'Black Lives Matter' Organizer Outed as White?

[Origanalist]

Another poser...? LOL

http://media.breitbart.com/media/2015/08/shaun-king-screencap-640x480.jpg

by MILO YIANNOPOULOS19 Aug 2015

An investigative blogger has accused Shaun King, a key figure in the Black Lives Matter movement, of misleading media icon Oprah Winfrey by pretending to be biracial in order to qualify for an “Oprah scholarship” to historically black Morehouse College. The blogger says King is white and has been lying about his ethnicity for years.

King is a high-profile campaigner against “police brutality” and “justice correspondent” for the liberal Daily Kos website who told Rebel magazine in 2012 that he was biracial, with the magazine reporting that he is the “son of a Caucasian mother and an African-American father.” He has also described himself as “mixed with a black family” on Twitter.

King has been lionised by the press, praised as hero of civil rights and social activism. He has written extensively about a childhood in which he was terrorised by “decades old racial tensions.” He claims to have been “the focus of constant abuse of the resident rednecks of my school.”

Yet, in recent weeks, rumours have been circulating about his ethnicity. A 1995 police incident report lists Shaun King’s ethnicity as white. And blogger Vicki Pate, who has been assembling forensic accounts of Shaun King’s background and family tree on her blog, “Re-NewsIt!,” has published her findings.

She claims that King is entirely white and says a birth certificate, which Breitbart has since independently acquired from the Kentucky Office of Vital Statistics, names a white man as his father.

King’s case echoes that of Rachel Dolezal, a civil rights activist from Washington who claimed to be biracial while in fact being of caucasian origin. Dolezal continues to insist she “identifies as black,” despite her parents revealing that she is entirely white.

http://media.breitbart.com/media/2015/08/hqdefault.jpg

If Pate is right, Shaun King, who often uses black and white photographs of himself online rather than colour images, may have misled African-American hero Winfrey by applying for and accepting an Oprah Scholarship to the historically black Morehouse College. Oprah Scholarships are given exclusively to black men.

In his Daily Kos diary, King refers to himself as a “brother,” writing: “Oprah Winfrey paid my way through Morehouse. The leadership scholarship that I received from her is why I have a college degree today. Five hundred other brothers have the exact same story.”

Shaun King’s biography has attracted the attention of bloggers and journalists thanks to several bizarre inconsistencies in his public claims. He often struggles when asked to recall basic facts about his own life. For instance, in August 2014, King wrote on Twitter that he was father to three “black girls,” while, six months earlier, he claimed to be father to four.

It is of course possible that a family tragedy is responsible for the inconsistency, but the unexplained change in biographical details is not a one-off. In October 2009, King claimed to have endured four spinal surgeries. By February 2010, the number of surgeries had shrunk to three. There is also some confusion about when an alleged car crash may or may not have happened.

As it turns out, these explosive new racial allegations are just the latest in a string of controversies surrounding Shaun King: on July 21, a conservative blog reported that his account of a “brutal, racially-motivated beating” in 1995, which at least two reports have described as “Kentucky’s first hate crime,” did not match up with a police report from the case.

“King, 35, has related the story of the hate crime on his blogs and in his recent self-help book, seemingly to bolster his credibility as an activist and as a self-help guru,” wrote the Daily Caller‘s Chuck Ross. “While King has said that he was attacked by up to a dozen ‘racist’ and ‘redneck’ students, official records show that the altercation involved only one other student.”

“And while King has claimed that he suffered a ‘brutal’ beating that left him clinging to life, the police report characterized King’s injuries as ‘minor,'” Ross reported.

more here....http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/08/19/did-black-lives-matter-organiser-shaun-king-mislead-oprah-winfrey-by-pretending-to-be-biracial/

[wizardwatson]

Another transracial #wrongskin victim is brutalized by the oppressive jack-booted fascist media thugs of America.

This isn't the world Michael Jackson fought for. If he appears to be black and acts black, he's black. Asking someone to prove their race is racist and offensive and robs them of their pride and dignity. Especially for transracial #wrongskins who have spent years of effort maintaining their race whereas traditional races take their racial identity for granted.

How many more victims before we get justice?

[Origanalist]

Another transracial #wrongskin victim is brutalized by the oppressive jack-booted fascist media thugs of America.

This isn't the world Michael Jackson fought for. If he appears to be black and acts black, he's black. Asking someone to prove their race is racist and offensive and robs them of their pride and dignity. Especially for transracial #wrongskins who have spent years of effort maintaining their race whereas traditional races take their racial identity for granted.

How many more victims before we get justice?

Oh I'm sure there will be more.

[tod evans]

What ever happened to the "Hands Up-Don't Shoot" group?

Have they been superseded due to lack of racial overtones?

[fisharmor]

Black people spend so much time being black people that they get white people to be black people too,
and as a result, nobody can see that this is all a distraction from the fact that in the eyes of the law, they're literally not people at all.

[Brian4Liberty]

Just another racial strife inciting charlatan. White, black, brown or green doesn't matter.

[AuH20]

http://www.barstoolsports.com/newyork/shaun-king-one-of-the-leaders-of-the-black-lives-matter-movement-turns-out-to-be-a-white-dude-pretending-to-be-half-black/

http://cdn.barstoolsports.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/19/2B7E878A00000578-3203522-image-m-45_1439993726144.jpg?464094

[dannno]

http://www.barstoolsports.com/newyork/shaun-king-one-of-the-leaders-of-the-black-lives-matter-movement-turns-out-to-be-a-white-dude-pretending-to-be-half-black/

http://cdn.barstoolsports.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/19/2B7E878A00000578-3203522-image-m-45_1439993726144.jpg?464094

Wow, nothing says 1979 like that couch.

[Origanalist]

Wow, nothing says 1979 like that couch.

Except maybe that hair.

[fisharmor]

Just another racial strife inciting charlatan. White, black, brown or green doesn't matter.

Sorry, spillover from the Mitch Hedberg thread....


You know when it comes to racism, people say: " I don't care if they're black, white, purple or green"… Ooh hold on now: Purple or Green? You gotta draw the line somewhere! To hell with purple people! - Unless they're suffocating - then help'em.

[AuH20]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CMyVtKWW8AAZJmg.jpg

[Mach]

But claims of King being the victim of a brutal racially charged mob beating are heavily disputed by documents reviewed by TheBlaze, as well as by details provided by the detective who worked the case. Some of these details were also reported in a July story published in the conservative Daily Caller, but TheBlaze has gathered additional information that further disputes King’s claims.

The police report and witness statements from the incident characterize King’s injuries as only “minor” and make no mention of a gang assault, but suggest it was rather a one-on-one fight over a girl.


The reason I hit Shawn [sic] is because he pushed my x-girlfriend up against the wall yesterday and threatened to break her neck over $8 dollars she owed him......

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/08/17/we-examined-black-lives-matter-activists-claim-he-was-victim-of-mob-assault-heres-what-we-found/

[Origanalist]

The reason I hit Shawn [sic] is because he pushed my x-girlfriend up against the wall yesterday and threatened to break her neck over $8 dollars she owed him......
Hey, 8 bucks is 8 bucks.

[Anti Federalist]

Black people spend so much time being black people that they get white people to be black people too,
and as a result, nobody can see that this is all a distraction from the fact that in the eyes of the law, they're literally not people at all.

And Fish wins today's internets.

[AuH20]

It's getting good.

https://twitter.com/ShaunKing/status/634035552426323968

[AuH20]

I'm in tears.............

https://twitter.com/Nero/status/634007665950261249

[Brian4Liberty]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZg4XwVi3Qs

[Origanalist]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qtmi4Nc-3dE

[William Tell]

Another poser...? LOL

http://media.breitbart.com/media/2015/08/shaun-king-screencap-640x480.jpg



His last name is King, your argument is invalid.

[specsaregood]

Will they keep digging until they find out he's actually a govt spook?

[erowe1]

I'm white, and I agree with black lives matter. Is that wrong?

[specsaregood]

I'm white, and I agree with black lives matter. Is that wrong?

Nope. I don't believe anybody here is saying it is.

[Mach]

POSER

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-bcSMAIYTp8A/TX5HFZbCkpI/AAAAAAAAF6g/87YW8Ld4Bf4/s1600/PastorShaunKing-133.jpg

Just another product.

[PRB]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CMyVtKWW8AAZJmg.jpg

God bless the whiggers

[phill4paul]

This shit is getting hilarious, SMDH.

[William Tell]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CMyVtKWW8AAZJmg.jpg

He looks slightly like Bob Barr. More than slightly.

[TaftFan]

Chuck Johnson is claiming credit for this as revenge.

[PRB]

I'm white, and I agree with black lives matter. Is that wrong?

nope, but you don't need to lie about being black to fight for justice.

[DamianTV]

The obviousness of Manufactured Dissent is increasing.

In any world where Real Freedom and Real Liberty are thriving, we should have white people saying Black Lives Matter, and black people saying White Lives Matter. Why? Because we need to take care of each other, not let race or any other divide and conquer tactics create conflict where none exists. We should have a super majority of the People that collectively agree that Human Life Matters. By de facto, this would have to include Blacks, Whites, Muslims, Christians, and yes, even Cops.

When death has no consequence, life has no value. If we are to beat the current Status Quo, we must do so in a way in which we do not lose our own humanity to win our battles, and ultimately, the war. We must be better than they are, not by resorting to petty violence against those who have become the statistical consequences of our corruption, but by looking up towards those who enabled the corruption in the first place. There must be accountability in the system.

Human Lives Matter.

[erowe1]

nope, but you don't need to lie about being black to fight for justice.

What if I just decide to be black? Then it wouldn't be a lie.

[tod evans]

What if I just decide to be black? Then it wouldn't be a lie.

You can "decide" that you're a lollipop but that doesn't make it so....

I just tried "deciding" I was a multimillionaire, the bank sent me packin'......

[William Tell]

What if I just decide to be black? Then it wouldn't be a lie.

It would be a lie that you're black. Kind of like if you said you were Shirley Temple. Not the end of the world I guess, whatever.

[erowe1]

You can "decide" that you're a lollipop but that doesn't make it so....

I just tried "deciding" I was a multimillionaire, the bank sent me packin'......

But I'm excluded from the definition of the word "lollipop" by things I can't change. This is not true for the word "black."

It's not like the guy in the OP lied about what he looks like. He was out there in public. He just chose to identify himself a certain way.

[erowe1]

It would be a lie that you're black. Kind of like if you said you were Shirley Temple. Not the end of the world I guess, whatever.

What would make it a lie? Are there certain objective criteria that disqualify someone from being able to identify as black? If so, what are they? Skin color? Hair curliness? Music taste? Parentage?

[Dr.3D]

It would be a lie that you're black. Kind of like if you said you were Shirley Temple. Not the end of the world I guess, whatever.
Well, her last name was Black.

[erowe1]

If Pate is right, Shaun King, who often uses black and white photographs of himself online rather than colour images, may have misled African-American hero Winfrey by applying for and accepting an Oprah Scholarship to the historically black Morehouse College. Oprah Scholarships are given exclusively to black men.


I assume that the only criterion for blackness that Winfrey uses for those scholarships is self-identification. If so, Shaun King did not mislead Winfrey. He meets her criterion.

I'd like to see more people do this very thing.

[AuH20]

Close cropped hair. CHECK
Eddie Murphy Stache and Goatee. CHECK
Hand Mannerisms CHECK
Failure to Use Linking Verbs CHECK
Afro Centric Tshirt CHECK

You too can be black today with a little effort and ingenuity!

[Henry Rogue]

If Pate is right, Shaun King, who often uses black and white photographs of himself online rather than colour images, may have misled African-American hero Winfrey by applying for and accepting an Oprah Scholarship to the historically black Morehouse College. Oprah Scholarships are given exclusively to black men.

When life imitates art.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2zMrjBLwn8

[tod evans]

Just called Guido and tole him I 'cided I was a Dago and I wanted a cut of the family business....

Now I'm hiding........

[roho76]

#whiteliesmatter lol

[Mach]

Close cropped hair. CHECK
Eddie Murphy Stache and Goatee. CHECK
Hand Mannerisms CHECK
Failure to Use Linking Verbs CHECK
Afro Centric Tshirt CHECK

You too can be black today with a little effort and ingenuity!

We could start a school and call it.... Black Like Me....... Millions, the first year.


White Like Me (SNL)
https://screen.yahoo.com/white-000000112.html


-----

[DevilsAdvocate]

Same headline on the Huffington Post: "Black Lives Matter Organizer Outed as a Racist"

[PRB]

What if I just decide to be black? Then it wouldn't be a lie.

you can be black as long as you say you are, but you can't lie about things that didn't happen, just as where your father was born or where you were beaten up for being black or called the N word, if it didn't happen.

so I rephrase, you can identify as any ethnic group you like, but lying about things that didn't happen is still lying.

[Anti Federalist]

Orig...

What the hell is that peeking out of Frump's hairpiece?

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Ye Gods, another one. These two psychos can't be all there is. I wonder how many other deranged whites out there are masquerading as blacks. This is what happens when a people are separated from their culture, and told that their accomplishments mean nothing because they're a race of evil oppressors.

The modern world gets more ridiculous by the day, it seems. Maybe this will wake some people up to the farce that is Black Lives Matter.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

What if I just decide to be black? Then it wouldn't be a lie.
Race is a real thing; phenotypic differences based on genotypic variation. You can't just decide to be a different phenotype.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

BTW, Milo Yiannopoulos has once again proven himself to be the best, most cutting-edge modern journalist in the social media age. Love that guy.

[Dr.3D]

Orig...

What the hell is that peeking out of Frump's hairpiece?
That's not his hairpiece, it's a peacock and that's it's head.

[Mach]

A black conservative group is offering to pay the activist organization Black Lives Matter $25,000 if Shaun King can prove that his father is black.



Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/08/20/black-conservative-group-offers-25k-for-proof-that-shaun-king-is-black/#ixzz3jOrYjfP1

[erowe1]

Race is a real thing; phenotypic differences based on genotypic variation. You can't just decide to be a different phenotype.

A phenotype is not something a person is. It's a specific single trait. Is there some phenotype that makes someone belong to some race? If so, what is it? Skin color?

[Spikender]

It's hard to admit it but, Mom, I'm white.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

A phenotype is not something a person is. It's a specific single trait. Is there some phenotype that makes someone belong to some race? If so, what is it? Skin color?
A phenotype is not a single trait, it's the composite amalgamation of observable differences.

[PRB]

A phenotype is not something a person is. It's a specific single trait. Is there some phenotype that makes someone belong to some race? If so, what is it? Skin color?

Skin color is the easiest indication of it, but there are exceptions.

Ancestry.com's DNA test isn't based on single traits.

[Origanalist]

Orig...

What the hell is that peeking out of Frump's hairpiece?

A bird.

http://i1244.photobucket.com/albums/gg563/DouglasPaul/Bird-Shit_2015-06-19_21-16-50-589x391.jpg

[Paul Or Nothing II]

Another transracial #wrongskin victim is brutalized by the oppressive jack-booted fascist media thugs of America.

This isn't the world Michael Jackson fought for. If he appears to be black and acts black, he's black. Asking someone to prove their race is racist and offensive and robs them of their pride and dignity. Especially for transracial #wrongskins who have spent years of effort maintaining their race whereas traditional races take their racial identity for granted.

How many more victims before we get justice?

What do you mean by "acts black"? I thought we were all the same & there's no such thing as race. Are you a racist or what?

[Spikender]

What do you mean by "acts black"? I thought we were all the same & there's no such thing as race. Are you a racist or what?

True that. Race is just a social construct and skin color is just a eyesight disorder that we will evolve out of in like two hundred years.

[erowe1]

A phenotype is not a single trait, it's the composite amalgamation of observable differences.

What amalgamation of observable differences is required to classify someone as black? How dark does their skin have to be? How curly does there hair have to be? What objective criteria are there? And is this list of criteria written down anywhere so that we can apply the requisite tests to any given person and determine what race they are, according to their composite amalgamation of observable traits?

[erowe1]

What do you mean by "acts black"? I thought we were all the same & there's no such thing as race. Are you a racist or what?

I won't say there's no such thing as race. It's a social construct, but being a social construct doesn't mean something doesn't exist.

However, I think the fact that we recognize such a thing as "acting black" shows that it's not just a matter of phenotypes. It's also cultural as well as other things. Anybody with any amalgamation of observable characteristics is capable of acting in whatever way might be considered black.

[PRB]

What do you mean by "acts black"? I thought we were all the same & there's no such thing as race. Are you a racist or what?

We are biologically the same, but acting black is a cultural/ethnic description, yes, it's still racist, but it doesn't mean there's no such thing as black behavior or stereotypes, even if it's not accurate or definitive.

[PRB]

I won't say there's no such thing as race. It's a social construct, but being a social construct doesn't mean something doesn't exist.


Actually, that's exactly what it means, or specifically, it means it doesn't exist in nature, only in human terms.



However, I think the fact that we recognize such a thing as "acting black" shows that it's not just a matter of phenotypes. It's also cultural as well as other things. Anybody with any amalgamation of observable characteristics is capable of acting in whatever way might be considered black.

it's simpler than that, acting black means conforming to a stereotype and behavior that's associated with blacks, it has little to do with biology.

[PRB]

What amalgamation of observable differences is required to classify someone as black? How dark does their skin have to be? How curly does there hair have to be? What objective criteria are there? And is this list of criteria written down anywhere so that we can apply the requisite tests to any given person and determine what race they are, according to their composite amalgamation of observable traits?

just because I can't give you a perfect line, doesn't mean all shades of black are equally black.

we can stop being so PC and just admit ancestry exists, even if skin color isn't the perfect indication of it.

[erowe1]

just because I can't give you a perfect line, doesn't mean all shades of black are equally black.

we can stop being so PC and just admit ancestry exists, even if skin color isn't the perfect indication of it.

Nobody ever said ancestry didn't exist. So is that what races are? People's ancestry?

Acknowledging that races are social constructs doesn't have anything to do with PC. It's science.

[erowe1]

Actually, that's exactly what it means, or specifically, it means it doesn't exist in nature, only in human terms.

Which is it? Does it not exist or does it exist?

Either way, what you just described, that race doesn't exist in nature, only in human terms, is exactly the truth. It's like language, culture, or religion. It's not something that scientists can discover. Races are categorical labels that have the meaning we as society agree to give them through constant negotiation by way of our use of the labels. Of course, none of this means that races don't exist. Races exist as social constructs just like languages, cultures, and religions exist.



it's simpler than that, acting black means conforming to a stereotype and behavior that's associated with blacks, it has little to do with biology.

So you can identify as black based on how you act, regardless of anything biological?

[PRB]

Nobody ever said ancestry didn't exist. So is that what races are? People's ancestry?


Race is the amalgammation of differences DUE TO ancestry. Relations are relative, a person born in England before there was mass immigration and airplanes is "more" related to a person in Greece vs China & Africa.



Acknowledging that races are social constructs doesn't have anything to do with PC. It's science.

too often people confuse the fact that social constructs means either ancestry doesn't matter, or that skin color is no indication of ancestry, neither are completely true.

[PRB]

Which is it? Does it not exist or does it exist?


The English language doesn't exist but for humans inventing it and using it.



Either way, what you just described, that race doesn't exist in nature, only in human terms, is exactly the truth. It's like language, culture, or religion. It's not something that scientists can discover.


Scientists can't find the lines that divide, but they can assign relative relations.



Races are categorical labels that have the meaning we as society agree to give them through constant negotiation by way of our use of the labels. Of course, none of this means that races don't exist. Races exist as social constructs just like languages, cultures, and religions exist.


People who say "it's a social construct" want to mean "it doesn't exist without humans recognizing it, and we should stop recognzing it".



So you can identify as black based on how you act, regardless of anything biological?

You can lie about anything, but if you want to act black, you'll be treated black regardless of your skin color.

[liveandletlive]

Is he gonna take a test or what? this countrys obsession with race is surely unhealthy however.

[Peace&Freedom]

He's just a dude playing a dude disguised as another dude. Ain't nuthin' butta thang.

[erowe1]

Race is the amalgammation of differences DUE TO ancestry. Relations are relative, a person born in England before there was mass immigration
There is no such thing. Before mass immigration there were no people born in England. Everyone ever born there is descended from people born elsewhere.

If race is an amalgamation of differences due to ancestry, or, as Paleolibertarian said, phenotypes, then we could take a population of a bunch of males and females, none of whom identify as black, and selectively breed their children to result in descendants at some point who have the right amalgamation of genetically inherited traits to match your definition of black, although none of their parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, and so on all the way back to the population of this initial population were black.

I don't have any problem with calling such a person "black." But if that's what blackness is, and if there is no clear line demarcating how much someone's phenotype has to match the archetype of blackness you want to use, it follows that this guy in the OP can consider himself black without being objectively wrong, and if he does, then he's not lying when he says so.

[erowe1]

The English language doesn't exist but for humans inventing it and using it.

The same is true of racial categories.



Scientists can't find the lines that divide, but they can assign relative relations.
What does this have to do with race?



People who say "it's a social construct" want to mean "it doesn't exist without humans recognizing it, and we should stop recognzing it".
Some people might mean that. But that's not where the claim comes from. It's a scientific fact. Anthropologists don't stop using racial categories just because they know they're social constructs.



You can lie about anything, but if you want to act black, you'll be treated black regardless of your skin color.
Ergo, race is more than just an amalgamation of differences due to ancestry. It also includes how a person acts.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

What amalgamation of observable differences is required to classify someone as black? How dark does their skin have to be? How curly does there hair have to be? What objective criteria are there? And is this list of criteria written down anywhere so that we can apply the requisite tests to any given person and determine what race they are, according to their composite amalgamation of observable traits?
If you have no African ancestry, you can't identify as someone who does. That is what "black" means.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Acknowledging that races are social constructs doesn't have anything to do with PC. It's science.
No it isn't. Race is biological.

[PRB]

No it isn't. Race is biological.

ancestry is biological, but the categories black/white/yellow are socially constructed and can change over time.

[PRB]

It also includes how a person acts.

No, that's ethnicity/culture. When liberals say "there is no race, only ethnicity" they mean there is only skin color that makes us look different, and behavior that we are taught after we're born, nothing makes human populations inherently different, and they're wrong.

[pcosmar]

No it isn't. Race is biological.

No it isn't. "Race" is an imaginary construct..

In Middle Earth or on Azeroth (fictional) there are Races. Human, Elf, Dwarf, Gnome, Orc, etc.

Races are fictional.

There is only one human race. There are family lines (ancestry)and regional and cultural differences that have developed over time.
But we are all the same race,, and going back far enough,,all the same family.

[PRB]

The same is true of racial categories.


What does this have to do with race?

what you just said above, racial categories are social and artificial assignments, but ancestry is very much scientific. scientists don't say "if you're 25% African, you're not African enough to be black" but they will say "If you're 25% African, you're more African than a person who is 0% African, and less than a person who's 75% African" So while many people are not "purely white" or "purely black" which requires definite dividing lines, we can assign and calculate abundance/relative relation.

[PRB]

No it isn't. "Race" is an imaginary construct..

In Middle Earth or on Azeroth (fictional) there are Races. Human, Elf, Dwarf, Gnome, Orc, etc.

Races are fictional.

There is only one human race. There are family lines (ancestry)and regional and cultural differences that have developed over time.
But we are all the same race,, and going back far enough,,all the same family.

So you're equally African as Barack Obama and equally Asian as Yao Ming?

Just because we are one species that can interbreed, doesn't mean there are no differences between us. Africans have dark skin, tend to have curly hair, and tend to have wider noses, east Asians (oriental) tend to have smaller eyes, less body hair and shorter overall body height..etc.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

ancestry is biological, but the categories black/white/yellow are socially constructed and can change over time.
How we identify race is socially delineated, but what we base it on is biological.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

No it isn't. "Race" is an imaginary construct..

In Middle Earth or on Azeroth (fictional) there are Races. Human, Elf, Dwarf, Gnome, Orc, etc.

Races are fictional.

There is only one human race. There are family lines (ancestry)and regional and cultural differences that have developed over time.
But we are all the same race,, and going back far enough,,all the same family.
No, wrong. The races differ in muscle mass, fat distribution, hormone levels, skull shape, skull size, brain size and average IQ among other things. These are all biological differences. The races differ genetically.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

http://s16.postimg.org/qe8al1n39/caucasoid_mongoloid_negroid.jpg

Social construct. Yeah, sure.

[juleswin]

No it isn't. "Race" is an imaginary construct..

In Middle Earth or on Azeroth (fictional) there are Races. Human, Elf, Dwarf, Gnome, Orc, etc.

Races are fictional.

There is only one human race. There are family lines (ancestry)and regional and cultural differences that have developed over time.
But we are all the same race,, and going back far enough,,all the same family.

If you want to know how much of a social construct race is, just get a baby and raise that baby in some country side community where only one race exists. Raise that kid till he is 8 or 9 and then take him/her to the city. I promise that he would point it out the second he sees someone different from his own race.

I think the lines that is put on race maybe a social construct but race itself has basis in reality.

[pcosmar]

How we identify race is socially delineated, but what we base it on is biological.

Bullshit.
Perhaps some Pseudoscience. Not any real science.

All humans trace their ancestry to one single individual,, and to his three sons.
any real science will only confirm this.

[pcosmar]

I promise that he would point it out the second he sees someone different from his own race.

.
Would be the same with anyone outside his tribe.. regardless..
They wear different clothes,, or they have different tattoos.
I suppose you could teach a child to fear any differences, just as easily as you could teach tolerance.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Bullshit.
Perhaps some Pseudoscience. Not any real science.

All humans trace their ancestry to one single individual,, and to his three sons.
any real science will only confirm this.
You are woefully ignorant. Humanity came out of Africa, but significant evolutionary changes have happened since then, as the races have been (mostly) geographically isolated and adapted to their diverse environments. The biological differences between the races are not "social constructs". The common ancestry of humanity in no way refutes biological differences between the races.

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

All humans trace their ancestry to one single individual,, and to his three sons.

I too have been arguing for years that all of humanity is descended from Fred MacMurray. No one seems to believe me, though. :(


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/94/My3Sons.jpg


any real science will only confirm this.

Sounds legit.

[enhanced_deficit]

Another poser...? LOL

http://media.breitbart.com/media/2015/08/shaun-king-screencap-640x480.jpg

by MILO YIANNOPOULOS19 Aug 2015

An investigative blogger has accused Shaun King, a key figure in the Black Lives Matter movement, of misleading media icon Oprah Winfrey by pretending to be biracial in order to qualify for an “Oprah scholarship” to historically black Morehouse College. The blogger says King is white and has been lying about his ethnicity for years.


Reminded of this recent news:

Parents out 'black' NAACP leader as white woman

8:55 a.m. EDT June 12, 2015

http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/e8a7b2b70b94209f0c4025f79666f801c7973893/c=567-188-1448-850&r=x404&c=534x401/local/-/media/2015/06/12/USATODAY/USATODAY/635696901131142345-naacp-leader-061215.jpg

SPOKANE, Wash. — A recent investigation into racially charged threats (http://on.krem.com/1JGwjfW) made toward the president of the NAACP chapter in Spokane have raised questions beyond who made the threats.
On Thursday, the chapter president's parents claimed she had been deceiving people.
Ruthanne and Larry Dolezal said Thursday that they want people to know the truth, including that their daughter Rachel Dolezal is Caucasian. The Dolezals said their daughter is specifically German and Czech.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...ions/71110110/ (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/06/12/spokane-naacp-president-ethnicity-questions/71110110/)



Mindy Kaling’s brother pretended to be black to get into med school (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?472133-Mindy-Kaling%E2%80%99s-brother-pretended-to-be-black-to-get-into-med-school&)

https://********************************/2015/04/mindy.jpg?w=720&h=480&crop=1

[DFF]

There is only one human race. There are family lines (ancestry)and regional and cultural differences that have developed over time.
But we are all the same race,, and going back far enough,,all the same family.

What a load of liberal propagandized shit.
Europeans didn't evolve from Africans.
They developed independently.
They're not long-lost brothers separated by chance.
They are two completely different racial groups and these differences are reflected in their appearance, their behavior, and the societies they create.
And to point out the obvious, Europeans are the vastly superior group in every category that's worth mentioning.

[pcosmar]

What a load of liberal propagandized shit.
Europeans didn't evolve from Africans.
They developed independently.
They're not long-lost brothers separated by chance.
They are completely different and these differences are reflected in their appearance, their behavior, and the societies they create.
And to point out the obvious, Europeans are a vastly superior group in every measurable category.

Nope.. But that is the common White Supremacist position. as it is with the Zionist "Chosen Race" crap and the Asian Superiority crap.

Same elitist bullshit..packaging may vary.

[DFF]

Why are the worst countries in the world in sub-Saharan Africa?
And why are the best countries in the world located in Europe?
Could this be because one is populated with the most sophisticated people in the world?
And the other populated by a bunch of primitive savages?

[erowe1]

If you have no African ancestry, you can't identify as someone who does. That is what "black" means.

Everybody has African ancestry.

[DFF]

Everybody has African ancestry.

True, but northern Berber ancestry isn't the same as black sub-Saharan African ancestry.
One group has accomplished many things.
The other has accomplished absolutely nothing.

[erowe1]

How we identify race is socially delineated, but what we base it on is biological.

The first clause there is the important one.

And the second one is only partially true. We also base it on other cultural things.

[erowe1]

Why are the worst countries in the world in sub-Saharan Africa?


I totally hate how Botswana dropped those two nuclear bombs on Japan.

[DFF]

This what things are really like in Africa.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRuSS0iiFyo

Pure unadulterated savagery.

Cannibalism. Voodoo. Ignorance.

[erowe1]

What a load of liberal propagandized shit.
Europeans didn't evolve from Africans.
They developed independently.
They're not long-lost brothers separated by chance.
They are two completely different racial groups and these differences are reflected in their appearance, their behavior, and the societies they create.
And to point out the obvious, Europeans are the vastly superior group in every category that's worth mentioning.

Where did these two groups come from?

Did God create two different Adams?

Did they each evolve from two totally different microscopic proto-life-forms that emerged in the primordial soup and eventually evolved into two separate human-like races that are by an incredible coincidence remarkably similar and even capable of interbreeding?

[pcosmar]

Pure unadulterated savagery.



http://f.tqn.com/y/europeanhistory/1/W/8/J/VladatImpalementWikimediaCommons.gif

[DFF]

Where did these two groups come from?

Did God create two different Adams?

Who fucking cares? All that matters is one group is madeup of sophisticated people and the other ignorant savages.
So keep the savages out of you're country at all costs, because if you let these primitive retards in your country, they'll destroy it.

[juleswin]

This what things are really like in Africa.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRuSS0iiFyo

Pure unadulterated savagery.

Cannibalism. Voodoo. Ignorance.

Yea, that the way it is most of sub Saharan Africa, warlords in shinny glasses running about eating people. Not saying its all sunshine and rainbows, but this depiction is so atypical that when the video came out, my Africans friends were talking about it on facebook like its foreign to them.

Never build your world view about the world from mainly National Geographic or youtube entertainment channels. The places they go to are so out of the ordinary that many natives watching with shock and awe.

[erowe1]

So you're equally African as Barack Obama and equally Asian as Yao Ming?

Just because we are one species that can interbreed, doesn't mean there are no differences between us. Africans have dark skin, tend to have curly hair, and tend to have wider noses, east Asians (oriental) tend to have smaller eyes, less body hair and shorter overall body height..etc.

Let's make a comprehensive list, the way the kennel club does for dog breeds. Exactly how small do your eyes have to be, how little body hair must you have, how short must you be, and so on, to qualify as an east Asian?

No matter what criteria you come up with, we'll be able to produce that race by selective breeding from a starting population of people not in that race, just like we can do with dog breeds.

[erowe1]

Who fucking cares?

Obviously you. You made the claim. Please clarify what your position is. If you don't actually have a position, and you just made your remark up off the cuff, then you're not in a position to refer to what someone else said about the topic as liberal propagandized bullshit.

[DFF]

this depiction is so atypical that when it the video came out, my Africans friends were talking about it on facebook like its foreign to them.

Nice try putting lipstick on a pig, but it's a pretty well known fact that sub-saharan Africa is comprised of the most unstable, violent, rape filled shithole countries on the planet.
Ant this is not because of a lack of abundant resources. It's because it's filled with stupid people who because of their incompetence are still living in the stone-age.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Let's make a comprehensive list, the way the kennel club does for dog breeds. Exactly how small do your eyes have to be, how little body hair must you have, how short must you be, and so on, to qualify as an east Asian?

No matter what criteria you come up with, we'll be able to produce that race by selective breeding from a starting population of people not in that race, just like we can do with dog breeds.
This is a continuum fallacy.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Yea, that the way it is most of sub Saharan Africa, warlords in shinny glasses running about eating people. Not saying its all sunshine and rainbows, but this depiction is so atypical that when the video came out, my Africans friends were talking about it on facebook like its foreign to them.

Never build your world view about the world from mainly National Geographic or youtube entertainment channels. The places they go to are so out of the ordinary that many natives watching with shock and awe.
Not all of Africa is like that. Botswana for example is relatively decent (freer markets). There's no denying though, that most of Sub-Saharan Africa is a grizzly, brutal place that none of us would want to live in.

[erowe1]

This is a continuum fallacy.

No it isn't.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_fallacy

I've encountered racial realists themselves frequently claiming that human races are the same kind of thing as dog breeds, which I totally agree with them about. It usually never hit them, until I point it out, that dog breeds are also social constructs.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

No it isn't.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_fallacy
Yes it is. You're saying that because racial phenotypes exists on a continuum, that they are therefore not biological categories and are socially constructed.

[JK/SEA]

Nice try putting lipstick on a pig, but it's a pretty well known fact that sub-saharan Africa is comprised of the most unstable, violent, rape filled shithole countries on the planet.
Ant this is not because of a lack of abundant resources. It's because it's filled with stupid people who because of their incompetence are still living in the stone-age.

target rich environment there for ya boy...not many trees over there for you to hang a rope though....may as well just stay here and spew your racist bullshit.

[erowe1]

Yes it is. You're saying that because racial phenotypes exists on a continuum, that they are therefore not biological categories and are socially constructed.

Can you quote me saying that?

[juleswin]

Nice try putting lipstick on a pig, but it's a pretty well known fact that sub-saharan Africa is comprised of the most unstable, violent, rape filled shithole countries on the planet.
Ant this is not because of a lack of abundant resources. It's because it's filled with stupid people who because of their incompetence are still living in the stone-age.

Right on, they don't call it the dark continent for nothing. Also you forgot to mention slavery, I think the NGOs working over there said that there are 73 million slaves still in Africa, not indentured servants but slaves. I am sorry but there is no excuse for all that depraved and degenerate way of living.

DFF has exposed me yet again and "the truth about sub Saharan Africa". I wonder if Stefan is working on that video? Oh well, time to make like a banana and peel. I now remember why I try to avoid race posts on RPF.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Can you quote me saying that?
To say race is a social construct is to deny significant biological differences. If that's not your argument, then you're just being idiosyncratic and obtuse.

[erowe1]

To say race is a social construct is to deny significant biological differences. If that's not your argument, then you're just being idiosyncratic and obtuse.

I don't deny significant biological differences. And to say that race is a social construct is not to deny them. I'm neither being idiosyncratic nor obtuse. You can talk to any anthropologist to find that out.

Dog breeds are social constructs, but that doesn't make the biological differences between them any less real.

N.B. I did notice that you were not able to find a quote of me committing a continuum fallacy.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

I don't deny significant biological differences. And to say that race is a social construct is not to deny them. I'm neither being idiosyncratic nor obtuse. You can talk to any anthropologist to find that out.
To say it is a social construct is to deny biological differences. That is what everyone I have ever seen use the term means, and I've seen a lot of people say that. You are saying that race is socially created instead of biologically created. To say it is socially delineated is something else.

[DFF]

Right on, they don't call it the dark continent for nothing. Also you forgot to mention slavery, I think the NGOs working over there said that there are 73 million slaves still in Africa, not indentured servants but slaves.

You're correct. But what you (conveniently) failed to mention is that the slave-owners are not White, they're black.
African tribes enslaving other African tribes.
However I'm sure this type of oppression is perfectly acceptable since there's no White guilt angle for your kind to try and exploit.

[erowe1]

To say it is a social construct is to deny biological differences.
That's ridiculous. It doesn't entail that at all. If that's true of everyone you've encountered saying that, then you've hardly studied the subject at all.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

That's ridiculous. It doesn't entail that at all. If that's true of everyone you've encountered saying that, then you've hardly studied the subject at all.
I've read many, many books on it, actually, including from numerous egalitarians. If race is constructed by society then it is not constructed by biology. Obviously they don't think all biological differences; if that were the case, they'd be arguing that the differences in skin color are socially constructed, which would be absolutely ridiculous.

[erowe1]

To say it is socially delineated is something else.

No it isn't. To put people into categories and apply labels to them is to delineate between those categories. Nobody considers people with widow's peaks as all belonging to a race. But we could use that to delineate a race if we chose to just as much as we could use any other genetically inherited traits.

[erowe1]

I've read many, many books on it, actually, including from numerous egalitarians. If race is constructed by society then it is not constructed by biology[I].

Race is constructed by society. It is not constructed by biology (biologists themselves don't believe it is). But to say that race is constructed by society is not to deny any biological differences.

If you and society choose to make certain biological differences the basis for your racial categories, then obviously, because of that choice, those racial categories will align with those biological differences. But that will happen because you and society chose to categorize people that way.

Again, notice the comparison with dog breeds.

[timosman]

This what things are really like in Africa.


Pure unadulterated savagery.

Cannibalism. Voodoo. Ignorance.

BS. Remember how surprised America was when the Westgate Mall attack happened in Kenya ? They have malls over there ? :rolleyes:

Here is some real footage.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQ30Qe9vFyA

[PRB]

Let's make a comprehensive list, the way the kennel club does for dog breeds. Exactly how small do your eyes have to be, how little body hair must you have, how short must you be, and so on, to qualify as an east Asian?


I admitted, there's no perfect number to draw the line, which is why we assign percentages and relative proportions.



No matter what criteria you come up with, we'll be able to produce that race by selective breeding from a starting population of people not in that race, just like we can do with dog breeds.

That doesn't change the fact that 99% of Kenya's native population has a different skin color than 99% of Japan's native population.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

No it isn't. To put people into categories and apply labels to them is to delineate between those categories. Nobody considers people with widow's peaks as all belonging to a race. But we could use that to delineate a race if we chose to just as much as we could use any other genetically inherited traits.
I've explained this to you before, but you don't seem to get it. We could define people with widow's peaks as a race, but it would completely lack predictive and explanatory value, so it's a lousy scientific model. Race has both predictive and explanatory value, so it is a valuable taxanomic category.

[DFF]

http://f.tqn.com/y/europeanhistory/1/W/8/J/VladatImpalementWikimediaCommons.gif

There was intelligent thought behind Vlad Dracula's cruelty.
But lets assume he was a "savage."
What does singling out one person from millions really tell us?
Nothing, which it's why it's important to look at society as a whole.
And while there are a few bright spots, sub-Saharan Africa as a whole, is a total disaster.
Whereas Europe, made-up of modern, first-world countries, is the mirror opposite.

[PRB]

http://s16.postimg.org/qe8al1n39/caucasoid_mongoloid_negroid.jpg

Social construct. Yeah, sure.

You have 3 pics, A, B, C.

Can you tell me where the "wall" is which will make a skull A and not B? How do we know these are not extreme cases?

[erowe1]

I admitted, there's no perfect number to draw the line, which is why we assign percentages and relative proportions.

We do?

How do we ever identify any single individual as belonging to any race if all we ever do is assign percentages?




That doesn't change the fact that 99% of Kenya's native population has a different skin color than 99% of Japan's native population.

Now you're talking about people native to some country. You keep changing things. So is this what race is? Being native to some country?

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Race is constructed by society. It is not constructed by biology (biologists themselves don't believe it is). But to say that race is constructed by society is not to deny any biological differences.

If you and society choose to make certain biological differences the basis for your racial categories, then obviously, because of that choice, those racial categories will align with those biological differences. But that will happen because you and society chose to categorize people that way.

Again, notice the comparison with dog breeds.
Dog breeds are very analogous to race, yes. What we consider to be a pomeranian vis a vis a doberman is socially delineated, but there are biological differences between them, just as there are biological differences between the races. Race is a socially delineated, biological construct. I don't think you understand your own argument here.

[PRB]

Bullshit.
Perhaps some Pseudoscience. Not any real science.

All humans trace their ancestry to one single individual,, and to his three sons.
any real science will only confirm this.

Again, so that means you're equally black as Barack Obama and Osama bin Laden is equally Japanese as Yao Ming, right?

[PRB]

Now you're talking about people native to some country. You keep changing things. So is this what race is? Being native to some country?

Race does not mean you're native to a country, but being native to a country highly increases your chances of being a different ancestry than somebody native to another country.

I prefer the words "population" and "ancestry" as they are scientific and biological, race can mean as broad as all humans, and as narrow as ethnicity, so I try to avoid those words when making a point.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

You have 3 pics, A, B, C.

Can you tell me where the "wall" is which will make a skull A and not B? How do we know these are not extreme cases?
There is no "wall", it's all a continuum. The differences between the races in skull morphology is thoroughly documented. Stephen Jay Gould had to lie to attempt to refute the data.

[PRB]

We do?
How do we ever identify any single individual as belonging to any race if all we ever do is assign percentages?


That's the freaking point! We don't and don't need to place everybody in a perfect cookie cutter, we can say a person X% one population and Y% another. If populations cannot interbreed, we could simply say one population is a distinct race, but because they CAN, we no longer can contain people in populations, we can assign percentages to what a person is and isn't.

[tod evans]

Can "Hillbilly" be a race?

How about subspecies? Ozark, Blue Ridge, Appalachian, etc.....

I want a pedigree!

What about stud service? Will I get kicked out of the Hillbilly registry if I breed city mongrels?

It's all so damn confusing trying to be special..........

[PRB]

There is no "wall", it's all a continuum. The differences between the races in skull morphology is thoroughly documented. Stephen Jay Gould had to lie to attempt to refute the data.

So do you admit the lacking of walls makes races social constructs?

Or, at least, walls are imagined, continua are scientific?

Furthermore, people don't fit into perfect boxes or walls, instead, everybody has a different percentage of where his ancestry came from?

[erowe1]

You have 3 pics, A, B, C.

Can you tell me where the "wall" is which will make a skull A and not B? How do we know these are not extreme cases?

It's not just a matter of telling where to draw the line between one and the other, it's also the more general issue of saying that these differences are races.

But this issue of skull shape is a great illustration of why the belief that races are social constructs does not entail the belief that the biological differences that people use in dividing one another up into races themselves don't exist.

Here's an article from a forensic anthropologist that illustrates my point.
http://anthropology.msu.edu/anp202-us13/files/2012/05/Sauer-1992-Forensic-Anthropology-Race-Concept-1.pdf

[erowe1]

That's the freaking point! We don't and don't need to place everybody in a perfect cookie cutter, we can say a person X% one population and Y% another. If populations cannot interbreed, we could simply say one population is a distinct race, but because they CAN, we no longer can contain people in populations, we can assign percentages to what a person is and isn't.


Ergo, when the person in the OP claims to be black, we can't say that he's lying.

[PRB]

It's not just a matter of telling where to draw the line between one and the other, it's also the more general issue of saying that these differences are races.


Why can't they be races if they're an objective criteria?



But this issue of skull shape is a great illustration of why the belief that races are social constructs does not entail the belief that the biological differences that people use in dividing one another up into races themselves don't exist.


Fair enough



Here's an article from a forensic anthropologist that illustrates my point.
http://anthropology.msu.edu/anp202-us13/files/2012/05/Sauer-1992-Forensic-Anthropology-Race-Concept-1.pdf

Will read later.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

So do you admit the lacking of walls makes races social constructs?

Or, at least, walls are imagined, continua are scientific?

Furthermore, people don't fit into perfect boxes or walls, instead, everybody has a different percentage of where his ancestry came from?
The lack of walls make race socially delineated in the same way all things are inevitably socially defined. That's not what people mean when they say "race is a social construct". In The Mismeasure of Man, Gould explicitly argues that there are no significant biological differences between the races, and that book is a seminal work from an egalitarian perspective. Of course, there are no "pure" races. There probably never was.

[PRB]

Ergo, when the person in the OP claims to be black, we can't say that he's lying.

Depends on what he claimed. If he claimed his father and grandparents came from where they did not, he's lying.

Oh, and we CAN say he's lying if DNA shows he's 0% black. Even if he's not 100% Japanese.

[erowe1]

Depends on what he claimed. If he claimed his father and grandparents came from where they did not, he's lying.

Oh, and we CAN say he's lying if DNA shows he's 0% black. Even if he's not 100% Japanese.

How can DNA possibly show that someone is 0% black? What would that even mean?

You're right about how he could lie about where some person came from. But, as you said before, where a person comes from and what race they are are two different things.

[PRB]

The lack of walls make race socially delineated in the same way all things are inevitably socially defined. That's not what people mean when they say "race is a social construct". In The Mismeasure of Man, Gould explicitly argues that there are no significant biological differences between the races, and that book is a seminal work from an egalitarian perspective. Of course, there are no "pure" races. There probably never was.

I am well aware that liberals want us to believe, like pcosmar is suggesting, that all humans are equal, and Shaun King is equally black as Barack Obama, and Barack Obama is equally Oriental as Yao Ming.

[PRB]

How can DNA possibly show that someone is 0% black?

When your ancestry is everything but African.

http://lh3.ggpht.com/-zL7sDgk--Cw/UVJWnQEv5zI/AAAAAAAAEeE/8m-Rc4F9mfk/image%25255B18%25255D.png?imgmax=800

[pcosmar]

There was intelligent thought behind Vlad Dracula's cruelty.
But lets assume he was a savage.
What does singling out one person from millions really tell us?


Vlad was one of many. Just one that became famous and is still celebrated as a "hero".
Viking/Norse Barbarism is documented as well. Savages. as were the Britons at one time. Tribal savages..

I still think tribalism is preferable to the horrors that "civilization" and various authoritarian ISMs that have inflicted on humanity.

and there was stability in Africa,, before the Europeans invaded and raped it. Before artificial borders were established.

The Queen of Ethiopia was seeking counsel from Solomon long before the Vikings were pillaging the Brits, and before Caesar got those barbarians under control.

Your elitist superiority complex has no basis in reality.

[erowe1]

When your ancestry is everything but African.

http://lh3.ggpht.com/-zL7sDgk--Cw/UVJWnQEv5zI/AAAAAAAAEeE/8m-Rc4F9mfk/image%25255B18%25255D.png?imgmax=800

How could DNA possibly show that anyone's ancestry is ever everything but African?

Africa is a continent. Not something in DNA.

I'm not sure what that picture is supposed to tell me.

Take those three skulls in the picture above. A person with a skull matching the shape of any one of those three could be born anywhere on the planet and have ancestors who were born anywhere on the planet. There may be a greater likelihood that they or some of their ancestors were born in one place versus another. But the possibility will always remain that that likelihood will not match reality.

[JK/SEA]

I am well aware that liberals want us to believe, like pcosmar is suggesting, that all humans are equal, and Shaun King is equally black as Barack Obama, and Barack Obama is equally Oriental as Yao Ming.

you either drink too much flouride, or you have mad cow disease, or both...

whoever you are, you are an embarassment to the human race....

geez...what a freaking moron.

[PRB]

How could DNA possibly show that anyone's ancestry is ever everything but African?


It just did.

It shows that a person's ancestry has either absolute zero, or practically and negligibly zero common ancestry with people living in Africa today. If any, it'd be dozens of generations that the traits are no longer identifiable.



Africa is a continent. Not something in DNA.


People who live on the continent have DNA



I'm not sure what that picture is supposed to tell me.

it tells you a person's ancestry comes from different parts of Europe, but not Asia or Africa or the new World

[erowe1]

There was intelligent thought behind Vlad Dracula's cruelty.

Oh good, intelligence. What a relief.

[PRB]

you either drink too much flouride, or you have mad cow disease, or both...

whoever you are, you are an embarassment to the human race....

geez...what a freaking moron.

that's how you win an argument? calling somebody a moron?

[erowe1]

It just did.

It shows that a person's ancestry has either absolute zero, or practically and negligibly zero common ancestry with people living in Africa today. If any, it'd be dozens of generations that the traits are no longer identifiable.


I don't believe that. Source?

[erowe1]

People who live on the continent have DNA


And people who don't have the same DNA. There is not a gene that is unique to people living in Africa.

[DFF]

there was stability in Africa,, before the Europeans invaded and raped it. Before artificial borders were established.

Yeah, I'm sure it was all just like in Coming to America.
They were all princes living the high life then evil YT came along and ruined it for everybody. :rolleyes:
The truth is Africa has always been an unstable disaster.
Charles Darwin wrote detailed descriptions of the savagery he witnessed when visiting there.
Canabalism. Voodoo. And of course nothing has changed to this day.
The only bright spot for that train-wreck was during colonialism.
Which gave Africans access to clean water, food, and modern medicine.
This was Africas "golden age." A time of relative peace and prosperity.
And as a testament to just how good things were, many Africans today are openly calling for a return to colonialism.

[PRB]

I don't believe that. Source?

Do you know anything about ancestry or DNA?

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Take those three skulls in the picture above. A person with a skull matching the shape of any one of those three could be born anywhere on the planet and have ancestors who were born anywhere on the planet. There may be a greater likelihood that they or some of their ancestors were born in one place versus another. But the possibility will always remain that that likelihood will not match reality.
This is just false. If you have a skull shaped like this, you have African ancestry:
https://www.skullsunlimited.com/userfiles/image/variants_large_3563.jpg

[erowe1]

it tells you a person's ancestry comes from different parts of Europe, but not Asia or Africa or the new World

I highly doubt that. Is there a written explanation that goes with it?

[PRB]

And people who don't have the same DNA. There is not a gene that is unique to people living in Africa.

Actually there is, several. Or else how would they have noticeably different skin color as Europeans and east Asians.

[juleswin]

You're correct. But what you (conveniently) failed to mention is that the slave-owners are not White, they're black.
African tribes enslaving other African tribes.
However I'm sure this type of oppression is perfectly acceptable since there's no White guilt angle for your kind to try and exploit.

Crap, just back for the last time and I am out for good.

I can't believe you actually thought that was a serious post.

I am just going to explain it to you and this time I am very serious. The numbers given by the western NGO groups estimate are so wrong that nobody living in these places were they get their numbers believe it. They count as slaves indentured servants which is silly. Take for example, I send 20k to a couple with more kids that they can take care off. They cannot pay this money back and instead decided to give one of their children as a domestic servant to work for me. Some people without a brain would regard this as contract as "x tribe coming in and stealing child as slave" when it is nothing more than an economic exchange to work. Btw, its not just a mere exchange cos as part of the deal usually stipulates visits either from the servant or the parents/relatives, also that the servant would start apprentice in a trade or go to school.

This is a custom that I don't expect anyone living in the west to understand, they see it and immediately start raising money to buy the child back to parent who originally cannot afford to take care of the child. They do that removing the child from a home where he/she is eating 3 square meals, going to school and/or learning a trade. Sorry but that arrangement is not slavery and I will never consider it as one

Also child labor in the places where I know about are so cheap that it would actually be cost prohibitive to try and acquire labor via slavery. It is much easier and more common to use indentured servants as house helps, child care providers etc than to try and hunt you a slave. One of the girls who lived with us when we were growing up is still working for my parents today, my parents paid for her schooling and she is now managing one of my parent's businesses.

If you are to believe anything I tell you about Africa, it is that the numbers the NGOs give out about the numbers of slaves in Africa are wrong by a very wide margin. I am sure you can find some small tribe in some small remote war ravaged community still practicing some form of tribal war then slavery, but this popular idea painted by the NGOs of tribes fighting and taking slaves is for the most part a myth. It is far much easier to buy it than try to take it by force.

[PRB]

I highly doubt that. Is there a written explanation that goes with it?

Yes.

Try this one for starters
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3073397/

[erowe1]

This is just false. If you have a skull shaped like this, you have African ancestry:
https://www.skullsunlimited.com/userfiles/image/variants_large_3563.jpg

With 100% certainty?

Why do scientists who study the subject not reach that same conclusion?

[juleswin]

DP

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

And people who don't have the same DNA. There is not a gene that is unique to people living in Africa.
Your arguments are utterly incoherent. There are genetic differences between the races. Modern genetic tests can tell where someone's ancestry comes from very accurately.

This is you: "Race is a social construct, but there are biological differences, but biologists say there aren't biological differences, but anyone from anywhere with any ancestry can have the biological differences, but DNA can't tell where someone's ancestry comes from, even though it can."

It's like a pathetic clown act.

[pcosmar]

Can "Hillbilly" be a race?

How about subspecies? Ozark, Blue Ridge, Appalachian, etc.....

I want a pedigree!

What about stud service? Will I get kicked out of the Hillbilly registry if I breed city mongrels?

It's all so damn confusing trying to be special..........

LOL.

We gotta have a beer sometime.

I would bet that most of these folks can't trace their family lines back 300 years.. let alone know who was fucking who 2000 years ago.

I can trace the French lines back the farthest. but that is still only a few hundred years.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

With 100% certainty?
Pretty close. Even a paternity test isn't 100% accurate.


Why do scientists who study the subject not reach that same conclusion?
If that's true, it must be bad methodology.

[PRB]

With 100% certainty?

Why do scientists who study the subject not reach that same conclusion?

who said 100% certainty?

[PRB]

Pretty close. Even a paternity test isn't 100% accurate.


If that's true, it must be bad methodology.

I just fucking love it when creationists deny DNA is a good measure for ancestry in support of humans being related to apes, then liberals who want to use common ancestry to argue all humans are one. But then come the paternity tests, destroys both arguments.

You can cherry pick both similarities and differences to emphasize in your argument, can't you?

[erowe1]

Yes.

Try this one for starters
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3073397/

I tried my best and couldn't find anything in there indicating that it's ever possible to determine that anyone is 0% black or has no African ancestry.

[erowe1]

who said 100% certainty?

You said 0%. Isn't that the same thing?

[erowe1]

Your arguments are utterly incoherent. There are genetic differences between the races. Modern genetic tests can tell where someone's ancestry comes from very accurately.

This is you: "Race is a social construct, but there are biological differences, but biologists say there aren't biological differences, but anyone from anywhere with any ancestry can have the biological differences, but DNA can't tell where someone's ancestry comes from, even though it can."

It's like a pathetic clown act.

I notice how you didn't actually quote me, but made up a quote and pretended I said it. Are you arguing against me, or some imaginary person who says things that you make up?

[PRB]

I tried my best and couldn't find anything in there indicating that it's ever possible to determine that anyone is 0% black or has no African ancestry.

1. We assign marker traits
2. If you don't find marker traits on the person, you can say he's practically lacking ancestry from that area
3. Nobody says you must accept the market traits or marker genes to determine ancestry, but it's as good as we have
4. If a person can't be 0% black, what's the minimum black he must be? You must know, since you're so sure it can't be 0%.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Did you notice how you didn't actually quote me, but made up a quote and pretended I said it?
I'm putting the implications of your arguments into one sentence to illustrate how ridiculous they are. It's called "hyperbole", little boy. You don't know anything about this subject. It's like you just spout off things you've heard smart people say and hope against hope that something, anything ​sticks.

[erowe1]

I just fucking love it when creationists deny DNA is a good measure for ancestry in support of humans being related to apes, then liberals who want to use common ancestry to argue all humans are one. But then come the paternity tests, destroys both arguments.

You can cherry pick both similarities and differences to emphasize in your argument, can't you?

If that's happening, then can't you turn it around? Isn't it odd when evolutionists want to use DNA to show the common ancestry of all life, but then want to ignore the exact same science when it shows that races are social constructs?

[tod evans]

LOL.

We gotta have a beer sometime.

I would bet that most of these folks can't trace their family lines back 300 years.. let alone know who was fucking who 2000 years ago.

I can trace the French lines back the farthest. but that is still only a few hundred years.

I've got documentation back to the mid 1500's on my moms side, late 1700's on my dads.

Kudos to my uncle for investing the time to trace and document it!

There's everything from French Knights to Scottish sheep thieves, clergy and criminals coursing through these veins....

[PRB]

You said 0%. Isn't that the same thing?

LMAO. Are you serious?

Certainty of a finding is not the same (at all) with finding itself.

Determining that a person has 50% DNA of each parent, does not mean you're 50% certain of each answer, in fact, it usually means you're 99% certain barring miracles and practically 100%. Technically 100% is irrelevant and not required in science.

[erowe1]

1. We assign marker traits
2. If you don't find marker traits on the person, you can say he's practically lacking ancestry from that area
3. Nobody says you must accept the market traits or marker genes to determine ancestry, but it's as good as we have
4. If a person can't be 0% black, what's the minimum black he must be? You must know, since you're so sure it can't be 0%.

When you say "practically lacking," what do you mean by "practically"?

On 4, I don't know. You were the one who said you could tell the guy in the OP was lying if some genetic test showed that he had 0% African ancestry (which is not possible). Are you changing your mind about that now?

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

If that's happening, then can't you turn it around? Isn't it odd when evolutionists want to use DNA to show the common ancestry of all life, but then want to ignore the exact same science when it shows that races are social constructs?
It doesn't show that! My God, you're an idiot!

[PRB]

If that's happening, then can't you turn it around? Isn't it odd when evolutionists want to use DNA to show the common ancestry of all life, but then want to ignore the exact same science when it shows that races are social constructs?

No, it's not. Because I totally admit race (walls) are social constructs. I do not take the claim so far to say therefore all humans are equally black and equally white and Barack Obama is equally Japanese to all people in Japan.

[erowe1]

LMAO. Are you serious?

Certainty of a finding is not the same (at all) with finding itself.

Determining that a person has 50% DNA of each parent, does not mean you're 50% certain of each answer, in fact, it usually means you're 99% certain barring miracles and practically 100%. Technically 100% is irrelevant and not required in science.

You said you could use this to determine that the guy in the OP was lying. How do you do that without having certainty?

[pcosmar]

I just fucking love it when creationists deny DNA is a good measure for ancestry in support of humans being related to apes, then liberals who want to use common ancestry to argue all humans are one. But then come the paternity tests, destroys both arguments.

You can cherry pick both similarities and differences to emphasize in your argument, can't you?
I deny that I am related to plants too.. but they have DNA,, and some similar markers.

All life on the planet does. We were created for this place,, we share all the elements of the earth we were made from.
This is no conundrum.

All DNA can show (without pure base samples) is a general family line.
If you had preserved DNA samples from the original individuals,, you could get a more accurate ancestral line.,, and % of mix.

[erowe1]

No, it's not. Because I totally admit race (walls) are social constructs. I do not take the claim so far to say therefore all humans are equally black and equally white and Barack Obama is equally Japanese to all people in Japan.

Is Japanese a race now?

[PRB]

When you say "practically lacking," what do you mean by "practically"?


The same way you "practically" know you're safe when you drive out in your car, you're not 100% safe, but not 100% certain to die. You're safe enough to not have to worry as long as you follow laws and common sense.



On 4, I don't know. You were the one who said you could tell the guy in the OP was lying if some genetic test showed that he had 0% African ancestry (which is not possible). Are you changing your mind about that now?

No, I'm not changing my mind. I stand by that it's possible to show a person has 0% African ancestry, or so low that it's practically zero.

Can we show he's 0% Japanese? If not, what is the minimum he must be?

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

You said you could use this to determine that the guy in the OP was lying. How do you do that without having certainty?
If a genetic test shows no African ancestry, then any ancestry that exists from Africa is so far back, that it is not in that person's genome. This is exceedingly fucking simple.

[erowe1]

It doesn't show that! My God, you're an idiot!

If I am, then so are most scientists of all fields who have studied this subject. If you can prove them wrong, you should write an article explaining how races aren't social constructs and get it published in a peer-reviewed journal. Your research will turn out to be very important.

[PRB]

Is Japanese a race now?

Pretty much always was. Japan is the name of the country, but its people are an identifiable racial group.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamato_people

[PRB]

If I am, then so are most scientists of all fields who have studied this subject.

No, because you are not in complete agreement with them.

[PRB]

If you had preserved DNA samples from the original individuals,, you could get a more accurate ancestral line.,, and % of mix.

ok, so where do we disagree?

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

If I am, then so are most scientists of all fields who have studied this subject.
"Most scientists" (weasel words) do not agree with you. People who claim that there is some consensus on this are liars, in either direction.

[PRB]

If a genetic test shows no African ancestry, then any ancestry that exists from Africa is so far back, that it is not in that person's genome. This is exceedingly fucking simple.

yeah, but what gene says "African continent" on it?! [sarcasm]

[erowe1]

If a genetic test shows no African ancestry, then any ancestry that exists from Africa is so far back, that it is not in that person's genome. This is exceedingly fucking simple.

Of course, it could be the case that both of my parents were born in Africa and still have the test show these results.

[erowe1]

"Most scientists" (weasel words) do not agree with you. People who claim that there is some consensus on this are liars, in either direction.

Most does not equal consensus. But yes, most scientists do agree with me.

[Danke]

BLM is gonna try to disrupt the MN state fair on the 29th. Should I go?

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Of course, it could be the case that both of my parents were born in Africa and still have the test show these results.
WTF are you talking about? Being born in Africa is not the same thing as your genetic ancestry, you stupid little fucktard!

[erowe1]

No, because you are not in complete agreement with them.

On what point do they differ with anything I've said?

[erowe1]

WTF are you talking about? Being born in Africa is not the same thing as your genetic ancestry, you stupid little fucktard!

In that post I quoted you referring to "ancestry from Africa" being "so far back."

What did you mean by that, if not ancestors being born in Africa?

Why are you connecting DNA to places on the globe if, as you now say, "Being born in Africa is not the same thing as your genetic ancestry"?

Of course you are right about this. Being born in Africa is not the same thing as your genetic ancestry. But that's been my point all along. To get back to what PRB was talking about above, it is simply not possible to perform some genetic test that can ever show that a person has 0% African ancestry or that the person in the OP is lying.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Most does not equal consensus. But yes, most scientists do agree with me.
No they don't. There is a lot of diversity of opinion on this issue. Egalitarians like to pretend the issue is settled, but that's a ploy to avoid the debate. There's also a tremendous amount of social pressure when it comes to this issue. James Watson (one of the most important scientists in the history of genetics) was drummed out of his field when he said that there were genetic cognitive differences between the races.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

In that post I quoted you referring to "ancestry from Africa" being "so far back."

What did you mean by that, if not ancestors being born in Africa?

Why are you connecting DNA to places on the globe if, as you now say, "Being born in Africa is not the same thing as your genetic ancestry"?
You can be born in Africa, with genetics that originate in Europe. Do I really ​have to get this fucking remedial?

[DFF]

James Dobson (one of the most important scientists in the history of genetics) was drummed out of his field when he said that there were genetic cognitive differences between the races.

Liberals love free speech, until somethings said they don't agree with.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Liberals love free speech, until somethings said they don't agree with.
My mistake, it was James Watson. James Dobson is an Evangelical minister.

[erowe1]

You can be born in Africa, with genetics that originate in Europe. Do I really ​have to get this fucking remedial?

What you refer to as "genetics that originate in Europe" don't really originate in Europe. They may be more characteristic of people in Europe than people elsewhere. But people in other places have those genetics too, and always have. There's not some gene that at first didn't exist in the human race, and then came to exist in Europe, and then just stayed with people in Europe for millennia until airplanes were invented.

And yeah, given that you're the one who said, "ancestry that exists from Africa is so far back, that it is not in that person's genome," getting back to that remedial level is needed, not for my sake, but for yours.

[pcosmar]

ok, so where do we disagree?

Not sure.
Unless you are arguing in favor of racial superiority.

I simply reject the concept of different races of humans. In Totality.

I saw this as nothing more than another in a series of race baiting threads.. :(

[erowe1]

No they don't. There is a lot of diversity of opinion on this issue. Egalitarians like to pretend the issue is settled, but that's a ploy to avoid the debate. There's also a tremendous amount of social pressure when it comes to this issue. James Watson (one of the most important scientists in the history of genetics) was drummed out of his field when he said that there were genetic cognitive differences between the races.

Yes they do.

You keep saying "egalitarians." Why do you use that label? I haven't said anything about being "egalitarian."

It makes it sound like your real agenda is to be something other than egalitarian, and to say that, not only do these races exist as objective categories independent of social construction of them, but that they can be ranked from better to worse (i.e. not egalitarian).

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

What you refer to as "genetics that originate in Europe" don't really originate in Europe. They may be more characteristic of people in Europe than people elsewhere. But people in other places have those genetics too, and always have. There's not some gene that at first didn't exist in the human race, and then came to exist in Europe, and then just stayed with people in Europe for millennia until airplanes were invented.
European genetics came about when the people living there adapted to their environment. That's why they're called "European genetics". It looks like I do ​have to get this fucking remedial.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Yes they do.
No, they fucking don't! Race and gender differences are science's last taboo. Read The Blank Slate by Steven Pinker.


You keep saying "egalitarians." Why do you use that label? I haven't said anything about being "egalitarian."

It makes it sound like your real agenda is to be something other than egalitarian, and to say that, not only do these races exist as objective categories independent of social construction of them, but that they can be ranked from better to worse (i.e. not egalitarian).
I have never said anything of the kind. I use the word "egalitarian" because that is the self-identifying moniker that social constructivists use.

[erowe1]

European genetics came about when the people living there adapted to their environment.

Assuming that's true, that adaptation happened by way of the selective breeding of traits that were already present in the diverse genetic pool that already existed prior to that.

We could do the same thing all over again today: take a large population of people who, according to the tests PRB referred to, have no ancestry from Europe, and selectively breed their descendants to have all the right genes so that their tests would show them to have European ancestry. And we could do the same again for any race or genetics associated with any place.

[erowe1]

I use the word "egalitarian" because that is the self-identifying moniker that social constructivists use.

That's not true. Some may use that moniker, but if they do, they are referring not to their belief in the social construction of races, but their egalitarianism, which is something else entirely.

And if you go back and read through your own use of that label, it's clear that you use it in such a way as to distinguish yourself from the egalitarians. This implies that you do not consider yourself egalitarian or want others to think you are.

I don't object to being against egalitarianism. I just find it odd how you kept trying to force that idea into this thread.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Assuming that's true, that adaptation happened by way of the selective breeding of traits that were already present in the diverse genetic pool that already existed prior to that.
That is what happened, idiot. Genes are plastic to the environment. They change over time depending on where the population is. That is how evolution works.

[TheTexan]

What about Yellow Lives Matter, for all the asians out there? Does nobody care about the Asians suffering under the same persecution??

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

That's not true. Some may use that moniker, but if they do, they are referring not to their belief in the social construction of races, but their egalitarianism, which is something else entirely.
No, that's what they're referring to. Those that want it to mean something else specify. The aforementioned Steven Pinker, for example.


And if you go back and read through your own use of that label, it's clear that you use it in such a way as to distinguish yourself from the egalitarians. This implies that you do not consider yourself egalitarian or want others to think you are.

I don't object to being against egalitarianism. I just find it odd how you kept trying to force that idea into this thread.
Well yes, I'm not an egalitarian. I do not believe in descriptive or prescriptive equality.

[pcosmar]

That is how evolution works.

If you believe that shit.

I don't. I reject it in entirety. Adaptation,, I can accept. Evolution is bullshit from conception.

[erowe1]

No, that's what they're referring to. Those that want it to mean something else specify. The aforementioned Steven Pinker, for example.


This guy?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Pinker

[DFF]

I simply reject the concept of different races of humans. In Totality.

http://www.culchieworks.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/unicorn.png

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

If you believe that shit.

I don't. I reject it in entirety. Adaptation,, I can accept. Evolution is bullshit from conception.
You're a moron.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

This guy?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Pinker
Yes. Pinker believes in equality as a moral imperative and a legal construct, but he is a race realist/hereditarian. His work on it is really stellar. If you're actually interested in learning about this topic (which I doubt), you should read his work.

[erowe1]

That is what happened, idiot.

So you agree with me then.

What you're saying now is exactly what I've been saying. There is no gene unique to Europe or anywhere else. It is therefore not true that "European genetics came about when the people living there adapted to their environment." Those "European genetics" already existed before that time in the gene pool.

[erowe1]

Yes. Pinker believes in equality a moral imperative and a legal construct, but he is a race realist/hereditarian. His work on it is really stellar. If you're actually interested in learning about this topic (which I doubt), you should read his work.

OK. So he does not believe in the social construction of races, and he is an egalitarian.

So that supports what I said about how you used the label "egalitarian." It's totally separate from the belief in social construction of races.

[pcosmar]

You're a moron.

Perhaps.. But I am in good company.


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

To some it is Self Evident.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

So you agree with me then.

What you're saying now is exactly what I've been saying. There is no gene unique to Europe or anywhere else. It is therefore not true that "European genetics came about when the people living there adapted to their environment." Those "European genetics" already existed before that time in the gene pool.
No. Genes are plastic to the environment. They change over time, and change differently depending on the environment. Also, all non-African races have neanderthal admixture in their DNA, which causes further differentiation. Of course there's no "European genetics" in the sense that putting an individual in Europe results in a change in DNA, but no one has ever argued that. Not in the history of this debate.

[DFF]

BLM is gonna try to disrupt the MN state fair on the 29th. Should I go?

BLM people are a bunch of fucking idiots.
Blacks have been killing each other in the US for decades.
The BLM 'tards only came on the scene when a White police officer was involved.
These assholes don't really care about other blacks.
Their purpose is racial agitation. And they're being paid to do this.
They didn't spring out of nowhere as the MSM would lead you to believe.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

OK. So he does not believe in the social construction of races, and he is an egalitarian.

So that supports what I said about how you used the label "egalitarian." It's totally separate from the belief in social construction of races.
It's not seperate for lots of people. That's why Pinker specifies that his egaliatarianism has nothing to do with biology. Gould, Diamond and others don't do that; they are biological egalitarians.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Perhaps.. But I am in good company.



To some it is Self Evident.
Jefferson made it very clear that he believed in inherent differences between the races.

[erowe1]

You are woefully ignorant.


To say race is a social construct is to deny significant biological differences. If that's not your argument, then you're just being idiosyncratic and obtuse.


I'm putting the implications of your arguments into one sentence to illustrate how ridiculous they are. It's called "hyperbole", little boy. You don't know anything about this subject. It's like you just spout off things you've heard smart people say and hope against hope that something, anything ​sticks.


It doesn't show that! My God, you're an idiot!


This is exceedingly fucking simple.


WTF are you talking about? Being born in Africa is not the same thing as your genetic ancestry, you stupid little fucktard!


Do I really ​have to get this fucking remedial?


It looks like I do ​have to get this fucking remedial.


That is what happened, idiot.


You're a moron.


If you're actually interested in learning about this topic (which I doubt)

I have to admit, you do have a way with words.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

I have to admit, you do have a way with words.
I calls em like I sees em. Instead of compiling a list of posts of mine, why not actually, you know, educate yourself​ on the topic? I know, I know, I ask too much.

[erowe1]

No. Genes are plastic to the environment. They change over time, and change differently depending on the environment.

But only within the limits of the genetic diversity that already exists within the starting population. It's selective breeding, just like what people do with dogs. I can get a German Shepherd from two German Shepherds, or I can breed one from a population of a bunch of other breeds, just like the first German Shepherds came about, because all those other breeds have within their total genetic pool all of the genes necessary to get German Shepherds.

In post 198, when you agreed with what I said in post 196, you were right.

[PRB]

But only within the limits of the genetic diversity that already exists within the starting population.


Nobody is suggesting humans can grow wings, if that's what you mean.



It's selective breeding, just like what people do with dogs. I can get a German Shepherd from two German Shepherds, or I can breed one from a population of a bunch of other breeds, just like the first German Shepherds came about, because all those other breeds have within their total genetic pool all of the genes necessary to get German Shepherds.

In post 198, when you agreed with what I said in post 196, you were right.

[timosman]

that all men are created equal
To some it is Self Evident.

What about people who have different views on this topic ? Are they still completely equal or can we discern some differences about them ?

[PRB]

On what point do they differ with anything I've said?

you believe it's impossible for a person to be 0% African.

[pcosmar]

, why not actually, you know, educate yourself​ on the topic? .


For a time is coming when people will no longer listen to sound and wholesome teaching. They will follow their own desires and will look for teachers who will tell them whatever their itching ears want to hear.

/yawn

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

But only within the limits of the genetic diversity that already exists within the starting population. It's selective breeding, just like what people do with dogs. I can get a German Shepherd from two German Shepherds, or I can breed one from a population of a bunch of other breeds, just like the first German Shepherds came about, because all those other breeds have within their total genetic pool all of the genes necessary to get German Shepherds.

In post 198, when you agreed with what I said in post 196, you were right.
First of all, the amount genes can change over time is vast. You say "within the limits of the genetic diversity that already exists" as though that's something against hereditarianism. A change in environment can have huge changes on the DNA of an organism over generations. Secondly, the neanderthal admixture that isn't present in Africans means there's also a fundamental difference, separate from the adaptation that occurred.

[PRB]

Not sure.
Unless you are arguing in favor of racial superiority.

Nope



I simply reject the concept of different races of humans. In Totality.

I saw this as nothing more than another in a series of race baiting threads.. :(

if there's no difference among populations, then Obama is equally Japanese as anybody in Japan and anybody in Japan is equally black as Shaun King and Obama. Shaun King is equally black as Obama, am I right?

[erowe1]

I've explained this to you before, but you don't seem to get it. We could define people with widow's peaks as a race, but it would completely lack predictive and explanatory value, so it's a lousy scientific model. Race has both predictive and explanatory value, so it is a valuable taxanomic category.

I missed this post along the way.

What you say here is what it means to say that races are social constructs, except for when you throw in the phrase "scientific model." The racial categories that we use do not come from any scientific model. Like all the other parts of language, they come from constant negotiation between the members of society through their use of these categories in communication with one another. And like other parts of language, these categories are fluid in their meanings and have changed over time, and even today are defined differently in different societies.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

/yawn
I did NOT want to think that racial differences were real. I grew up in a very racially diverse part of the country, I've always had friends, business acquaintances and even lovers of all races (and still do). That idea disturbed me so much, I refused to even look into it at first. I'm not willing to discard good data to fit my preconceived notions, though, so I looked into it and adopted a better position.

[PRB]

To get back to what PRB was talking about above, it is simply not possible to perform some genetic test that can ever show that a person has 0% African ancestry or that the person in the OP is lying.

No, it's possible

Unless you believe all humans are equally black and equally Japanese, do you or do you not?

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

I missed this post along the way.

What you say here is what it means to say that races are social constructs, except for when you throw in the phrase "scientific model." The racial categories that we use do not come from any scientific model. Like all the other parts of language, they come from constant negotiation between the members of society through their use of these categories in communication with one another. And like other parts of language, these categories are fluid in their meanings and have changed over time, and even today are defined differently in different societies.
Race is a taxonomic classification. It is a valid taxonomic classification because of the predictive utility and explanatory power. You can categorize races differently, but for it to have taxonomic validity, a different classification must produce better predictive and explanatory utility.

[PRB]

Race is a taxanomic classification. It is a valid taxanomic classification because of the predictive utility and explanatory power. You can categorize races differently, but for it to have taxanomic validity, a different classification must produce better predictive and explanatory utility.

wait for him to say you can't predict skin color because albinos.

[erowe1]

if there's no difference among populations, then Obama is equally Japanese as anybody in Japan and anybody in Japan is equally black as Shaun King and Obama. Shaun King is equally black as Obama, am I right?

Japan is a nation-state with official citizenship, like the USA is.

But "black" isn't. In order to be able to say that somebody isn't black, we need to have objective criteria, other than self-identification, that can be used to disqualify them.

[pcosmar]

What about people who have different views on this topic ? Are they still completely equal or can we discern some differences about them ?

Many have had different views.. and they welcome to believe anything they wish.

I won't agree with them though.
And traditionally the White supremacists and Storm-front trolls have been less vocal with their bullshit,, or banned.

or they had learned to "hide their crazy" and rack up posts.

[erowe1]

wait for him to say you can't predict skin color because albinos.

That's a great point. Black people can be albinos.

I'm not sure I know what you mean by "predict skin color" though. What's an example of a scientist predicting skin color?

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Many have had different views.. and they welcome to believe anything they wish.

I won't agree with them though.
And traditionally the White supremacists and Storm-front trolls have been less vocal with their bullshit,, or banned.

or they had learned to "hide their crazy" and rack up posts.
Guess I'm in the clear, since I've never posted on stormfront and don't believe whites are supreme. My views on race were also held by Murray Rothbard. If he were alive today, he shouldn't be welcome on RPF? Well, I'll be.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

That's a great point. Black people can be albinos.
Oh, ye Gods...

[erowe1]

Race is a taxanomic classification. It is a valid taxanomic classification because of the predictive utility and explanatory power. You can categorize races differently, but for it to have taxanomic validity, a different classification must produce better predictive and explanatory utility.

Its degree of validity and utility is a matter of opinion. There's not something objective thing that makes a taxonomic classification valid the way a logical syllogism can be valid.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

It's degree of validity and utility is a matter of opinion. There's not something objective thing that makes a taxonomic classification valid the way a logical syllogism can be valid.
Not really. The predictions it makes are objective. If you know the race of a population, you can make very accurate predictions on its level of wealth, rates of violence and other things. This is across different nations and continents, too.

[erowe1]

No, it's possible

Unless you believe all humans are equally black and equally Japanese, do you or do you not?

Your two sentences here don't logically belong together. No, it is not the case that I must believe that all humans are equally black and equally Japanese in order to believe that there do not exist genetic tests that can ever show that a person is 0% African (I'm still not even sure what 0% African even means). I'm not sure why you think your first sentence goes along with your second, but there's no logical connection between those ideas.

If you do believe that there exist such tests, why do you believe that? Can you find any sources that support the idea? The one you provided before never made any such claim.

[erowe1]

If you know the race of a population

Stop right there. How would you know the race of a population in the first place in order to predict those other things?

The only way you can know it is by asking the members of that population, or asking other people to classify them in a race. You have to start with that social construction of race in order to use race to predict anything else.

You could also do similar things with a population starting with its religion, rather than its race.

[pcosmar]

Nope



if there's no difference among populations, then Obama is equally Japanese as anybody in Japan and anybody in Japan is equally black as Shaun King and Obama. Shaun King is equally black as Obama, am I right?

??
are you right about what,, nonsense??

There is no intrinsic difference.. Every human individual is different. Unique.. even between twins.

Unique.. different.. Equal. Every human life.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Stop right there. How would you know the race of a population in the first place in order to predict those other things?

The only way you can know it is by asking the members of that population, or asking other people to classify them in a race. You have to start with that social construction of race in order to use race to predict anything else.
You are presupposing that race is a social construct to make that argument.

[timosman]

Many have had different views.. and they welcome to believe anything they wish.

You do not see the inconsistency ? Let me help:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMLjkt87ICo

[erowe1]

You are presupposing that race is a social construct to make that argument.

No I'm not. Hence the question mark. Do you have an answer to the question?

Before you can use a population's race to predict anything about them, how do you first tell what it's race is? What objective test do you apply, so that you can use the results of that test to predict those other things?

I am going to bet that if you go back to whatever research you've done, where race is used to predict something else, the way that initial attribute of "race" always gets assigned is simply by asking the people to fill something out and say what race they are. None of these studies correlating race with other things will define race according to skin color, DNA, or phenotype. All of them will define it according to human beings simply applying racial labels to themselves or others.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

No I'm not. Hence the question mark. Do you have an answer to the question?

Before you can use a population's race to predict anything about them, how do you first tell what it's race is? What objective test do you apply, so that you can use the results of that test to predict those other things?

I am going to bet that if you go back to whatever research you've done, where race is used to predict something else, the way that initial attribute of "race" always gets assigned is simply by asking the people to fill something out and say what race they are. None of these studies correlating race with other things will define race according to skin color, DNA, or phenotype. All of them will define it according to human beings simply applying racial labels to themselves or others.
That's true, but self identification works on the aggregate. Individuals may mislabel themselves or simply lie, but self identification works well with big numbers.

[pcosmar]

My views on race were also held by Murray Rothbard. If he were alive today, he shouldn't be welcome on RPF?

No Idea. Never read him. and it would not change my view.

Was he a geneticist?

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

No Idea. Never read him. and it would not change my view.

Was he a geneticist?
Do you think one of Ron Paul's foremost intellectual inspirations should be banned from the forum because of his opinions on race?

[erowe1]

That's true, but self identification works on the aggregate. Individuals may mislabel themselves or simply lie, but self identification works well with big numbers.

The reason it's true is because race is a social construct.

You say individuals may mislabel themselves or lie. But if the definition of race is such that a person's race is whatever they say it is, then both of those are impossible. Their race is whatever they say it is. In order for it to be something else, you have to have some other definition of race. And that definition can't include any of the things that you use it to predict, which would be tautological.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

The reason it's true is because race is a social construct.

You say individuals may mislabel themselves or lie. But if the definition of race is such that a person's race is whatever they say it is, then both of those are impossible. Their race is whatever they say it is. In order for it to be something else, you have to have some other definition of race. And that definition can't include any of the things that you use it to predict, which would be tautological.
That is not the definition of race.

[pcosmar]

You do not see the inconsistency ? Let me help:



No inconsistency. People will believe what they wish to believe.
Socialists believe that socialism works.

Despite evidence to the contrary. People will believe what they want.

Some people believe that their skin tone or hair color is superior to others. They believe it so fiercely that they will fabricate "science" to maintain that belief.

[timosman]

The reason it's true is because race is a social construct.

Would that help a coroner identify the race of a deceased person in the absence of any other information ?

[pcosmar]

Do you think one of Ron Paul's foremost intellectual inspirations should be banned from the forum because of his opinions on race?

There are many very intelligent people that are still quite ignorant about many things.

[pcosmar]

Would that help a coroner identify the race of a deceased person in the absence of any other information ?
Why would that matter at all? (even if such was accurate)

What does the ancestry matter to the time and manner of death?

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

There are many very intelligent people that are still quite ignorant about many things.
That doesn't answer the question. If Rothbard were alive today and posting on the forum, should he be banned for talking about his feelings on race?

[pcosmar]

That doesn't answer the question. If Rothbard were alive today and posting on the forum, should he be banned for talking about his feelings on race?

That would depend..
If he was promoting racism ,, or racial superiority, He would likely be debated.
If he was opposed to individual Rights or Liberty and promoted such,, he might get banned..

Folks have been banned for less.