Political Correctness Makes Race and Genetics Taboo in the West, which is why China is Winning

So this guy writes a book, with no scientific backing, saying that whites are better than other races.

And this is something you think is worthy of discussion?

originally posted by: theantediluvian
I don't think it has anything to do with "PC" as the ethical concerns over some of this research go back at least to the early 1900's with criticisms of eugenics. The Nazi's pretty well illustrated where eugenics was heading and after that nobody wanted to be associated with abusing science to quantify racial superiority.

In my opinion, people overly eager to label things as "PC" run amok, are contributing as much to the problem as people who can find bigotry in anything.

The wealthy elite Darwinists just continued their eugenic policies in less obvious ways, disguising themselves as charities out to save the world like Planned Parenthood and UNESCO.

Political unification in some sort of world government will be required... Even though... any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable.

1946 julian huxley (1887-1975) | first director of unesco


unesdoc.unesco.org...

a reply to: kruphix

Would you mind pointing out where he says Whites are better ?

Or it's just you didn't read a single word before posting ?

The reason that race is considered a social construct is that there is more genetic variation within races than between them.

Things like education "being good at math", or intelligence are not racial, its more cultural, certain culture makes their children focus more on education, a drop out = kicked out of family.

being "smart" is not a racial trait... same thing with IQ tests are not a quiz to figure out intelligence.

The author is stupid to include such socially constructed aspect as part of race.

Isn't that one of the big issue? where people assign learned aspect as racial aspects, then going onto to say that aspect belongs to this race.

a reply to: whyamIhere

I think what always cracks me up about the racial purity types is that they try to find differences between different ethnicities in order to prove themselves "superior" yet it would backfire if it were true. If it were true, the last people who should be pushing it are the race supremacist "scientist" types.

Think about it. If you believe in survival of the fittest when it comes to genetic strains (which you have to in order to entertain the assertions we are speaking of) then you would also have to admit that the best way to improve your lineage and race would be to copulate with every other ethnicity there is. Your offspring would eventually inherit the best of all worlds between the races.

In short, a genetic racial supremacist that advocates racial purity is a total walking contradiction since their race will fall behind if they kept it all "in the family".

originally posted by: kosmicjack
a reply to: Antipathy17

Right, if it has validity. I'd be more inclined to think it did if someone else can come to the same conclusion, like say the Swiss.

Ya but it's a taboo subject here so what are the chances of someone threatening their own career to bring it up again?

a reply to: Cuervo

All good points...

The OP is more to the Research Lab in my mind. At least that was my focus.

My wife is a Research Scientist. The way they do "Research" is fascinating.

I just don't want to see "PC" enter the arena of ideas.

Preconceived notions do not belong in the Lab.

From what I gleamed from the article. This type of Research is a career killer.

Kind of like UFO Research.

originally posted by: whyamIhere
a reply to: Cuervo

All good points...

The OP is more to the Research Lab in my mind. At least that was my focus.

My wife is a Research Scientist. The way they do "Research" is fascinating.

I just don't want to see "PC" enter the arena of ideas.

Preconceived notions do not belong in the Lab.

From what I gleamed from the article. This type of Research is a career killer.

Kind of like UFO Research.

As with most things in life, a reference to Mass Effect can explain it. The Asari (these sexy little hermaphrodite aliens) are these aliens who are very pro Asari and do everything they can to better their species. They could each mate with both males and females. When they discovered other species in space and realized they could reproduce with them, they did. A lot.

In their society, they have two opposing views on it. The "purists" only mate with other "pure" Asari and are subjected to high risks of insanity while the other, more social ones, improve their species by mating like mad with everything from turtle-looking dudes to space slugs. The result is a very enlightened alien race.

The reason I brought it up is that, even in a stylized science fiction universe set far into the future, even aliens are split with "career killer" decisions.



I think if those supremicists were confronted with this...



... they'd change their tune and throw out all that "pride" nonsense.

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
It seems the same forces in the media that lambast people who do put 100% faith into Darwinism also refuses to acknowledge Darwinism's logical conclusions as it applies to variations and adaptations in the diverse human populations.

"Sickle cell anemia is an inherited blood disorder that mostly affects people of African ancestry, but also occurs in other ethnic groups, including people who are of Mediterranean and Middle Eastern descent.

More than 70,000 Americans have sickle cell anemia. And about 2 million Americans — including 1 in 12 African Americans — have sickle cell trait, which means they carry a single gene for the disease and can pass this gene along to their children, but do not have the disease itself".

kidshealth.org...

The more we mix the less important it will be. This is just one example of the reality that's out there.

originally posted by: nfflhome
The more we mix the less important it will be. This is just one example of the reality that's out there.

I like to sum it up by saying 'The future is Brown'.

"all black people have white feet",

I personally think race is determined by geographical location and climate

a reply to: whyamIhere

What would you expect from a nation where it genocided Native Americans and enslaved millions of Africans based on race.

One would think some sensitivity would be expected
If you can't see that then what can you see!?

Whilst there is some sentiment in this discussion that I agree with, there are problems. Yes, persons should be able to go where the research leads, and there are some areas where certain opinions or topics are career enders in the academic sphere ... but ...

There are other areas where race is researched extensively. Biometrics as a field produces piles of research on racial differences and race as a soft biometric. There is also policy research in this area. Psychology and other fields address race chronically, although their reasoning isn't always sound.

As an example, for years it was believed that all serial killers were white. Yes, you could say this was a 'PC' thing, but it kind of wasn't. Police used to avoid or ignore certain neighbourhoods, and would write crimes off as accidents or gang related. It was everyone that came out with this nonsense for decades.

The issue with bringing race into these spheres is that it then becomes a primary metric. Instead of wondering why aren't police arresting serial killers from other races, or perhaps investigating how crimes are classified by police and alphabet agencies academics end up writing long self indulgent pieces about how white culture creates serial killers. They're not even up the wrong tree, they're in the wrong field literally and figuratively.

It's bad research, but when was the last time you saw the media pick up good well balanced (often boring!) research?

The experienced problem is at a higher level unfortunately. The media heavily promotes certain opinions over others and creates this conversation we're currently having. Academia as a whole doesn't choose which journal papers the Daily Mail or the Times pick up despite academia's reputation.

a reply to: whyamIhere

Scanned your post, concluded the guy is a real dinosaur, and totally out of touch with contemporary science. 20-30,000 human genes really do not and cannot explain much - racial OR individual. Epigenetics is the new flag, but not much appreciated by racists, eugenicists and the like. Too bad, so sad.

originally posted by: whyamIhere


The Chinese particularly enjoy IQ-versus-race league tables, because they invariably come out on top. That sort of research makes Westerners squeamish, to put it mildly—which is why today, most research into the genomics of race is still carried out at the Beijing Genomics Institute. By and large, the subject is un-fundable in the West.

Because people in this country love to do the IQ test (or something like the IQ test )again and again and again from childhood to proof they are smart.Japanese also ,they created many "increase IQ "games to play it again and again and again.

People who did these "training "are idiots.

a reply to: whyamIhere

You're arguing semantics. The differences are too small to create different "races." All living things are a product of their environment; this is evolution in a nutshell. The diaspora of people from one central location will lead to the development of differences in various physical traits. People whose diet consists of mostly fruit due to their environment will develop different kinds of teeth than people whose diet consists of meat, nuts, etc. People who have lived in oxygen rich areas will grow tall and lean, while people who live in mountainous regions will be built rather stout and stocky so that their bodies can sustain itself under low oxygen levels. People exposed to sunlight will develop darker tinted skin; natural sunblock, if you will. People who live in places that scarce see sunlight will develop lighter skin.

This doesn't mean that these people are different races. The reason why race is considered a social construct is that it's often misused to label subtle differences. People having different races would be similar to dogs having different breeds. There are often very obvious traits that separate breeds of dogs, are there not? It's not like every dog is a golden retriever and some of them are a little smaller than the others, others are slightly more brown than the others, some have narrower eyes, and so on. You can easily tell apart a bloodhound from a pitbull, and a chiwawa from a german sheppard. The only thing that allows you to tell apart a Black man from a White or Hispanic man is the color of his skin.

I hope that helps. Race =/= slight physical difference. For the sake of labeling it can be acceptable, but at the moment there really is only one human race.

originally posted by: Antipathy17
I just don't understand how it's a helluva spin as you said. If a study shows that genetics may play a role in behavior depending on race how is it a spin to say that ignoring what may turn out to be a significant factor could be a hindrance? Seems like ignorance. Please elaborate though.

*Edit* of course only relevant if a study has validity.

I dont think its race so much as culture. Behaviors are taught social norms are taught. Whats expectedalso has alot to do with outcomes.

a reply to: dragonridr

I think you cover the bases very well. But surely this is more about weaknesses health wise rather than behaviour.

With our healthcare costing so much and genetic research at the fore today this is something we should all be looking at and facing. If one knows a certain race or type has a weakness then the sooner we find a means to improving or removing it, then the sooner we all move on.

I believe that as soon as we started financial compensating racial claims we lost the argument, because with a prize for a complaint, guess who wins all the time. People can try to silence words, but they won't ever silence thoughts and so the sooner the reasons for those thoughts gets addressed the fairer our society will be naturally - take money and threats of imprisonment, which only creates martyr's for free speech and even more silent resentment, then the sooner we all move on….

"Sickle cell anemia is an inherited blood disorder that mostly affects people of African ancestry, but also occurs in other ethnic groups, including people who are of Mediterranean and Middle Eastern descent.

More than 70,000 Americans have sickle cell anemia. And about 2 million Americans — including 1 in 12 African Americans — have sickle cell trait, which means they carry a single gene for the disease and can pass this gene along to their children, but do not have the disease itself".

kidshealth.org...

The more we mix the less important it will be. This is just one example of the reality that's out there.

Help me out here. The way I am reading this is that one can carry the gene but if only one parent has the gene, then the offspring doesn't get sick, but wouldn't the kid be a carrier?

If I look white, but my great grandfather was black and had the sickle cell gene, doesn't that mean I have the sickle cell gene? If my wife, who also looks white, had a great grandmother who was black and had the sickle cell gene, doesn't that mean she will have the gene. Then would that make it possible for our 'white' kid to get sickle cell?

My Question is the opposite of what you stated, but I don't have the knowledge of how sickle cell is passed down. Since it been around for thousands of years, I am taking it, it can be passed for generations as a recessive gene before showing itself.