a tropical race and so forth, which no anthropologist would agree with.
Bottom line, you know that when you say race you mean skin color and therefore skeletal variation is irrelevant to it. Therefore, you need to provide a citation from a modern anthropologist that says skin color equals race and I am sure that they wont. Skin color is not skeletal features and if you don't understand the difference you need not be talking about human biodiversity.
They don't do it using skeletal, but cranial morphology.
They run into problems in places like Mexico because there has been a lot of inter-breeding. And like you said, there is a lot of variation in Africa and so forth, so not even this is a completely accurate way of denoting race.
However, it's the combination of cranial morphology, physical appearance, and genetic clusters combined which paints the picture of race. Since groups evolved in relative isolation in different geographic regions, they can be grouped. Sure, some African group may have some things more in common with Norwegians, but ON THE WHOLE, ALL groups in Africa will be more closely related to each other than to any group in any other continent. Likewise for other groups.
Posts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Never trust anybody that doesn't believe in Santa, they're willing to put ideology in front of reality
^Words to live by for people like sshaun002.
Biology as is alll science is a matter of objectivity, not what one wants to believe in or not accept.Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: since you are stuck in your own myopia of NEEDING race in order to prop up long discredited views of biology and history, I can't expect more of you. There is no such thing as race in human beings because different races don't interbreed in the animal species. THAT is one of the things that defines race. Humans are but one race. But since you don't understand biology, you think it is OK to remain ignorant. Trick question: is a tabby cat a different race from a siamese cat?
You're confusing race/breed with species. Those are two different things. We all belong to one species.
No YOU are confusing race/breed with a species. A race or breed is not necessarily a subspecies. Brown humans and white humans are not separate breeds. They are all of the same species and same breed. Skin color alone does not create a different breed of human, subspecies of human or race. Breeds in animals many times come from mixing different sub species of a particular animal. These sub species can have radically different genetic structures, even though they are in the same family. The closest relative on the human family tree is the Ape. There are no human subspecies or breeds. As I said, your myopic thinking which wants to JUSTIFY a social categorizations of humans like dog breeds or cat breeds because of trivial differences like skin color are purely illogical racialist fantasy dogma. They have no basis in fact and are unscientific. Skin color is not a deep genetic difference and most descriptions of "race" boil down to skin color, which is not any sort of deep scientific understanding of a person's genetic make up. It is just part of the social conditioning of humans which sometimes uses any trivial marker that can be used to group people and create a common identity. Language, culture, religion and other things are also similar ways of such grouping. Skin color and other even more subtle physical traits can also be used for this. The inanity of this position is seen in the fact that some think that the Jewish people are a RACE. They are not. They are part Europeans, Levantines and Africans, therefore no different than any other people across the globe genetically. But some idiots just want to cling to Bullsh*t because it makes them feel good.
I cannot accept the position that race doesn't exist. It requires a lot of intellectual acrobatics and dishonesty to come to such an obtuse conclusion. The view will never gain wide acceptance because it is cleary and simply untrue. It's not a matter of simply skin color. If it was, an anthropologist wouldn't be able to tell human skeletons of different races apart. There is nothing wrong with accepting that different races exist. To deny this reality only stifles legitimate debate (that's the intent) and does more harm than good.
Actually no anthropologist classifies races by skeleton. Please provide a citation for any modern anthropologists that view skeletal morphology as being based on race. Homo Sapien Sapien skeletal morpology is found all over the planet and is determined by environmental factors, not race. These same environmental factors also affect skin color, but do not define race. People with white skin inhabit a wide range of environmental zones and have various skeletal morphologies based on those climate zones. The same thing goes with people with dark skin. Therefore, there is no one skeletal morphology that can be said to be an identifier for the white race. And, more importantly, there is no one skeletal morphology that is strictly unique to whites alone. There are skeletal morphologies that are unique to populations adapted to living in certain environmental zones, such as the sahara or alps, but that does not define race. If that was the case there would be an alps race, a mediterranean race, a saharan race, a levantine race, a steppes race, a tropical race and so forth, which no anthropologist would agree with.
Bottom line, you know that when you say race you mean skin color and therefore skeletal variation is irrelevant to it. Therefore, you need to provide a citation from a modern anthropologist that says skin color equals race and I am sure that they wont. Skin color is not skeletal features and if you don't understand the difference you need not be talking about human biodiversity.
They don't do it using skeletal, but cranial morphology.
They run into problems in places like Mexico because there has been a lot of inter-breeding. And like you said, there is a lot of variation in Africa and so forth, so not even this is a completely accurate way of denoting race.
However, it's the combination of cranial morphology, physical appearance, and genetic clusters combined which paints the picture of race. Since groups evolved in relative isolation in different geographic regions, they can be grouped. Sure, some African group may have some things more in common with Norwegians, but ON THE WHOLE, ALL groups in Africa will be more closely related to each other than to any group in any other continent. Likewise for other groups.
Which means there are no races. If there are no clear cut distinctions that can be defined to identify a race then there are no human races. Te Just because some humans have long arms and others have short arms and others have big foreheads and others have small feet while others have big feet does not mean that races exist. That is the nature of skeletal and cranial variation. Head shape and leg length do not define races because such things vary among all populations and cannot be clearly attributed to one group alone. But according to your asinine ideology, it is ok to classify tall blondes as a race separate from short brunettes or skinny people with big noses from fat people with freckles. That is what you get for someone who equates human biodiversity with a breeds of dogs. In fact, you are so silly in trying to cling to your concept of race, that you may as well say each individual is a separate race, because each individual has a different set of unique features unto themselves. That is retarded, plain and simple.
And, as another example of silly statements that reflect nothing but the fantasy illusions that you keep spewing out, the craniofacial and skeletal variation among Africans is the greatest of almost any population on earth. Therefore, all Africans cannot be grouped together as a race, based on any arbitrary measure, because they vary too much according to any individual measure to be grouped. Another example of not knowing the facts before you open your mouth.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:never trust somebody who doesn't believe in race. They're willing to put ideology before rationality.
^^Take your own advice.
Indeed. I don't trust someone who tries to argue that Europeans couldn't develop a civilisation in antiquity because they had no cows, or who doesn’t understand that crania - ie - skulls - are a part of skeletal anthropology, and not a separate discipline.
Such a person is intellectually incapable of making any point, other than to personally demonstrate the relationship between ignorance, low self esteem and racism.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^No you just don't *get it* because you don't know what "science" is nor how this apparently mysterious process works.
Because "everybody does it" does not mean an assertion is, by default, scientifically valid or proven.
Posts: 426 | From: Cali-for-nia | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
It contains all the hard data available of why 'race' does not truly exist but as a socio-psychological concept.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ethnicities are somewhat similar to "races". It includes cultural, religious, and linguistic behavior of a certain group of people.
Posts: 603 | From: Mobile, Alabama | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
It contains all the hard data available of why 'race' does not truly exist but as a socio-psychological concept.
Really, I get the fact that race can, has, and is attributed to social class, linguisitics, customs and every other non-genetic aspect one can think of. Yes, Italians, Russians, and Irish were not considered "White" in America's past.
However, there is a difference between race as purely a social construct (as it was in classifying Irish and not White) due to economic, political, and social reasons, and race as something REAL to define geographically distinguished populations.
So what if 85% of human variation exists in Africa? It's the other 15% that we're concerned with. That 15% is what makes a White person look White and a China man look Chinese. No amount of linguistics or customs is going to make a Chinese person into a Black person or vice versa.
Human populations evolved in different geographic regions; thus they have some unique traits. These are races, for better or worse. Holding on to a definition of race that is so convuluted that it doesn't reflect the real world is false. It's bound to fail, no matter how many links you provide that claim to show otherwise.
As genetics and biology become more refined, we will see the reality of race rear it's head again. Why? It has to... because populations in different geographic regions are obviously different thus markers MUST exist. That we haven't found those markers doesn't mean they're not there. Our eyes tell us that they are.
But we've been through this already. Genetics studies DO SHOW that groups cluster according to race. End of story.
Your PBS link is weak, very weak.
Posts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
Since somebody posted a editorial by Steve Sailer in the other thread (in a lame attempt to undermine my position), I'll have you know that Sailer provided a positive critique of Hart's book. Here it is:
"The concept of race as having a biological basis is controversial, and most geneticists are reluctant to describe it that way. But some say the genetic clustering into continent-based groups does correspond roughly to the popular conception of racial groups.
“There are difficulties in where you put boundaries on the globe, but we know now there are enough genetic differences between people from different parts of the world that you can classify people in groups that correspond to popular notions of race,” Dr. Pritchard said. " http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/26/science/26human.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all&oref=sloginPosts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
What this points out is that race is an arbitrarily defined concept and based heavily on pseudoscience. Genetic variation is not equivalent to defining a race, because all animals within the same species and sub species have genetic variation. There are all sorts of genetic variables that can be found in humans around the globe, but that does not make humans with different genetic variations into different sub species of humans. There are no subspecies of humans and that is the only thing that is equivalent to what is meant by race. What all of this proves is that there is no such thing as race as a biological concept meaning distinct subspecies of human, but there are many whites who will desperately grasp at straws in order to reinforce an outdated view of race. Lactose intolerance does not define a race.
Evolution is a process that exist in all animal species, yet it takes millions of years for an animal species to mutate enough to become a separate sup species. Humans have not evolved into sub species. Europeans are not a breed apart from other humans. Adaptation to cold climates has not made humans into a separate biologically distinct category of human. No anthropologist will agree to this. However, anthropologists will agree that selective environmental pressure is responsible for the various genetic changes that have occurred to humans all parts of the globe. This does not prove race it proves biological adaptation to the environment. The fact is that there are still substantial genetic differences within populations in Asia, Europe and Africa that are not going to allow them to be considered as one race. Arbitrarily picking a particular subset of genes does not prove race, because there are thousands of human genes that make up the biology of what it means to be human and millions of combinations. This sampling of gene sequences no more validates race than the color of someones skin. None of those genetic variations changes what it is to be a human and none of them makes humans into separate subspecies. Adaptation to the environment is part of the human genetic sequence and that is why we are able to live all over the earth. That is why there are no separate human races.
Again from the article itself:
quote: A genomic survey of world populations by Dr. Feldman, Noah Rosenberg and colleagues in 2002 showed that people clustered genetically on the basis of small differences in DNAinto five groups that correspond to the five continent-based populations: Africans, Australian aborigines, East Asians, American Indians and Caucasians, a group that includes Europeans, Middle Easterners and people of the Indian subcontinent. The clusterings reflect “serial founder effects,” Dr. Feldman said, meaning that as people migrated around the world, each new population carried away just part of the genetic variation in the one it was derived from.
Small differences in DNA do not validate the idea of race. It is obvious to anyone that people around the world look different and therefore have differences in DNA that are responsible for skin color, eye color, hair color and so forth. The point is that NONE of those things define race. Lactose intolerance does not define a race. It defines a biological adaption to a certain environement, but THAT is not race. There are no subspecies of human beings.
According to this nonsense it is ok to classify blondes as a different race because they have blonde hair. ANY genetic difference can therefore be used to define race according to this way of looking at human biodiversity. AND THAT is why it makes race such a meaningless term when it comes to humans because there are SO MANY genetic variables among humans that it is impossible to classify them based on any one set of genetic differences. The identification of differences in skin color, eye color, chest size, height, weight, head shape and other things does not prove race it only proves that some people are desperate to use any difference to justify clinging to an absurd notion of human breeds or subspecies, where there are none.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Guys, I think Shaun needs to take time to reflect on what has been presented to him repeatedly instead of force feeding it to him every time he protests. He is obviously driven by a delusion of self-worth or higher self-worth and such are stronger than common sense and material facts. Besides, this thread is not about Shaun's distorted views and is diverging completely off topic. He is ruining the thread with his agenda. I only hope that he either desists or gets banned if he can't control his trolling.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic