An honest conversation about race.

a reply to: intrptr

Ethnicity is not the same thing as race.

I don't see the point of this mantra "we are all human". I find it shallow and meaningless. So what?

Race is real. Whether we want to be divided by it or not is another question entirely, denying it out of some misguided sense of egalitarianism is merely denying truth.

I'm not attached to defining myself by the race I am a part of, I have been a member of numerous races, I have been non human too. This does not mean that I can't recognise the reality of race.

my opinion - race is biologically insignificant. it is a construct of society and politics and media

interesting take from the anthropology crowd

AAA statement on race, 1998

At the end of the 20th century, we now understand that human cultural behavior is learned, conditioned into infants beginning at birth, and always subject to modification. No human is born with a built-in culture or language. Our temperaments, dispositions, and personalities, regardless of genetic propensities, are developed within sets of meanings and values that we call "culture." Studies of infant and early childhood learning and behavior attest to the reality of our cultures in forming who we are. It is a basic tenet of anthropological knowledge that all normal human beings have the capacity to learn any cultural behavior. The American experience with immigrants from hundreds of different language and cultural backgrounds who have acquired some version of American culture traits and behavior is the clearest evidence of this fact. Moreover, people of all physical variations have learned different cultural behaviors and continue to do so as modern transportation moves millions of immigrants around the world.

originally posted by: TheLaughingGod
a reply to: intrptr



Race is real.

not really, no

In the United States both scholars and the general public have been conditioned to viewing human races as natural and separate divisions within the human species based on visible physical differences. With the vast expansion of scientific knowledge in this century, however, it has become clear that human populations are not unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups. Evidence from the analysis of genetics (e.g., DNA) indicates that most physical variation, about 94%, lies within so-called racial groups. Conventional geographic "racial" groupings differ from one another only in about 6% of their genes. This means that there is greater variation within "racial" groups than between them. In neighboring populations there is much overlapping of genes and their phenotypic (physical) expressions. Throughout history whenever different groups have come into contact, they have interbred. The continued sharing of genetic materials has maintained all of humankind as a single species.

Do we have these conversations based on hair color or eye color?

Skin color itself matters about as much. What matters are cultural behaviors and that's where the discussion needs to focus. A cultural behavior can be adopted by a person regardless of any of the superficial factors and be passed on.

Idiocracy makes this point, and it is constantly referred to when we speak of the dumbing down of the American electorate in a non-racial manner. But at the outset, we see the primary division between the two contrasting family trees being cultural behaviors, specifically the one about multiple children by multiple women and not really raising them.

It seems to be happening mostly in anglo-american countries, in latin countries things are mostly balanced.

a reply to: syrinx high priest

Yes really.. You have no idea what you're talking about.

You're arguing for the denial of race based on the opinions of scientists and ideologues, some of them who wants to ban research related to race.

This debunks your perspective quite thoroughly:

anthropology.net...

So there you have it, by increasing the screen to search for more markers and using different combinations of markers, the researchers were able to identify genetic similarities and differences between groups of genetically similar people. I don’t know how anyone can go about saying something like “people vary more within the major racial groups than these groups vary among themselves.” If it can be done in perceived homoegenous European groups, it can be done elsewhere too. It is probably being done elsewhere…

www.nature.com...

Emerging understanding of human genetic diversity

Genetic diversity is the differences in DNA sequence among members of a species. It is present in all species owing to the interplay of mutation, genetic drift, selection and population structure. When a species is reproductively isolated into multiple groups by geography or other means, the groups differentiate over time in their average genetic make-up.

Anatomically modern humans first appeared in eastern Africa about 200,000 years ago. Some members migrated out of Africa by 50,000 years ago to populate Asia, Australia, Europe and eventually the Americas. During this period, geographic barriers separated humanity into several major groups, largely along continental lines, which greatly reduced gene flow among them. Geographic and cultural barriers also existed within major groups, although to lesser degrees.

This history of human demography, along with selection, has resulted in complex patterns of genetic diversity. The basic unit of this diversity is polymorphisms — specific sites in the genome that exist in multiple variant forms (or alleles). Many polymorphisms involve just one or a few nucleotides, but some may involve large segments of genetic material. The presence of polymorphisms leads to genetic diversity at the individual level such that no two people's DNA is the same, except identical twins. The alleles of some polymorphisms are also found in significantly different frequencies among geographic groups. An extreme example is the pigmentation gene SLC24A5. An allele of SLC24A5 that contributes to light pigmentation is present in almost all Europeans but is nearly absent in east Asians and Africans.

Given these geographically differentiated polymorphisms, it is possible to group humans on the basis of their genetic make-up. Such grouping largely confirms historical separation of global populations by geography. Indeed, a person's major geographic group identity can be assigned with near certainty on the basis of his or her DNA alone (now an accepted practice in forensics). There is growing evidence that some of the geographically differentiated polymorphisms are functional, meaning that they can lead to different biological outcomes (just how many is the subject of ongoing research). These polymorphisms can affect traits such as pigmentation, dietary adaptation and pathogen resistance (where evidence is rather convincing), and metabolism, physical development and brain biology (where evidence is more preliminary).

For most biological traits, genetically based differentiation among groups is probably negligible compared with the variation within the group. For other traits, such as pigmentation and lactose intolerance, differences among groups are so substantial that the trait displays an inter-group difference that is non-trivial compared with the variance within groups, and the extreme end of a trait may be significantly over-represented in a group.

Several studies have shown that many genes in the human genome may have undergone recent episodes of positive selection — that is, selection for advantageous biological traits. This is contrary to the position advocated by some scholars that humans effectively stopped evolving 50,000–40,000 years ago. In general, positive selection can increase the prevalence of functional polymorphisms and create geographic differentiation of allele frequencies.

a reply to: Aristotelian1


Well we can talk some race......after we find out if Texas shooter was a staged OP.

originally posted by: TheLaughingGod
a reply to: syrinx high priest

Yes really.. You have no idea what you're talking about.

You're arguing for the denial of race based on the opinions of scientists and ideologues, some of them who wants to ban research related to race.

This debunks your perspective quite thoroughly:

anthropology.net...

So there you have it, by increasing the screen to search for more markers and using different combinations of markers, the researchers were able to identify genetic similarities and differences between groups of genetically similar people. I don’t know how anyone can go about saying something like “people vary more within the major racial groups than these groups vary among themselves.” If it can be done in perceived homoegenous European groups, it can be done elsewhere too. It is probably being done elsewhere…

www.nature.com...

Emerging understanding of human genetic diversity

Genetic diversity is the differences in DNA sequence among members of a species. It is present in all species owing to the interplay of mutation, genetic drift, selection and population structure. When a species is reproductively isolated into multiple groups by geography or other means, the groups differentiate over time in their average genetic make-up.

Anatomically modern humans first appeared in eastern Africa about 200,000 years ago. Some members migrated out of Africa by 50,000 years ago to populate Asia, Australia, Europe and eventually the Americas. During this period, geographic barriers separated humanity into several major groups, largely along continental lines, which greatly reduced gene flow among them. Geographic and cultural barriers also existed within major groups, although to lesser degrees.

This history of human demography, along with selection, has resulted in complex patterns of genetic diversity. The basic unit of this diversity is polymorphisms — specific sites in the genome that exist in multiple variant forms (or alleles). Many polymorphisms involve just one or a few nucleotides, but some may involve large segments of genetic material. The presence of polymorphisms leads to genetic diversity at the individual level such that no two people's DNA is the same, except identical twins. The alleles of some polymorphisms are also found in significantly different frequencies among geographic groups. An extreme example is the pigmentation gene SLC24A5. An allele of SLC24A5 that contributes to light pigmentation is present in almost all Europeans but is nearly absent in east Asians and Africans.

Given these geographically differentiated polymorphisms, it is possible to group humans on the basis of their genetic make-up. Such grouping largely confirms historical separation of global populations by geography. Indeed, a person's major geographic group identity can be assigned with near certainty on the basis of his or her DNA alone (now an accepted practice in forensics). There is growing evidence that some of the geographically differentiated polymorphisms are functional, meaning that they can lead to different biological outcomes (just how many is the subject of ongoing research). These polymorphisms can affect traits such as pigmentation, dietary adaptation and pathogen resistance (where evidence is rather convincing), and metabolism, physical development and brain biology (where evidence is more preliminary).

For most biological traits, genetically based differentiation among groups is probably negligible compared with the variation within the group. For other traits, such as pigmentation and lactose intolerance, differences among groups are so substantial that the trait displays an inter-group difference that is non-trivial compared with the variance within groups, and the extreme end of a trait may be significantly over-represented in a group.

Several studies have shown that many genes in the human genome may have undergone recent episodes of positive selection — that is, selection for advantageous biological traits. This is contrary to the position advocated by some scholars that humans effectively stopped evolving 50,000–40,000 years ago. In general, positive selection can increase the prevalence of functional polymorphisms and create geographic differentiation of allele frequencies.

whatever race you believe you are, there is more DNA diversity within that race than between races. that is a simple idea

if you really need to hold onto your ideas, I'm sure facts won't persuade you

a reply to: syrinx high priest

You've offered nothing to debunk either of the articles I presented.

The first one debunks your perspective. Which is almost 20 years old.

But if you really need to hold onto your ideas, I'm sure facts won't persuade you.

a reply to: Aristotelian1

I don't think any of Humanities collective woes has a damn thing to do with Race.
Sue me for that.

The issue is Sociopathic Behavioral Issues and Socio-Economic Disparages in the modern era. Lack of comprehensive Education plays a huge role as well. These matters affect persons across racial divides, and we're all hard wired for Survival at a genetic level.

In the past it was Resources and Environmental Variables related to Survival, Animalistic Drives and Territorial Disputes. Still is if you really think about it.

*now where's that chisel?*

a reply to: syrinx high priest

By all means remain ignorant if you want to but you are denying reality and truth.

Within any group, it has been presumed that little to no clear genetic boundaries exist. That’s because in the past, comparisons used did not use as many loci as we now have available. Comparison also used a much lower amount of genetic markers. When only a few markers are compared the probability that marker is shared with outsiders of the group is increased, leading to the idea that no clear group can be defined since outsiders share similar markers with assumed insiders.
As more and more genetic markers are identified, the probability that a marker falls outside the group is reduced. The more markers identified the more there is to identify a group as a group. So, these reports show that if we expand array of genetic markers, we’ll see that people within a group share more genetic markers and the grey area that abstracted defining the group is reduced.

a reply to: TheLaughingGod

Ethnicity is not the same thing as race.

Thats what racists say. Theres no such thing as race. Unless you call it the human race. But really the term is species, not black race, white race, etc.

Ether you are promoting racism or are fooled by those that do.

a reply to: TheLaughingGod

If you are talking genes now, all life shares 90 percent the same genes.


Chimpanzees are 97 percent human genes. Stopping splitting hairs.

a reply to: intrptr

Ethnicity is not the same thing as race:

an ethnic group; a social group that shares a common and distinctive culture, religion, language, or the like.

Ethnicity may include race but is not singularly defined by it.

Why would it be racist? It is simply reality.

No, I'm not promoting racism I'm promoting truth even if it is viewed as controversial, which is a travesty. That is an unfounded accusation and may as well be just another ad-hominem attack.

Yes there is such a thing as race and it is readily apparent to most of us. People denying it have rationalised it in various ways but the underlying reality and truth behind it hasn't gone away.

I've already mentioned how we use the word race in a colloquial sense. We are not different species no, subspecies may be more correct from a taxonomic point of view but race and the differences inherent in race is a scientific reality no matter how small or how big it is. This is the truth of the matter even if it hurts the feelings of cultural Marxists that have been fed a diet of social constructionism their whole lives.

Suck it up! Reality is not egalitarian.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: TheLaughingGod

If you are talking genes now, all life shares 90 percent the same genes.


Chimpanzees are 97 percent human genes. Stopping splitting hairs.

Yes.. so what?

This actually seems to speak against your perspective. We share 97% of our genes and look what a gigantic difference those 3% make.

We are 90% similar to rhinos, rhinos are humans too! There is only one animal kingdom and we're all a part of it.. there is only ONE animal kingdom. Not several!

a reply to: ketsuko

Could it said that instead of race being the issue, its cultural behaviour, which in some cases causes a clash between other cultures. Like the cultural behaviour of most of the working classes, are looked down on by the so called upper classes. Who because of their station get the best education and material benefits. Which causes them to have a cultural difference.

a reply to: Aristotelian1

That guy on the right is a racist sexist pig. I seen some of his videos. He try to say hispanics are dumb and I am one. He try to say women are very weak and belong at home and I am very strong woman and most men cannot pull back my strong bows. He lost his credibility. There are crappy cultures and how people are brought up. Skin color means nothing.

a reply to: TheLaughingGod

Ethnicity may include race but is not singularly defined by it.

Why would it be racist? It is simply reality.

As you and others define it. You make skin color the issue. But then most americans are only thinking skin deep. They are obsessed with appearance. status symbols, wealth, dress, physique. we base our judgment of our fellow humans on surface features. God forbid we should delve to any greater depths in our misguided search for value.

a reply to: TheLaughingGod

Chimpanzees are 97 percent human genes. Stopping splitting hairs.

Yes.. so what?

You are the one used genes divisively, segregating humans because they have minutely different genetic make up. I pointed out all life shares 90 percent or better genes so it becomes irrelevant to use genes as argument in discussion of race. Something racists do a lot.

You are willfully blind...

intrptr out

The systemic racism in today's system is against whites.

Funny how that was bad thing before it was against whites.