Science: No Such Thing as Race!

a reply to: StallionDuck

See here is the thing.

Scientifically speaking. No race is BS. I say this as someone trained in Bioinformatics. The differences between what we call races are minuscule.

BUT

People cling to what the see, what they think. THUS racism is real. it is the tool of the ignorant, and the ill educated.

There is no such thing as race?

Great!

Someone better tell the government that, quick!

originally posted by: odzeandennz

originally posted by: Agartha

originally posted by: iTruthSeeker
There are biological differences in bone structures, etc. How do you think they can tell race by the skull and other things, when a bones are found?

There is only one race and we all belong to it: Homo Sapiens Sapiens.


Races have no biological basis

tell that to every government form ever existed...

race is defined differently to every one from what an anthropologist may give as a definition, because it is two different things.

yes we are all of the human race, but we have a second definition of race. basically the color of one's skin.

this wouldn't be the first time there are 2 different meanings to a word.
to generalize is just circumnavigation of our issues with race... so yes there is a scientific definition of race in the animal kingdom (which includes hominids), and there is another definition which helps us identify ethnicity...

That is ETHNICITY. Its not race at all. Differences in outward appeareance and skin tone are ETHNICITY alone. Theres no secondary race.

Government forms. My fav question is Sex. why? Because so many idiots confuse SEX and GENDER. Being that Sex has actualy peices you can touch. Gender is mental.

IN similiar fashion we have RACE. reason why we still have it as a indentifier is because they just do not want to remove a divider of people. it decreases their control over the sheep.
Sure science has proved we are not seperate,but until it makes them a profit they will not change it.

a reply to: iTruthSeeker

There are biological differences in bone structures, etc. How do you think they can tell race by the skull and other things, when a bones are found?

Science has a test for gender too ...So much for the SJW wanting their Zees and Zers .

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: iTruthSeeker

There are biological differences in bone structures, etc. How do you think they can tell race by the skull and other things, when a bones are found?

Science has a test for gender too ...So much for the SJW wanting their Zees and Zers .

No it doesn't.

a reply to: StallionDuck

There you have it folks... There is no such thing as race. You can't be racist if there is no such thing as race.

There is no such thing as BIOLOGICAL RACE... unless you mean the HUMAN RACE.

There is most certainly RACISM, which is a SOCIAL CONSTRUCT defined by INDIVIDUAL PREJUDICE.

Interestingly from an historic viewpoint, racism appeared sometime in the medieval period (Christians vs. Jewish conflict during the middle ages was perhaps more Ethnocentrism than Racism according to some). By the 16th century, Colonialists needed some justification for their depredations to sooth their broken 'Christian' souls. Thus the superiority of the 'white race' over the 'dark' and the 'yellow' and the 'brown' became a necessary ideology for that self justification.

A good read on the topic is here: The Historical Origins and Development of Racism

a reply to: yuppa

That is ETHNICITY. Its not race at all. Differences in outward appeareance and skin tone are ETHNICITY alone.

No, sorry. Ethnicity has nothing to do with skin color.

If you put every individual on the planet on a continuum from albino white on one end to the darkest black on the other end, you would find a huge group of people somewhere towards the dark end. Select one of those individuals and you cannot tell from the color of their skin what their ethnicity is. Ethnicity, just like race, is a social construct. There are more dark skinned people in India than in all of Africa. Some of the darkest skinned folks are in Australia. There are people in northern Africa that are lighter skinned than some folks in Scandanavia.

Theres no secondary race.

Absolutely correct.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Of course that’s not how it works, and neither is the simplistic “there is no biological basis for race” claim accurate.

You are incorrect. The statement that “there is no biological basis for race” is absolutely accurate. What is NOT addressed in that statement about SCIENCE is the social construct of RACISM.

Racism doesn't have anything to do with a biological concept of race. The words are related because they come from the same root and start with the first three letters, but they are NOT connected by biology in any way what-so-ever.

Racism exists.
Race does not exist.
Two different things.

Guess what the conclusion was? We all have genetic markers that determine our skin color. Shocker, no?

No, not 'genetic markers'. We all carry genetic information for all human skin color types (except albinos). How that color information is expressed, 'runs in families' - just like eye color, hair color, nose size. Hair color doesn't make a 'genetic marker' that defines race, yet the genetics works in exactly the same way as skin color. Why is that?

Therefore, we can just ignore 6000 years or so of history and culture that does recognize differences based on skin color, culture, religion, etc. etc.

Skin color has not defined 'races' for 6000 years - only for about 500 or 600 years. Culture and religion don't define a 'race'; they may denote an ethnicity, but not race.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Awesome, so we can automatically expect everybody in America to set aside their unscientific superstitions and their unproductive/dangerous activities and behaviors and abide by what accepted scientific knowledge and consensus tells us?

No, but it would be nice if people would make an effort to distinguish the difference between RACE and RACISM. Then we could start making progress on recognizing that racism resides in the heart and mind of the individual and not in the biology of "others".

Recognition that we have a problem is the first step in solving the problem.

To argue that it is unreasonable to "automatically expect everybody in America" (why just America? Do you think Racism exists only in America?) will change overnight, and therefore the thesis is wrong from the get-go, is really quite an infantile, unthinking, reaction to a simple scientific fact, that has actually been known for many decades.

a reply to: bananashooter

What about sickle cell anemia ?

OK, I'll answer.

Sickle cell anemia is caused by genetic mutation that occurred in the human population, probably in sub-Saharan Africa. When an individual inherits the mutation from ONE parent, that individual GAINS a level of protection from Malaria. Thus it is very advantageous for humans that live in malaria infested areas. Malaria is not restricted to sub-Saharan Africa, and neither is the mutation. It is in India, and may have independently occurred in the America's too.

That is the good part - inheritance from ONE Parent. The bad part of the mutation is when you inherit it from BOTH parents, because then it may cause Sickle Cell Anemia, which with out modern medical intervention could well be life threatening.

OK, now can you follow the dots here in that discussion? Inherit from one parent - GOOD. Inherit from BOTH parents BAD.

Now if we hypothesize that this mutation is a racial marker, then EVERY member of the proposed racial group must carry that marker. But, if all members carry the marker, their offspring will most likely die of sickle cell anemia because everyone will inherit it from BOTH parents.

Do you see the problem there? If the mutation is actually a racial marker, then that race will not exist for very long.

Besides, it existed in Pre-Colombian America and in India. America has a large population of sickle cell carriers because most of the slaves were kidnapped from areas where it was prevalent.

a reply to: Pandaram

India has 23 races and 36 nations......hate

Seriously...and yet no civil war. I think there must be some accommodation, Pandaram

a reply to: Gryphon66

and almost everyone hated the Jews.

And dont forget the Jews hated everyone else - their Old Testament is testament to that. Need I point you to the genocide verses?
They also enjoy rather special privileges - unfettered access to the White House, unknown number of Nukes not open to international inspection.

They also reminded the US who is the big boss when they attacked the USS Liberty,


en.wikipedia.org...

At the time, the ship was in international waters north of the Sinai Peninsula, about 25.5 nmi (29.3 mi; 47.2 km) northwest from the Egyptian city of Arish.[1][5] Israel apologized for the attack, saying that the USS Liberty had been attacked in error after being mistaken for an Egyptian ship.[6]

Both the Israeli and U.S. governments conducted inquiries and issued reports that concluded the attack was a mistake due to Israeli confusion about the ship's identity,[2]though others, including survivors of the attack, have rejected these conclusions and maintain that the attack was deliberate.[7]

classifying anything that was non-Greek as "barbarian" (which continued into the Roman period).

sort of accurate but needing clarification - see below


en.wikipedia.org...

The term originates from the Greek: βάρβαρος (barbaros pl. βάρβαροι barbaroi), which in turn originates from the incomprehensible languages of early Anatolian nations that were heard by the Greeks as "bar..bar.." In ancient times, the Greeks used it mostly for people of different cultures, but there are examples where one Greek city or state would use the word to attack another.[citation needed] In the early modern period and sometimes later, Greeks used it for the Turks, in a clearly pejorative way.[2][3] Comparable notions are found in non-European civilizations, notably China and Japan. During the Roman Empire, the Romans used the word "barbarian" for many people, such as the Germanics, Celts, Gauls, Iberians, Thracians, Illyrians, Parthians, Berbers and Sarmatians.

The great USA, sort of Republic in name only, full of Pagan statue symbolism in key places, fasces over your Congress, dancing to the tune of the Rothschild (Zionist) controlled Central Banking cabal

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Positive discrimination, for instance, is just as racist as negative discrimination and for the exact same reasons

Amen to that

a reply to: fluff007

Funny you bring up the Japanese, one of the most Racist countries in the world that no-one likes to mention.

"Japan racism survey reveals one in three foreigners experience discrimination"

www.theguardian.com...

About 30% of the respondents said they had been on the receiving end of discriminatory remarks “often” or “sometimes”. Those comments were most likely to be made by strangers, but many people also pointed the finger at bosses, colleagues or subordinates in their workplaces, the Jiji news agency reported. Problems in workplaces were not confined to verbal remarks. One in four people who had sought a job said they were denied employment because they were a foreigner, and one in five believed they were paid less than their Japanese counterparts for similar work.

a reply to: StallionDuck

Thought I read somewhere black people werebetter to stay in Africa due to some parasites that actually help them fight off some disease only they have. Wouldn't that make them a different race

originally posted by: bananashooter

originally posted by: StallionDuck
a reply to: iTruthSeeker

You're missing the point. It's doesn't define race. It defines differences. What you are noting is the exact same thing that determines if you might end up with cancer or heart disease. Genetics... Something you pass down to your child and so forth.

What about sickle cell anemia ?

Like some... I get the sense that you're trying really hard to hold on to the race thing. Suit yourself.

Once again... Genetics. It's dominant in one lineage more than others. That doesn't make people of color different than any other color. It makes sense when you realize that most cultures copulate with their own cultures, mostly because they're usually in the same area. When culture borders get crossed, people will mix and copulate with other cultures and those hereditary diseases will fade. Though, that's not exactly ok with many cultures.

originally posted by: Jefferton
Then why do all different colored people act/live so different?

I disagree with "science".

Let it go man.... It's not RACE.

Why do you carry a similar attitude as your father? Your surroundings? You know... Those ways of life, those personality traits that get passed down from one generation to the next. You learn it from your surroundings.

You are what you live

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: StallionDuck

If it is okay to judge a person, to define a person by the color of their skin instead of by the content of their character, then it must be okay to judge a woman by the size of her boobs.

After all, it is just another physical characteristic.

lol

You say that... but

It happens

To me... They're all beautiful.

originally posted by: luke1212
a reply to: StallionDuck

Thought I read somewhere black people werebetter to stay in Africa due to some parasites that actually help them fight off some disease only they have. Wouldn't that make them a different race

No. IF this were true, it's likely due to something that happened along the way over a large time period. Skin color is thought to be an adaptation from the climate of the lands they lived in for a large time period as well. It would only mean that they've adapted and whatever parasites may help in one way or another, just as we all have bacteria in our guts that help each and every one of us in one way or another.

a reply to: rnaa

ETHNIC backround does INfluence your skin tone and appeareance. Its where your people adapted to a certain area and conditions that make up your ETHNICITY.

SHEEP mistake that as a "RACE". Its that freaking simple.