Pleace point me in the direction of some black people (negroes) with blonde or red hair, or an Asian (mongol) with blue or green eyes. Now I'm not so good with the whole gene thing, but certain traits will be lost when mixed with other traits, at least when enough of the other trait-genes are mixed in. Makes sense, doesn't it? I think as an American you are slightly confused by the term race, seeing that for example many native americans have European traits, like Blue/green/gray eye colour. Perhaps it has never crossed your mind that the native american poulation as well as many other ones, aren't genetically pure.
My being American has noting to do with anything; it would be the same if I called you a sissy because youre French
..pretty incorrect I would assume (you may very well prove me wrong; Id like to think not though). Ive personally known black people with natural red hair (one was from New Orleans, so yes, you could say he was mixed and that is why), but my other friend (Raphael Akimbaboye
.I think thats how it was spelled) was straight out of West Africa, and had hair redder than an Irish man. Again you could argue about mixing, but he said it was pretty prevalent from his village (you can still make the mixing argument though).
I tried to find you sources online but with such words as black, negro, African-American, and etc. I guarantee you will not find anything remotely relating to hair for that you will have to take my word. And if a black man can have red hair (the rarest type of hair in the world), then he could definitely have blonde. And many Asians have light eyes, Ive known a lot of asian women with gray and blue eyes, and some actually have green. If you dont believe that Asians can have light eyes, India (part of South Asia) has some of the highest green eye populations per person ratio.
Races do exist, and when studied in pure form we see a number of differences past appearance. These include IQ, testosterone levels and immunity and weakness towards certain diseases, as well as genes which for different reasons are unique to certain populations. One such gene which exist for the Nordic people which I like to call Earl's family is a cold-resistance one.
Races do not exist; and all those things you mentioned are flawed in many ways:
1. IQ: For one there is no universal IQ test, and the problem with IQ tests in general is that they only usually test with symbolic logic which is obviously NOT all that intelligence is about.
2. 2. Testosterone levels vary in every single person and population; not only that, but testosterone activity also depends on activity of a person, and how they keep their health up (genetics also plays a hand of course). Testosterone relies so much on so many different selective pressures it would probably be impossible to actually list exactly how to control someones testosterone activity; one would only be able to account for the pressures that would seem to play the most important part in a someones life: Diet, exercise activity, genetic history, habits, etc.
3. Immunity is the same as testosterone, the only difference is that resistance (and prior adaptation) definitely have a bigger role in the evolution of the immune system. If there were a gigantic herd of black people living in Europe during the black plague in London (and mind you they have been there for...lets say 150 years, and only mating with other black people), there is a chance that they may well have developed an immunity to it just as some of the very few old Brits did. Granted I more than likely shorthanded the staying time for them (in anthropological timescales anyway, recent estimates that I have heard over the grape vine have said tat it may even take only as little as 200 years for a population to adjust to new areas
of course this is all theory to me (as I have no source, so even I am a bit skeptical).
4. Id like to have a source for a cold gene, especially since that should be easier to find than a hair sample (bigger industry after all). I also wouldnt doubt its existence, but I do doubt the nature you have shown it as. I would believe the Sami people would have that gene more than the Scandinavians in the area though, as they have been there far longer (to my understanding as I am counting in migrations and introduction of new genetic material). Then again adaptation is key (as is mutation), so if anything a good source should really be able to clear my head about this.
I would never blame anyones culture for anything - that is equivalent with imperialism, which you americans seem to be pretty hot on right now, but which us Europeans have thankfully left behind us (the replacing ideology isn't much better though). It would be like attacking their very innocent existance, which is stupid, to say the least. Really it matters little to me whether Arabs culturally find polygamy a normal thing - it is not for me to decide.
Again with the pitiful ad hominems; if I were to give another French stereotype you would be pissed. Not to mention I seem to remember French history have its own bit of imperialistic tendencies lead by he sword (then again, all places have).
Slowly though Im becoming confused, are you saying that instead of blaming something as abstract and ever changing as culture or religion, you will choose to stand by an opinion that skin color (which is essentially how race is defined) is the basis for the fucked up aspects of humans? With science you can actually prove (bad word I know) to a degree about things that can be tested! Genetics is one of those things, and not only that but skin color changes depending on the different factors people live in! So, for example, if a white guy moved to Africa, and stayed there (mixing with other whites mind you) for hundreds of years, and his skin turned black would he be any less moral? More than likely we have different definitions (and other logical foundations) for what culture may be. Culture however can change multiple times within a lifetime, and if it is backed with religious (bullshit) dogma, then it can be catastrophic towards other cultures that do not have the same views as another culture might (of course, it may just be the opposite it all depends on your belief system).
If you took a handful of "white people" and let them grow up in Iraq, except for the possible problems arising with their different appearance, surely they would behave the same way as their 'countrymen'. But if you replaced the entre populatio with "white people" I find it very hard to believe that the culture of Iraq would live on the way it would if there were ethnic Iraqis living there. And for those saying that the entire population of Europe isn't being replaced: it probably isn't But this isn't a black or white scenario (such belong with the desert reliugions which I thankfully isn't part of). The amount of change would just be less, though it would still take place. Thus we can concur that race-mixing equals destruction and bastardisation of cultures. Which is a sad thing, in my opinion. Melting pot is the term often used. If you through a bunch of different metals, say, some copper, a bit of gold, some iron and some platinum, heat it up enough and stir it - will you be able to tell the gold from the bronze? Isn't it more exciting and useful to keep the gold and the bronze and the iron and the platina pure?
Well, with all the white pride Aryans around the area where I live, Im tempted to go send them off to meet some real ones
! But again, what you refer to sounds more like cultural shifts more than race; you admit that whatever whites that grew up there would more than likely act like there countrymen, I however still think that the entire situation would be the same the whole problem there is not based on the color of skin (although I have no doubt many problems arise from it from lack of knowledge about the origin of skin color). Over there, not only are the countries dealing with internal political strife, it is backed up with the heated distinctions on religion. This is the problem over there, an entire combination of various factors that are really screwing the innocent people over there.
I completely agree that it isnt a black and white scenario; however, I will g a step further and state that nothing is at all.
And the metallurgy example isnt that good, my friend is a blacksmith, he can pretty much tell (by experience) which metal is what, and what it is combined with (if youre really good). Of course when it is mixing you cant, however, some of the best metals can only be attained by mixing
And hell, even if you cite dictionary.com for a semantic definition on race (which is nearly impossible for many words anyway) you will STILL run into this:
[French, from Old French, from Old Italian razza, race, lineage.]
Usage Note: The notion of race is nearly as problematic from a scientific point of view as it is from a social one. European physical anthropologists of the 17th and 18th centuries proposed various systems of racial classifications based on such observable characteristics as skin color, hair type, body proportions, and skull measurements, essentially codifying the perceived differences among broad geographic populations of humans. The traditional terms for these populations Caucasoid (or Caucasian), Mongoloid, Negroid, and in some systems Australoid are now controversial in both technical and nontechnical usage, and in some cases they may well be considered offensive. (Caucasian does retain a certain currency in American English, but it is used almost exclusively to mean white or European rather than belonging to the Caucasian race, a group that includes a variety of peoples generally categorized as nonwhite.) The biological aspect of race is described today not in observable physical features but rather in such genetic characteristics as blood groups and metabolic processes, and the groupings indicated by these factors seldom coincide very neatly with those put forward by earlier physical anthropologists. Citing this and other points such as the fact that a person who is considered black in one society might be nonblack in another many cultural anthropologists now consider race to be more a social or mental construct than an objective biological fact.
