Racism, facists, and seperatist movements.

sabro said:
So race is a concept that is like subspecies,
Nope, a race is a subspecies (although there are other categorisations as well, IIRC, eg. where race would be a sub-category of subspecies, but that may be a German particularity).

except that it is unusually confined in the English language to discussions of homo-sapiens.
Yep, perhaps due to the interference of the PC faction.

Again I have never heard it used in biology to discuss any other species (Like Chimp-race) in spite of m-w.
Luckily, current dictionaries usually have a descriptive & not a prescriptive approach. Since usage is not marked as obsolete, it's pretty safe to say that what M-W wrote is still somewhat modern usage. Maybe just not in the circles you associate with.

Then again, Sabro seems to be the expert on English language. I quoted what I found to be qualified experts [IE Merriam-Webster], and I can't really speak for them and answer back in any kind of adequate manner when the information I have borrowed is directly questioned.

Others such as Evolutionary Biologist Luigi Cavalli Sforza favor a change in terminology to better and more accurately fit what he believes is a new paradigm to match the empirical data coming out of the study of genomics.
Which is entirely scientific, although I personally haven't seen much yet that would totally discard the old classification. Modifications are always possible.

I am supposed to question them because Bossel says race is a scientific certainty. Is this correct? or am I confused.
Yep, you are confused. Where did I say something like "You are supposed to...!"?

There is actually nothing wrong with using 35 year old sources (Taxonomic Mayr (1969) and Population Dobzhansky (1970)) except that we are discussing what may represent a shift in the field of biology.
Those are definitions for what race can be generally defined as, which I quoted because you asked for a definition. These definitions haven't changed very much since then (or could you please quote some?).

There is also nothing wrong with Steven Sailer. Others have charged him with the racism agenda, and I probably erred in repeating it, but I thought I gave it sufficent context.
You didn't give much context. Could you please give some evidence that he "might be a white supremacist."

Hey, if anyone has better information, please correct me: Persians, at least my Farsi friends that I have spoken to long ago, believe that their people founded the original civilization and have continually inhabited the area from prehistory. They believe that they are a unique and pure race separate and unrelated to the later Bakhtiyari, Qashqaie, Arabs, Turks, Lurs, and Kurds. I'm not sure how the term Caucasian would even fit into this ethnogenesis.
Perhaps you're confusing things again? This may be their genesis myth, but that's not the same as what they (modern Persians that is) consider themselves biologically. Those few Persians I have met here at the university actually do consider themselves caucasoid.

the point was something to the fact that the Three Race theory was a European construct and is no more scientific than some aboriginal people believing themselves unique and declaring themselves a race and giving a two race construct.
Ah, now I get your point. & it is wrong. As has been shown, race can be verified scientifically, while genesis myths generally cannot. On the other hand, if you really have some small population which was isolated for long enough, your point could be right. They might show enough differences from surrounding populations to consider themselves separate.

I am unable to differentiate because the subdivision of the species does not fit current data
You do remember Cavalli-Sforza? His data is quite current.

Bossel, you however have pronounced yourself a scientist and an expert
Quote please?

a defender of the truth against the rising tide of political correctness
Defender of the truth? How lofty.
Advocate of science vs. ideology would fit better.

You criticised me for using the terms "insignificant differnces" which was lifted from one of your quotes.
Er..., liar?! Insignificant turns up in this whole thread the 1st time in your above post.

If I criticised a quote of yours it was most probably your interpretation thereof, not the quoting itself.

If I can't use your quotes to prove my points
Did I say so? Where?

I think the whole Merriam Webster definition fits the race is a social/historical construct argument perfectly. Especially def 2.
& as usual you ignore the stuff you don't like. No. 3 covers the biological scientific definitions of race (esp. 3 a & c).

this has become circular.
You notice this only now?
 
I'm on vacation again. This time off to New Orleans:

For Bossel- Again, I'm an English Literature major- not an English Language major. Don't ask me about words, ask me about plays and novels. I also have masters degrees in Special Education and Educational leadership and credentials in all of those and Social Sciences, too.

If you google Steve Sailer you will see that on his website a great deal of space is dedicated to this topic. Cavalli Sforza is a constant target of his criticism. Since he is a pro-Race is Science guy, he and his organization are constantly accused of being racist- which he vehemently denies. It is factual that some believe he is a racist, but I was in error repeating the charge.

m-w's definition seems to go along the social construct line, but I would have to know when the definition was written, and if it has been updated recently. Realize that no one is saying that races don't exist, only that they are not scientific- they are social in nature. I am not deny that there are variations within the species, only that many scientist do not see them as significant enough to make a meaningful division.

It is according to Cavalli Sforza that the current data does not fit the old terminolgy- citing specifically the far more significant variations between different peoples in Africa classified as "negroid" than in people classified as separate races- ie that some "negroids" have less in common with other Africans and more markers in common with "caucasians" than with other "negroids." Or something like that... I would have to look up the precise reference.
Bossel said:
Quote:
"...The bottleneck hypothesis offers an explanation for why human exhibit so little genetic variation, yet superficially appear diverse. It also affords an explanation for the apparent recent coalescence of mtDNA and African origins."

The "insignificant differences" I spoke of derive directly from this quote. According to your source, "humans exhibit...little genetic variation" and only appear diverse "superficially." Don't call me a liar.

I noticed three pages ago that this is circular and mentioned it then.

Right now, I am off seeking Gumbo.

Ta ta for now.
 
Neo-nazis.. Man they disgust me.. I watched American History X.. And I was really getting very angered by the nazis.. It's a powerful movie worthy of praise, but I was really angered to think that there is people who live their life like that.

Those are skinheads; not everyone with a racist point of view is a skinhead.
 
I live in the Skåneland (aka Scania). Skåneland consist of the four provinces Skåne, Halland, Blekinge and Bornholm. Skåne, Halland and Blekinge belong to Sweden. Bornholm belongs to Denmark. We want to have our own nation. We are not Swedes or Danes.
 
I don�t know what�s the situation in the other countries, but in the last couple of years here in Italy I�ve seen a rise of little communist and fascist movements�it�s depressive to see 15 years old kids with Che Guevara�s T-shirts or with celtic crosses tattooed on their body�I mean, they�re free to do and think what they want, but I can�t believe that at their age they�re aware of what their ideology has produced in the last century�actually, one time I even saw a kid with Mussolini�s calendar�I couldn�t believe it :D

As for racism, here in Italy I don�t think it has ever catched on�the only form of racism I can think of is a sort of �friendly hate� between north and south�we Romans detest the Milaneese and vice-versa�

False! We Italians tend to be pretty racist, we are racist with muslims at first, let's say it honesty, 99% of Italians don't stand muslims and would send them back home soon if only they could. Then racism is enlarged to slavs, although not to all the slavs. Italians consider themselves to be culturally superior to slavs but the fact that they have our same religion make us more friendly with them and inter-marriages are common.

Sincerly I believe that races exist. First, what is a race?
Race is a word that refer to groups of individuals belonging to the same species who share specific hereditarian characters that, in a more or less marked way, identify them as a specific racial group.
So yes, races exist, but an absurd political correctness force people to don't use this word for humans. I also add that the various human races evolved in different ways to live and survive in different climatic conditions, so blacks are more resistent to the heit and whites to the coldness. Why to deny a so evident fact?

Call me racist if you prefer, but I have my strong opinions and say things clearly like they are.
 
False! There are no races. We all belong to the same human species.

Difference between peoples are only cultural.

And it's true fascists and racists are using the internet to spread their poison.
Ultra right wing propaganda is abusing the internet.

Don't spam this forum with this filth.

To be precise:

So yes, races exist, but an absurd political correctness force people to don't use this word for humans. I also add that the various human races evolved in different ways to live and survive in different climatic conditions, so blacks are more resistent to the heath and whites to the coldness. Why to deny a so evident fact?

Call me racist if you prefer, but I have my strong opinions and say things clearly like they are.

What you tell here is a contradiction in terms. You tell races exist, but people adapted to different climates through the years. What the heck! I get a brown skin, if I walk in the sun..
A lot of white women are polishing up their taint under a solar ultraviolet system and they get even darker than people from India. In a few months!

Are they another race from then on? Ridiculous!
 
False! We Italians tend to be pretty racist, we are racist with muslims at first, let's say it honesty, 99% of Italians don't stand muslims and would send them back home soon if only they could. Then racism is enlarged to slavs, although not to all the slavs. Italians consider themselves to be culturally superior to slavs but the fact that they have our same religion make us more friendly with them and inter-marriages are common.

Sincerly I believe that races exist. First, what is a race?
Race is a word that refer to groups of individuals belonging to the same species who share specific hereditarian characters that, in a more or less marked way, identify them as a specific racial group.
So yes, races exist, but an absurd political correctness force people to don't use this word for humans. I also add that the various human races evolved in different ways to live and survive in different climatic conditions, so blacks are more resistent to the heit and whites to the coldness. Why to deny a so evident fact?

Call me racist if you prefer, but I have my strong opinions and say things clearly like they are.

Thanks for your honesty Sybilla, welcome to Eupedia.
We had some recent discussion about racism here:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=19959
 
False! There are no races. We all belong to the same human species.

Difference between peoples are only cultural.

And it's true fascists and racists are using the internet to spread their poison.
Ultra right wing propaganda is abusing the internet.

Don't spam this forum with this filth.

To be precise:



What you tell here is a contradiction in terms. You tell races exist, but people adapted to different climates through the years. What the heck! I get a brown skin, if I walk in the sun..
A lot of white women are polishing up their taint under a solar ultraviolet system and they get even darker than people from India. In a few months!

Are they another race from then on? Ridiculous!

One thing is to become tanned an other is to born black or brown. There is a big difference between being tanned and being black (I am not saying that one is superior to the other, they are both perfect to live in their places of origin). A tanned white will continue to have an other form of the nose, smaller lips, more delicate skin and hair. The whites born with blonde hair and blue eyes will continue to have blue eyes also when they will be tanned. Blue eyes serve to see better in places with few light, especially in the areas close to the Polar Circle. Indeed the biggest amount of blue eyes are in Scandinavia where they have 6 months of night.
I have relatives and friends with blue eyes and all told me that with a very strong light like the Italian sun in summer, they see bad and feel pain if exposed to a direct strong light.
Asiatic form of eyes is an other exemple of adaptation to climatic condition. Slanted eyes are better to survive to the cold. And yet, in Northern Europe, especially in Russia, there are many people with slanted eyes, although with European features. Some of them exist also in Italy.

So yes, races exist.
 
I am not sure that there is any scientific evidence that blue eyed Scandinavians really have any better twilight or night vision, that the color of our eyes give us any functional advantage. It seems as if we just have blue eyes.

I think that - pertaining the six months of night - you might be thinking about the south and north pole.
 
One thing is to become tanned an other is to born black or brown. There is a big difference between being tanned and being black (I am not saying that one is superior to the other, they are both perfect to live in their places of origin). A tanned white will continue to have an other form of the nose, smaller lips, more delicate skin and hair. The whites born with blonde hair and blue eyes will continue to have blue eyes also when they will be tanned. Blue eyes serve to see better in places with few light, especially in the areas close to the Polar Circle. Indeed the biggest amount of blue eyes are in Scandinavia where they have 6 months of night.
I have relatives and friends with blue eyes and all told me that with a very strong light like the Italian sun in summer, they see bad and feel pain if exposed to a direct strong light.
Asiatic form of eyes is an other exemple of adaptation to climatic condition. Slanted eyes are better to survive to the cold. And yet, in Northern Europe, especially in Russia, there are many people with slanted eyes, although with European features. Some of them exist also in Italy.

So yes, races exist.

I agree with the blue eyes being more sensitive to sun. I have blue eyes and I can't stand the sun in Greece without sunglasses. Plus I always remember my mother (she has medium brown eyes) being surprised by me reading in dim light. I can't read if it is too dark of course, but I can definitely see better than her if the light is not good in a room. On the other hand she almost never feels the need to wear sunglasses, she only does it to avoid wrinkles around her eyes :grin:.

We have a thread about light eyes and vision in the General genetics section and if I can remember correctly, many people with light eyes said that they have noticed differences compared to people with dark eyes.

I also agree that race exists, but I am not racist, nor do I become one just by saying this. I don't think it's bad to admit that race exists and each one has its advantages and disadvantages. Europeans, Africans and Asians have all evolved to survive in the environment they were born, same as polar bears and brown bears did and every other animals. Humans are animals and as every other animal we are divided in races. There is nothing bad with it as long people don't start considering themselves superior to the others.

I remember in biology class we were using the example of butterflies that live in cities and have brown/gray wings while the ones living in the country side have colorful ones. Is it politically incorrect to say that?! I don't think so...

What I notice the last years is that people tend to be really irrational in their effort to sound politically correct. What matters to me is the way you say it and not what you say...
 
It's crazy!

YDNA research proves that races don't exist.

Genetically we differ very little from each other.

Racists are liars. Fascists are liars. Kick those offenders from this European forum!!!
 
It's crazy!

YDNA research proves that races don't exist.

Genetically we differ very little from each other.

Racists are liars. Fascists are liars. Kick those offenders from this European forum!!!

Reinaert I think you are confused. Racist is someone who believes that he is superior to someone else, whether the reason of this "superiority" comes from his race, his religion, his culture etc.

You are trying to be politicaly correct and this is really good but you shouldn't exaggerate cause then you begin to sound irrational...
 
Last edited:
Oh, he's confused all right.

I still would say that lighter eyes are not about intensity of light. You might not know this if you haven't been up north in snowy terrain in low hanging winter sun. It really hurts, lol. It would mean that light colour eyes should be less sensitive to light actually, if it evolved in north europe. What might be useful for lighter eyes up north is when they can see contrasting effect, like seeing an animal sitting in shadow of the bush surrounded by blinding snow. Now this is an advantage for hunters, ancestors of people with light eyes.
It is also possible that light eyes was a side effect of the people developing lightest skin to produce more vitamin D3.

I have brown eyes and I always wore sunglasses till I took supplement of vitamin B. Now it's not that bad at all, and I don't use them at all, unless I'm driving into the setting sun. It means that people sensitive to light might be missing something in their diet, and not because they have a certain colour of eyes.
 
Oh, he's confused all right.
I still would say that lighter eyes are not about intensity of light. You might not know this if you haven't been up north in snowy terrain in low hanging winter sun. It really hurts, lol. It would mean that light colour eyes should be less sensitive to light actually, if it evolved in north europe. What might be useful for lighter eyes up north is when they can see contrasting effect, like seeing an animal sitting in shadow of the bush surrounded by blinding snow. Now this is an advantage for hunters, ancestors of people with light eyes.
It is also possible that light eyes was a side effect of the people developing lightest skin to produce more vitamin D3.

I have brown eyes and I always wore sunglasses till I took supplement of vitamin B. Now it's not that bad at all, and I don't use them at all, unless I'm driving into the setting sun. It means that people sensitive to light might be missing something in their diet, and not because they have a certain colour of eyes.

Yeah this could be true.

I haven't found any scientific research to support what I said in my post or what you said in yours. We just assume according to what we notice in our lives.
 
It's crazy!

YDNA research proves that races don't exist.

Genetically we differ very little from each other.

Racists are liars. Fascists are liars. Kick those offenders from this European forum!!!
Scientists can calssify humans into sub-groups or 'races' with analysis of craniums and also Autosomal-dna. They do this in forensics and the biomedicine field. Denying race won't make disappear racism.
 
There are no races. There is one human race.
Humans only differ in culture and language.
How you look like is unimportant.

In The Netherlands live people from all over the world, and I see often that people who have problems with the Dutch or English language are considered second class civilians.

And of course we have to be a bit aggressive in our country to get along. Talk loud. Rude manners. Get an idea how the Dutch are? Check Dutch traffic!
The Dutch aren't nice like some people on this forum tell you.

So, the softer types always are in the corner where the beating takes place.
And I have no other word for it than discrimination.
 
There are no races. There is one human race.
Humans only differ in culture and language.
How you look like is unimportant.
Humans is not a race. Its a specie.

The Dutch aren't nice like some people on this forum tell you.
Why do you say this ? you don't like your own people ?
 
Humans is not a race. Its a specie.


Why do you say this ? you don't like your own people ?

All what modern DNA tells us, is that we are all are related to each other.
Yes, we are one species. One family. One race.

And the Dutch? No, I am not very fond on them, I know more friendly people.

But I am a Southerner, maybe that explains something.. ;)
Hint... My Avatar ;)
 
All what modern DNA tells us, is that we are all are related to each other.
well, related to some extent. With the genome you can group humans into sub-groups or "races".

A clustering of populations that does correspond to classical continental "races" can be acheived by using a special class of non-functional DNA, microsatellites. By selecting among microsatellites, it is possible to find a set that will cluster together African populations, European populations, and Asian populations, etc. These selected microsatellite DNA markers are not typical of genes, however, but have been chosen precisely because they are "maximally informative" about group differences.

Subsequent analyses demonstrated that genetic data can be used to accurately classify humans into populations (Rosenberg et al. 2002, 2005; Bamshad et al. 2003; Turakulov and Easteal 2003; Tang et al. 2005; Lao et al. 2006). Risch et al. (2002) and Edwards (2003) used theoretical illustrations to show why accurate classification is possible despite the slight differences in allele frequencies between populations. These illustrations suggest that, if enough loci are considered, two individuals from the same population may be genetically more similar (i.e., more closely related) to each other than to any individual from another population (as foreshadowed by Powell and Taylor 1978). Accordingly, Risch et al. (2002, p. 2007.5) state that “two Caucasians are more similar to each other genetically than a Caucasian and an Asian.”

Yes, we are one species. One family. One race.
No. One specie but not one race. Specie is not synonymous with race. Denying race won't make you a better person.
 
One specie but not one race. Specie is not synonymous with race. Denying race won't make you a better person.

Well said.
A common subject of mine is the knee-jerk reactions to the gross and terrible abuses of racial theorists of the 19th and earlier 20th century. The West's response was to go through all kinds of efforts to prove that no races exist or that none of the migrations that shaped much of the West ever occurred. As usual the truth is in the middle.

Note to all: My children are half-Korean, so please don't jump to conclusions about me. As I have stated before, I am not a racial supremacist.
 

This thread has been viewed 111597 times.

Back
Top