Races

[razoredge]

I wasnt talking about natural selection. I was talking about controled breeding groups. Which is what the world consisted of in the isolated ages that gave various locals their more distinct features and characteristics.

With survival of the fittest all these various breeds of mankind were best adapted to their environment regardless of "race". Which you just implied as well. I was more staying on the topic of race and bringing my one species/various breeds thought into my post... and you may have been in a discussion at this time regarding other things I didnt touch on, sorry.

Not sure if I agree or not about loss of strenght through cross breeding... which I dont condone but cant condemn either. Back to dog breeds, as much as I like "pure bred" its been nearly proven that mutts are more compliant without the idiosyncracies as well as many health issues. Good breeders work hard on health and temperment issues but are still somewhat plagued by genetic restriction. At times it has meant total elimination of certain blood lines from the gene pool, which is sad because some of these blood lines, though not totally healthy contained other desired traits, such as heart and spirit. Which went along ways in the days of natural selection. A healthy wimp is not going to survive its youth, while a high spirited and cunning animal which will eventually get hip dysplasia will survive its youth and breed.

The whole natural selection thing gets kinda dicy when you look at the big picture. Look at todays natural selection of humans, though all seem to live/survive, its nearly becoming where those with the ability to withstand severe book training are "in power" where in earlier centuries it was the strong, practical and hardy that dominated yet typically died young.

In ways I can see mankind evolving into what we have seen displayed in movies in the form of "aliens" that have non athletic bodies, skinny necks and huge heads...... lol

 

[Caladan]

i know a black girl that's currently pregnant with a white man's child? is your post saying that such mixed-breed children should not be produced? cause if you are, then it would kinda be consistent with some other posts you've made about race.

maybe such a child would be okay in Europe, but here in America a half-breed child is an outcast, not fully part of either culture with both black and white people looking down their noses at the child, these racial identity problems usually cause tremendous psychological torment and sometimes years of therapy

Actually, there in the USA, such a child is president.

 

[Caladan]

I would never use an artificially created breed to make a point about natural selection. Domesticated animals are unnatural, while you can make a point that different dog breeds have very different physical and mental capabilities and that so do breeds of men. Humans are becoming so unnatural that we are making dogs of ourselves - mongrels in particular. But before this process, we were far more distinct.

Were civilisation to break down and a dark age of brutality to return (not far fetched at all) there would be a return to tribalism and once again genetic bonds would create cohesion between those similar and barriers between those less related. When you look at the tree of evolution it is a story of ever increasing branching out, and various branches continuing while ancestral brances go extinct. The force of nature is to act on any difference in a population, no matter how small and force a species to become split again into further species. Until they have reached a niche where selective pressure stops. Various species of crocodiles and sharks have been static for a long time - each species being very homogenous and perfectly adapted to its niche.

In theory if it were possible to get all the shark species and muddle them into a mongrelised shark, then put them back - what would happen is that nature would set to work again brutally selecting those with mutations/genes best fitting their location and circumstances until the shark split again, over thousands of years, into many species.

Multiracialists and race deniers never face the implications of these facts.

Hmm. I'm not sure about your final statement. I'm instead of the opinion that it was the advent of civilisation that led to these constructs, this tribalism that you speak of. Yes, there are traits that would probably dominate some regions, but for the most case, these will be extreme situations and conditions. There's an element of chance in the current racial structure, an often unecessary throw of Nature's dice.

Regarding your shark analogy, there's no proof that your mongrel shark will soon die out, in fact it's equally possible that the mongrel shark would end up becoming the dominant species, and soon overtake the "pure" species that currently exist.

The force of nature doesn't always split differences, it sometimes absorbs said difference, producing instead a variation, as different from a totally new species.

My views and opinions are simple - there has always been mixing, and there will always be. The races we currently speak about are all a product of mixing of two or more others. What is unnatural is not mixing, but the lack thereof.

 

[razoredge]

Actually, there in the USA, such a child is president.

good point

I think things are changing some but at one time or in many instances what mono said had some truth to it. People and the stupid things they say in frustration or social presssure. I would not be suprised if Barack got a bit of it during his youth. I wouldnt wish it on any child to be in that position.

 

[Caladan]

I agree with that....

 

[Norsemaiden]

Hmm. I'm not sure about your final statement. I'm instead of the opinion that it was the advent of civilisation that led to these constructs, this tribalism that you speak of. Yes, there are traits that would probably dominate some regions, but for the most case, these will be extreme situations and conditions. There's an element of chance in the current racial structure, an often unecessary throw of Nature's dice.

Regarding your shark analogy, there's no proof that your mongrel shark will soon die out, in fact it's equally possible that the mongrel shark would end up becoming the dominant species, and soon overtake the "pure" species that currently exist.

The force of nature doesn't always split differences, it sometimes absorbs said difference, producing instead a variation, as different from a totally new species.

My views and opinions are simple - there has always been mixing, and there will always be. The races we currently speak about are all a product of mixing of two or more others. What is unnatural is not mixing, but the lack thereof.

Do you really think tribalism is a PRODUCT of civilisation? Are you aware of the large number of tribes in Africa? Perhaps you think the white man went there and artificially created them?

Races are produced through separation and adaptation to different environments, and not by mising of two or more "others". What are these "others" anyway and how did they get to be so different from each other?

Genetic diversity is greatest in Africa because that's where humanity evolved, then as humans left Africa and adapted to various other climates and geographic areas they evolved into more homogenous populations.
http://www.genomeweb.com/genomic-studies-trace-human-migration-out-africa

 

[Vimana]

You can get a breakdown down on your genes that tell you what percentage of what you have though, even specifying countries. I know this for a fact.

I'm going off of something on the wall of a museum. The thing is the only differences between different races are just things like hair color, skin color, facial features, and traits and stuff like the epicanthic eye fold. They do not have any different natures or anything. All we have are different cultures. Cultures are a product of our environments. Not our genetics.

there are genes that affect behavior

I wasn't saying there aren't. But they don't differentiate between different races.

 

[Caladan]

Do you really think tribalism is a PRODUCT of civilisation? Are you aware of the large number of tribes in Africa? Perhaps you think the white man went there and artificially created them?

Races are produced through separation and adaptation to different environments, and not by mising of two or more "others". What are these "others" anyway and how did they get to be so different from each other?

Genetic diversity is greatest in Africa because that's where humanity evolved, then as humans left Africa and adapted to various other climates and geographic areas they evolved into more homogenous populations.
http://www.genomeweb.com/genomic-studies-trace-human-migration-out-africa

I know about the large variety of tribes in africa. Now note that I do not say that tribes are product of civilisation, I said that tribalism was. And pray tell me - how on earth does the white man come into this discussion about tribes/tribalism in africa? Do you think there was no civilisation in africa before the arrival of the europeans? I'll explain further - An Alsatian on heat is not bothered about breed of the Great dane trying to mount her. Of course, among mankind, things are a bit more subtle, but until recently (in the history of mankind), skin color didn't matter. Marc Anthony wasn't particularly fussed about Cleopatra's race. These are new things.

Races - again we disagree. Yes, certain traits are produced via adaptation to different environments. I wonder however what exactly these traits are, and what environments these traits are suitable for. Do these environmental conditions still exist until today? I'll tell you something else that can change the appearance of a small unit of people within a short period - extreme interbreeding. In other words, if a tribe/collection of people were isolated by a sudden change in weather/land structure, and had to interbreed heavily to stay alive, some genetic features will very quickly become dominant within this group, and by the time reproduction swelled their masses, they are likely to look extremely different from another closely related group. This "new" unit may or may not be as a result of environmental conditions.

As per my statement about racial mixing, may I hypothesize. Let us imagine a gathering of people, say 5-20k strong, moved out of africa about 3,000 years ago (I'm also assuming here that 3,000 years ago africans had dark skin and woolly hair). If the said group of people settled very close to norway. If the said group of people were a very warlike society, and started to dominate their neighbours in a military manner, wiping out males, and marrying the females. Within a few years, the dark skin and curly hair will almost totally disappear from that region. Fast forward 3,000 years later, and people like you would refer to them as being of the "white" race, though they may have the occasional throwback that looks very much like an african, apart from his skin. My point again - racial mixing has been going on forever. Nature doesn't prevent racial mixing, humans do.

As per your last paragraph, there's this assumption that the climate in the world hasn't changed since man evolved, which is possible, but unlikely. The assumption is that everyone was dark skinned, and then evolved. This may or may not be true, but it could also be the other way round - brown man existed intitially. Those who stayed in/moved to the hotter parts of africa developed darker skin (think generation upon generation of freckles). It could have gone either way, with the element of luck in Nature's throw of the dice.

 

[Norsemaiden]

http://images.google.com/imgres?img...cleopatra&um=1&hl=en&client=opera&rls=en&sa=N

This bust of Cleopatra was from the era in which she lived. Her parents were Macedonian Greek. I don't buy the Afrocentric revisionist history.

What is "tribalism" in your view Caladan, and why do you think it is a modern phenomenon?

 

[Norsemaiden]

As per my statement about racial mixing, may I hypothesize. Let us imagine a gathering of people, say 5-20k strong, moved out of africa about 3,000 years ago (I'm also assuming here that 3,000 years ago africans had dark skin and woolly hair). If the said group of people settled very close to norway. If the said group of people were a very warlike society, and started to dominate their neighbours in a military manner, wiping out males, and marrying the females. Within a few years, the dark skin and curly hair will almost totally disappear from that region. Fast forward 3,000 years later, and people like you would refer to them as being of the "white" race, though they may have the occasional throwback that looks very much like an african, apart from his skin. My point again - racial mixing has been going on forever. Nature doesn't prevent racial mixing, humans do.

As per your last paragraph, there's this assumption that the climate in the world hasn't changed since man evolved, which is possible, but unlikely. The assumption is that everyone was dark skinned, and then evolved. This may or may not be true, but it could also be the other way round - brown man existed intitially. Those who stayed in/moved to the hotter parts of africa developed darker skin (think generation upon generation of freckles). It could have gone either way, with the element of luck in Nature's throw of the dice.

Caladan - humans left Africa no sooner than 60,000 years ago and the migrations around the world were very very slow. The people who left Africa would have looked rather different to today's Aftican ethnicities as well, because Africans have not stayed the same. Apparantly the "woooly" hair only evolved about 10,000 years ago in Africa.


If you got a lot of black men to mate with white women this would introduce a lot of genes that dominate straight hair, dominate blue eyes and darken skin. These people would only evolve back to being white through the die-off of the genes that were not suited to the climate or sexually less desirable. In that case, the input of the Africans would be eradicated after a lot of natural selection (death) in northern European climate.

No one at all lived in Scandinavia 30,000 years ago because there was an ice age.

There are maps showing how people migrated, who and when.

There were nordic type people living in China 4000 years ago though. Their mummies have been found.
http://www.s8int.com/page26.html

 

[Caladan]

Caladan - humans left Africa no sooner than 60,000 years ago and the migrations around the world were very very slow. The people who left Africa would have looked rather different to today's Aftican ethnicities as well, because Africans have not stayed the same. Apparantly the "woooly" hair only evolved about 10,000 years ago in Africa.


If you got a lot of black men to mate with white women this would introduce a lot of genes that dominate straight hair, dominate blue eyes and darken skin. These people would only evolve back to being white through the die-off of the genes that were not suited to the climate or sexually less desirable. In that case, the input of the Africans would be eradicated after a lot of natural selection (death) in northern European climate.

No one at all lived in Scandinavia 3000 years ago because there was an ice age.

There are maps showing how people migrated, who and when.

There were nordic type people living in China 4000 years ago though. Their mummies have been found.
http://www.s8int.com/page26.html

A lot of material here, where do I start?

Firstly - the first paragraph agrees with what I said earlier.

Second paragraph - The genes that dominate. There is little scientific fact to show that woolly hair is unsuitable for the northern climes. Thin lips and nasal passage maybe. Perhaps it's because the nature of woolly hair doesn't permit it to grow straight and long, in which case nature could simply complement by ensuring that hairier people lived longer, which would produce a new group of black, long haired scandinavians. Sexual attraction would play a part, but not very much - until mankind became somewhat "genteel", the emphasis on looks and appearance was quite muted. The point I was trying to make however was that there have been several migrations of people into what now consists of europe. These migrations have consisted of often diverse tribes and nations. The europe we currently have is as much a result of interaction, intermarriage and interbreeding, over many thousand years between these people, as it is of evolution. Nature doesn't forbid racial mixing, humans do.


3000 years ago. Scandinavia. 3000 years ago was an ice age? Seriously now. There were settlements in present day Sweden, Norway and Denmark as far back as 4000BC. That is 6000 years ago. Could you please explain in some more detail this ice age you speak of?

Third paragraph. The keyword for me here is the name of the region - Xinjiang. It's the northwestern part of china. Very close to Khazakstan and .... Russia. I don't see why the presence of nordic people in that region would come as so much of a surprise.

 

[Caladan]

http://images.google.com/imgres?img...cleopatra&um=1&hl=en&client=opera&rls=en&sa=N

This bust of Cleopatra was from the era in which she lived. Her parents were Macedonian Greek. I don't buy the Afrocentric revisionist history.

What is "tribalism" in your view Caladan, and why do you think it is a modern phenomenon?

Hahaha. Actually Cleopatra was of mixed heritage, with black, asian/arabian and caucasian genes. So what if her nose is pointed? You need to visit some of the caribbean nations and see the sheer diversity of features that racial mixing can throw up.

Tribalism - My definition of tribalism is simply a form of discrimination or hatred based on tribe. Racism is a form of tribalism. In ancient times the racial aspect of a different people/nation would have been left since sharp racial differences tend not to exist within short distances, in which case other factors like recognition, accents or little differences in clothing would have been the determining factors for identifying an "outsider".

I have a question for you. You are obviously against interracial marriage. I respect that. Could you now explain to me where exactly the boundaries of this (or these) races lie? At what point does a person become black or white or asian or indian etc.

 

[10293847]

I have a question for you. You are obviously against interracial marriage. I respect that. Could you now explain to me where exactly the boundaries of this (or these) races lie? At what point does a person become black or white or asian or indian etc.

You're not asking me, but I feel like chiming in here. For me, there are no boundaries. Nature doesn't produce, "boundaries" at all. We do.

These ideas people have of, "We should keep the races pure" is a figment of their imaginations. It's an ideal, which is fine for people to have. But let's not fool ourselves into thinking it's some kind of scientific truth.

 

[Norsemaiden]

You're not asking me, but I feel like chiming in here. For me, there are no boundaries. Nature doesn't produce, "boundaries" at all. We do.

These ideas people have of, "We should keep the races pure" is a figment of their imaginations. It's an ideal, which is fine for people to have. But let's not fool ourselves into thinking it's some kind of scientific truth.

Geography can create boundaries and so can lifestyle differences, religion, etc.

Racial purity is relative. Ethnicities exist and can recognise each other. I know a Nordic when I see one, but can easily confuse a Southern Italian with a Pakistani or a Mexican or a mulatto - but I think they are better at distinguishing their own.

Once you get some mixing going on, the boundaries get increasingly blurred.

 

[monoxide_child]

I would never use an artificially created breed to make a point about natural selection. Domesticated animals are unnatural, while you can make a point that different dog breeds have very different physical and mental capabilities and that so do breeds of men. Humans are becoming so unnatural that we are making dogs of ourselves - mongrels in particular. But before this process, we were far more distinct.

Were civilisation to break down and a dark age of brutality to return (not far fetched at all) there would be a return to tribalism and once again genetic bonds would create cohesion between those similar and barriers between those less related. When you look at the tree of evolution it is a story of ever increasing branching out, and various branches continuing while ancestral brances go extinct. The force of nature is to act on any difference in a population, no matter how small and force a species to become split again into further species. Until they have reached a niche where selective pressure stops. Various species of crocodiles and sharks have been static for a long time - each species being very homogenous and perfectly adapted to its niche.

In theory if it were possible to get all the shark species and muddle them into a mongrelised shark, then put them back - what would happen is that nature would set to work again brutally selecting those with mutations/genes best fitting their location and circumstances until the shark split again, over thousands of years, into many species.

Multiracialists and race deniers never face the implications of these facts.

so basically what you're saying is that mullatto children shouldn't exist, which i agree with, not gonna say i really have a problem with black people, but these half-breed kids is something that wouldn't have happened without "society" and "civilization" telling us that we should be "tolerant" of "other races"
there was a racial study done on children that could crawl really well but could not yet walk, the kids were seperated from adults for a short moment, supervised with mirrored glass, and it was found that each kid ended up crawling pretty quickly towards the other kids of his own skin tone, the babies instictively seperating themselves into racial groups,
also up untill about 1700, there were lots of Europeans walking around that actually believed that black people were actually a whole different species than white people, it was this belief that led to the creation of the "elves" in fantasy fiction, the ones where they look like humans except in differences in skin tone/hair and eye color

 

[monoxide_child]

Actually, there in the USA, such a child is president.

go read the autobiographical books Barak Obama has written, the extensive descriptions of Barack's hardships, in his own words, totally prove my point

 

[monoxide_child]

My views and opinions are simple - there has always been mixing, and there will always be. The races we currently speak about are all a product of mixing of two or more others. What is unnatural is not mixing, but the lack thereof.

in america you've got these extremely promiscuous people that don't have sex with their own race

you've got these black guys that call themselves "pimp" and brag about the huge number of women that they slept with last week, but with some of these black pimps, it's all white women

then you've got these blue-eyed-blonde girls that end up being really slutty, but they only fuck black guys

i can understand going the whole 9 yards and dating someone for several months, and that couple being a "bi-racial couple" according to you, this should happen all the time

but what i can't understand is the guys and girls that have a different sex partner every single night, but insistently refuse to sleep with their own race, this would not have happened if it hadn't been for the civil rights movement in the 60's, before that, a black person and a white person having sex with each other just wouldn't have happened because it wouldn't have been acceptable, but now it's not only acceptable, it's the statis quo, even though it's not really natural, this is a clear example of "civilization" overpowering "mother nature"

 

[monoxide_child]

good point

I think things are changing some but at one time or in many instances what mono said had some truth to it. People and the stupid things they say in frustration or social presssure. I would not be suprised if Barack got a bit of it during his youth. I wouldnt wish it on any child to be in that position.

Barak's life being dificult because of him being bi-racial is described in detail in his autobiographical books, this subject actually takes up huge chunks of the books

 

[monoxide_child]

Do you really think tribalism is a PRODUCT of civilisation?

what?
actually i would say that "civilization" is the product of "tribalism"
the "tribes" of white people created "civilization" only after seperating themselves from the "tribes" of black people

 

[monoxide_child]

I'm going off of something on the wall of a museum. The thing is the only differences between different races are just things like hair color, skin color, facial features, and traits and stuff like the epicanthic eye fold. They do not have any different natures or anything. All we have are different cultures. Cultures are a product of our environments. Not our genetics.



I wasn't saying there aren't. But they don't differentiate between different races.

i'm saying that it's at least possible that genes affecting behavior were, at at least one point, , different in the black people and the white people, (and it was probably a long long time ago) using this logic one could actually make the argument that black people are mentally superior than white people, you'll never see a black person do the things Jonny knoxville does every day, you'll never see a black person hunting bigfoot, i could go on, and on, but i think you get the idea