[Rich]

So off the bat, we have 3 racial groups - not 4. Australians are the same race as the Congolese, apparently. And Ethiopians/Somalis are actually white!

So racial scientists and racial science communicators got a lot of things really wrong. So what? Early medical science, early astronomy, early water supply engineering. They all got things terribly wrong should we ban them as well? The go to liberal solution is to say that every stupidity must be countered with more stupidity. Most Liberals are just not smart enough to keep in mind all the lies they've told. "Race doesn't exist" this is just a stupid lie. Most people just lack the mental dexterity and agility to keep to all their lies.

[Fasces]

So racial scientists and racial science communicators got a lot of things really wrong.

Race is about as scientific as phrenology.

We can talk about genetic clusters within ethnic communities of certain regions. To argue that they correspond to broader races is pure psuedoscience.

Every 'race realist' works backwards and assumes the conclusion before finding evidence to justify it - they identify the races, and then force communities to 'fit' into these preconcieved categories, categories artificially chosen for small variances in phenotypical features, categories that did not exist historically until some white planters felt it necessary to invent them.

Stockholm or Moscow to Beijing is less distance than Senegal to eSwatini, and yet the Swede and Chinese are 'different races' while the Wolof and Swazi are the same? It's absurd.

FiveSwords said there were two races - subsaharan Africans and everyone else. Really, going solely by genetic diversity within communities (which, to be clear, remains marginal fractions of a fraction of a fraction), there should be dozens of races: dozens of races in sub saharan Africa, and then one single race for all of Europe, Asia, Australia, and the Americas.

[Dr House]

They've known them for a hundred years. And they're supposed to be plainly distinguishable?



Race is an arbitrary grouping of disparate peoples and genetic heritages. There are ways to identify the ancestry or heritage of groups of people - there is no way to identify their race, without first knowing what 'race' the genetic cluster you can identify are 'supposed' to belong too, and each culture and generation has differing definitions for that.

Here's an excerpt from a British scientific magazine (Knowledge) from the 1960s depciting the races:



So off the bat, we have 3 racial groups - not 4. Australians are the same race as the Congolese, apparently. And Ethiopians/Somalis are actually white!

The categories are made up. They're useless at best, and worse than useless when used to try to predict individual behavior or outcome.

Ethiopia/Somalia is the part of Africa that Caucasians are thought to originate from, so labeling them Caucasian is not the own you think it is.

You are correct about one thing though: reduction to 4 races is an oversimplification. There are more racial categories within Africa than outside of Africa, which is about what you'd expect given that 1) Africa is the cradle of humanity, and 2) Africans never intermingled as heavily as Eurasians did (though a couple of great migrations and genocides did occur within Africa). Here's a useful infographic:




Some minor borderland portions of it are incorrect. Cuba, for instance, is portrayed as majority black even though it's actually whiter than anywhere in Latin America other than Argentina or Uruguay.

[FiveofSwords]

For your gotcha then, race exists today but it hasn’t existed as a substantive social reality for most of human history beyond some idea of an ethnic group based in a common way of life or the human race as a whole.
So yes and no.

Well I think race always existed as a 'substantive social reality' but that isn't even relevant. Do people have to know a thing exists before it exists? Did the earth not exist until archimedes measured the size of the earth? Do you think everyone had the same dna 1000 years ago and then they split into different clusters sometime recently?

[FiveofSwords]

Race is about as scientific as phrenology.

We can talk about genetic clusters within ethnic communities of certain regions. To argue that they correspond to broader races is pure psuedoscience.

Every 'race realist' works backwards and assumes the conclusion before finding evidence to justify it - they identify the races, and then force communities to 'fit' into these preconcieved categories, categories artificially chosen for small variances in phenotypical features, categories that did not exist historically until some white planters felt it necessary to invent them.

Stockholm or Moscow to Beijing is less distance than Senegal to eSwatini, and yet the Swede and Chinese are 'different races' while the Wolof and Swazi are the same? It's absurd.

FiveSwords said there were two races - subsaharan Africans and everyone else. Really, going solely by genetic diversity within communities (which, to be clear, remains marginal fractions of a fraction of a fraction), there should be dozens of races: dozens of races in sub saharan Africa, and then one single race for all of Europe, Asia, Australia, and the Americas.

I did not say there are 2 races. I said that IF there are 2 races, that is what they would be.

[ingliz]

@Dr House

Your supposedly 'scientific' map looks like wishful thinking to me. Even if for the sake of argument we accept race, where is the patchwork quilt we would expect to find in America, Australia, the EU, and the UK?

It ignores almost 20% of Australia's population, for example.

[FiveofSwords]

@Dr House

Your supposedly 'scientific' map looks like wishful thinking to me. Even if for the sake of argument we accept race, where is the patchwork quilt we would expect to find in America, Australia, the EU, and the UK?

It ignores almost 20% of Australia's population, for example.

But since you don't except race, how would you know where a patchwork quilt should be? Clearly you are just lying.

[ingliz]

@FiveofSwords

How would you know?

I look at @Dr House's map.

The pretty colours help because they are missing in some areas.

Suppose we take Australia as our example again...

As of 2022, 17.5% - you can add 1.3% Polynesian to that as they count them separately - of Australians are Asian immigrants, and 1.5% are Black Africans.

The map is bollocks even on its terms.




Edited to tidy up the formatting, add Polynesians, and put a question mark after 'How would you know'.

[Wellsy]

Well I think race always existed as a 'substantive social reality' but that isn't even relevant. Do people have to know a thing exists before it exists? Did the earth not exist until archimedes measured the size of the earth? Do you think everyone had the same dna 1000 years ago and then they split into different clusters sometime recently?

This again only emphasizes the difference of you naturalizing it as biological, and I al currently assuming beyond just phenotypical expression or benign differences across a bell curve in some cline.

You frame it as something that was discovered rather than created by humans based on a physical reality.
To me race physiologically seems as meaningful as marking a social distinction around other physical features like attached ear lobes and nipple size. It overemphasizes appearances like a Linnaeus taxonomy and struggles to find congruence in grouping by likeness in appearance to genetic variations.
It’s a bit like looking for sex through brain comparisons and finding any difference as proof of sex difference rather than just reflective of differences between people not marked significantly by what sex one is due to major overlap.

https://theconversation.com/you-dont-have-a-male-or-female-brain-the-more-brains-scientists-study-the-weaker-the-evidence-for-sex-differences-158005

[Dr House]

@Dr House

Your supposedly 'scientific' map looks like wishful thinking to me. Even if for the sake of argument we accept race, where is the patchwork quilt we would expect to find in America, Australia, the EU, and the UK?

It ignores almost 20% of Australia's population, for example.

The map is by majority race, because otherwise it would be incomprehensible.

[ingliz]

@Dr House

So, to make your racial theories comprehensible you imagine a world and call it 'scientific'?

The map is by majority race

If that's the case, why does it show blacks as a majority in certain southern states of the US when they are not?

Like I said the map is bollocks.

[Fasces]

As opposed to the Asians and other Negroids, that didn't come from the East African rift valley?

Any "scientific" attempt to describe race ultimately just becomes synonymous to "ethnicity" (badly).

Race is a pointless post-hoc descriptor that some edgy folks cling too because it makes them feel superior to talk about, not like those "woke sheep".

[FiveofSwords]

This again only emphasizes the difference of you naturalizing it as biological, and I al currently assuming beyond just phenotypical expression or benign differences across a bell curve in some cline[
/url].

You frame it as something that was discovered rather than created by humans based on a physical reality.
To me race physiologically seems as meaningful as marking a social distinction around other physical features like attached ear lobes and nipple size. It overemphasizes appearances like a Linnaeus taxonomy and struggles to find congruence in grouping by likeness in appearance to genetic variations.
It’s a bit like looking for sex through brain comparisons and finding any difference as proof of sex difference rather than just reflective of differences between people not marked significantly by what sex one is due to major overlap.

[url] https://theconversation.com/you-dont-ha ... ces-158005

Lol...attached earlobes or no is another example of something that does in fact exist as a biological reality. If someone suggested that all people with attached earlobes are psychotic...then would you deny that anyone has attached earlobes? That would be absurd and it would be missing the point. We know that some people have attached earlobes.

[Dr House]

If that's the case, why does it show blacks as a majority in certain southern states of the US when they are not?

Because you don't understand American demographics

[Tainari88]

There's no white genocide. It's more of demographic decline due to willing personal choices like use of technology (birth control). People are simply choosing not to have kids, or fewer kids, with the help of birth control. If anything it would be called suicide, not genocide. "Genocide" denotes some kind of victimhood, when it's clearly much more of a self-imposed demographic trend.

Even if white nationalists were to stop all immigration, causasians would still go extinct if current trends continue.

In fact, if birth control becomes so popular across the entire world eventually, then human extinction is an eventual possibility. I think before that point, advancing AI will mean we'll likely have technology to extend our lives indefinitely, so procreation wouldn't really be needed so much. The future is unknown, I don't think any of this will actually matter in 50 years due to technology.

I agree there is no white genocide.

I am concerned with humans losing their ability to adapt in time to a changing climate and world.

I worry about an entire species extinction event. Not some bullshit about the white race is under genocide in the USA. With zero proof.

Yet Five man wants to claim that is happening.

Since he is a limited thinker thinking the human race is about a competition of who gets to control what?

He does not seem to care that unless there are serious policy changes worldwide and limits are placed on non stop growth expansion capitalism? The human race is going to go into deep decline.

The reality is that most humans will have to cop with changing conditions. All of us. Together.

The white genocide liars just want to create fear over NOTHING.

[FiveofSwords]

@FiveofSwords

How would you know?

I look at @Dr House's map.

The pretty colours help because they are missing in some areas.

Suppose we take Australia as our example again...

As of 2022, 17.5% - you can add 1.3% Polynesian to that as they count them separately - of Australians are Asian immigrants, and 1.5% are Black Africans.

The map is bollocks even on its terms.




Edited to tidy up the formatting, add Polynesians, and put a question mark after 'How would you know'.

Since you deny thr existence of race you cannot logically use terms like Polynesian or black.

[late]

Since you deny the existence of race you cannot logically use terms like Polynesian or black.

BS isn't logic.

[Fasces]

Since you deny thr existence of race you cannot logically use terms like Polynesian or black.

Polynesians are an ethnolinguistic group of closely related ethnic groups who are native to Polynesia

The scientific words to describe these sorts of 'categories of people' exist, and are not 'race'. Why cling to outdated lingo? What is so important about using the word 'race' instead of ethnicity? And why try to clump a bunch of different ethnicities into some overarching 'race'? What's the point? What's it useful for?

[FiveofSwords]

Race is about as scientific as phrenology.

We can talk about genetic clusters within ethnic communities of certain regions. To argue that they correspond to broader races is pure psuedoscience.

Every 'race realist' works backwards and assumes the conclusion before finding evidence to justify it - they identify the races, and then force communities to 'fit' into these preconcieved categories, categories artificially chosen for small variances in phenotypical features, categories that did not exist historically until some white planters felt it necessary to invent them.

Stockholm or Moscow to Beijing is less distance than Senegal to eSwatini, and yet the Swede and Chinese are 'different races' while the Wolof and Swazi are the same? It's absurd.

FiveSwords said there were two races - subsaharan Africans and everyone else. Really, going solely by genetic diversity within communities (which, to be clear, remains marginal fractions of a fraction of a fraction), there should be dozens of races: dozens of races in sub saharan Africa, and then one single race for all of Europe, Asia, Australia, and the Americas.

Are you going to insist that humans do not have different skull shapes and sizes now? Phrenology was perfectly scientific and the idea that skull shape may have some correlation to behavior or talents is perfectly plausible. In fact there almost certainly is a non zero correlations because there are no zero correlations between anything and anything...everything in the universe seems oddly connected...that is something scientists have noticed. I am sure you could find a non zero correlations between the first letter in a person's last name and how good they are at chess, for example...it just would not be very useful to know because the correlation would be so weak.

Likewise phrenology proved to lack enough predictive power to be very useful. That is all. On the other hand, there are plenty of useful correlations between race and other stuff (if you believe race exists). For example there is a high correlation with race and poverty...black people tend to be poorer than white people.. are you going to suggest that correlation does not exist?

[Fasces]

Phrenology was perfectly scientific

For example there is a high correlation with race and poverty...black people tend to be poorer than white people.. are you going to suggest that correlation does not exist?

There was a high correlation between 'race' and slavery. Doesn't mean that 'race' was the cause.