Thread: Racism. Can it be justified? I think so.

Originally Posted by MrG

definition of race. Please define your terms and what, exactly, is a racial group.

Races developed after people spread out around the the world , basically the 3 main races :

European race is defined and dominated by the little Neanderthal DNA we have .

African race has zero Neanderthal

Asians race probably formed from some mixing with another subspecies of Homo sapiens similar to the Neanderthals.

Originally Posted by blue

Originally Posted by MrG

definition of race. Please define your terms and what, exactly, is a racial group.

Races developed after people spread out around the the world , basically the 3 main races :

European race is defined and dominated by the little Neanderthal DNA we have .

African race has zero Neanderthal

Asians race probably formed from some mixing with another subspecies of Homo sapiens similar to the Neanderthals.

Where did you find that theory? I've never heard of it, and it doesn't sound right. Can you site any references?

Thanks,


RickThai

Originally Posted by RickThai

I believe in the future

yes, difficult not to

Santi

Andygobble

well, I make my own theories up ,
so no links .
but there must be plenty of data on neanderthal interbreeding with homo sapiens, that's probably where we get our creativity, inventiveness , and artistic flair .

Originally Posted by blue

aces developed after people spread out around the the world , basically the 3 main races : European race is defined and dominated by the little Neanderthal DNA we have . African race has zero Neanderthal Asians race probably formed from some mixing with another subspecies of Homo sapiens similar to the Neanderthals.

gosh, Blue, have you had that published yet!?

it would create a furore amongst all the paleoanthropologists out there

Here is one explanation and definition of "Race" as described in an article by an "anthropologist".

It seems to make sense to me.


The Origin of Races
People whose ancestors have been living in the same geographic area for a long time tend to show similarities in visible characteristics such as size and shape, skin color, and hair form, and also invisible characteristics such as blood groups. Some of these groups are large, as were native Americans before Europeans and Africans came to the New World. Some are small, as are neo-Hawaiians (the descendants of Europeans, Japanese, and Polynesians). Large groups can be subdivided, depending on the level of comparison being made: sub-Saharan Africans are more similar to one another than they are to Europeans, but within this groups there is considerable diversity, such as that between the brown-skinned Bushman-Hottentot people and Bantu-speaking ("black") Africans.

Human "racial" diversity is a result of people in a geographic area intermarrying, being exposed to a number of biological processes, and adapting slowly to local environments. These biological processes include combining and recombining inherited genetic material over the generations, which produces offspring and descendants who differ from their parents and ancestors. The environment may favor certain characteristics, producing populations that are on the average taller, or darker, or more rugged than other populations from other geographic areas. Isolation and inbreeding of some populations may produce differences as well. These natural processes occur in humans as well as other animals and are the source of much study in biology and anthropology.

However, even if people in different geographic areas differ, it is impossible to draw sharp lines between racial groups. Few if any populations are cut off from others, and even if laws, culture, and/or religion prohibit it, mating does take place. Characteristics of people change gradually from one geographic area to another; where across Central Asia do European "whites" leave off and Asian "yellows" begin? Anthropologists see races as temporary, changing phenomena, products of genetic processes and natural selection. The races we see today are different from those of yesterday and will be different tomorrow.

RickThai

Originally Posted by DrAndy

Blue, have you had that published yet!?

I know Andy I should , But I have no real interest in fame or acclaim .
And it would jut become established fact , but future generations would just say its bloody obvious ... so why bother .
Just like one of my other theories - that original man was light skinned , ' white ' even as we were covered with hair from head to toe , why would we need pigmentation ? especially as this would be expensive to produce .
Blacks only became so very recently after the climate changed in Africa.

yet time and time again i see the mistake of early man portrayed as dark .
But let them blunder on ..

Anyway thanks for the encouragement and suggestion DrAndy .

justification for having a racist immigration policy
and another example of a PC win.

Opemipo Jaji: Paedophile jailed for minimum of eight years for raping 11-year-old girl


Paedophile Opemipo Jaji subjected her to a three-hour ordeal and threatened to stab her after she tried to run away

Opemipo Jaji: Paedophile jailed for minimum of eight years for raping 11-year-old girl - Mirror Online

You are a fuckwit, aren't you?

White man rapes baby.



Ohio Man Who Raped 6-Month-Old Baby to Death Wants Mercy | TheBlaze.com

No Harry, he follows the same line like you. The Aryan Neanderthal crossbred with humans, and that's the source of evil.

Originally Posted by RickThai

However, even if people in different geographic areas differ, it is impossible to draw sharp lines between racial groups.

And there's your answer. Fact is, there is no way to make racial distinctions that hold up to any kind of logic. Your quote talks about races in terms of the color of skin, but skin color is meaningless. As is the texture of hair, the shape of the nose, all the usual distinctions that have been used for centuries but are totally meaningless. It's an antiquated term. You may as well divide people into races based on their hororscope.

Why is skin colour meaningless? Are you aware that there are quite substantial differences in the IQ between the races? East Asians and Europeans do well, and Africans are more at the bottom?

Originally Posted by Rainfall

Why is skin colour meaningless? Are you aware that there are quite substantial differences in the IQ between the races?

Are you aware that that has bugger all to do with skin colour and more to do with nutrition and education?

Hong Kongese tend to be rather darker than their more northern, less well-endowed comrades.

Originally Posted by DrB0b

Originally Posted by Rainfall

Why is skin colour meaningless? Are you aware that there are quite substantial differences in the IQ between the races?

Are you aware that that has bugger all to do with skin colour and more to do with nutrition and education?

Rainfall, you should do an IQ test then, Hey Presto!, you can work out where you come from! I'd guess somewhere below Zambia.

Originally Posted by DrB0b

Originally Posted by Rainfall

Why is skin colour meaningless? Are you aware that there are quite substantial differences in the IQ between the races?

Are you aware that that has bugger all to do with skin colour and more to do with nutrition and education?

That's not really true, in the US testing has been going on for years and nutrition was cited as the main cause for lower IQ ratings in different ethnic groups. Better testing methods have come up with similar results. Same as crime stats, certain racial groups have higher crime rates than others. Nothing to do with environment, more about high testosterone and other chemicals produced in the body.
US justice Department can, with a high degree of accuracy identify persons who will be involved in violent crime later in life by doing blood test at high school. If you believe all are equal in all ways, god is a racist, he generally gives sickle-cell anemia to peoples of dark skin. Jim

I think you'll find Sickle-cell anaemia is both hereditary and very common in those who have a family history in sub-saharan Africa and other areas where malaria was present.

It's exacerbated by the nasty habit of inter-marrying in some cultures to keep the family wealth together.

It most certainly does not target people based on skin colour.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

I think you'll find Sickle-cell anaemia is both hereditary and very common in those who have a family history in sub-saharan Africa and other areas where malaria was present.

It's exacerbated by the nasty habit of inter-marrying in some cultures to keep the family wealth together.

It most certainly does not target people based on skin colour.

So habits over 100s of years do not effect the gene make up of a race. If green people breed to produce a race of super smart people and purple people breed to produce a bunch of stupid people, is that not a racial difference over time.
Monkeys and gorillas may have evolved from the same origins, does that make them the same.
Skin color may be of little reliance, but 1,000s of years of evolution on the genetic make up of races will.
There are racial traits and denying it is like saying all dogs behave in the same way. Jim

Originally Posted by jamescollister

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

I think you'll find Sickle-cell anaemia is both hereditary and very common in those who have a family history in sub-saharan Africa and other areas where malaria was present.

It's exacerbated by the nasty habit of inter-marrying in some cultures to keep the family wealth together.

It most certainly does not target people based on skin colour.

So habits over 100s of years do not effect the gene make up of a race. If green people breed to produce a race of super smart people and purple people breed to produce a bunch of stupid people, is that not a racial difference over time.
Monkeys and gorillas may have evolved from the same origins, does that make them the same.
Skin color may be of little reliance, but 1,000s of years of evolution on the genetic make up of races will.
There are racial traits and denying it is like saying all dogs behave in the same way. Jim

I don't know what you are banging on about, but I'm simply telling you that Sickle Cell Anaemia does not care who it infects, it's a genetic disease and two white parents with the right genetic trigger can give it to white kids.

I'm simply pointing out that while there are statistical anomalies, they are based on geography and cultural habits, not skin colour.

Because Sickle Cell allowed people to survive at the expense of malaria, those areas affected by malaria meant the gene was statistically more prevalent in those areas.

And since it's an inherited disease, it is still present in people who have never been exposed to malaria in their lives.

You're just perpetuating another stupid racist old wives tale, frankly.

Where you said:

If you believe all are equal in all ways, god is a racist, he generally gives sickle-cell anemia to peoples of dark skin. Jim

You should have said: "If you believe all are equal in all ways, god is a racist, he GAVE sickle-cell anemia to peoples whose ancestors lived in areas where sickle cell anaemia and malaria co-existed. They just happened to be black in most cases. Jim"

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

You're just perpetuating another stupid racist old wives tale, frankly.

Fancy that!

And on TD, too.

HP are you saying that malaria is the cause of the disease over time, lots of malatria over this way and little SCE. Or are you saying that genetics make up, makes no difference to skin color, intellect, sporting ability, or social cohesion over 1,000 of years.
There was a guy call Darwin who wrote a book on it, don't recall where he said humans where different. You evolve to survive and your environment dictates which genes are passed on.

Aborigines where in an evolutionary dead end road, given your prospect. If we had left them alone, they would have made the jump to science in a few years, after 10 or 20.000 years.

Be honest, in the animal world and we are animals, our prime goal is survival, we decimate other species all the time, to guarantee our gene pools continuastion.

To say one race is superior to another, is saying which tribe will defeat another.

I would bet you and others who write about PC stuff would not stand up and be counted if it cost money or may be advise to your health.

Got to give the Muslims one thing, they die for what they believe, would you. Jim

Originally Posted by jamescollister

Got to give the Muslims one thing, they die for what they believe, would you.

Hard to say whether dying for what you believe is an adaptive behavior or not, since evolution apparently operates at the level of the gene, rather than the pool.

And speaking of "pools" and their willingness to die for what they believe. I don't think the Chinese have ever developed anything like the military idealization of self-sacrifice that you are talking about. They represent an awful lot of successful surviving individuals,

Originally Posted by jamescollister

HP are you saying that malaria is the cause of the disease over time, lots of malatria over this way and little SCE. Or are you saying that genetics make up, makes no difference to skin color, intellect, sporting ability, or social cohesion over 1,000 of years.
There was a guy call Darwin who wrote a book on it, don't recall where he said humans where different. You evolve to survive and your environment dictates which genes are passed on.

It's funny, I'm fairly certain I've written in clear English. Which bit don't you understand?

That bit about Sickle Cell Anaemia distribution originally being related to malaria, or the bit where I said cultures that marry and reproduce within the extended family (normally tribal ones) are where the genes tend to perpetuate?

Or the bit where I said that it doesn't give a flying fuck about the skin colour of its victims?

Mind you, you lost me with the "God" bit.

It's absolutely Darwinian in its progress, so please make your mind up which one you're going for.

Originally Posted by mao say dung

Originally Posted by jamescollister

Got to give the Muslims one thing, they die for what they believe, would you.

Hard to say whether dying for what you believe is an adaptive behavior or not, since evolution apparently operates at the level of the gene, rather than the pool.

And speaking of "pools" and their willingness to die for what they believe. I don't think the Chinese have ever developed anything like the military idealization of self-sacrifice that you are talking about. They represent an awful lot of successful surviving individuals,

Hard to say about the Chinese mentality, very family orientated. add to that China is not one race of people Though they did seem to storm across the border in Korea and lay down their lives for a belief.
On the racial thing, believe the Chinese score higher than the west on IQ levels. Jim