Bad Science: Harper's article, "Mighty White of You"

I

infoterror

Member
Apr 17, 2005
1,191
2
38
Mighty White of You
Racial preferences color America’s oldest skulls and bones
Jack Hitt

http://www.harpers.org/MostRecentCover.html

Unfortunately, they don't have a text online.

It's about the Kennewick Man, and is interesting in that its sole intent appears to be to muddle the concept of race. It concludes, lamely, with "science will find the truth." It talks at first about European ancestry, then tries to insinuate that while race does exist it's not anything but a skin-color difference, then finally mentions ancient European sub-races to try to debunk race as an argument. It's a very scummy article hiding beneath a modicum of scientific and cultural literacy. Anyone else read it?
 
I do agree with you infoterror that the liberal drive to exterminate race is pretty idiotic, but it serves their ideology.

There was an interesting program on the History channel ( yes, it is rare) about a new race some geneologist/geneticist has classified as being native american. I cant remember the name of it, something with a M. Anyway, they have done samples on Appalachians and found that much of their blood comes from either Portugal or Turkey. This guy is claiming the Portuguese fishermen who made contact with North America long before Columbus, must have intermixed with the local Indians, and then Scotch Irish settlers married this dark mediterranean looking race. They claim Elvis and Lincoln both shared this race's blood. Now the History channel isnt the height of scholarly research, but it seems the DNA proves a large mix of mediterranean blood in the late 18th and early 19th century Appalachia that historically has no precedent.
 
Melungeons! Yep, that's another good example. Whether or not destroying race serves the liberal ideology, I think it's nutty and destructive. I sense their motivation is fear rather than a desire to do good things... I distrust that. Then again, I'm about 50% liberal, so it's hard to get that down on them ;)
 
infoterror said:
Melungeons! Yep, that's another good example. Whether or not destroying race serves the liberal ideology, I think it's nutty and destructive. I sense their motivation is fear rather than a desire to do good things... I distrust that. Then again, I'm about 50% liberal, so it's hard to get that down on them ;)
Click to expand...

yes Melungeons. I competely agree with your comments on this subject.
 
I recommend looking up the article "The new science of race" by Carolyn Abraham from Globe and Mail, posted on Saturday, June 18, 2005. You have to pay to purchase the article now, but it had some interesting new discoveries about race that had been stifled in the United States for decades. It also has a refutation of the Human Genome Project as proof that race is a false notion.
 
Iridium said:
I recommend looking up the article "The new science of race" by Carolyn Abraham from Globe and Mail, posted on Saturday, June 18, 2005. You have to pay to purchase the article now, but it had some interesting new discoveries about race that had been stifled in the United States for decades. It also has a refutation of the Human Genome Project as proof that race is a false notion.
Click to expand...

there's a copy of that article on AmRen's website

http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2005/06/the_new_science_1.php
 
Scott W said:
No scientist worth his salt (aside from physical anthropologists with an agenda) see any biological reality to race. Really what we classify as "race" is nothing more than geographically distinct morphologies. The genetics show without a doubt that race is meaningless aside from something we use to categorize because its easier for us to do so. Really, its an issue of semantics. I have no problem saying black people, or asians, or whatever. However, the idea that the human species can subdivided into three subspecies (which is what a race is) of caucasoid, negroid, and mongoloid has been entirely debunked, as has the idea that modern humans have evolved independently 3 times, thus leading to three different races (the multregional hypothesis).
Click to expand...

In regards to the Jewish branch so listed in the article, is this really a race, or a common group of shared ancestors? I see no problem with the findings; and I'd be proud of them if I was Jewish.
 
Scott W. why delete that post? It was interesting, and may get some people backpeddling about their views on race. Ive heard the same thing in physical anthropolgy classes some time back.
 
All human kind originated in Africa and gradually migrated to different places in the world, while adapting to the new environment, which caused changes in physical appeareance and behaviour/culture.
Races are not distinct groups. Like the world's oceans, one blends into another and no one can say precisely where one ends and another begins. Yet, like the oceans, if you are in the middle of the Atlantic you know you are not in the Pacific. You know what to expect a Chinese person to look like and a Nordic person and an Australian aborigine, and generally your expectations are correct (the obvious exception being someone who plainly has ancestors from another race).
Saying races don't exist is as ridiculous as saying that breeds of dogs don't exist, or that they all have the same genetic temperament.
There has to be an ulterior motive for people to wish to tell us that what we can see is true, and what common sense tells us, is in fact innaccurate.
To capitalists, nations are nothing more than factories. These factories run far more smoothly if the people in them have no sense of racial identity.
 
Norsemaiden said:
All human kind originated in Africa and gradually migrated to different places in the world, while adapting to the new environment, which caused changes in physical appeareance and behaviour/culture.
Races are not distinct groups. Like the world's oceans, one blends into another and no one can say precisely where one ends and another begins. Yet, like the oceans, if you are in the middle of the Atlantic you know you are not in the Pacific. You know what to expect a Chinese person to look like and a Nordic person and an Australian aborigine, and generally your expectations are correct (the obvious exception being someone who plainly has ancestors from another race).
Saying races don't exist is as ridiculous as saying that breeds of dogs don't exist, or that they all have the same genetic temperament.
There has to be an ulterior motive for people to wish to tell us that what we can see is true, and what common sense tells us, is in fact innaccurate.
To capitalists, nations are nothing more than factories. These factories run far more smoothly if the people in them have no sense of racial identity.
Click to expand...

THat last statement reminds me of Marx in one of his essays--cant remember which one.

I think it is also ridiculous to disregard race, as hell, we share 99.97 or something of our DNA with Chimps, and more than 50% of our DNA with bananas. So, what i am saying, is sure, race maybe genetically neglible, but the tiny difference is still enough to produce Asians that are far different in physical appearance than say aborigines.

In addition, this difference in races has led mankind to develop seperate and dinstinct cultures and gene pools, that make race more important than it otherwise would be. Every major race has developed along similar lines, seperate from the development of races. Asian (Chinese, Korean, Mongolian) culture is far different than African.

so, I dont know, I may be talking nonsense here--actually I think I am--but it does seem like race led our ancestors to develop different cultures and different physical attributes.
 
and yet to play devil's advocate, they also run just as smoothly when race is pounded into their populace's minds, in creating an "us and them" mentality.

Personally i care even less about the concept of race than about personality tests, astrology and dream significance.
 
speed said:
THat last statement reminds me of Marx in one of his essays--cant remember which one.

I think it is also ridiculous to disregard race, as hell, we share 99.97 or something of our DNA with Chimps, and more than 50% of our DNA with bananas. So, what i am saying, is sure, race maybe genetically neglible, but the tiny difference is still enough to produce Asians that are far different in physical appearance than say aborigines.

In addition, this difference in races has led mankind to develop seperate and dinstinct cultures and gene pools, that make race more important than it otherwise would be. Every major race has developed along similar lines, seperate from the development of races. Asian (Chinese, Korean, Mongolian) culture is far different than African.

so, I dont know, I may be talking nonsense here--actually I think I am--but it does seem like race led our ancestors to develop different cultures and different physical attributes.
Click to expand...

I think you've failed to distinguish race and culture appropriately. Genetic differences between "races" of humans arose from geographically separate groups living in different climates in various parts of the world, giving rise to different appearances. The cultures developed not as a result of those genetic changes and common appearances but because of the separation of that group from other groups. So, once again, why shouldn't we disregard a concept of race which distinguishes groups solely on the basis of appearance? No one has yet answered that question to me. It seems people are drawing conclusions they want to draw without thought or reason.
 
hibernal_dream said:
I think you've failed to distinguish race and culture appropriately. Genetic differences between "races" of humans arose from geographically separate groups living in different climates in various parts of the world, giving rise to different appearances. The cultures developed not as a result of those genetic changes and common appearances but because of the separation of that group from other groups. So, once again, why shouldn't we disregard a concept of race which distinguishes groups solely on the basis of appearance? No one has yet answered that question to me. It seems people are drawing conclusions they want to draw without thought or reason.
Click to expand...

No, thats a good point. In fact that's the point I think I was trying to make, but my somehow deepseated belief in race took over.
 
hibernal_dream said:
I think you've failed to distinguish race and culture appropriately. Genetic differences between "races" of humans arose from geographically separate groups living in different climates in various parts of the world, giving rise to different appearances. The cultures developed not as a result of those genetic changes and common appearances but because of the separation of that group from other groups. So, once again, why shouldn't we disregard a concept of race which distinguishes groups solely on the basis of appearance? No one has yet answered that question to me. It seems people are drawing conclusions they want to draw without thought or reason.
Click to expand...

There are ways in which physical adaptation to climate has impacted on genes for behaviour just as radically as it has impacted on genes for appearance. It would in fact be quite miraculous if racial personality traits did not evolve just as easily as outer appearance.
In a warm climate, with food in abundance, someone can live without much need to be able to cooperate with others and can be very lazy and feckless.
Put a population with such people through the rigours of an iceage however,
and the laziest and least cooperative people will die.
There is a lot of truth in the stereotypes of racial behaviour, and it makes sense.

Example: the native American Indians could never be made into slaves, their culture reflected their natural predisposition. Africans have easily been enslaved, and also Slavs are easily controlled. (How do you think they got the name?)
The Japanese ability to be original and inventive is notoriously lacking. This has been bred into them by the necessity to obey strict etiquet. If the traditional bowing, etc routine was not carried out properly, the punishment was beheading. The chinese have also been affected because of losing many talented people in the "cultural revolution" when they were executed en masse.
Africans have a strong sense of rhythm, and like to sing and dance at any opportunity. The Celts were like this also, far more than Nordics.
The Maoris are a far more warlike people than the polynesians that they came from. The culture changed as they changed.

Culture doesn't exist without people first being enclined to behave like that - except in the case where an outside force brings in a culture and moulds people to fit in with it. That doesn't work anyway, unless it is biologically possible for someone to adapt to another culture.
"You can take a whore to culture, but you can't make her think", as the saying goes. That is why the policy of getting immigrants to assimilate to western culture has been abandoned in favour of multiculturalism.
 
Classical music such as Beethoven, Mozart, etc is a product of western culture. Many Japanese and Chinese people admire classical music and can play it beautifully. Something about it appeals to them. The Japanese have a surprising liking for metal music also.
On the other hand, the music prefered by Blacks (there are always exceptions) is fairly similar the world over. They rarely enjoy classical music or metal.
I propose that there is something in their genes that makes the orientals enjoy classsical music even though it is alien to their culture, and even though we westerners cannot generally appreciate oriental music.
There is something biological about blacks that makes them less enamoured of this musical style.
I have also observed that scandinavians are surprisingly much drawn to metal compared with other areas of Europe. (I'm half Finnish myself.)
I cite this as evidence of genes causing culture. The orientals have genes that allow them to enjoy music from a very different culture and a very different style, yet other races do not.
 
Norsemaiden said:
Classical music such as Beethoven, Mozart, etc is a product of western culture. Many Japanese and Chinese people admire classical music and can play it beautifully. Something about it appeals to them. The Japanese have a surprising liking for metal music also.
On the other hand, the music prefered by Blacks (there are always exceptions) is fairly similar the world over. They rarely enjoy classical music or metal.
I propose that there is something in their genes that makes the orientals enjoy classsical music even though it is alien to their culture, and even though we westerners cannot generally appreciate oriental music.
There is something biological about blacks that makes them less enamoured of this musical style.
I have also observed that scandinavians are surprisingly much drawn to metal compared with other areas of Europe. (I'm half Finnish myself.)
I cite this as evidence of genes causing culture. The orientals have genes that allow them to enjoy music from a very different culture and a very different style, yet other races do not.
Click to expand...

I dont know if these are cultural or biological predispositions (towards music etc). That's what I was trying to figure out in one of my previous posts. But, you know, white people are related to Indians (the sub-continental variety), yet, we share very few cultural similarities.

I will state that Culture is the much more important than race or appearance.
 
Thanks for that Norsemaiden. Those were interesting and convincing arguments. I find it difficult to believe there is such a gene governing laziness, but you may be right. I think the reason its such a hard matter to talk about is because of the large number of competing factors involved in the evolution of a race. I'm also not as versed in history as I should be - for example after the beginning of food production was starvation so large a factor that it would drive evolution in a certain direction? As far as i'm aware, responsibilities for food cultivation and production were not placed evenly on individuals so that laziness would result in death. Many tribes had a communal system with designated hunters, collectors (most probably women) and the food was distributed among the rest. Sexual selection probably played a part.
 
Norsemaiden said:
Classical music such as Beethoven, Mozart, etc is a product of western culture. Many Japanese and Chinese people admire classical music and can play it beautifully. Something about it appeals to them. The Japanese have a surprising liking for metal music also.
On the other hand, the music prefered by Blacks (there are always exceptions) is fairly similar the world over. They rarely enjoy classical music or metal.
I propose that there is something in their genes that makes the orientals enjoy classsical music even though it is alien to their culture, and even though we westerners cannot generally appreciate oriental music.
There is something biological about blacks that makes them less enamoured of this musical style.
I have also observed that scandinavians are surprisingly much drawn to metal compared with other areas of Europe. (I'm half Finnish myself.)
I cite this as evidence of genes causing culture. The orientals have genes that allow them to enjoy music from a very different culture and a very different style, yet other races do not.
Click to expand...
i'm a mullotto, but even though i grew up surrounded by black people, i still consider my self a white person and i don't think it's just the paleness of my skin i think there really are genetic elements to the pychological differences between the races i really think that Norsemaiden is being accurate in her analytical discriptions of the origins of the different types of racism and i'd go crazy if i had to be in a room crammed full of black people and i don't think it's the paleness of my skin because i really think it has to do with the fact that the black half of my family is really part white
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom