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

LORD_RED_DRAGON said:
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

It's great that you're backing me up on this LRD. Your personal experience is really convincing evidence about genes being important to which culture you are drawn towards.
I have heard that usually when a black child is adopted at birth by a white couple, the child usually goes back to black culture when old enough. It could be argued that it was just a random choice, but what we choose involves a mental process. And I'm sure our preferences are instinctive, except in cases were a conditioning influence is present.
 
speed said:
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.

As whites went through the iceage it was necessary to have forsight, because of being subjected to seasonal variation and extremely hard times. They had to lay down stores and think ahead constantly. The part of the brain to do with this is the frontal lobes. Genes determined who had most efficient frontal lobes and natural selection bred those with this feature.

The people who couldn't plan ahead or were feckless just died. Year after year, generation after generation. That bred into Europeans the ability to predict events, plan and use imagination. But it also evolved indiscriminate altruism because, while at the beginning no one looked after the good-for-nothings and were a lot more selfish, the fact is at the end of this rigourous selection, people had a stronger sense of bond and there were no useless people. Whites were left with an instinct to think that everyone was worthwhile and to want to care for unfortunates.
This is why whites are the most charitable people and the most likely to believe the best about people.

It was in this time that Europeans' peculiar facial features evolved - sexual selection. Since only the face was visible through the furs, figure was hard to judge, and choices of mate were more face based than would otherwise have been the case. Nose shape, eyes, lips, cheekbones etc all were important.

(To find out more check out Carlton S Coon).

The people of modern India are a halfbreed population, decended from a majority negrito genepool (Andaman Islanders are a relic population). When the Aryans crossed over from Afghanistan, they described the inhabitants of India as looking like monkeys. (See Rig Veda, the Hindu holy book). They tried to exterminate them for centuries. Then they decided to use them as slaves. The caste system was then invented and enshrined in religion to prevent intermarriage, and preserve Aryans. It did not work, because of uncontrolled sexual liasons.

India became a racial melting pot riven with bizarre cults (from which people found group identity).

There remains an Aryan element in India. As recently as WWI, the British empire raised a regiment from Northern India called the "Aryan Legion". About 2000 strong, they were over 6ft tall, fairhaired and blue eyed.

Certain people could use a genetic analysis of such "Indians" to prove there was no racial difference between Indians and British.
 
hibernal_dream said:
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.

why do you presume that geography only modified external appearance and not psychological traits ?

Norsemaiden said:
Example: the native American Indians could never be made into slaves, their culture reflected their natural predisposition.

the amerindians practiced slavery well before the arrival of europeans so that's somewhat of a bad exemple
 



the amerindians practiced slavery well before the arrival of europeans so that's somewhat of a bad exemple[/QUOTE]
------- ------- -------

You are right that I should have mentioned they had slaves. But they themselves could never be slaves.
The tricky thing is that people have been brainwashed into thinking that when you acknowledge racial differences in talents and other behaviour, it is going to mean that whites are going to be described as being perfect and all non-whites as being inferior. So people get aggressive about the subject. It is quite idiotic for anyone to assume that. The point is just that there are racial DIFFERENCES. Superiority or inferiority is totally subjective. Every race is perfectly evolved for its own natural environment. And as long as they are there then there is no conflict of interest, and no need to make judgements from irrelevant comparisons. However, when you have large numbers of immigrants coming into a very different country, then their differences will cause problems.
 
Norsemaiden said:
However, when you have large numbers of immigrants coming into a very different country, then their differences will cause problems.

None that couldn't be solved with clever governance and a bit of sensitivity.
 
Norsemaiden said:
In Utopia, everyone lives in peace and harmony - and never gets sick of it either!

Having nothing to struggle for isn't boring... really.

"Heaven"/Utopia sounds like Hell to me.
 
infoterror said:
Having nothing to struggle for isn't boring... really.

"Heaven"/Utopia sounds like Hell to me.

A little aphorism from Cioran:

Hell—as precise as a ticket for a traffic violation;
Purgatory—false as all allusions to Heaven;
Paradise—window dressing if fictions and vapidity…
Dante’s trilogy constitutes the highest rehabilitation of the Devil ever undertaken by a Christian (All Gall Is Divided 5).
 
speed said:
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.
You basically have it exactly right. Its a group with shared ancestry. And as I said, this is about defining these terms. I think when the lay person talks about race, they are really talking about ethnicity and geographic morphology. No one is denying that physical differences exist between human populations. The literature DOES deny the idea that humans can be grouped into subspecies.

(I deleted my posts mostly because I thought there would be a harsh backlash, and as I have written a few papers on the subject, I didnt feel like validating it with some huge long post where I have to do tons of research, and people are still going to think what they want. This particular section of the board leans pretty right, Ive noticed.)
 
Scott W said:
No one is denying that physical differences exist between human populations. The literature DOES deny the idea that humans can be grouped into subspecies.

depends which literature one reads

if there are enough differences then the category is valid. There may be a debate on whether or not the differences are important but for some reason it only seems to happen when the topic of discussion is humans. No one has moral problems classifying animals in various racial categories

One useful difference is the shape of the skull. If you were an archeologist and wanted to know who are the skeletons in front of you then by examining the skulls you could have many clues as to which race they were part of
 
Volcano14 said:
depends which literature one reads

if there are enough differences then the category is valid. There may be a debate on whether or not the differences are important but for some reason it only seems to happen when the topic of discussion is humans. No one has moral problems classifying animals in various racial categories

One useful difference is the shape of the skull. If you were an archeologist and wanted to know who are the skeletons in front of you then by examining the skulls you could have many clues as to which race they were part of
can you provide peer reviewed journals that ARENT physical anthropology journals to back that up? All the genetic evidence points to an extreme amount of genetic variation within races, enough to have no validity to group into suybspecies. And your second point is flawed as well, as often in systematics, especially with the new burst of molecular phylogenetics and cladistics, some species that have been sub divided (or made into whole new species) have been re-assigned as one species. This has nothing to do with it being human, and everything to do with this being based on genetics.

Also, the point about the skulls. There are a handful of skulls that people are using to make all kinds of amazing extrapolations about races. The problem is, the skull characteristics that say Wolpoff uses in his physical anthropology to support muiltiple races have been countered over and over as arbitrary and evolutionarily meaningless. Thats the problem with anthropology, its highly subjective. Genetics and chromosome markers arent.
 
Scott W said:
All the genetic evidence points to an extreme amount of genetic variation within races, enough to have no validity to group into suybspecies.

This is often said, but I've never seen it proved. Did you say "all the genetic evidence"?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/first/gill.html

There's a good starting point. I don't think we need to worry about your "all the evidence" classification, again.
 
While there is a lot of variation in human skulls, due mainly to racemixing, there are a lot of examples of a skull that is typically negroid: low brow and protruding area around the mouth and typically white (the opposite). It is illegal in Europe to evidence the cranial capacity differences and brain weight differences. (Such as have been shown in old copies of Encyclopaedia Britannica). How can science progress in this area if the truth is a criminal offence?

Racial mixing has caused an increase in caesarian sections at birth, because blacks have a narrower pelvic opening than whites, and this is because whites (particularly Scandinavians) have the largest heads.
 
infoterror said:
This is often said, but I've never seen it proved. Did you say "all the genetic evidence"?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/first/gill.html

There's a good starting point. I don't think we need to worry about your "all the evidence" classification, again.
Funny, I mentioned that physical anthropology is filled with scientists who look only at anatomy and not at genetics. I then claim all the genetic evidence points to race being meaningless, and you try to refute that by posting something that is entirely based on physical anthropology and not genetics? In fact, the word "genetics" doesnt appear anywhere in that article. Sounds like my assessment of the GENETIC evidence, holds true. That doesnt show anything, except that in physical anthropology, more people believe race is valid (which I stated), and they often use characteristics that are arbitrary and subjective (which I also already stated).

If you have access to peer-reviewed online journals, I suggest you try to do some research. I would also suggest looking at the work of JC Long, Rebecca Cann, MJ Bamshad, C Brownlee, S Lerhman, E Marshall and many many more, I could go on and on. For those of you who point out relationships for geographic populations might be interested in the work of Bamshad who states, quite intelligently, that even though race isnt biologically meaningful, you can use genetics with regards to populations, such as a tribe in africa that might be more susceptible to a disease. Race is not a necessity for this sort of thing. Ethnicity and population geography is far more important. Also, Sally Lerhman has made some interesting remarks that while race is not a biological reality, it is a sociological reality.
 
Scott W said:
Sounds like my assessment of the GENETIC evidence, holds true. That doesnt show anything, except that in physical anthropology, more people believe race is valid

So genetics is not related to physical characteristics?

I think you'll find agreement is far from uniform among geneticists. I have seen some, such as Gould, make basic logical errors in their arguments. Perhaps genetics know less than they think.

Geneticists like to claim that since there is not a single "race gene," race does not exist. Every single argument against race has hinged on this concept. Of course, if they'd bothered to take a class in logic, they'd see that the argument itself is a non-sequitur.
 
infoterror said:
So genetics is not related to physical characteristics?

I think you'll find agreement is far from uniform among geneticists. I have seen some, such as Gould, make basic logical errors in their arguments. Perhaps genetics know less than they think.

Geneticists like to claim that since there is not a single "race gene," race does not exist. Every single argument against race has hinged on this concept. Of course, if they'd bothered to take a class in logic, they'd see that the argument itself is a non-sequitur.
In essence, no, genetics in this case refers to the study of the molecular makeup of the DNA to determine if there really is veritability between populations to warrant the use of the term "race". And there isnt. And as I have done so much research (and you obviously havent, naming well known scientists like gould), I can say with certainty that you would be surprised just how much consensus there is among life scientists about the biology of race in the literature.

Finally, your attempt at spin is making me sick. Geneticists do NOT like to claim that there is no "race gene", and the argument of race has NOT hinged on this whatsoever. Geneticists are life scientists and realize that race means subspecies, and the debate hinges on whether there is enough heritability between groups. Everything in that last section is complete bullshit.
 
Scott W said:
Geneticists are life scientists and realize that race means subspecies, and the debate hinges on whether there is enough heritability between groups. Everything in that last section is complete bullshit.

And then the question becomes: how well have they interpreted genetic code, and does applying linear mathematics to it make it true?

You cited a few papers; that's not scientific consensus. Once again, bad science. The argument hasn't varied. Race refers to variations in species that mark hereditary passage, and I have yet to see a credible argument against it.