@1stworlder you can say that culture and mentality are effected by race but not necessarily, same might be true for intelligence, if we find the intelligence genes and personality genes (two things that it's reasonable to assume that they are partly genetic but not proven that they are attached to race) then we would know the answer for sure.
@1stworlder there is a cure for malaria but because of shitty healthcare system in africa many people don't get the treatment. why didn't north american natives have the benefit of the ice age? the eskimos should have been geniuses by now. yes zebras can mate with horses- but for that you need to have horses. the water buffalo is originaly from asia. i have herd of those books but do they take culture mentality society and education into account?
@1stworlder in the regions of the sahel in africa farming began in about 5000 BC based sorghum and millet. europeans brought their crops with them and also applied sorghum and millet. in papua new gini it is astimated that farming began in 7000 BC . in some a frican countries malaria got worse as a result of imperialism because they now live in cities and larger villeges that were built close to rivers where mosquitos who spread malaria live.
@goblinclaus the crops of africa where not farmed until whites go there. Zebras can breed with horses, do you think that whites had fully trained horses and dogs that are trained and already breed for tasks. Water buffalo where first used by whites in africa, as where guinea hens. The books "The Global Bell Curve" & IQ and the Wealth of Nations" give full explainions with actuall factual data. In africa today blacks cant master roman farming tech.
btw i also forgot native american civilizations like the mayans and aztecs and incas. thats true that black people contributed little to human progress compared to indo europeans, semites and mongoloids but you sir don't look at history for reasons you immidiately jump to race, maybe there are other reasons: the avaliable crops, the avaliable animals to be domesticated and used as livestock, the terrain of the land. if you want more explanations read the book "guns, germs and steel".
@goblinclaus mayans & aztecs had the benefit ice age to give them some of the asian IQ advancement thats why they have the only native built cities in the tropics. Blacks did not need to farm until whites gave them the cure for malaria, as the tropical diseases kept the population small enough that single moms could feed kids without a dads help with low hanging fruit.
@1stworlder how come the people of the near east- including some of the semitic peoples of the middle east (those that i guess you hate very much) had an alphabetical system before the germanic tribes in europe? i guess you probably talk about black people when you talk about stupid relatives, have you heard of the moors? who conquered spain and established a flourishing civilization there.
@1stworlder do you think people who lived in hot climate didn't have challenges? do you think that the people who lived in the desert had it easier than people who lived in europe and that they didn't need to develop skills to survive? do you think the egyptians were stupid? how about the chinese? india had a developed civilization. why couldn't the nurdic genuises who lived in the north start using iron before those who lived in the middle east?
@goblinclaus Yes they had to outbreed disease and outrun others when predators where around, so they evolved in other ways than in high IQ which wouldnt help with either of those until after bronze age tech where blacks where still in the stone age 400yrs ago. Europeans and asians both had the same evolutionary pressures.
My cousins that spend 20K+ years trying to outbreed tropical diseases and outrun predators sure are stupid. But my cousins that spent those years in areas with winters and limited food growing seasons are a lot stronger and smarter. Look at the olypmic strength/swimming to see my smart relatives and short distance runs for my stupid ones.
@MrTheblackmessenger Blacks where still in the stone age 400 years ago. Since blacks didnt have writing until after europeans had calculus they have to rely on others accounts that would make blacks look even worse.
2) most nations have not adopted multiculturalism, africa will not accomidate you , muslims will not accept multiculture, east asians are the most racialy aware of outsiders of all. Only white nations have had multiculturalism thrust upon them.
Africa for the africans, asia for the asians white nations for everyone , that is genocide.
@mattshu1 - pitbulls and poodles aren't that different...despite what you 'see'.
The term race, with the rise of our understanding of genetics is not very scientific...it once was, but it isn't any more.
Don't believe me, listen to Craig Venter, one of the few who successfully mapped the human genome, and since then he as been doing bleeding edge research on genetics.
@bitphr3ak Actually I will listen to the man who won the Nobel prize for DNA who has had the time and position to speak freely Dr James Watson
"is "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the testing says not really."
@1stworlder - again, Watson made an hypothesis 'a priori' regarding races and IQ....but that assumption is not reflected in the actual human genome.
...not to mention that IQ testing can be culturally biased depending on how it is administered. You'll have to provide some references to actual peer reviewed science on this on...other than this out of context quote, otherwise you're just beating an ideological drum, and aren't doing reality any justice.
@bitphr3ak Dr Watson "... there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so."
The small amount of difference, but you share 99% of DNA with a chimp and 50% with a sea sponge, so the small amount means a lot.
@1stworlder - Feel free to quote the old man if you wish. I prefer the more modern understanding put forth by Craig Venter, who was one of the first people to map and study the complete human genome: watch?v=6vS7AO9XYj4
""As we find the human genes whose malfunctioning gives rise to such devastating developmental failures, we may well discover that sequence differences within many of them also lead to much of the observable variation in human IQs. A priori, there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. "
@1stworlder - So Dr Watson is making presenting a hypothesis, not a conclusion here! He is assuming, based on his assumptions that this is what we'll find.
Unfortunately his assumption is wrong based on the study of the human genome, as I've shown in the Craig Venter video (/watch?v=6vS7AO9XYj4).
Of course you can cherry pick quotes you feel represent your ideology, but that doesn't make it a reality....thanks for playing!
You should really investigate quotes more carefully!
@JungleCityKilla So, in the end all you've really done is to prove beyond any doubt that you are the real racist :) Our conversation ends here and you shall be reported.
I'm not really sure I understand the point of these arguments. The fact is a five-year-old can point out a Negro, or an Eskimo, or a Chinaman, or a European. That's just the truth. And you can't change that.
@M00nGlitz: The point is that the European (or the Indian, or the Australian aborigine, or the San) that your five-year-old pointed out may only be half, or even less a fraction, the race that you think they are, if it were possible to examine all of that person's ancestry. Many blacks in the USA have overwhelming European ancestors. And so on.
@puncheex It's like saying that mixing 1 pound of black paint and then constantly pouring white paint over it, won't make the resulting mixture 100% white. It's true, but it's not pure black anymore after the first pound of white paint. So, a 5 year old kid won't know a 100% black from a 50% black, but it's nothing to brag about that you seem not to know that difference either...
@Spiegellman: No, it's not like mixing paint. The inheritance or not of the dozen or so genes that control the superficial racial characteristics is not the mix that it would be if there were a thousand such genes; low probability combinations keep cropping up. It's not white and not black, and its rare for anyone to be pure anymore. You have a thousand ancestors, back 200 years ago, a million 400 years ago, ignoring inbreeding; purity at that level is a rare, rare thing.
@puncheex 1.000 ancestors 200 years ago ? Really ? So, let's take the 1812 - 2012 time period. My parents were born in the 50' : 2 ancestors. My grandparents were born in the 1920's, +4 anc (6); my GGP in 1890's, +8 (14). Don't know specifically before that, but let's assume as low as 15 years / generation: 1875 +16(30) ; 1860 +32 (62); 1845 +64 (126); 1830 +128 (254); 1815 +256 (500). That's HALF what you've predicted for 200 years.
@Spiegellman: Wierd family you have, or rather, wierd way to start the computation. Right now, if I start with my grandkid who is a teen, 2 parents married in 1992, 4 in 1972, 8 in 1952, 16 in 1932, 32 in 1912, 64 in 1892, 128 in 1872, 256 in 1852, 512 in 1832, 1024 in 1812. - 200 years. I figured one generation every 20 years, 200 years is 10 generations, 2^10 is 1024, 2^20 (20 gens, 400 years) is 1,048,576.
@puncheex But WHY would it matter that I had 5 (let's say) Asian ancestors in 1815 from all the rest of 256 on their level ? But let's get back strictly in my case : studying that period's census for Banat, Romania, I see that the worst case scenario is that I'm part Turkish, that being somewhat darker skinned... but I am even more inclined to have Hungarian, Austrian or other similar bloodlines, ALL WHITE ! So, again... theories MUST be correlated with ACTUAL HISTORICAL DATA !
@puncheex WHY do you guys insist that human diversity has always been huge, when travel has been an enormous problem 200 years ago... especially in Eastern Europe ?! Migrations were over by the 14'th century (with the Turks as last invaders) and only a few countries in the world have been colonial empires and tapped completely different genetic material sources after the 14'th century. Nobody says that anyone today is 100% white or black, just that 90% > 10% !!! And even 75% > 25% !!!
@Spiegellman: The odd fact is that it only takes one person in your ancestry to bring in the genes which mix your ancestry up. One explorer, one slave, one merchant seaman, one shipwreck. A man can walk the distance from Alaska to Tiera del Fuego (or Portugal to Korea) easily in 10 yrs, even while foraging; it's only about 2-3 miles per day. You know of the Silk Road? the Polynesian boatmen? the spread of the Norsemen? Yes, most people don't travel like that, but it only takes one.
"Changing the paradigm from 'race' to human genome variation"
"The paradigms of human identity based on 'races' as biological constructs are being questioned in light of the preponderance of data on human genome sequence variation and reflect the need for a new explanatory framework and vision of humankind with different fundamental assumptions about biological groups that can accommodate new knowledge..."
@C0nc0rdance I am rather disappointed by this video; no offense, but it really seems like just a rant on how we're all related and we should all get along because of race…. please, conflicts and level of relatedness have nothing to do with one another; how many people have killed members of their immediate families? how many complete strangers have helped each other? Does not matter if there are 100 human species of if we're all brothers; conflicts is influenced by other things;
@C0nc0rdance I was hoping this video would give an actual scientific explanation of races in homo sapiens; I for one still believe humans are divided into white, black and oblique-eyed: which I think is outdated; the current status of race is is what i thought would be the subject of the video;
how can you say there is no race in humanity? just because some people, mostly Canadians & Americans, immigrant countries, are of mixed heritage doesn't mean there is no possibility of talking about
@C0nc0rdance race in humans; the more two populations stay apart the more different they become; I am sure you know that; we may all have african ORIGINS, but after migration, different populations diverged greatly and produced a great diversity of different kinds of humans; think for example of a native american and a finn in ancient times or middle ages, when people didn't intermix like today and which had thousands o years of separation: the indian -
@C0nc0rdance , dark-skinned, slightly obligue-eyed, a certain kind of hair etc. and the finn: large eyes, blue color, bright blonde, pale skin; true, those genes are superficial and easy to change… the finns for example simply had a concentration of recessive genes for hair and eye color; does that define a race? I don't know but you can say it's "the traditional gene" for finns, for lack of a better term; is humanity a species with a very reduced genetic diversity compared with other animals?
@C0nc0rdance yes; but there is still variation; are variation enough and concentrated enough to define races within humanity? maybe; it's a valid conversation; again, no offense, but i am surprised at the lack of quality of your arguments; so what is the more you back in time, the more generations a person has? if you far back enough in time ALL LIVING THINGS HAVE A SINGLE COMMON ANCESTOR; shall we give up classifying living things in species too? some animals can even interbreed like
@C0nc0rdance donkeys and horses to make mules; sure the mule isn't as viable as the horse or donkey hence they two different species; of course when two different people mate, they can always produce a viable progeny; I am pointing that out, so that you don't think I am unaware; my point is, the level of relatedness humans have across the globe is no valid argument against classifying scientifically humanity into various types of sub-groups based on physiology and anatomy;
@C0nc0rdance another i was trying to get across is that people have been for quite a while isolated from one another enough to make classifiable sub-groups; in fact, i will go as far as to say that conversely, as technology allowed for easier travel across the world and the isolating berries fell diversity went down and intermixing went up; I said go so far because i am saying that that is only a modern phenomenon brought about by technological achievement over the past 100-400 years
@C0nc0rdance sure intermixing happened in the past but not anywhere near as much as to today; pointing out example like canadians/americans like abdul or johnson aren't an argument against the existence of subgroups of humans; sure society creates stereotypes and sure the gene for melatonin can segregate from that for oblique/large eyes; but there was a time, and to some extent there still is, when for example, oblique-eyes and pale skin went handing hand in eastern asia, while
@C0nc0rdance oblique-eyes and dark skin went hand in hand in north america; they can mix-up but for a long time they didn't; its obvious that such mixing events didn't happened for a long time@ otherwise we'd all really look the same! and there would be no concept of a native american or east-asian!
in conclusion I think if you really want to show the science of races and not make a political statement you should remake this video or make another one; as for the politics of it like i said:
i love how atheist focus on race just to say well were not racist in the sense all people of one color are like this but you are determined by your genetics and certain groups are genetically inferior is a viable concept which they bring up when they need to
truth is being an atheists you have to fill in the blanks with people being determined in their life not potential
@JungleCityKilla Bring it on. Weekend study FTW ! But for now, if you'll excuse me... I'll go off to dreaming of a world where diversity isn't shoved only on White's throats :) How's it going there in South Africa ? Killing the "white boers" for their properties ? Calling the black ones with properties "whitey scum" and "traitors" ? Sounds more racist than anything whites are doing these days...
@JungleCityKilla OK ! What IS exactly you point of view ? Since now you've put your energy only in contradicting, quoting dictionaries and insulting, but you haven't yet been clear on what is your point exactly ! So... enlighten me, please !
@JungleCityKilla Only to those ? Not both sides ? Gee... can you please tell me the definition of cherry picking from that dictionary of yours that you seem to keep at hand ?
@JungleCityKilla Yeah... because it's much more intelligence involved in saying "hey ! apples and pears ... they can be even grafted... so they're definitely the same species !" Go figure !
@JungleCityKilla Well, the one that does, you have just dismissed simply because you haven't heard of. Youtube / Google might provide more examples, but I'm enormously tired at this hour. Listen... I haven't started as a race realist either. I got convinced. Do a bit of research on all the sides of the story... who knows ? Maybe more info from psychology / anthropology / statistics will convince you. If not... that's that :)
@JungleCityKilla You said that black people can give birth to white children. Sorry, but caucasian-white means more than skin color. There are more genes involved that the melanin secreting ones. The bone structure, the muscle structure and tonus etc etc... all of these remain to be discovered later on as that certain "white" child develops. It's not caucasian white just because the skin color is white.
@JungleCityKilla Haaahahahahahahahahhahaaahahaha ! So... you've heard of EVERYONE working in this field by now, EXCEPT THIS SINGLE doctor ? Haaahahahahaha ! :)) Pathetic ! Every single lab coat must win some Nobel to be worth trusting ? Did Galileo win any in his time ? Aww... they even burnt him for telling the truth ! Go figure !
@JungleCityKilla Your offensive language sure doesn't make you look smarter... just saying. Or maybe you're just an african, that would surelly explain some things...
@JungleCityKilla Do you actually believe that you can convince ANYONE by repeating the same stuff over and over and over again ? So much for your arguments... And btw... is "offence" a scientifical or a social mechanism ? Because if it's social but can impede a scientifical term from manifesting, then you've just proven my point : for now scientists can't speak out against the masses due to social pressure. It's been like that since the Dark Ages... not everything has changed.
@JungleCityKilla What is so fucking complex by saying that we are all the same ? It's like a sloppy farmer saying that wheat and barley are all the same ! Well, they're not ! Euroclowns ? Without "euroclowns", and specifically the British Empire, the africans would still be hunting by bow and arrow. Oh wait ! In 2009 there was a WAR in Africa fought with bows and arrows ! Talk about who's the clown here... AND retarded !
@JungleCityKilla so... are you judging the differences only by color ? Who is the shallow and cherry picker then ? Race realists go muuuch deeper than simply color. That's the whole point !!!
@JungleCityKilla I said an italian from a greek. Not a mixed citizen of Italy vs a mixed citizen of Greece. It's like I'm telling you about blue and navy blue, and you point out that besides blue ther is also black and besides navy blue there is also cyan and black and cyan are very different. Sorry, that's not what I asked.
@JungleCityKilla tribune. com.ng/sun/features/1651-lets-leave-dna-out-of-this-how-can-i-believe-i-am-the-father . This also relates to your comments above, as this 2010 article says : "Many years of natural selection, evolution and aspeciation have caused there to be differences among races, you can see Negroids, Caucasians, Latinos, Hispanics, Asiatics and these are not defined by a single chance mutation but supported by strong natural selection over a period of time.”
@JungleCityKilla Quoting endless passages of works based on other works from 1960's and 1975 in this area is like telling me what people thought about lightning in the bronze age: irrelevant. What about DNA ? If we are SO similar, why don't negroid characteristics EVER apear in a white child and viceversa because of mere genetic variation ? How comes that you can't tell apart an Italian from a Greek but you can from a negroid, EVEN IF you change their skin color to be the same ?
I have a question. I'm interested in gene prevalence in an environment where perdition has been removed. For example, modern medicine treats many genetic disorders, making their survival possible. We also don't have environmental factors killing us off (lions are unlikely to kill us in mass numbers). So how does a controlled environment affect human evolution? I would be interested in starting a discussion on this topic.
This is actually not true. Not wholly true, in any case. Biologically all the so-called "races" are in fact different. Africans for example have been shown in many cases to have both longer and limber legs than say, white Europeans. As well as slightly bulkier skeleton mass. Asians and Europeans, too, have (of course) biological differences.
Apart from what sets us apart biologically however, we're the same. We all bleed red blood. We're all human. And all cousins, evidently
I personally think that there is no difference between any human race, only evolution have shifted the gears of thinking. Everyone is born with curiosity to finding truth to everything - from big concepts to microcosmic details. If life serves a purpose, then part of it is to identify ourselves. And "race" prevents us from acknowledging who we are as a society b/c we have been identified by the historic society & parents. Contradictions and ethnics disguised us from what we think are truths.
When you make distinctions between say "race" and "ethnicity" I have to wonder if this is just a case of nomenclature vs vernacular. I would say that races do exist, in the sense that there are some obvious physical characteristics expressed by populations in difference regions. This may be a incorrect usage of "race" under some definitions but I honestly believe it is what most people mean by race. I agree wholehartedly that race is irrelevant.
@Idiocracy2020 You're clearly just upset because science apparently has a "liberal" bias. You know nothing about genetics or phenotypes and yet you're gung-ho in denying the data that we have accumulated thus far. What's really pathetic is the fact that you take pride in the things that your "race" has done instead of your own personal accomplishments (possibly because you have none).
Why there's no different human race but some other animals have different races spawned in less than 100 years.Like horses, cat and dog?It's because human intervene and manipulate their breeding?
Would it be possible to create new human race by interventing in their breeding.Like making fat people or people who are likely to be fat because of their gene breeding with each other only to create an ogrish human race?Like we did with pigs because they were wildboar in the begining.
@C0nc0rdance Don't know... DNA maybe ? It's been a while since it was discovered you know... and your question sounds as if it were formulated by a creationist : "What, biologically, determines that we have evolved from proto-primates". Honestly now... I hoped I wouldn't see the day when I could use an anti-creationist response on an atheist...
@Spiegellman I think he means where do you draw that line. What specific genes? how can I say with certainty via a DNA test or any other what "race" someone is. Haplogroups don't really correlate with anything resembling a classical definition of "races". That's kind of what the whole damn video is about actually.
Also, even those classical definitions don't really make any sense. Is an Ethiopian or Sri Lankan black or white? How do you decide?
@ArchNME This question could be applied also to animal populations. And as I search the Internet, I find both people that say that determining race is impossible while others say it's quite very possible. I found this article pretty interesting : wired. com/science/discoveries/news/2007/10/dnaprint?currentPage=all . An Ethiopian may be neither black nor white, but Ethiopid. Is a mule a horse or a donkey ? If it were rare it wouldn't even have a name. But when there are more of them...
@Spiegellman Mules are a hybrid, they are infertile, donkeys and horse are two different species. That article while interesting doesn't really answer the fundamental question of what separates the races. It just says while people who I define as race x tend to have a high percentage of gene y. You could identify all the members of my family in a similar way and come up with a DNA test to see who is my cousin or not. That doesn't make us our own race of people though.
@ArchNME You managed to just miss the point about the mules, but I'll explain it to you related to your family. That's not a race, but if your family would number thousands of members and have different characteristics, so different as to develop own diseases and such... get the point ? Or even then it might not be enough to be "your" race... but that would definitely be on the path to it. Why do race-deniers insist on sudden transitions, since such a thing is completely impossible ?
@Spiegellman The point is that distinct races aren't an emergent property from DNA. It's still a question of where do you draw the lines. There is no obvious logical place. If Ethiopians are a race. Are Scandinavians? Italians? There seem to be general differences that separate them from both just being "white". You could continue dividing down to families or you could say that there only two or three "races", Either way though you are just arbitrarily making it up.
@C0nc0rdance: Damn little. In the US the "one drop" rule pretty much held legal sway for a long time. Before that, it was a preponderance of ancestry, if that could be determined. I recommend frankwsweet's series on racialism; there are some real surprises which underlie, say, the whiteness of Baltic Sea people, and the whys of racial law. Try this one for a starter, essentially the same topic as this video: watch?v=9VVclTyPxLY .
A couple of comments on the video: (imagine that!)
The Identical Ancestor Point is where "point in a given population's past where each individual then alive turned out to be either the ancestor of every individual alive now, or to have no living descendants at all". It is estimated to have been 5k to 15k years ago. The human MRCA was likely 5k-2k years ago, as you say. I'd only move it up to the Roman Empire for Asians, Europeans and Africans (of at least one generation).
I'll put it simple here. Species and race are both words that used in context with diversity. Species being the diversity betwen life forms and race being the diversity in species. There is not a thing wrong with the word race nor the use of the word. No one should judge a persons social value on the color of their skin doing so is moronic, I judge people on their behavior regardless of what race they are or how the look or where they come from, I wish all did, it would be nice.
Good sentiments, thank you. I think the question being addressed is what is the nature of the categories of race? Are they biologically based, or societal? Are there discrete buckets that people fit into on the basis of their genetics, or continuous biological variation, with imposed, superficial and cultural buckets laid over that diversity? I would argue the latter: The discrete "subspecies" concept is not consistent with continuous human diversity.
@C0nc0rdance I think when it comes race diversity what is important is things that you already touched on in your video, when it comes to medical problems or the like. I am not against research into other things that could be impacted by biological variation. Race should be based on genetic, biological variation alone. We already have useful words for social diversity that are not normaly based on race, words such a culture
@C0nc0rdance Even if there was a subspecies of humans that would not mean that they were worth less, should be treated different in asocial setting or that they should not be given the same rights and opportunities. I do not believe there is a subspecies of humans but if there was I would not see that in itself as a negative thing in itself. I would like a world where a person in a social setting is judged based on their bahavior and not superficial bullshit.
@C0nc0rdance The way I see it races are biologically based and genetically determined groups of people. They are in most cases distinct and easily identified by the people but in some cases races overlap and a particular individual cannot be definitively categorized. Also different races evolved in different environments and so their genes differ. The genetic difference extends in more than skin color. I think skin color is not a that poor approximation because races don't interbreed that much.
How far back can you definitively determine, by looking at someone, what their ancestors were? For example, could you tell if someone had a black grandparent? Great-grandparent? What about Asian or Amerindian mixtures?
@C0nc0rdance Sorry to budge in like this. But WHY would it matter what race was someone's ONE SINGLE ancestor ? It only matters what race that certain person is. You know very very well that non perpetuated traits vanish in time. So, if one grand grand parent was race P, and all other recent ancestors were race Q, why would it matter ? Why would you ask that ? Would you not clearly see what he is ? Would you deny ALL his white Q ancestry for a single P ancestor ?
Heredity of traits is genetic. If race is biologically based, then it's based on who your ancestors were. So if you have one Asian, one African, one European, and five Amerindian great-grandparents, which race are you? Can you be 12% African ancestry and still be European? How far back does ancestry need to go to categorize someone into a discrete category?
If it's a scientific category, where are the definitions of inclusion criteria?
@C0nc0rdance I won't go into how childish that mix sounds keeping in mind the vast distances needed to get such a mix in the years of our great-grandparents... but I get your point. Yes, I think you can be 12% African and still be European. As I know, 12% < 88%. However, in my opinion, if you are "multi-racial" the "race" that stands out the most wins, if that "standing out" is by 50% more than any other. So, a person that's 30% white, 30% black and 40% asian is not asian but mixed.
@C0nc0rdance While a person that is 15% white, 15% black and 70% asian... well... kinda speaks for itself !? Can you say that nowhere in nature in the whole animal reign, no two emergent species mixed in some proportion ? How do you classify the hybrids ? Why you can do it so easily in animals but when it's about humans, suddenly it's veeery touchy and difficult ? Oh, and... you want to say that no "scientific category" got revised ? This will be too when social pressure allows it.
if race does not exist among humans. than breeds among dogs do not exist either. so a dog and a wolf are the same breed? no they are the same species. like we are the same species but only differnce is race only do because of geopraphical adaptation. now people confuse race with ethnicity. race=genetic differences ethnicity=culture. example Mexicans ethinic group is both Latino/Hispanic but racialy most are mixed White and Native American
Breeds and races are an apt analogy. What determines whether an animal is categorized as King Charles Spaniel or an English Springer Spaniel? (Hint: AKC)
What do we call a dog with parents from two different categories?
What is the offspring when you allow all the dogs of the world to interbreed at random (remove artificial boundaries)?
(by the way, dogs and wolves are different species, lupus and familiaris)
@C0nc0rdance No they aren't. Breeds of dogs are often hugely modified artificially selected populations from something like 50 generations back. They are being horribly deformed by this breeding and often live lives in pains at the extreme ends of being a particular breed. The breed is by definition (we literally define it) a purebred human construction. Races however are just words for some minor traits. An east and west African could be less related than any two average humans, but both black.
@C0nc0rdance Let's stick to the present day and not ask ourselves "what if we do something that cannot be done". Do you imply that all the animals are one single race ? Did the natural barriers suddenly disappear ? Would a Husky from Siberia end up shagging a Chihuahua in Mexico ? You are talking as if humans have a set goal to interbreed as much as possible as their sole goal in their life, while facts be observed, we like that which is most familiar to us.
Great, let's stick with dogs. The Chihuahua is a descendant of the pure Techichi line in the 9th century. Huskies are first documented in the 1600's, but probably go back much further. No interbreeding has occurred between them for at least a few thousand years, which is at least a thousand generations of dogs in complete reproductive isolation. In biological terms, their MRCA is about 4500 generations ago. The human MRCA is about 50 generations ago.
@C0nc0rdance No interbreeding between the species or the specimens ? That's what I've asked you to be clear about humans too ! Because even if one Chihuahua and one Huskie DO mate, that will not compromise their species and cause them to merge or be called "same species". Just like if 5-10% of jumans are racial mixes, that doesn't mean that ALL of them are ! Of course, if you go back in time long enough, that ALL species are the same.
@C0nc0rdance A generation is typ. defined as 20 years. So, that makes 100 - 250 gen's... but may be even more since sometimes women as young as 14 were married / pregnant. Some gypsies today wed their daughters from the age of 12 or so, by the time they're 20, they have 3-4 kids already. In a span of 60 years they have 4 generations, not 3. Even if they were to be only 50, those 4.500 dog gen's had their first 50, they didn't magically appear already different and fully formed.
@Spiegellman I don't understand this: what is your point? That the human MRCA is not actually 50? How does this help your case even if it was 100 or even 500? Do you realize that while some groups have children in their teens, the vast majority have them much later? 20 years is a reasonable mean historically because today people tend to have kids later than 25, while this was not so in the past. But then again this is far from being the only method to determine an MRCA.
@assalane When you have a real question, worth answering, I will consider doing so. In the mean time, ponder this... what if humans had 5.000 generations from the MRCA ? Hmmm ? Nothing worth noticing ?
@Spiegellman So there was no point to your comment after all?
To answer your question though, if it was 5000 (were did you pull that number off?) and there was evidence of a strong enough selective pressure applied on whatever underlying difference you think there is in the human specie, it'd be something worth noticing. 50, 100, 500 = not enough though.
@assalane Good good ! See ? Race denialists always ase ME where do I draw the line. So... at 5.000 ? That's where YOU draw the line ? Fine for me. Now... ponder this : what if our MRCA was not 2.000 - 5.000 years ago ? And this is where I think that genetics is... simply... wrong ! Remember, for us ALL, of all races and all continents to be related through the MRCA, the genetic material from the MRCA should have repopulated the whole earth all over again ! Good in mathematical theory
@assalane but fails completely in reality. Take migrations, battles and occupations into account ! Take into account that our MRCA had not been alone on the earth, other humans were present at the time, so he had permanent genetic competition, one individual or another had (mostly in the beginning) a very small chance to choose a mate closely related to the MRCA ! You may say that a non-related mate is still loosely related, yes, it is, but pushes the MRCA a few generations back aswell
@Spiegellman you don't understand how/why MRCAs are derived.
But first: I don't deal with "what if" and opinion of type "I think that". If you don't present me fact I can't take you seriously.
We don't need to calculate anything to see if "the genetic material of the MRCA" has spread, because we find it by looking after the fact, by retro-inspection using directly present DNA.
This is a creationist argument: "the probability for this to happen is so increbibly small blah blah blah"
@Br91Ca89St87 Oh yeah it's undoubtedly more expensive, but it just works. Life has so much less stress in it since I ditched windows and I get so much more done in a shorter time.
Any human concept or classification is a social construct. No one is getting hung over about skin color. Equality is a social construct. A hill is a social contract. Science is a social construct. Any definition you can think of.
With all the points you made about race can be pointed to different species and say that's just a social construct and doesn't exist, as there's a lot of common lineage, correct?
Science is a tool, invented by humans. A hill is an elevation, though the definition may be subjective. Equality is a social concept, again, subjective. Species are defined by a few ways, but non-interbreeding is a typical one.
A social construct is something that people construct by their group actions. It's not just subjective, it arises from our behaviors without intention. Social categories like "rich and poor" aren't based in biology, but group dynamics.
@C0nc0rdance How much time does it take for two different populations to become genetically incompatible ? How much time did humans have to "speciate" ? If given enough time, what do you think, would it be more likely for Dutchmen to become incompatible with Italians or with Kenyans and Asians ? You ask "what if we remove barriers", ok, let me be equally silly : what if we enforce them ? What would the roots for the future human races be ? Similar or different current populations ?
It baffels me how deep is racism in some people and how dear they hold their preconceptions. Even such clear and carefuly worded video like this atracts quite a few racist idiots.
@chstoney Perhaps they are addicted to certain ideas?(Pavlov's bigot?);When some persons think they benefit from embracing a particular ideology -even if there is objective data that refutes any claim to of said ideology being true - then perhaps they intentionally have chosen,on a deeper level,to be egoistic hedonists.
@anarksee Racists or race realists are many things but hedonists is one of the things that they aren't. Usually they care for much much more than them, their siblings... they also care for a few generations that were born before them and a few generations that will be born after them. How you got to label such a huge time span as hedonist simply baffles me.
@Spiegellman Masochism is a type of hedonism ("it hurts sooo good!").My comment was conjectural as well (did you not notice the word "perhaps"?).Only because a person is a racist doesn't imply they aren't also hedonistic.Sadism,anybody?
@anarksee "Racists are also notorious cherry pickers of data" hmm... care to check out how many of my sensitive questions have had an answer ? How comes that only some easier to atack statements of mine have been atacked but the others weren't ? Is that a coincidence or is it just cherry picking ?
@chstoney And it's fun to see how people who has no idea about human genetics, haplogroups, SNP's, subclades, genetic drift or divergent evolution, make a video and pretend that he's in a position to claim that race is "largely irrelevant", when in fact it is not.
@Spiegellman I took your advice and made a racism test that google quickly provided. My results were "Your data suggest little to no automatic preference between African American and European American."
But even if I had some subconscious aversion against people with different skin color, it would still not change a bit about the fact, that I do not see any rational basis for racism and I am baffeld by people who try to make their racism somewhat sciencey look.
@chstoney Racism is a natural trait. If it wouldn't, then you would not see any racial conflicts whatsoever. However, most of them are race based. You don't see racial discrimination where there isn't more than one race.
@Trickroad No. You're going too far. People should mix if they want to. However, they should be made aware of their ancestry and own cultures should be promoted (WITHOUT bashing others). Let the past be past, keep note of it, and prevent it from being the future. Unfortunately, today we see the opposite : youngsters raised to bash their own cultures and embrace only foreign ones, in the name of "open mind". Then other cultures, usually more primitive, have room to invade and impose.
What a great and informative video, favorited.
andyandcarl 1 day ago
Amen
astrozier1 4 days ago
This is one damn good video. Whips away 10.000 stupid videos on this site.
Jazzman1985 5 days ago
Loved this. Beautiful video.
manateeofdoom 1 week ago
@1stworlder you can say that culture and mentality are effected by race but not necessarily, same might be true for intelligence, if we find the intelligence genes and personality genes (two things that it's reasonable to assume that they are partly genetic but not proven that they are attached to race) then we would know the answer for sure.
goblinclaus 1 week ago
@1stworlder there is a cure for malaria but because of shitty healthcare system in africa many people don't get the treatment. why didn't north american natives have the benefit of the ice age? the eskimos should have been geniuses by now. yes zebras can mate with horses- but for that you need to have horses. the water buffalo is originaly from asia. i have herd of those books but do they take culture mentality society and education into account?
goblinclaus 1 week ago
@1stworlder in the regions of the sahel in africa farming began in about 5000 BC based sorghum and millet. europeans brought their crops with them and also applied sorghum and millet. in papua new gini it is astimated that farming began in 7000 BC . in some a frican countries malaria got worse as a result of imperialism because they now live in cities and larger villeges that were built close to rivers where mosquitos who spread malaria live.
goblinclaus 1 week ago
Yeah we're all the same specie, but Race A and race B have different genetics.
KiwiGirI941 2 weeks ago
@1stworlder although.... "guns germs and steel" was written by a jew so that book is obviously fool of lies and shouldn't be taken seriously, right?
goblinclaus 2 weeks ago
@goblinclaus the crops of africa where not farmed until whites go there. Zebras can breed with horses, do you think that whites had fully trained horses and dogs that are trained and already breed for tasks. Water buffalo where first used by whites in africa, as where guinea hens. The books "The Global Bell Curve" & IQ and the Wealth of Nations" give full explainions with actuall factual data. In africa today blacks cant master roman farming tech.
1stworlder 1 week ago
btw i also forgot native american civilizations like the mayans and aztecs and incas. thats true that black people contributed little to human progress compared to indo europeans, semites and mongoloids but you sir don't look at history for reasons you immidiately jump to race, maybe there are other reasons: the avaliable crops, the avaliable animals to be domesticated and used as livestock, the terrain of the land. if you want more explanations read the book "guns, germs and steel".
goblinclaus 2 weeks ago
@goblinclaus mayans & aztecs had the benefit ice age to give them some of the asian IQ advancement thats why they have the only native built cities in the tropics. Blacks did not need to farm until whites gave them the cure for malaria, as the tropical diseases kept the population small enough that single moms could feed kids without a dads help with low hanging fruit.
1stworlder 1 week ago
@1stworlder how come the people of the near east- including some of the semitic peoples of the middle east (those that i guess you hate very much) had an alphabetical system before the germanic tribes in europe? i guess you probably talk about black people when you talk about stupid relatives, have you heard of the moors? who conquered spain and established a flourishing civilization there.
goblinclaus 2 weeks ago
@1stworlder do you think people who lived in hot climate didn't have challenges? do you think that the people who lived in the desert had it easier than people who lived in europe and that they didn't need to develop skills to survive? do you think the egyptians were stupid? how about the chinese? india had a developed civilization. why couldn't the nurdic genuises who lived in the north start using iron before those who lived in the middle east?
goblinclaus 2 weeks ago
@goblinclaus Yes they had to outbreed disease and outrun others when predators where around, so they evolved in other ways than in high IQ which wouldnt help with either of those until after bronze age tech where blacks where still in the stone age 400yrs ago. Europeans and asians both had the same evolutionary pressures.
1stworlder 1 week ago
My cousins that spend 20K+ years trying to outbreed tropical diseases and outrun predators sure are stupid. But my cousins that spent those years in areas with winters and limited food growing seasons are a lot stronger and smarter. Look at the olypmic strength/swimming to see my smart relatives and short distance runs for my stupid ones.
1stworlder 2 weeks ago
@1stworlder Actually the Europeans were the last one to develop a civilization... think about that!
MrTheblackmessenger 1 week ago
@MrTheblackmessenger Blacks where still in the stone age 400 years ago. Since blacks didnt have writing until after europeans had calculus they have to rely on others accounts that would make blacks look even worse.
1stworlder 1 week ago
99% of human DNA is same...1% .
This is a Vast difference if you consider the fact that the difference between a human and a
Gini pig is 2%.So your theory goes down the drain again.
Unless you talk only for U.S citizens.
arcadian33333 3 weeks ago
@arcadian33333 The difference between a human and a sea sponge is 50%
1stworlder 1 week ago 2
1)You go back to Columbus but plane invented 100 years ago and and mass migration reached it's acme 10 years ago.
2)World didn't formed 500 years ago like America and most of all most countries adopted multiculturalism 20 years ago.
3) Saying that a Saxon is relative with an Aborigine is an irresponsible statement since Aborigines were isolated in Australia.
So most peoples ancestors are pure and your theory goes down the drain.
arcadian33333 3 weeks ago
@arcadian33333
2) most nations have not adopted multiculturalism, africa will not accomidate you , muslims will not accept multiculture, east asians are the most racialy aware of outsiders of all. Only white nations have had multiculturalism thrust upon them.
Africa for the africans, asia for the asians white nations for everyone , that is genocide.
1stworlder 1 week ago
1, 2, 5 and 6: Continuum fallacy.
4 and 7: Obviously false.
3 and 8: Noncognitive.
Aletheophile 3 weeks ago
race is genetic thus causing people to act, function, and look differently... FACT!
schnel127 1 month ago
"The concept of race"
Its not a concept, its a scientific fact that there are different races. Whites are as different from blacks as pitbulls are from poodles..
mattshu1 1 month ago
@mattshu1 - pitbulls and poodles aren't that different...despite what you 'see'.
The term race, with the rise of our understanding of genetics is not very scientific...it once was, but it isn't any more.
Don't believe me, listen to Craig Venter, one of the few who successfully mapped the human genome, and since then he as been doing bleeding edge research on genetics.
/watch?v=6vS7AO9XYj4
bitphr3ak 3 weeks ago
@bitphr3ak Actually I will listen to the man who won the Nobel prize for DNA who has had the time and position to speak freely Dr James Watson
"is "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the testing says not really."
1stworlder 1 week ago
@1stworlder - again, Watson made an hypothesis 'a priori' regarding races and IQ....but that assumption is not reflected in the actual human genome.
...not to mention that IQ testing can be culturally biased depending on how it is administered. You'll have to provide some references to actual peer reviewed science on this on...other than this out of context quote, otherwise you're just beating an ideological drum, and aren't doing reality any justice.
bitphr3ak 1 week ago
@1stworlder ...and finally, you are suggesting that skin pigmentation has a significant impact on intelligence (which hasn't been proven).
You might as well say that people of a specific eye color are significantly more intelligent than someone with differing eye color?
Would you call all blue eyed people a different race than green eyed people?
You claim says more about your ideological 'hopes and dream', than it does about the realities of skin pigmentation.
bitphr3ak 1 week ago
@bitphr3ak Dr Watson "... there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so."
The small amount of difference, but you share 99% of DNA with a chimp and 50% with a sea sponge, so the small amount means a lot.
1stworlder 1 week ago
@1stworlder - Feel free to quote the old man if you wish. I prefer the more modern understanding put forth by Craig Venter, who was one of the first people to map and study the complete human genome: watch?v=6vS7AO9XYj4
Furthermore.....
bitphr3ak 1 week ago
@1stworlder - The actual quote is:
""As we find the human genes whose malfunctioning gives rise to such devastating developmental failures, we may well discover that sequence differences within many of them also lead to much of the observable variation in human IQs. A priori, there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. "
"A priori" means before experience...
bitphr3ak 1 week ago
@1stworlder - So Dr Watson is making presenting a hypothesis, not a conclusion here! He is assuming, based on his assumptions that this is what we'll find.
Unfortunately his assumption is wrong based on the study of the human genome, as I've shown in the Craig Venter video (/watch?v=6vS7AO9XYj4).
Of course you can cherry pick quotes you feel represent your ideology, but that doesn't make it a reality....thanks for playing!
You should really investigate quotes more carefully!
bitphr3ak 1 week ago
"distant cousins" yeah sure,pure bullshit
WildBerserker1 1 month ago
@JungleCityKilla So, in the end all you've really done is to prove beyond any doubt that you are the real racist :) Our conversation ends here and you shall be reported.
Spiegellman 1 month ago
I'm not really sure I understand the point of these arguments. The fact is a five-year-old can point out a Negro, or an Eskimo, or a Chinaman, or a European. That's just the truth. And you can't change that.
M00nGlitz 1 month ago
@M00nGlitz: The point is that the European (or the Indian, or the Australian aborigine, or the San) that your five-year-old pointed out may only be half, or even less a fraction, the race that you think they are, if it were possible to examine all of that person's ancestry. Many blacks in the USA have overwhelming European ancestors. And so on.
puncheex 1 month ago
@puncheex It's like saying that mixing 1 pound of black paint and then constantly pouring white paint over it, won't make the resulting mixture 100% white. It's true, but it's not pure black anymore after the first pound of white paint. So, a 5 year old kid won't know a 100% black from a 50% black, but it's nothing to brag about that you seem not to know that difference either...
Spiegellman 1 month ago
@Spiegellman: No, it's not like mixing paint. The inheritance or not of the dozen or so genes that control the superficial racial characteristics is not the mix that it would be if there were a thousand such genes; low probability combinations keep cropping up. It's not white and not black, and its rare for anyone to be pure anymore. You have a thousand ancestors, back 200 years ago, a million 400 years ago, ignoring inbreeding; purity at that level is a rare, rare thing.
puncheex 1 month ago
@puncheex 1.000 ancestors 200 years ago ? Really ? So, let's take the 1812 - 2012 time period. My parents were born in the 50' : 2 ancestors. My grandparents were born in the 1920's, +4 anc (6); my GGP in 1890's, +8 (14). Don't know specifically before that, but let's assume as low as 15 years / generation: 1875 +16(30) ; 1860 +32 (62); 1845 +64 (126); 1830 +128 (254); 1815 +256 (500). That's HALF what you've predicted for 200 years.
Spiegellman 1 month ago
@Spiegellman: Wierd family you have, or rather, wierd way to start the computation. Right now, if I start with my grandkid who is a teen, 2 parents married in 1992, 4 in 1972, 8 in 1952, 16 in 1932, 32 in 1912, 64 in 1892, 128 in 1872, 256 in 1852, 512 in 1832, 1024 in 1812. - 200 years. I figured one generation every 20 years, 200 years is 10 generations, 2^10 is 1024, 2^20 (20 gens, 400 years) is 1,048,576.
puncheex 1 month ago
@puncheex But WHY would it matter that I had 5 (let's say) Asian ancestors in 1815 from all the rest of 256 on their level ? But let's get back strictly in my case : studying that period's census for Banat, Romania, I see that the worst case scenario is that I'm part Turkish, that being somewhat darker skinned... but I am even more inclined to have Hungarian, Austrian or other similar bloodlines, ALL WHITE ! So, again... theories MUST be correlated with ACTUAL HISTORICAL DATA !
Spiegellman 1 month ago
@puncheex WHY do you guys insist that human diversity has always been huge, when travel has been an enormous problem 200 years ago... especially in Eastern Europe ?! Migrations were over by the 14'th century (with the Turks as last invaders) and only a few countries in the world have been colonial empires and tapped completely different genetic material sources after the 14'th century. Nobody says that anyone today is 100% white or black, just that 90% > 10% !!! And even 75% > 25% !!!
Spiegellman 1 month ago
@Spiegellman: The odd fact is that it only takes one person in your ancestry to bring in the genes which mix your ancestry up. One explorer, one slave, one merchant seaman, one shipwreck. A man can walk the distance from Alaska to Tiera del Fuego (or Portugal to Korea) easily in 10 yrs, even while foraging; it's only about 2-3 miles per day. You know of the Silk Road? the Polynesian boatmen? the spread of the Norsemen? Yes, most people don't travel like that, but it only takes one.
puncheex 1 month ago
Comment removed
puncheex 1 month ago
3:40 Is that your wife or gf?
mistacramer 1 month ago
@JungleCityKilla
You mean?: Nature Genetics 36, S5 - S7 (2004)
"Changing the paradigm from 'race' to human genome variation"
"The paradigms of human identity based on 'races' as biological constructs are being questioned in light of the preponderance of data on human genome sequence variation and reflect the need for a new explanatory framework and vision of humankind with different fundamental assumptions about biological groups that can accommodate new knowledge..."
C0nc0rdance 1 month ago
@C0nc0rdance I am rather disappointed by this video; no offense, but it really seems like just a rant on how we're all related and we should all get along because of race…. please, conflicts and level of relatedness have nothing to do with one another; how many people have killed members of their immediate families? how many complete strangers have helped each other? Does not matter if there are 100 human species of if we're all brothers; conflicts is influenced by other things;
RoScFan 1 month ago
@C0nc0rdance I was hoping this video would give an actual scientific explanation of races in homo sapiens; I for one still believe humans are divided into white, black and oblique-eyed: which I think is outdated; the current status of race is is what i thought would be the subject of the video;
how can you say there is no race in humanity? just because some people, mostly Canadians & Americans, immigrant countries, are of mixed heritage doesn't mean there is no possibility of talking about
RoScFan 1 month ago
@C0nc0rdance race in humans; the more two populations stay apart the more different they become; I am sure you know that; we may all have african ORIGINS, but after migration, different populations diverged greatly and produced a great diversity of different kinds of humans; think for example of a native american and a finn in ancient times or middle ages, when people didn't intermix like today and which had thousands o years of separation: the indian -
RoScFan 1 month ago
@C0nc0rdance , dark-skinned, slightly obligue-eyed, a certain kind of hair etc. and the finn: large eyes, blue color, bright blonde, pale skin; true, those genes are superficial and easy to change… the finns for example simply had a concentration of recessive genes for hair and eye color; does that define a race? I don't know but you can say it's "the traditional gene" for finns, for lack of a better term; is humanity a species with a very reduced genetic diversity compared with other animals?
RoScFan 1 month ago
@C0nc0rdance yes; but there is still variation; are variation enough and concentrated enough to define races within humanity? maybe; it's a valid conversation; again, no offense, but i am surprised at the lack of quality of your arguments; so what is the more you back in time, the more generations a person has? if you far back enough in time ALL LIVING THINGS HAVE A SINGLE COMMON ANCESTOR; shall we give up classifying living things in species too? some animals can even interbreed like
RoScFan 1 month ago
@C0nc0rdance donkeys and horses to make mules; sure the mule isn't as viable as the horse or donkey hence they two different species; of course when two different people mate, they can always produce a viable progeny; I am pointing that out, so that you don't think I am unaware; my point is, the level of relatedness humans have across the globe is no valid argument against classifying scientifically humanity into various types of sub-groups based on physiology and anatomy;
RoScFan 1 month ago
@C0nc0rdance another i was trying to get across is that people have been for quite a while isolated from one another enough to make classifiable sub-groups; in fact, i will go as far as to say that conversely, as technology allowed for easier travel across the world and the isolating berries fell diversity went down and intermixing went up; I said go so far because i am saying that that is only a modern phenomenon brought about by technological achievement over the past 100-400 years
RoScFan 1 month ago
@C0nc0rdance sure intermixing happened in the past but not anywhere near as much as to today; pointing out example like canadians/americans like abdul or johnson aren't an argument against the existence of subgroups of humans; sure society creates stereotypes and sure the gene for melatonin can segregate from that for oblique/large eyes; but there was a time, and to some extent there still is, when for example, oblique-eyes and pale skin went handing hand in eastern asia, while
RoScFan 1 month ago
@C0nc0rdance oblique-eyes and dark skin went hand in hand in north america; they can mix-up but for a long time they didn't; its obvious that such mixing events didn't happened for a long time@ otherwise we'd all really look the same! and there would be no concept of a native american or east-asian!
in conclusion I think if you really want to show the science of races and not make a political statement you should remake this video or make another one; as for the politics of it like i said:
RoScFan 1 month ago
@C0nc0rdance doesn't matter if we're related or not that doesn't change how we should treat other nor how we actually do treat others;
RoScFan 1 month ago
i love how atheist focus on race just to say well were not racist in the sense all people of one color are like this but you are determined by your genetics and certain groups are genetically inferior is a viable concept which they bring up when they need to
truth is being an atheists you have to fill in the blanks with people being determined in their life not potential
StrangerThenRedz 1 month ago
@StrangerThenRedz: he made quite a point in there about "you are not your DNA". Did you just skip that part?
puncheex 1 month ago
Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study
That is all.
MrFelshy 1 month ago
@JungleCityKilla Bring it on. Weekend study FTW ! But for now, if you'll excuse me... I'll go off to dreaming of a world where diversity isn't shoved only on White's throats :) How's it going there in South Africa ? Killing the "white boers" for their properties ? Calling the black ones with properties "whitey scum" and "traitors" ? Sounds more racist than anything whites are doing these days...
Spiegellman 2 months ago
@JungleCityKilla OK ! What IS exactly you point of view ? Since now you've put your energy only in contradicting, quoting dictionaries and insulting, but you haven't yet been clear on what is your point exactly ! So... enlighten me, please !
Spiegellman 2 months ago
@JungleCityKilla Only to those ? Not both sides ? Gee... can you please tell me the definition of cherry picking from that dictionary of yours that you seem to keep at hand ?
Spiegellman 2 months ago
@JungleCityKilla Hey look ! There's another one ! watch?v=c4cxOT8Kd7U
Spiegellman 2 months ago
@JungleCityKilla Yeah... because it's much more intelligence involved in saying "hey ! apples and pears ... they can be even grafted... so they're definitely the same species !" Go figure !
Spiegellman 2 months ago
@JungleCityKilla I thought is was a mere extrapolation. Please correct me.
Spiegellman 2 months ago
@JungleCityKilla Well, the one that does, you have just dismissed simply because you haven't heard of. Youtube / Google might provide more examples, but I'm enormously tired at this hour. Listen... I haven't started as a race realist either. I got convinced. Do a bit of research on all the sides of the story... who knows ? Maybe more info from psychology / anthropology / statistics will convince you. If not... that's that :)
Spiegellman 2 months ago
@JungleCityKilla English is not my native language.Should I apologize for that ?
Spiegellman 2 months ago
@JungleCityKilla You said that black people can give birth to white children. Sorry, but caucasian-white means more than skin color. There are more genes involved that the melanin secreting ones. The bone structure, the muscle structure and tonus etc etc... all of these remain to be discovered later on as that certain "white" child develops. It's not caucasian white just because the skin color is white.
Spiegellman 2 months ago
@JungleCityKilla Neither have you by simply stating that you haven't heard of that doctor.
Spiegellman 2 months ago
@JungleCityKilla Haaahahahahahahahahhahaaahahaha ! So... you've heard of EVERYONE working in this field by now, EXCEPT THIS SINGLE doctor ? Haaahahahahaha ! :)) Pathetic ! Every single lab coat must win some Nobel to be worth trusting ? Did Galileo win any in his time ? Aww... they even burnt him for telling the truth ! Go figure !
Spiegellman 2 months ago
@JungleCityKilla Your offensive language sure doesn't make you look smarter... just saying. Or maybe you're just an african, that would surelly explain some things...
Spiegellman 2 months ago
@JungleCityKilla Do you actually believe that you can convince ANYONE by repeating the same stuff over and over and over again ? So much for your arguments... And btw... is "offence" a scientifical or a social mechanism ? Because if it's social but can impede a scientifical term from manifesting, then you've just proven my point : for now scientists can't speak out against the masses due to social pressure. It's been like that since the Dark Ages... not everything has changed.
Spiegellman 2 months ago
@JungleCityKilla What is so fucking complex by saying that we are all the same ? It's like a sloppy farmer saying that wheat and barley are all the same ! Well, they're not ! Euroclowns ? Without "euroclowns", and specifically the British Empire, the africans would still be hunting by bow and arrow. Oh wait ! In 2009 there was a WAR in Africa fought with bows and arrows ! Talk about who's the clown here... AND retarded !
Spiegellman 2 months ago
@JungleCityKilla so... are you judging the differences only by color ? Who is the shallow and cherry picker then ? Race realists go muuuch deeper than simply color. That's the whole point !!!
Spiegellman 2 months ago
@JungleCityKilla "Concise Oxford English Dictionary © 2008 Oxford University Press: NEGROID ..." Sorry for not giving a shit on the dictionary terms, but the science is made by scientists, not by lingvists, just like science papers are made by scientists, not by journalists. In fact, jurnalists and lingvists are more prone to social pressure... and so they will tend to bend to the masses...
Spiegellman 2 months ago
@JungleCityKilla I said an italian from a greek. Not a mixed citizen of Italy vs a mixed citizen of Greece. It's like I'm telling you about blue and navy blue, and you point out that besides blue ther is also black and besides navy blue there is also cyan and black and cyan are very different. Sorry, that's not what I asked.
Spiegellman 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Oops. *Genghis Khan.
Less incongruous, and less funny.
polymath7 2 months ago
Comment removed
polymath7 2 months ago
@JungleCityKilla tribune. com.ng/sun/features/1651-lets-leave-dna-out-of-this-how-can-i-believe-i-am-the-father . This also relates to your comments above, as this 2010 article says : "Many years of natural selection, evolution and aspeciation have caused there to be differences among races, you can see Negroids, Caucasians, Latinos, Hispanics, Asiatics and these are not defined by a single chance mutation but supported by strong natural selection over a period of time.”
Spiegellman 2 months ago
@JungleCityKilla Quoting endless passages of works based on other works from 1960's and 1975 in this area is like telling me what people thought about lightning in the bronze age: irrelevant. What about DNA ? If we are SO similar, why don't negroid characteristics EVER apear in a white child and viceversa because of mere genetic variation ? How comes that you can't tell apart an Italian from a Greek but you can from a negroid, EVEN IF you change their skin color to be the same ?
Spiegellman 2 months ago
Great upload.
buktomsin 2 months ago
So iam related to Naya Rivera :) This makes me very happy, although it also means strange incest i guess!
CarolineATRC 2 months ago
Besides, race is just another way for the ruling class to divide the masses so they don't realize the REAL enemy, them.
It's CLASS differences that are the real thing we should be concerned about.
CrazyCheeseMagee 2 months ago
The comment section of this video is pathetic. Some people are just incapable of understanding, and I feel so sorry for them.
HailToMyself 2 months ago
was going to make a smart comment involving the 100M sprint or other rubbish but, seriously, this video is excellent and fascinating. cheers man.
raverdeath100 2 months ago
I have a question. I'm interested in gene prevalence in an environment where perdition has been removed. For example, modern medicine treats many genetic disorders, making their survival possible. We also don't have environmental factors killing us off (lions are unlikely to kill us in mass numbers). So how does a controlled environment affect human evolution? I would be interested in starting a discussion on this topic.
Newenlightenmentnow 2 months ago
@Newenlightenmentnow Watch Idiocracy
ArchNME 2 months ago
@Newenlightenmentnow Sexual selection?
PovilasGi 2 months ago
Dads dad does not look happy!
RiffCantrell 2 months ago
the white race is the superior race
Trickroad 2 months ago
A SLICK WAY OF COVERING UP THE TRUTH
yaqui707 2 months ago
@Idiocracy2020 Actually skin color IS the only thing that separates us. White are nothing more than a mutation of blacks. Know your place CHILD.
BIGBOSSandTHEDOLL 2 months ago
@BIGBOSSandTHEDOLL
This is actually not true. Not wholly true, in any case. Biologically all the so-called "races" are in fact different. Africans for example have been shown in many cases to have both longer and limber legs than say, white Europeans. As well as slightly bulkier skeleton mass. Asians and Europeans, too, have (of course) biological differences.
Apart from what sets us apart biologically however, we're the same. We all bleed red blood. We're all human. And all cousins, evidently
Pitchguest 2 months ago
I personally think that there is no difference between any human race, only evolution have shifted the gears of thinking. Everyone is born with curiosity to finding truth to everything - from big concepts to microcosmic details. If life serves a purpose, then part of it is to identify ourselves. And "race" prevents us from acknowledging who we are as a society b/c we have been identified by the historic society & parents. Contradictions and ethnics disguised us from what we think are truths.
popout886 2 months ago
When you make distinctions between say "race" and "ethnicity" I have to wonder if this is just a case of nomenclature vs vernacular. I would say that races do exist, in the sense that there are some obvious physical characteristics expressed by populations in difference regions. This may be a incorrect usage of "race" under some definitions but I honestly believe it is what most people mean by race. I agree wholehartedly that race is irrelevant.
TheCelticChimp 2 months ago
@Idiocracy2020 You're clearly just upset because science apparently has a "liberal" bias. You know nothing about genetics or phenotypes and yet you're gung-ho in denying the data that we have accumulated thus far. What's really pathetic is the fact that you take pride in the things that your "race" has done instead of your own personal accomplishments (possibly because you have none).
Frostbite864 3 months ago
@Frostbite864 Well, some don't have even that : taking pride in what their race accomplished :)
Spiegellman 3 months ago
What if I am a clone though?
Frostbite864 3 months ago
Why there's no different human race but some other animals have different races spawned in less than 100 years.Like horses, cat and dog?It's because human intervene and manipulate their breeding?
Would it be possible to create new human race by interventing in their breeding.Like making fat people or people who are likely to be fat because of their gene breeding with each other only to create an ogrish human race?Like we did with pigs because they were wildboar in the begining.
DinmaSalitzey 3 months ago
@CryWolf1986 Anecdotal evidence is worthless in science
Christ724 3 months ago
@Christ724 Go to a black ghetto and shout "y'all just a bunch o' anecdotes !".
Spiegellman 3 months ago
@Idiocracy2020
Enlighten me. What, biologically, determines whether someone fits into the category of "white" rather than "black".
C0nc0rdance 3 months ago 6
@C0nc0rdance not a racist, but the 2 big ones are facial structure and hair.
Dejawolfs 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@C0nc0rdance Don't know... DNA maybe ? It's been a while since it was discovered you know... and your question sounds as if it were formulated by a creationist : "What, biologically, determines that we have evolved from proto-primates". Honestly now... I hoped I wouldn't see the day when I could use an anti-creationist response on an atheist...
Spiegellman 3 months ago
@Spiegellman I think he means where do you draw that line. What specific genes? how can I say with certainty via a DNA test or any other what "race" someone is. Haplogroups don't really correlate with anything resembling a classical definition of "races". That's kind of what the whole damn video is about actually.
Also, even those classical definitions don't really make any sense. Is an Ethiopian or Sri Lankan black or white? How do you decide?
ArchNME 2 months ago
@ArchNME This question could be applied also to animal populations. And as I search the Internet, I find both people that say that determining race is impossible while others say it's quite very possible. I found this article pretty interesting : wired. com/science/discoveries/news/2007/10/dnaprint?currentPage=all . An Ethiopian may be neither black nor white, but Ethiopid. Is a mule a horse or a donkey ? If it were rare it wouldn't even have a name. But when there are more of them...
Spiegellman 2 months ago
@Spiegellman Mules are a hybrid, they are infertile, donkeys and horse are two different species. That article while interesting doesn't really answer the fundamental question of what separates the races. It just says while people who I define as race x tend to have a high percentage of gene y. You could identify all the members of my family in a similar way and come up with a DNA test to see who is my cousin or not. That doesn't make us our own race of people though.
ArchNME 2 months ago
@ArchNME You managed to just miss the point about the mules, but I'll explain it to you related to your family. That's not a race, but if your family would number thousands of members and have different characteristics, so different as to develop own diseases and such... get the point ? Or even then it might not be enough to be "your" race... but that would definitely be on the path to it. Why do race-deniers insist on sudden transitions, since such a thing is completely impossible ?
Spiegellman 2 months ago
@Spiegellman The point is that distinct races aren't an emergent property from DNA. It's still a question of where do you draw the lines. There is no obvious logical place. If Ethiopians are a race. Are Scandinavians? Italians? There seem to be general differences that separate them from both just being "white". You could continue dividing down to families or you could say that there only two or three "races", Either way though you are just arbitrarily making it up.
ArchNME 2 months ago
@ArchNME That being said, we couldn't classify land forms into hills and mountains, we would have each mountain with it's own category, isn't it ?
Spiegellman 2 months ago
@C0nc0rdance Enlighten me. What, biologically, determines whether someone fits into the category of "adult" rather than "child".
Or is what happens in Catholic monasteries a-ok?
SaviorOfLogic 2 months ago
@SaviorOfLogic its probably has to do with sexual maturity for other animals.
Iopipimps 2 months ago
@Iopipimps Yes, but any delineation is inherently subjective, it was a satire of his previous post.
SaviorOfLogic 2 months ago
@C0nc0rdance: Damn little. In the US the "one drop" rule pretty much held legal sway for a long time. Before that, it was a preponderance of ancestry, if that could be determined. I recommend frankwsweet's series on racialism; there are some real surprises which underlie, say, the whiteness of Baltic Sea people, and the whys of racial law. Try this one for a starter, essentially the same topic as this video: watch?v=9VVclTyPxLY .
puncheex 1 month ago
A couple of comments on the video: (imagine that!)
The Identical Ancestor Point is where "point in a given population's past where each individual then alive turned out to be either the ancestor of every individual alive now, or to have no living descendants at all". It is estimated to have been 5k to 15k years ago. The human MRCA was likely 5k-2k years ago, as you say. I'd only move it up to the Roman Empire for Asians, Europeans and Africans (of at least one generation).
puncheex 1 month ago
I'll put it simple here. Species and race are both words that used in context with diversity. Species being the diversity betwen life forms and race being the diversity in species. There is not a thing wrong with the word race nor the use of the word. No one should judge a persons social value on the color of their skin doing so is moronic, I judge people on their behavior regardless of what race they are or how the look or where they come from, I wish all did, it would be nice.
TheRenekruse 3 months ago
@TheRenekruse
Good sentiments, thank you. I think the question being addressed is what is the nature of the categories of race? Are they biologically based, or societal? Are there discrete buckets that people fit into on the basis of their genetics, or continuous biological variation, with imposed, superficial and cultural buckets laid over that diversity? I would argue the latter: The discrete "subspecies" concept is not consistent with continuous human diversity.
C0nc0rdance 3 months ago
@C0nc0rdance I think when it comes race diversity what is important is things that you already touched on in your video, when it comes to medical problems or the like. I am not against research into other things that could be impacted by biological variation. Race should be based on genetic, biological variation alone. We already have useful words for social diversity that are not normaly based on race, words such a culture
TheRenekruse 3 months ago
Comment removed
TheRenekruse 3 months ago
@C0nc0rdance Even if there was a subspecies of humans that would not mean that they were worth less, should be treated different in asocial setting or that they should not be given the same rights and opportunities. I do not believe there is a subspecies of humans but if there was I would not see that in itself as a negative thing in itself. I would like a world where a person in a social setting is judged based on their bahavior and not superficial bullshit.
TheRenekruse 3 months ago
@C0nc0rdance The way I see it races are biologically based and genetically determined groups of people. They are in most cases distinct and easily identified by the people but in some cases races overlap and a particular individual cannot be definitively categorized. Also different races evolved in different environments and so their genes differ. The genetic difference extends in more than skin color. I think skin color is not a that poor approximation because races don't interbreed that much.
ShwangShwing 3 months ago
@ShwangShwing
How far back can you definitively determine, by looking at someone, what their ancestors were? For example, could you tell if someone had a black grandparent? Great-grandparent? What about Asian or Amerindian mixtures?
C0nc0rdance 3 months ago
@C0nc0rdance Not with 100% confidence. Few things in life can be "definitely determined".
ShwangShwing 3 months ago
@C0nc0rdance Sorry to budge in like this. But WHY would it matter what race was someone's ONE SINGLE ancestor ? It only matters what race that certain person is. You know very very well that non perpetuated traits vanish in time. So, if one grand grand parent was race P, and all other recent ancestors were race Q, why would it matter ? Why would you ask that ? Would you not clearly see what he is ? Would you deny ALL his white Q ancestry for a single P ancestor ?
Spiegellman 3 months ago
@Spiegellman
Heredity of traits is genetic. If race is biologically based, then it's based on who your ancestors were. So if you have one Asian, one African, one European, and five Amerindian great-grandparents, which race are you? Can you be 12% African ancestry and still be European? How far back does ancestry need to go to categorize someone into a discrete category?
If it's a scientific category, where are the definitions of inclusion criteria?
C0nc0rdance 2 months ago
@C0nc0rdance I won't go into how childish that mix sounds keeping in mind the vast distances needed to get such a mix in the years of our great-grandparents... but I get your point. Yes, I think you can be 12% African and still be European. As I know, 12% < 88%. However, in my opinion, if you are "multi-racial" the "race" that stands out the most wins, if that "standing out" is by 50% more than any other. So, a person that's 30% white, 30% black and 40% asian is not asian but mixed.
Spiegellman 2 months ago
@C0nc0rdance While a person that is 15% white, 15% black and 70% asian... well... kinda speaks for itself !? Can you say that nowhere in nature in the whole animal reign, no two emergent species mixed in some proportion ? How do you classify the hybrids ? Why you can do it so easily in animals but when it's about humans, suddenly it's veeery touchy and difficult ? Oh, and... you want to say that no "scientific category" got revised ? This will be too when social pressure allows it.
Spiegellman 2 months ago
Comment removed
TheRenekruse 3 months ago
if race does not exist among humans. than breeds among dogs do not exist either. so a dog and a wolf are the same breed? no they are the same species. like we are the same species but only differnce is race only do because of geopraphical adaptation. now people confuse race with ethnicity. race=genetic differences ethnicity=culture. example Mexicans ethinic group is both Latino/Hispanic but racialy most are mixed White and Native American
EricVZLeon 3 months ago
@EricVZLeon
Breeds and races are an apt analogy. What determines whether an animal is categorized as King Charles Spaniel or an English Springer Spaniel? (Hint: AKC)
What do we call a dog with parents from two different categories?
What is the offspring when you allow all the dogs of the world to interbreed at random (remove artificial boundaries)?
(by the way, dogs and wolves are different species, lupus and familiaris)
C0nc0rdance 3 months ago 7
@C0nc0rdance different Species with the same mitochondrial dna?
EricVZLeon 3 months ago
@C0nc0rdance No they aren't. Breeds of dogs are often hugely modified artificially selected populations from something like 50 generations back. They are being horribly deformed by this breeding and often live lives in pains at the extreme ends of being a particular breed. The breed is by definition (we literally define it) a purebred human construction. Races however are just words for some minor traits. An east and west African could be less related than any two average humans, but both black.
Tatarize 3 months ago
@C0nc0rdance Let's stick to the present day and not ask ourselves "what if we do something that cannot be done". Do you imply that all the animals are one single race ? Did the natural barriers suddenly disappear ? Would a Husky from Siberia end up shagging a Chihuahua in Mexico ? You are talking as if humans have a set goal to interbreed as much as possible as their sole goal in their life, while facts be observed, we like that which is most familiar to us.
Spiegellman 3 months ago
@Spiegellman
Great, let's stick with dogs. The Chihuahua is a descendant of the pure Techichi line in the 9th century. Huskies are first documented in the 1600's, but probably go back much further. No interbreeding has occurred between them for at least a few thousand years, which is at least a thousand generations of dogs in complete reproductive isolation. In biological terms, their MRCA is about 4500 generations ago. The human MRCA is about 50 generations ago.
C0nc0rdance 2 months ago 2
@C0nc0rdance No interbreeding between the species or the specimens ? That's what I've asked you to be clear about humans too ! Because even if one Chihuahua and one Huskie DO mate, that will not compromise their species and cause them to merge or be called "same species". Just like if 5-10% of jumans are racial mixes, that doesn't mean that ALL of them are ! Of course, if you go back in time long enough, that ALL species are the same.
Spiegellman 2 months ago
@C0nc0rdance A generation is typ. defined as 20 years. So, that makes 100 - 250 gen's... but may be even more since sometimes women as young as 14 were married / pregnant. Some gypsies today wed their daughters from the age of 12 or so, by the time they're 20, they have 3-4 kids already. In a span of 60 years they have 4 generations, not 3. Even if they were to be only 50, those 4.500 dog gen's had their first 50, they didn't magically appear already different and fully formed.
Spiegellman 2 months ago
@Spiegellman I don't understand this: what is your point? That the human MRCA is not actually 50? How does this help your case even if it was 100 or even 500? Do you realize that while some groups have children in their teens, the vast majority have them much later? 20 years is a reasonable mean historically because today people tend to have kids later than 25, while this was not so in the past. But then again this is far from being the only method to determine an MRCA.
assalane 2 months ago
@assalane When you have a real question, worth answering, I will consider doing so. In the mean time, ponder this... what if humans had 5.000 generations from the MRCA ? Hmmm ? Nothing worth noticing ?
Spiegellman 2 months ago
@Spiegellman So there was no point to your comment after all?
To answer your question though, if it was 5000 (were did you pull that number off?) and there was evidence of a strong enough selective pressure applied on whatever underlying difference you think there is in the human specie, it'd be something worth noticing. 50, 100, 500 = not enough though.
assalane 2 months ago
@assalane Good good ! See ? Race denialists always ase ME where do I draw the line. So... at 5.000 ? That's where YOU draw the line ? Fine for me. Now... ponder this : what if our MRCA was not 2.000 - 5.000 years ago ? And this is where I think that genetics is... simply... wrong ! Remember, for us ALL, of all races and all continents to be related through the MRCA, the genetic material from the MRCA should have repopulated the whole earth all over again ! Good in mathematical theory
Spiegellman 1 month ago
@assalane but fails completely in reality. Take migrations, battles and occupations into account ! Take into account that our MRCA had not been alone on the earth, other humans were present at the time, so he had permanent genetic competition, one individual or another had (mostly in the beginning) a very small chance to choose a mate closely related to the MRCA ! You may say that a non-related mate is still loosely related, yes, it is, but pushes the MRCA a few generations back aswell
Spiegellman 1 month ago
@Spiegellman you don't understand how/why MRCAs are derived.
But first: I don't deal with "what if" and opinion of type "I think that". If you don't present me fact I can't take you seriously.
We don't need to calculate anything to see if "the genetic material of the MRCA" has spread, because we find it by looking after the fact, by retro-inspection using directly present DNA.
This is a creationist argument: "the probability for this to happen is so increbibly small blah blah blah"
assalane 1 month ago
@Br91Ca89St87 Oh yeah it's undoubtedly more expensive, but it just works. Life has so much less stress in it since I ditched windows and I get so much more done in a shorter time.
TheMogulmonster 3 months ago
Any human concept or classification is a social construct. No one is getting hung over about skin color. Equality is a social construct. A hill is a social contract. Science is a social construct. Any definition you can think of.
With all the points you made about race can be pointed to different species and say that's just a social construct and doesn't exist, as there's a lot of common lineage, correct?
Correct me if I'm wrong.
sticksquash 4 months ago
@sticksquash
Science is a tool, invented by humans. A hill is an elevation, though the definition may be subjective. Equality is a social concept, again, subjective. Species are defined by a few ways, but non-interbreeding is a typical one.
A social construct is something that people construct by their group actions. It's not just subjective, it arises from our behaviors without intention. Social categories like "rich and poor" aren't based in biology, but group dynamics.
Make sense?
C0nc0rdance 4 months ago 4
@C0nc0rdance How much time does it take for two different populations to become genetically incompatible ? How much time did humans have to "speciate" ? If given enough time, what do you think, would it be more likely for Dutchmen to become incompatible with Italians or with Kenyans and Asians ? You ask "what if we remove barriers", ok, let me be equally silly : what if we enforce them ? What would the roots for the future human races be ? Similar or different current populations ?
Spiegellman 3 months ago
75 people are clones
trilerkiler 4 months ago
It baffels me how deep is racism in some people and how dear they hold their preconceptions. Even such clear and carefuly worded video like this atracts quite a few racist idiots.
How sad.
chstoney 4 months ago 18
@chstoney Perhaps they are addicted to certain ideas?(Pavlov's bigot?);When some persons think they benefit from embracing a particular ideology -even if there is objective data that refutes any claim to of said ideology being true - then perhaps they intentionally have chosen,on a deeper level,to be egoistic hedonists.
anarksee 4 months ago
@anarksee Racists or race realists are many things but hedonists is one of the things that they aren't. Usually they care for much much more than them, their siblings... they also care for a few generations that were born before them and a few generations that will be born after them. How you got to label such a huge time span as hedonist simply baffles me.
Spiegellman 2 months ago
@Spiegellman Masochism is a type of hedonism ("it hurts sooo good!").My comment was conjectural as well (did you not notice the word "perhaps"?).Only because a person is a racist doesn't imply they aren't also hedonistic.Sadism,anybody?
anarksee 2 months ago
@Spiegellman Racists are also notorious cherry pickers of data . . . .
anarksee 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@anarksee "Racists are also notorious cherry pickers of data" hmm... care to check out how many of my sensitive questions have had an answer ? How comes that only some easier to atack statements of mine have been atacked but the others weren't ? Is that a coincidence or is it just cherry picking ?
Spiegellman 2 months ago
@chstoney And it's fun to see how people who has no idea about human genetics, haplogroups, SNP's, subclades, genetic drift or divergent evolution, make a video and pretend that he's in a position to claim that race is "largely irrelevant", when in fact it is not.
You're sad.
TrueScandinavia 3 months ago
@chstoney Get a racism test. You might be surprised to see where the racist is hiding...
Spiegellman 3 months ago
@Spiegellman I took your advice and made a racism test that google quickly provided. My results were "Your data suggest little to no automatic preference between African American and European American."
But even if I had some subconscious aversion against people with different skin color, it would still not change a bit about the fact, that I do not see any rational basis for racism and I am baffeld by people who try to make their racism somewhat sciencey look.
chstoney 3 months ago
@chstoney Racism is a natural trait. If it wouldn't, then you would not see any racial conflicts whatsoever. However, most of them are race based. You don't see racial discrimination where there isn't more than one race.
Spiegellman 2 months ago
Whew...I'm glad to find out that the stereotype "inbred hillbilly" applies to Africans!
hartforest 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Race mixing with niggers should be illegal.
Mixing between white germans, french, anglos, etc. is also wrong, because it ruins the racial purity. Watch out.
Trickroad 4 months ago
@Trickroad No. You're going too far. People should mix if they want to. However, they should be made aware of their ancestry and own cultures should be promoted (WITHOUT bashing others). Let the past be past, keep note of it, and prevent it from being the future. Unfortunately, today we see the opposite : youngsters raised to bash their own cultures and embrace only foreign ones, in the name of "open mind". Then other cultures, usually more primitive, have room to invade and impose.
Spiegellman 3 months ago