jacob said:
There will always be those primitive holdouts that will latch onto and defend the elitists' terms and tools of oppression. They defend these Eurocentric racist constructs to their deaths because they will always strive, in vain, to one day reach equal status with those that they look up to.
That's a funny ad hominem, but I would say it's the other way around: you deny race because you want to be equal to Europeans. As someone who acknowledges the existence in race, I don't believe in racial equality. Evolution does not produce equality.
And the reason I acknowledge race is simply because it exists. It's an established scientific fact, empirically proven and biologically real. To me it's no different than defending evolution, which race is part of.
jacob said:
Scientific racism has been used for over a century to justify European imperialism and the ideologies behind racial superiority. This has led to things like American slavery and the Nazi executed Holocaust. But it's no wonder that people who believe in strict eugenics would jump on board with these theories. It suits their political agenda.
And you don't have an agenda, of course
Your Lewontinian agenda is no surprise to me; I expected that since you're half-Jewish and Richard Lewontin is a Jew as well who denies race because he's motivated by similar egalitarianism as you are.
Europeans were enslaving and oppressing sub-Saharan Africans and native Americans long before "scientific racism", ad did the Arabs in the case of African slavery. Your argument doesn't hold any water. Also, so called "scientific racism" as it was back in the 1930's, wasn't really scientific as they didn't use population genetics.
And the "Holocaust", has no say so in whether race exists or not. You can't say race doesn't exist just because you're worried about Shoah and slavery or whatever. It's beside the point. You can't wish race away just because you're worried about genocide. And that's your agenda really, that's what motivates you to deny race, not that you have any actual scientific logic in your race denial.
jacob said:
How's that for authoritative scientific terminology? Let's clarify what the more or less is in regards to this statement that shows our "racial" clusters. Most major groups of humans have migrated too recently and have mixed too much for there to be any true clustering that is able to be sorted, that being polymorphisms in our DNA that would be present in one group and absent in another.
This is not true. And once you get your 23andMe results and compare with other people on 23andMe, where they cluster, you will understand that you're just making up nonsense with this statement. You will also understand why you cannot be mistaken with sub-Saharan Africans and Chinese/Japanese populations on the PCA plot, with genome-wide SNP at 560,000 SNPs.
jacob said:
That would be definitive proof that there are distinct groups of people in various parts of the world. But those do not exist because of what I said above, humans have migrated too recently and have mixed too much.
You're making up nonsense. Recently mixed groups (within the last 500 years) are not representative of unmixed populations. You're basically saying there are no distinct groups of people, this is denial of human diversity. You're not an honest person as far as the diversity of humanity is concerned. I'm sure you would consider Jews to be distinct, though.
jacob said:
What happens with the more or less in terms of traditional race definitions is when you have highly isolated groups of people you get more cluster and there's way less cluster when you test people in densely populated areas where more mixing has taken place. Thus you aren't truly testing for or isolating race at this point, only clusters of population based on geographical location. Because those people in those locations generally have a self-identifying ethnicity, you can blend the two and say you can point an ethnicity to a geographical location, but you cannot say that you can determine any race of an individual.
You're just talking about clusters you have no idea what the hell they are. You don't even understand how they differ in Fst-distance.
jacob said:
And oftentimes what you see as racial classifications are merely visual observations that have been categorized using segregationist constructs that we've created. We see a "black" person and say he is African or Negroid or whatever term you use, so that person should in theory be tested back to a part of Africa. But what happens when you test an Australian Aborigine? I mean they are black right? Or what happens when you have two groups that you test and they are genetically similar but don't look anything alike? This is where natural selection comes into play and ruins our definitions of race. You could take a group, for example, of Scandinavians and move them to Sub-Saharan Africa and over time they will begin to darken in their skin pigmentation in a natural adaptation to their environmental exposure to the sun. In the future you would look at these "Africans" and assume they were African or Negroid, but when you test them you would find they could be geographically traced to northern Europe. This same thing always happens with Jews because of their variance in appearance between Ashkenazim and Sephardim or Mizrahim. But when you test them you find common ancestors in all of them that geographically places their root population in the Middle East in what is now around the area of Israel. So why do the Ashkenazi look so much whiter than their Mediterranean or Middle Eastern brothers? A bit of natural selection combined with intermixing with local populations. But because they look different to our eyes, Scientific Racists will use that against them to create division and spread myth about their origins because they know how important their origins are to them. This is the continued danger of race classification in anthropological, sociological, and taxonomical terms in regards to humans. It serves no purpose other than to divide us as humans and create false superiority for one groups' continued domination over others.
Australian aboriginals may be "black" but they are not sub-Saharan Africans. They are an entirely different genetic/racial group, regardless of similar skin colour. And it's not a guarantee that Scandinavians would select for darker pigmentation in sub-Saharan Africa. It depends completely on if they're able to survive in the desert without being affected by skin cancer to the extent that it would alter their SLC45A2 frequencies.
I think the problem here?aside from your fear of reality?is that you don't understand race is not just skin deep. You also don't understand that races don't have to differ in phenotype much at all, much less so skin colour, in order to be separate races.
Also, you have no genetic evidence that Ashkenazi natural selection affected the skin pigmentation of Ashkenazi Jews during their time in Europe, you're just talking out of your ass on this one.
By the way, just because there are lots of misconceptions about race (e.g., the notion that race is a colour), that doesn't mean race doesn't exist.
Ashuriena said:
Yea, Alucard. You're right and every credible scientist is wrong because they have an agenda and apparently you don't. Yea, that's it.
Just because they deny race, that doesn't make them credible simply because they're telling you what you want to hear.
Ashuriena said:
Just come out and call yourself a racist already.
Listen to yourself, "come out", as if it was a crime to acknowledge the existence of race.
Ashuriena said:
You're just mad because your failure in actually attaining an education in the scientific field makes you feel inferior and you want to desperately find evidence supporting the existence of race in DNA so you can actually feel good about yourself and superior to those that are smarter than you. LOL!
Genetics is more like a hobby to me, it's not something I've actually tried attaining an education for and somehow failed, as I'm simply not that interested in the topic. Also, you're not smarter than me, so don't even go there. I'm not desperate at all, because I don't even have to prove race exists as it's already been done, you just don't want to accept reality for political reasons (your opposition to "scientific racism").
Try actually reading the studies I posted and understanding what they're saying before you recycle the same nonsense argument "BUT CREDIBLE SCIENTISTS HAVE SAID RACE DOESN'T EXIST THEREFORE IT MUST BE SO!!!!!!!!!!!11one" you're running out of arguments. Try actually having your own opinion based on the evidence, that is, if you can understand the studies.
