This new paper of mine was written for a Human Evolution class I recently took at UCSD. I never got the graded paper back, but I did get an A+ in the overall course. Anyway, this paper advances the opposite argument from my earlier "In Defense of the Existence of Human Races" in that I say that modern human variation does NOT structure into races. Feedback is appreciated as always.
Posts: 7080 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
On page 211 of their book Race: The Reality of Human Differences (2004), authors Vincent Sarich and Frank Miele explain the role of phenotype in racial classification.
Unlike those biologists who make politically correct denials of the scientific reality of race without providing any standard of what is required for race to be considered real, Sarich and Miele do provide us with standards for race for non-human species that are accepted by biologists.
There is no accepted genetic standard as genetic knowledge is still too incomplete (as the authors point out, until very recently dogs could not be genetically distinguished from wolves), but there is a long-accepted phenotypic standard based on "sorting accuracy."
Basically, by this standard, if the biologists who specialize in the study of a species can sort two different populations of the species based on phenotype or physical traits with 75% or more accuracy they are considered to be separate races.
This standard allows the authors to state: "if we employ a straightforward definition of race -- for example, a population within a species that can be readily distinguished from other such populations on genetic grounds alone (that is, using only heritable features) -- then there can be no doubt of the existence of a substantial number of human races."
- Race: Reality and Denial By Richard McCulloch
Posts: 2408 | From: My mother's basement | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Your paper mostly consists of these below four arguments race denialists commonly use.
Note: these four arguments have been debunked over and over (see below).
Arguments for Racial Denial
(1) The genetic ignorance argument.
We do not yet know what genes are actually involved in determining racial differences, or how they do it. Race deniers use this to claim that race is not genetically real. Yet no one can reasonably dispute that race consists of inherited traits, transmitted by parents to their children, and inherited traits must be genetic traits, as the only means known by science to transmit inherited traits is through the genes. Also, we do not yet know what genes are involved in causing many diseases that are known to be inherited, yet because we know they are inherited we know they are caused by genes, and the search for these genes is the purpose of most genetic studies.
(2) The scientific obsolescence argument.
This argument claims that the idea of race is based on a false, outdated and obsolete concept of science from a previous era, e.g., the "colonial era," the 17th century, etc. In other words, it says that belief in race is backward, outdated and "old-fashioned," an adjective that has great weight with those who like to see themselves as advanced thinkers. It cites false beliefs or myths about race from those earlier eras that are easily refuted as proof of this claim, and by refuting these false beliefs pretends that it has refuted the reality of race. Every branch of science has suffered from many false beliefs and theories during its history. Physics, biology and medicine began in the 6th-4th centuries B.C. and each has had a long history of false beliefs and theories, yet these sciences are still recognized as valid. They are not regarded as obsolete because of discarded false beliefs.
(3) The individual variation argument.
The argument is that the individual variation within populations is greater than the variation between the averages of the different populations or, put another way, that most human variation occurs between individuals rather than races. This is another attempt to minimize the significance and value of racial differences. But it compares extremes with averages, and the traits it compares are not the traits that are racially definitive, not traits that characterize any real geographic population, not the traits by which we identify races and distinguish them from each other.
(4) Argument by distortion.
Race deniers frequently distort, falsify or misrepresent the arguments for the reality of race, including racial definitions and systems of classification, in part to create a strawman that can be easily refuted, and in part simply to cause confusion.
- Race: Reality and Denial By Richard McCulloch
Posts: 2408 | From: My mother's basement | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: ^^^^yet you claim Coon's Congoid, Capoid, Mongoloid, Caucasian and Austrailoid
yet you will not list the phenotypical traits of all five
.
This has already been done. The reason i don't post the Capoid and Australoid is because they are not recognised by forensic anthropologists for obvious practical reasons. The Capoid world population is only a few thousand and they live in isolated parts of Africa. You won't find their skull or hair strands for analysis in a forensic lab.
Posts: 2408 | From: My mother's basement | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
Different races and ethnicities are prone to different diseases, its why the Israelis have been working on an ''ethnobomb'' for years.
Do you realise how cranky race-denialism is? In the future there will be weapons killing off only certain races or ethnic groups.
Posts: 2408 | From: My mother's basement | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
On page 211 of their book Race: The Reality of Human Differences (2004), authors Vincent Sarich and Frank Miele explain the role of phenotype in racial classification.
^Your reference appears bogus. Exactly what did they say on page 211? Can you quote where they mention phenotype? We'll wait...
Race deniers frequently distort, falsify or misrepresent the arguments for the reality of race, including racial definitions and systems of classification, in part to create a strawman that can be easily refuted, and in part simply to cause confusion.
"Race realists" more aptly called racists also " frequently distort, falsify or misrepresent the arguments against the biological construct of race, including use of bogus "racial" definitions and systems of classification, in part to create a strawman that can be easily refuted, and in part simply to cause confusion."
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
The "racial reality" work cited below seems strangely obsessed with black penis size. Racial Reality authors Sarich and Miele, cite a number of Greek depictions of Africans that show black penis sizes as larger than that of nearby whites. QUOTE:
"The genitalia of black Africans were also deemed noteworthy to the Greek and Roman artists. Within the same art piece, black males are depicted with penises larger than those of white figures, and in others are shown as being erect." --Vincent Sarich, Frank Miele. 2005. Race: The Reality of Human Differences. pg 41
Obsession with black penis size also enters into the work of other racist authors, like JP Rushton, who conducted detailed "self-assessment" in penis size compared to the potency exhibited by Negroid [sic] data..
QUOTE: "Then there is the issue of Rushton's data and disparate sources one of the most heavily cited in his earlier workd is an 1898 book, by an anonymous French army surgeon, a repository of anecdotal information about the penis, breast, and buttock size of different native populations. His reliance on these kinds of data led to some strong criticism. More recently Rushton has used a wider variety of sources, including census data, studies of military recruits, and brain scanning techniques. He argues that such data reinforce his original conclusion that human populations can be ordered in a scale of evolutionary advance from blacks, to whites, to Orientals." --Stringer and McKee, African Exodus 1996
and -- more obsession with Negro indexes on penis size. Note trembling "self-assessment" by white "biodiversity" author Rushton.. QUOTE:
"No criteria are ever set up to decide how these groups are established or what traits should be used in determin- ing membership. This means that his acceptance of "race" is ultimately arbitrary and subjective. When "the races" are compared in terms of appearance and performance in the quantities of uncritically collected data assembled in his book, "racial" identity is determined by "self-assessment." Rushton's basic units, then, are rooted in folk belief and not in biology. The possibility that the vast majority of the human biological traits that have been shaped by evolution are clinally and independently distributed in association with the relevant selective forces is never once considered, and the word cline is simply missing. One running concern is how these folk categories compare on such matters as intelligence and reproductive behavior. Sex rears its head again and again in the discussion, with much of the information on comparative sexual performance based on "self- assessment." Rushton is obviously much taken with the "salience of... buttocks and breasts" (pp. 167, 231) as measures of sexuality, although there is a dearth of objectively collected data. More telling is his evident fascination with the "Negroid" penis as an index of "potency" and libido. In his earlier publications on these matters, his information came from "self-assessment." --FROM: Review: Racialism and Racist Agendas Author(s): C. Loring Brace Reviewed work(s):Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History Perspective by J. Philippe Rushton Source: American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 98, No. 1 (Mar., 1996), pp. 176-177
WHite "biodiversity" scholars protected by university tenure, even as they solicit students to engage in penis size studies of negroid indexes.. Rushton was a tenured professor at UWO in the 1990s.
QUOTE: "In other words, Rushton took advantage of students who didn’t know that in the case of his study they had the option not to participate without incurring additional work. As punishment, the psychology department barred him from using students as research subjects for two years.
The second instance also occurred in 1988. Rushton conducted a survey at the Eaton Centre mall in Toronto, paying 50 whites, 50 blacks, and 50 Asians $5.00 each to answer questions about their sexual habits. For this, he was again formally reprimanded, this time by the University of Western Ontario administration itself, because he had failed to submit the project for approval by the university’s ethics committee, as required for research projects off campus. This was “a serious breach of scholarly procedure,” according to the university’s president, George Pederson. " NY review of Books. 1994 "Pioneer" http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1995/mar/23/pioneer/
It should be noted that the above racial theories are being advanced by white racial writers who demonize blacks as lesser examples of humanity. Could the obsession with black penis size be related to this savage disparagement of blacks? White writer Michael Bradley suggests that penis envy could be a relevant factor is the hate of white racists for blacks. -------------------------------------------------------
Yet another white writer, R. Bradley, in "The Iceman Inheritance", holds that white evolution in cold climates generated smaller penis sizes, compared to Negroes. This smaller penis size generates intense envy, resentment and rage in some white lineages, leading to murderous violence. Some lynchings in the US South may be related to this white penis envy re Negroid [sic] data..
Note the works above are those presented by white authors who hold to race category approaches or racist "biodiversity" theories that disparage blacks.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
The "racial reality" work cited below seems strangely obsessed with black penis size. Racial Reality authors Sarich and Miele, cite a number of Greek depictions of Africans that show black penis sizes as larger than that of nearby whites. QUOTE:
"The genitalia of black Africans were also deemed noteworthy to the Greek and Roman artists. Within the same art piece, black males are depicted with penises larger than those of white figures, and in others are shown as being erect." --Vincent Sarich, Frank Miele. 2005. Race: The Reality of Human Differences. pg 41
Obsession with black penis size also enters into the work of other racist authors, like JP Rushton, who conducted detailed "self-assessment" in penis size compared to the potency exhibited by Negroid [sic] data..
QUOTE: "Then there is the issue of Rushton's data and disparate sources one of the most heavily cited in his earlier workd is an 1898 book, by an anonymous French army surgeon, a repository of anecdotal information about the penis, breast, and buttock size of different native populations. His reliance on these kinds of data led to some strong criticism. More recently Rushton has used a wider variety of sources, including census data, studies of military recruits, and brain scanning techniques. He argues that such data reinforce his original conclusion that human populations can be ordered in a scale of evolutionary advance from blacks, to whites, to Orientals." --Stringer and McKee, African Exodus 1996
and -- more obsession with Negro indexes on penis size. Note trembling "self-assessment" by white "biodiversity" author Rushton.. QUOTE:
"No criteria are ever set up to decide how these groups are established or what traits should be used in determin- ing membership. This means that his acceptance of "race" is ultimately arbitrary and subjective. When "the races" are compared in terms of appearance and performance in the quantities of uncritically collected data assembled in his book, "racial" identity is determined by "self-assessment." Rushton's basic units, then, are rooted in folk belief and not in biology. The possibility that the vast majority of the human biological traits that have been shaped by evolution are clinally and independently distributed in association with the relevant selective forces is never once considered, and the word cline is simply missing. One running concern is how these folk categories compare on such matters as intelligence and reproductive behavior. Sex rears its head again and again in the discussion, with much of the information on comparative sexual performance based on "self- assessment." Rushton is obviously much taken with the "salience of... buttocks and breasts" (pp. 167, 231) as measures of sexuality, although there is a dearth of objectively collected data. More telling is his evident fascination with the "Negroid" penis as an index of "potency" and libido. In his earlier publications on these matters, his information came from "self-assessment." --FROM: Review: Racialism and Racist Agendas Author(s): C. Loring Brace Reviewed work(s):Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History Perspective by J. Philippe Rushton Source: American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 98, No. 1 (Mar., 1996), pp. 176-177
WHite "biodiversity" scholars protected by university tenure, even as they solicit students to engage in penis size studies of negroid indexes.. Rushton was a tenured professor at UWO in the 1990s.
QUOTE: "In other words, Rushton took advantage of students who didn’t know that in the case of his study they had the option not to participate without incurring additional work. As punishment, the psychology department barred him from using students as research subjects for two years.
The second instance also occurred in 1988. Rushton conducted a survey at the Eaton Centre mall in Toronto, paying 50 whites, 50 blacks, and 50 Asians $5.00 each to answer questions about their sexual habits. For this, he was again formally reprimanded, this time by the University of Western Ontario administration itself, because he had failed to submit the project for approval by the university’s ethics committee, as required for research projects off campus. This was “a serious breach of scholarly procedure,” according to the university’s president, George Pederson. " NY review of Books. 1994 "Pioneer" http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1995/mar/23/pioneer/
It should be noted that the above racial theories are being advanced by white racial writers who demonize blacks as lesser examples of humanity. Could the obsession with black penis size be related to this savage disparagement of blacks? White writer Michael Bradley suggests that penis envy could be a relevant factor is the hate of white racists for blacks. -------------------------------------------------------
Yet another white writer, R. Bradley, in "The Iceman Inheritance", holds that white evolution in cold climates generated smaller penis sizes, compared to Negroes. This smaller penis size generates intense envy, resentment and rage in some white lineages, leading to murderous violence. Some lynchings in the US South may be related to this white penis envy re Negroid [sic] data..
Note some of works above are those presented by white authors who hold to race category approaches or racist "biodiversity" theories that disparage blacks.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic