[FiveofSwords]

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 Why cling to outdated lingo?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?

Race and ethnicity are just different words. Race refers to purely genetic differences. Ethnicity implies things like language and religion and custom.

[Wellsy]

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.

Then you don’t understand my point. No one denies differences in phenotype being genetically based. But differences in looks don’t so neatly correspond genetically to mark distinct subspecies or races.

Like thats the point, no one gives a shit that people have different earlobes while people are very invested in racial taxonomy because of skin color and the historical connotations then often given to them. Because without that last part, no one cares to try and wrangle genes into arbitrary categories dubbed race.

Your point at the moment is as if im arguing money doesn’t exist because there is no such thing as paper or metal shaped into coins and notes. While money may be represented in such forma, it’s value isn’t simply derived from its physical properties. But this relates to how the material properties of a thing have no natural relation to what they represent socially and not merely as subjective belief. It’s like these word’s you’re reading, they bear no relation to their meaning because of their physical/sensuous properties other than how they correspond to language and the concepts behind them tied to a human culture.

[Rich]

Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid, and Australoid. Man has known these categories, which are plainly distinguishable to the naked eye, for a hundred years.

Claiming that they're not very historically relevant relative to the likes of ethnicity (which is cultural) is fine, claiming race doesn't exist as a genetic categorization is stupid. In fact the main reason ethnicity has relatively little to do with race is the high degree of natural segregation between races through most of history (which is also the reason racism triggers disgust sensitivity). The disease profiles each race was adapted to were deadly to every other, which is why 95% of Indians died when the Spanish set foot in the Americas and 70% of Conquistadors who settled south of the 36th parallel died as well.

Multiculturalism is an artifact of modern medicine, along with things like the Scramble for Africa.

I have to sat this is a brilliant post. So many good points, clearly made, with such a small number of words.

[FiveofSwords]

Then you don’t understand my point. No one denies differences in phenotype being genetically based. But differences in looks don’t so neatly correspond genetically to mark distinct subspecies or races.

Like thats the point, no one gives a shit that people have different earlobes while people are very invested in racial taxonomy because of skin color and the historical connotations then often given to them. Because without that last part, no one cares to try and wrangle genes into arbitrary categories dubbed race.

Your point at the moment is as if im arguing money doesn’t exist because there is no such thing as paper or metal shaped into coins and notes. While money may be represented in such forma, it’s value isn’t simply derived from its physical properties. But this relates to how the material properties of a thing have no natural relation to what they represent socially and not merely as subjective belief. It’s like these word’s you’re reading, they bear no relation to their meaning because of their physical/sensuous properties other than how they correspond to language and the concepts behind them tied to a human culture.

If you accept that there are different genetic clusters of humans then that means race exists. These genetic differences are not always visible, either. You cannot tell by looking at an australian aboriginal that they have better eyesight than most humans nor can you tell by looking at a Tibetan that they are genetically adapted to living in high altitudes. But those are genetic differences that are part of their race. And you would not be adapted to high altitudes by getting cosmetic surgery to look more like a Tibetan.

Do you accept, for example, the established medical fact that you cannot get a bone marrow transplant from someone of a different race? Or do you consider that to be a racist conspiracy of the medical industry?

[ingliz]

@Dr House


So your map is using old numbers and pretending they are current?

Black Population by State 2024

[Deutschmania]

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.

To add to what you illustrated @Fasces , even the German National Socialists didn't simply lump people together into categories of White Aryans and "untermenschen" , whom are everyone else . They for instance , in their so called race science , divided Europeans into subsets of Nordic , Alpine , and Dinaric . This idea of of a singular all encompassing whiteness superseding all other considerations was not something that the original German National Socialists as Nordicists would have ever subscribed to . They definitely held to a hierarchy of phenotypes , with Nordic people on the top , and certain others , whom weren't either exterminated or expelled , in a subordinate , subservient role. So even compared with other contemporaneous fascist movements , such as most notably Brazilian Integralism , which @Tainari88 somewhat alluded to elsewhere , the German National Socialists held to some arbitrarily absurd racial prejudices . And under their degrading designation , certain white looking peoples would face face subjugation to Nordic elitist domination .

https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/race-education-class-1943/

[FiveofSwords]

To add to what you illustrated @Fasces , even the German National Socialists didn't simply lump people together into categories of White Aryans and "untermenschen" , whom are everyone else . They for instance , in their so called race science , divided Europeans into subsets of Nordic , Alpine , and Dinaric . This idea of of a singular all encompassing whiteness superseding all other considerations was not something that the original German National Socialists as Nordicists would have ever subscribed to . They definitely held to a hierarchy of phenotypes , with Nordic people on the top , and certain others , whom weren't either exterminated or expelled , in a subordinate , subservient role. So even compared with other contemporaneous fascist movements , such as most notably Brazilian Integralism , which @Tainari88 somewhat alluded to elsewhere , the German National Socialists held to some arbitrarily absurd racial prejudices . And under their degrading designation , certain white looking peoples would face face subjugation to Nordic elitist domination .

https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/race-education-class-1943/

You said a lot of things here which are simply false. First of all, untermensch was not a racial category and it had nothing to do with being non white. Second, they jad a lot more than 3 categories of Europeans. They had about 5 categories of germans..and it wasn't wrong. There was no hierarchy attached to it...you may have noticed that Hitler and goebbles were not exactly Nordic. Germans were not blind lol...they noticed that also. Basically this is an attitude that people are simply told the germans had despite the fact that it is not only absurd, it contradicts basic facts about the nsdap

[Unthinking Majority]

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?

Seems like there's a difference between race and ethnicity though.

Race can be nebulous and difficult to create hard start and end points on as you say, since there's a bunch of grey on the (literal) borders of geographic/human regions. But yet we all seem to inherently know what race means. Otherwise what have woke progressives been going on about for the last decade?

If you've spent a lot of time around certain groups of people you can become pretty good at identifying someone's geographic origins based on their looks. I knew someone who worked at an airport who could identify an Eritrean from an Ethiopian, for instance.

Race is a touchy subject. I think being defensive about protecting one's culture and way of life is more understandable than being tribal about race. Language, religion, traditions, art, way of life seems a lot more important than what someone looks like on the surface.

It's also touchy the double-standard surrounding it. In Canada we encourage indigenous groups to protect, maintain, and celebrate their unique cultures from erasure from outsiders, same with the French minority in Quebec, but for white anglos this consideration isn't given and is frowned on and we feel guilty about it because it feels exclusionary, which it certainly can be. But we also encourage immigrants to keep and celebrate their own cultures through multiculturalism, and many form ethnic enclaves in cities, but we don't call them racist or exclusionary. I think the fear is that when the majority ethnicity is culture-conscious they will use their majority power to exclude others, which is a legit concern. But there's a double-standard happening. And how do you protect i.e. British culture or Italian culture without being exclusionary? It's fraught with racist undertones. Many French people in Quebec are absolutely xenophobic, especially to anglos, but also to Muslims, Sikhs etc.

Do nation-states even have a right to exist? That's a difficult question given that the entire world had organized itself based on nation-states. The least problematic nation-states are ones like the US, where the nation isn't based on race, religion etc, but on an idea. Anyone who embraces the ideals of the American constitution can call themselves "American" and be fully accepted as such.

[Deutschmania]

Do you accept, for example, the established medical fact that you cannot get a bone marrow transplant from someone of a different race? Or do you consider that to be a racist conspiracy of the medical industry?

Scientifically speaking , it is more likely to find a match from someone of the same ethnicity , for reasons laid out below . However , just because two given people are of comparable ethnic extraction , it doesn't mean that they are automatically going to be compatible . The best chance is with those of ones immediate family .

People in need can receive donated bone marrow from family members (related donors) or from people they don’t know (unrelated donors). According to the U.S. Health Resources and Services Administration, 20% of related donor transplants and 14% of unrelated donor transplants completed in 2020 were bone marrow transplants.... About 30% of all people who need a transplant find a matching donor from someone in their immediate family. The remaining 70% rely on finding matching donors from someone other than a close family member. Does a donor’s ethnic background make a difference?
Yes, it does. There’s a link between race and matching bone marrow. Certain genes manage immunity. Those genes may be different based on race or ethnicity. Fewer people of color donate bone marrow, limiting the number of people who can receive donated bone marrow.

For example, the Be the Match© registry in 2021 had more than 9 million bone marrow donors. A person who is white who needed a bone marrow transplant had a 79% chance of finding a donor.

In comparison, a person who is Black who needs a bone marrow transplant has a 29% chance of finding a donor. Healthcare and transplant organizations are working to increase the number of bone marrow and other stem cell donors from groups of people from different racial and ethnic backgrounds. https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/treatments/24387-bone-marrow-donation

Why Ethnicity Matters

Racial and ethnic heritage are very important factors for patients looking for a marrow match. Because Cristina is of Italian descent her match will most likely come from someone who is also of Italian ethnicity.

Marrow matches are different than matching blood. Instead of a blood match, doctors are looking for a DNA match. Specifically, doctors are looking for what they call an HLA (HumanLeukocyte Antigens), HLA are proteins located on the surface of white blood cells and other tissues in the body.
The highest likelihood of finding a match is within the same ethnic group which is why donor drives are often specific to a patient's ethnic background.

But, occasionally there will be a match between different ethnicities which is why we'd like to encourage people to join their registry no matter what their ethnic background. On the One Match website HLA matching is described this way:

"What do you mean by a "match"?

Donors and patients are matched according to the compatibility of inherited genetic markers called Human Leukocyte Antigens (HLA). These antigens are inherited from your parents. Up to 12 antigens are considered important in the matching process."
On the Be The Match Website HLA matching is described this way:

"Human leukocyte antigen (HLA) typing is used to match patients and donors for bone marrow or cord blood transplants (also called BMT). HLA are proteins — or markers — found on most cells in your body. Your immune system uses these markers to recognize which cells belong in your body and which do not.

A close match between your (the patient's) HLA markers and your donor's can reduce the risk that your immune cells will attack your donor's cells or that your donor's immune cells will attack your body after the transplant. " https://www.marrowdrives.org/cristina/ethnicity-marrow-donation.html

( So I suppose that the person in this bone marrow drive might in all likelihood be best served by a donor who'd be what those such as yourself would term Dinaric , rather than someone such as me , whom is a primarily Alpine Euromutt . )

When it comes to blood type however ,

Researchers once sought to classify people into distinct races based upon blood groups, but blood types do not fit into racial categories.

Across geographic regions, O blood groups are the most common. In fact, around 63% of the world’s population has this blood group.

In Central and South America, the rate of O blood is much higher — close to 100% in some regions. In Eastern Europe and Central Asia, the rate of O blood is lower, and B blood is more common.

That being said, B blood is the least common group across the globe. Only around 16% of the world’s population has it.

Across the world, Rh+ blood is much more common than Rh- blood. The lowest known rate of Rh+ blood is still high, at around 65% among the Basque people of the Pyrenees mountains. Sub-Saharan African populations have the highest rate of Rh+ blood, at around 97–99%. https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/326279#blood-types-by-population

In the U.S., 38% of the population has O-positive blood, making it the most common blood type.

According to the American Red Cross, the following statistics show the most common blood types in the U.S. based on the donor population:

African American: 47% O-positive, 24% A-positive, and 18% B-positive
Latin American: 53% O-positive, 29% A-positive, and 9% B-positive
Asian: 39% O-positive, 27% A-positive, and 25% B-positive
Caucasian: 37% O-positive, 33% A-positive, and 9% B-positive Most rare blood types by ethnicity
The least common blood type in the U.S. is AB-negative, with less than 1% of the population having this type.

Statistics from the American Red Cross show that the following are the most rare forms of the major eight blood types in the U.S. based on the donor population:

African American: 0.3% AB-negative, 1% B-negative, and 2% A-negative
Latin American: 0.2% AB-negative, 1% B-negative, and 2% both A-negative and AB-positive
Asian: 0.1% AB-negative, 0.4% B-negative, and 0.5% A-negative
Caucasian: 1% AB-negative, 2% B-negative, and 3% AB-positive https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/most-common-blood-type-by-race#most-rare-types

Interestingly enough , East Asians have concocted this system that attributes various personality traits to particular blood types .


https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-blood-type-personality-5191276

[FiveofSwords]

Seems like there's a difference between race and ethnicity though.

Race can be nebulous and difficult to create hard start and end points on as you say, since there's a bunch of grey on the (literal) borders of geographic/human regions. But yet we all seem to inherently know what race means. Otherwise what have woke progressives been going on about for the last decade?

If you've spent a lot of time around certain groups of people you can become pretty good at identifying someone's geographic origins based on their looks. I knew someone who worked at an airport who could identify an Eritrean from an Ethiopian, for instance.

Race is a touchy subject. I think being defensive about protecting one's culture and way of life is more understandable than being tribal about race. Language, religion, traditions, art, way of life seems a lot more important than what someone looks like on the surface.

It's also touchy the double-standard surrounding it. In Canada we encourage indigenous groups to protect, maintain, and celebrate their unique cultures from erasure from outsiders, same with the French minority in Quebec, but for white anglos this consideration isn't given and is frowned on and we feel guilty about it because it feels exclusionary, which it certainly can be. But we also encourage immigrants to keep and celebrate their own cultures through multiculturalism, and many form ethnic enclaves in cities, but we don't call them racist or exclusionary. I think the fear is that when the majority ethnicity is culture-conscious they will use their majority power to exclude others, which is a legit concern. But there's a double-standard happening. And how do you protect i.e. British culture or Italian culture without being exclusionary? It's fraught with racist undertones. Many French people in Quebec are absolutely xenophobic, especially to anglos, but also to Muslims, Sikhs etc.

Do nation-states even have a right to exist? That's a difficult question given that the entire world had organized itself based on nation-states. The least problematic nation-states are ones like the US, where the nation isn't based on race, religion etc, but on an idea. Anyone who embraces the ideals of the American constitution can call themselves "American" and be fully accepted as such.

People have a 'right' to do whatever they have been granted the power to do. For example, in pre civil war america white people had a 'right' to own black slaves. You seem to be using the word right as a synonym for ethical or something, which is just inappropriate.

Anyway I don't see why you or anyone has some ethical dilemma about people organizing and creating a state around their race. Dna is pretty important. Would you be offended if sub saharman Africans just wanted to make a state for sub saharan africans? What about jews? Is it only white people that you think should be prohibited?

[Fasces]

But yet we all seem to inherently know what race means.

Every human alive would appear to know "intrinsically" what a phone is.

Doesn't make it an innate fact of nature. Race, as a system of categorization, is a post hoc rationalization curved and bent to apply to whatever the cultural norm is at that place and time. It isn't scientific.

[Tainari88]

Every human alive would appear to know "intrinsically" what a phone is.

Doesn't make it an innate fact of nature. Race, as a system of categorization, is a post hoc rationalization curved and bent to apply to whatever the cultural norm is at that place and time. It isn't scientific.

The Nazi ideology has its turn in human history. It turned out to be a very bad result ideology.

Not everything invented by the Hitler regime was bad. Look at the Volkswagen beetle eh? The little Hitler car sure is popular in Mexico to this very day and in other nations as well.

But in terms of killing off people based on racist shitty ideas of wiping out entire human groups based on some kind of hierarchical system. All couched with scientific basis.

In the end? It was all about destruction, war, and aggressive violent behavior that in the end...they lost the war man. Got to accept that they LOST WWII.

End of the story. No one wants to go back to that failed ideology that only brought total destruction and based on lies. Lies over and over again.

The Nazis can take their lying to some other historical moment. It will get the same results. Humanity is messy and not the neat package they want. Accept it. And realize Germany is not the USA. Two totally different geographies. The US is located in a part of the world that has a lot of people living in it and near it that are not European based. Who cares?

Why would that worry any sane person?

[Deutschmania]

You said a lot of things here which are simply false. First of all, untermensch was not a racial category and it had nothing to do with being non white. Second, they jad a lot more than 3 categories of Europeans. They had about 5 categories of germans..and it wasn't wrong. There was no hierarchy attached to it...you may have noticed that Hitler and goebbles were not exactly Nordic. Germans were not blind lol...they noticed that also. Basically this is an attitude that people are simply told the germans had despite the fact that it is not only absurd, it contradicts basic facts about the nsdap

My main point was that the National Socialist Third Reich didn't posit a single White race , but rather had subcategories , if that's the correct word , of Europeans . The source that I shall cite for reference is the "German National Catechism ". Also , even back then , Southern Europeans , including Southern Germans , from such lands as Bavaria , were concerned about the idea of Nordic supremacy , in relation to the NSDAP .

The Nazis claimed to observe a strict and scientific hierarchy of the human race. Adolf Hitler's views on race and people are found throughout his autobiographical manifesto book Mein Kampf but more specifically, they are found in chapter 11, the title of which is "Nation and Race". The standard-issue propaganda text which was issued to members of the Hitler Youth contained a chapter on "The German Races" that heavily cited the works of Hans F. K. Günther. The text seems to categorize the European races in descending orders in the Nazi racial hierarchy: the Nordic (including the Phalic sub-race, a subgroup of the Nordic race), Mediterranean, Dinaric, Alpine, and East Baltic races.[2] In 1937, Hitler spoke in the Reichstag and declared, "I speak prophetically. Just as the discovery that the earth moved around the sun led to a complete transformation of the way people looked at the world, so too the blood and racial teachings of National Socialism will change our understanding of mankind's past and its future."[3] .... According to Nazi ideology, the purest stock of Aryans were the Nordic people of Germany, England, the Netherlands, and Scandinavia. The Nazis defined Nordics as being identified by their tall stature (average 175 cm [5 ft 9 in]), their long faces, their prominent chins, their narrow and straight or aquiline noses with a high base, their lean builds, their doliocephalic skulls, their straight and light hair, their light eyes, and their fair skin.[4] The Nazis regarded the Germans as well as the English, Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish as the most racially pure in Europe.[4] Indeed, members of the Schutzstaffel (SS) considered Aryans not to be of a single ethnic group, and did not have to be exclusively German, but instead could be selected from populations across Europe to create the "master race".[5] The normative German term for them was that existed an arisches Volk, not arische Rasse.[1] The Nazis believed that the Germanic peoples of Europe belonged to a racially superior Nordic subset of the larger Aryan race, who were regarded as the only true culture-bearers in civilized society.[6] 'Aryan' world history became the link between East and West, also between the Old World and New World. The principal dogma, in this Nazi historiography, was that the glories of all human civilizations were creations of the 'Aryan' master race, a culture-bearing race.[7][page needed] The northern European (Germanic) Aryans did not develop into great civilizations in ancient history because they lived in the cold, damp, and harsh environment for a long time. However, they kept their purity intact and later only the Germanic Aryans at the end of history would eventually conquer and dominate the world because of their purity was maintained, being proved during the Germanic domain of Industrial Revolution (the Slavs later mixed with Asiatic peoples during the Middle Ages and lost their racial purity and superior talent).[7][page needed]

The Nazis claimed that the Germanic peoples specifically represented a southern branch of the Aryan-Nordic population.[8] The Nazis considered that the Nordic race was the most prominent race of the German people, but that there were other sub-races that were commonly found amongst the German people such as the Alpine race population who were identified by, among other features, their lower stature, their stocky builds, their flatter noses, and their higher incidences of darker hair and eyes. Hitler and the Nazi racial theorist Hans F. K. Günther framed this as an issue which would be corrected through the selective breeding of "Nordic" traits.[9][10] In general terms, Hans F. K. Günther diagnosed combinations of the following elements in the German Volk: Nordic (nordisch); Mediterranean (westisch, mediterran, mitelländisch); Dinaric (dinarisch); Alpine (ostisch, alpin); East Baltic (ostbaltisch); Phalian (fälisch, dalisch).[1] These theories generated some fear in southern Germans, as they thought that Nazism was a form of "Nordic colonialism" and that non-Nordics would be treated as second-class citizens.[1]

In the 1920s, the Reichsführer-SS Heinrich Himmler came under the influence of Richard Walther Darré, who was a leading proponent of the blood and soil concept. Darré strongly believed that the Nordic race was racially superior to all other races and he also strongly believed that the German peasants would play a fundamental role in securing Germany's future and German expansion in Eastern Europe.[11] Darré believed that the German peasant played a key role in the racial strength of the German people.[12]

Himmler required all SS candidates to undergo a racial screening and he forbade any German who had Slavic, Negroid or Jewish racial features from joining the Schutzstaffel (SS).[13] Applicants had to provide proof that they had only Aryan ancestors back to 1800 (1750 for officers).[14] .... The Nazis claimed that the Germanic peoples specifically represented a southern branch of the Aryan-Nordic population.[8] The Nazis considered that the Nordic race was the most prominent race of the German people, but that there were other sub-races that were commonly found amongst the German people such as the Alpine race population who were identified by, among other features, their lower stature, their stocky builds, their flatter noses, and their higher incidences of darker hair and eyes. Hitler and the Nazi racial theorist Hans F. K. Günther framed this as an issue which would be corrected through the selective breeding of "Nordic" traits.[9][10] In general terms, Hans F. K. Günther diagnosed combinations of the following elements in the German Volk: Nordic (nordisch); Mediterranean (westisch, mediterran, mitelländisch); Dinaric (dinarisch); Alpine (ostisch, alpin); East Baltic (ostbaltisch); Phalian (fälisch, dalisch).[1] These theories generated some fear in southern Germans, as they thought that Nazism was a form of "Nordic colonialism" and that non-Nordics would be treated as second-class citizens.[1] In February 1940, Himmler said the following during a secret meeting with Gauleiters, "We are firmly convinced, I believe it, just as I believe in a God, I believe that our blood, the Nordic blood, is actually the best blood on this earth... In a thousand centuries this Nordic blood will still be the best. There is no other. We are superior to everything and everyone. Once we are liberated from inhibitions and restraints, there is no one who can surpass us in quality and strength."[16]

In private in 1942, Hitler stated, "I shall have no peace of mind until I have planted a seed of Nordic blood wherever the population stand in need of regeneration. If at the time of the migrations, while the great racial currents were exercising their influence, our people received so varied a share of attributes, these latter blossomed to their full value only because of the presence of the Nordic racial nucleus."[17]

The aim of Nazi propaganda which was used to indoctrinate the members of the Hitler Youth was to convince them to emphasize the "Nordic" nature of Germans, and as a result, the text which was issued to all Hitler Youth members stated: "the principal ingredient of our people is the Nordic race (55%). That is not to say that half our people are pure Nordics. All of the aforementioned races appear in mixtures in all parts of our fatherland. The circumstance, however, that the great part of our people is of Nordic descent justifies us taking a Nordic standpoint when evaluating our character and spirit, bodily structure, and physical beauty."[2] Nazi propaganda stated that the Nordic must dominate Germany, although it did not matter if they were Germans who did not have the physical appearance of the Nordic race as long as they shared the traits of being a "German" which were considered to be "courage, loyalty and honor".[18] .... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_racial_theories

[Tainari88]

My main point was that the National Socialist Third Reich didn't posit a single White race , but rather had subcategories , if that's the correct word , of Europeans . The source that I shall cite for reference is the "German National Catechism ". Also , even back then , Southern Europeans , including Southern Germans , from such lands as Bavaria , were concerned about the idea of Nordic supremacy , in relation to the NSDAP .

So the Nazis thought that their race of the Nordic type was simply the best. Better than all the rest. Better than anyone. Anyone I ever met.

Those fucking English did not join their cause. Instead, they betrayed his plans. I thought all the white race types were supposed to unite and sing superiority songs together and not fight it out...and those pesky Slavs. The Russians. They wound up losing a lot of men in that Battle for Stalingrad and so on....hell.

I thought they were the BEST. Better than all the rest.

Instead, they lost to some mongrel races. And weird coalitions of white people....that went against the Simply the Best agenda.

White on White Genocide.

Let @FiveofSwords get some Kleenex again.

Ignore his constant running from admitting he does believe the Holocaust never happened. He can deny all kinds of shit. Run like a scared person from reality. Do his denial of reality. I say he gets busy and has ten kids or so and that will keep him busy producing a lot of money to save his gene pool. He is not a genius though. I am afraid he is not a genius. And he also is unprepared. And has to run from decent debates. He is not strong either. Weak in the extreme.

Even though the Germans were very thorough and believed wholly in their mission to wipe out the Jews, and to kill the Gypsies, the Commies, and many others who did not go along with the agenda....and left huge tall records of every single thing they did. Tons of physical and documented evidence.

Why would they leave all those records of a bunch of horrific crimes? Because they were serious about showing the German people that they were doing the JOB!! Like the efficient military operation that they were....they had to show that they were not talking crap. They were getting things done. Because they are the best. Better than all the rest.

And in the process, left evidence of monstrous crimes against humanity. The tainted their ideology forever and ever Amen.

Again. They sought perfection. But in the end the reality is humanity is messy. They do not fit into neat categories. White people who are not German at the time colluded to destroy them. White Race does not unite. They fight. Against each other.

Their entire bullshit is bullshit.

The end.

[FiveofSwords]

My main point was that the National Socialist Third Reich didn't posit a single White race , but rather had subcategories , if that's the correct word , of Europeans . The source that I shall cite for reference is the "German National Catechism ". Also , even back then , Southern Europeans , including Southern Germans , from such lands as Bavaria , were concerned about the idea of Nordic supremacy , in relation to the NSDAP .

Well having subcategories of something doesn't imply that the thing doesn't exist. Just because there are both mammals and birds doesn't mean animals do not exist, for example.

[Tainari88]

Well having subcategories of something doesn't imply that the thing doesn't exist. Just because there are both mammals and birds doesn't mean animals do not exist, for example.

Another word salad of meaningless crap when Deustchmania gave him a lot to work with.

Notice how he ignores what is posed to him. He tries to deflect from a losing argument he makes.

Why does he not address the reality that it is all about hierarchies of crap even within a supposedly white race?

He tap dances around the question. Like usual.

https://youtube.com/shorts/89icJQ5Y_qE? ... oadPpVwr6d

[Dr House]

@Dr House


So your map is using old numbers and pretending they are current?

Black Population by State 2024

I didn't say blacks are the majority in any state, and neither did the map. I said you have no understanding of American demographics, and you're making yourself look like a clown.

The black splotches in the US portion of the map do not correspond to any state. They correspond to a chain of counties that used to be heavily plantation-dominated and still have majority black populations. Like Fasces' quip about Ethiopians being Caucasian, this ain't the own you think it is.

[Unthinking Majority]

Every human alive would appear to know "intrinsically" what a phone is.

Doesn't make it an innate fact of nature. Race, as a system of categorization, is a post hoc rationalization curved and bent to apply to whatever the cultural norm is at that place and time. It isn't scientific.

You can say the same for culture, categorization can be murky and complicated, but different cultures exist.

Nigerians appear differently than Japanese people. No Nigerian can ever be confused with a Japanese person, and vice versa. That's scientific observation because it's testable and repeatable. If different groups have spent enough time apart they'll typically develop unique genetic features. The issue with categorization is with groups that may be on a geographic borderline, or a mix, and specific visual categorization may be more difficult or even impossible, at least to an untrained eye. As for how people are or could be categorized I think for some races its scientific and others it may not be, I really don't know. Seems like society has opted for broad categories to try to avoid this.

What value, if any, we should give "race" I don't know, depends on the individual I guess, and cultural norms. It's different for e.g. black vs white people.

[Unthinking Majority]

Another word salad of meaningless crap when Deustchmania gave him a lot to work with.

Notice how he ignores what is posed to him. He tries to deflect from a losing argument he makes.

Why does he not address the reality that it is all about hierarchies of crap even within a supposedly white race?

He tap dances around the question. Like usual.

Well that's the thing, what is exactly the point trying to be made here by this poster? Or the people replying?

As I posted before in this thread, people's opinions on race and whether it exists and what value to give to it seems to typically depend on their political agenda, and it can change when their agenda changes.

[Wellsy]

If you accept that there are different genetic clusters of humans then that means race exists. These genetic differences are not always visible, either. You cannot tell by looking at an australian aboriginal that they have better eyesight than most humans nor can you tell by looking at a Tibetan that they are genetically adapted to living in high altitudes. But those are genetic differences that are part of their race. And you would not be adapted to high altitudes by getting cosmetic surgery to look more like a Tibetan.

Do you accept, for example, the established medical fact that you cannot get a bone marrow transplant from someone of a different race? Or do you consider that to be a racist conspiracy of the medical industry?

Your first sentence is pretty much the contention in play in the thread. Taking biological facts in itself doesn’t ground a concept of race.
You seem to be in implying this far that some level of similarity or dissimilarity is enough basis within genetic clusters to give basis to race as a concept.

There are issues of having a common ancestor to distinguish groups of humans from other. The other way to classify is for there to be a significant difference genetically to warrant a different taxonomic classification. At this point you’re not yet engaging with evolutionary theory in depth and the way in which classifications are made but only trying to argue differences exist genetically.

So yes, there is enough genetic variation that it can be difficult to match human leukocyte antigens (HLA) for people of different regions. I don’t dismiss that, but how do we go from that dissimilarity to the founding an ontological grounding for race. I think you side step it by just going from the existence of genetic diversity, specifically, genetic clusters = race exists. How do you move from finding genetic clusters to founding the category.

Why not emphasize clines? Because genetic clusters as a model focus on similarity and not diversity and difference. You find a cluster precisely because they’re alike. You wish to then to suggest frlm this there are genetic clusters that are the basis of difference but it is clines which help explain variation and they like a color spectrum lack discrete boundaries but are rather continuous and significantly overlapping among populations.
I accept we can mark distinctions even where the exact boundary isn’t clear but how is one attempting to mark the boundary at all to suggest that race does exist and you’re not arbitrarily shoehorning genetic variation within a straightjacket.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4756148/

However, cluster analysis is a phenetic method and presupposes, from the perspective of a rational biological classification, the genetic similarity criterion of evolutionary taxonomy. Yet, unlike cluster, it is cline that best accounts for human evolutionary diversity. In fact, the cline model maps continuous genetic gradation in a dataset and indicates that there is no natural break in a population's genetic profile (Figure ​(Figure1B).1B). Although cluster and cline models are not incompatible, they may lead to competing interpretations. If the population is shown to have a clinal genetic structure but cluster arises in some situations (Ramachandran et al., 2005; Handley et al., 2007; Underhill and Kivisild, 2007), then clustering results cannot be interpreted, in biological taxonomy, as indicative of natural differentiations of biological subpopulations. In this case, cline will be the representation of the natural evolutionary ordering of the population, while cluster will be an artifact, a construct that indicates instrumental, i.e., convenient, cutoff points for various scientific purposes.
…

Yet even if one aims lower on the aformentioned scale of genetic differentiation, it is still clear that the Fst-value of 0.043, measuring the genetic difference between continental clusters (Rosenberg et al., 2002), unambiguously lies in the interval of no to little degree of differentiation on Wright's guideline. Continental subpopulations are also very similar and do not reach, any meaningful degree of differentiation in Darwinian classification. These results suggest that human races, understood as continental clusters, have no taxonomic meaning that warrants granting them an objective biological existence.
…

The problem is that taxonomic groupings that map actual evolutionary relationships among populations in a worldwide comparison identify series of meta-populations different from continental clustering schemes (Zhivotovsky et al., 2003). Pair-wise Fst computations confirm for example that genetic distances between sub-Saharan African “hunter and gatherers,” the first series of meta-populations (hereafter S1-Metapopulations), and sub-Saharan African “farmers” (S2-Metapopulations) are greater than between the latter and Europeans (Zhivotovsky et al., 2003; Tishkoff et al., 2009; Kalinowski, 2010). In addition, some populations in the S1-Metapopulations such as “the southern Bushmen, central forest Pygmies, and the Hadza compared with Europeans, have Fst estimates in excess of 0.23, approximately twice the average Fst between other global populations” (Henn et al., 2011, 2012). Even so, “East Africans” and the Maasai are more similar to Europeans than to the KhoeSan populations. Moreover, within the S1-Metapopulations, the Sandawe for example, are more similar to Europeans than they are to the Hadza (Henn et al., 2011, 2012). Actually, genetic patterns from all four modes of human inheritance (mtDNA, Y-chromosome, X-linked and autosome), along with protein markers, showed that continental clustering represents no natural classification of humans (Maglo, 2011; Mersha and Abebe, 2015).

So be explicit, on what basis or method can be delineate the races. Because genetic difference doesn’t prove race as a functional concept, and the leap is shat is unsatisfying as it seems largely assumed with only a rhetorical appeal that denial lf difference is conspiratorial antirace talk because we’re all too sensitive for such adult conversations.

Basically we’re still at the point that there is greater variation within regional populations than there is often ascribed between them. Which goes to the point that if we are to msrk out differebce it is often within regions rather than between them which defies any notion of race as common conceived. Basically it is assumed homogeneity within regional groups as compared to other and this fact isn’t found so what do you have left but vague, there is this specific difference and the retort is yes and so what? Elaborate, explain.