What color are we then? I need to learn how oppressed I've been my whole life. I look like an olive but I don't know if that makes me a Hitler or a saint.
Race mixing is rare, so this isn't a common problem, but like I said to the other guy, give me a blood sample and I can tell you the exact ancestry. This is a pretty well documented science. You don't even need to do a genetic analysis most of the item, people actually get it right when they self-identify.
You just proved his points. How you identify yourself is something you do arbitrarily. He identify himself as Black, then he forfeits his White genes, and vice versa.
give me a blood sample and I can tell you the exact ancestry.
And concepts of race have nothing to do with genetic ancestry. A Greek has way more common with a Turk than an Icelandic native, but Greeks and Icelandic natives are white and Turks aren't.
There so much wrong with this. I just going to look at the first point. Most of the countries in the Americas are mixed race. There a lot of people who have a combination of black, indigenous, Asian, Arab, and European ancestry. In Brazil for example, people will use 136 terms to describe their race. In the US virtually all American Blacks who were descended from slaves have white ancestry. If the definition of a white person is ancestry from Europe does that mean all American Blacks are really white. Also there many people who appear white but have black ancestry. You trying to put people in five boxes but that system doesn't take into account what happened when people start intermarrying. Is a person white if only one of their great great grandparents are black, or great grandparents, or grandparent, etc.
The fact that there is even a debate with who is considered white in the first place is proof that “whiteness” is socially constructed. Can you really not see this?
Whiteness is socially constructed, it's used as a colloquial term to refer to people of european descent, or those who have a pale skin color. Race as a concept is not socially constructed however.
It turns out that genetic variation in human populations is mostly a matter of differences in the relative proportions of the same sets of alleles. In fact, the distribution of particular phenotypes shifts gradually from place to place across populations as the frequencies of some alleles increase, whereas those of others decrease or stay the same. Moreover, the distributions of some traits (like skin color) do not match the distributions of other traits (like hair type). Such a pattern of gradually shifting frequency of a phenotypic trait from population to population across geographic space is called a cline. Clines can be represented on maps such as those that show the gradually shifting distribution of differences in human skin color from the equator to the poles.
Phenotypic contrasts are greatest when people from very different places are brought together and compared, while ignoring the populations that connect them (Marks 1995, 161). This is what happened when Europeans arrived in the New World, conquered the indigenous peoples, and imported slaves from Africa to work on their plantations. But if you were to walk from Stockholm, Sweden, to Cape Town, South Africa (or from Singapore to Beijing, China), you would gradual changes in average skin color as you moved from north to south (or vice versa). Evolutionary biologists argue that skin pigmentation is distributed in this way as a consequence of natural selection: individuals in tropical populations with darker skin pigmentation had a selective advantage in equatorial habitats over individuals with light pigmentation. By contrast, populations farther away from the equator faced less intense selection pressure for darkly pigmented skin and perhaps even selective pressures in favor of lighter skins. But different selection pressures would have been at work on other traits, such as stature or hair type, within the same population, which is why the geographical distributions of these traits do not match up neatly with the distribution of skin pigmentation. To make things even more complex, different genes may be involved in the production of similar phenotypic traits in different populations: for example, although different ancestral populations of humans living near the equator have dark skin, the identity and the number of alleles involved in the production of this phenotypic trait may be different in different populations.
Evidence for this gradual geographical intergradation of human phenotypes led biological anthropologist Frank Livingstone (1964) to declare more than 40 years ago that "There are no races, there are only clines" (279). Clinal variation explains why people searching for "races" have never been able to agree on how many there are or how they can be identified. Clines are not groups. The only group involved in clinal mapping is the entire human species. Each cline is a map of the distribution of a single trait. Biologists might compare the clinal maps of trait A and trait B to see if they overlap and, if so, by how much. But the more clines they superimpose, the more obvious it becomes that the trait distributions they map do not coincide in ways that neatly subdivide into distinct human subpopulations; that is, clinal distributions are not concordant. Since the biological concept of "race" predicts exactly such overlap, or concordance, it cannot be correct. In other words, clinal analysis tests the biological concept of "race" and finds nothing in nature 10 match it. And if biological races cannot be found, then the so-called races identified over the years can only be symbolic constructs, based on cultural elaboration of a few superficial phenotypic differences—skin color, hair type and quantity, skin folds, lip shape, and the like. In short, early race theorists "weren't extracting races from their set of data,
they were imposing races upon it" (Marks 1995, 132).
You're obviously learned on this, so how do you explain certain traits such as IQ, genetic risk of certain diseases, certain types of muscle fibers, and a plethora of other non-superficial trait, matching very closely with what individuals would self-identify as their race? In plain english, why is the 100 meter sprint dominated by individuals who would call themselves black?
Regardless of what other comments say, I am willing to change my mind on this given proper evidence.
Nobody is denying that with a DNA test you could find out that some of Meghan Markle's ancestors lived in Africa more recently than Kate Middleton's. What they're saying is that this doesn't make her "black" in any meaningful biological sense. You couldn't make accurate predictions about her behavior, or her health, or her intelligence based on where her ancestors were living 2,000 years ago. You could probably do that from specific genes, and yes, a gene can be more common in some areas than others, but merely being from that area doesn't mean that she has a gene associated with that area.
Case in point: Being descended from West Africans doesn't cause you to have sickle cell disease. Having two copies of the sickle cell gene is what does that. The sickle cell gene is correlated with West African ancestry, but correlation is not causation.
As for the social definition of "black," even that isn't determined by ancestry. In Brazil, or Cuba, or the Dominican Republic, or Haiti, Meghan Markle would not be considered black. Even in South Africa, she wouldn't be considered black, but "coloured." The one-drop rule for determining who is black is a (retarded) American invention.
Yes you fool, I know that the meter as a unit of length is socially constructed, that's because EVERYTHING is. Most things, however, have a basis in reality, and saying they're socially constructed, while technically true, has certain implications.
While race is indeed a "social construct," it has a firm basis in reality, as shown by genetics and anthropology, and is be scientifically referred to as ancestry, so dismissing it as a social construct, while again is TECHNICALLY true, it is irrelevant and misleading.
Just because race as socially constructed isn’t 100% accurate to biological reality doesn’t mean that the differences between human populations are insignificant. For instance, just because it’s arbitrary where you draw a distinction between white and non-white, doesn’t mean that the differences aren’t important. It’s also arbitrary where blue ends and green starts on a color spectrum, but that doesn’t mean you scrap the entire concept of colors.
doesn’t mean that the differences between human populations are insignificant.
To be serious, the differences between different ethnicities of humans is very slight froma genetic standpoint; we simply aren't very genetically diverse.
The differences are significant from a medical standpoint. There are many diseases which afflict certain ethnicities more than others, and West Africans for instance tend to have denser bones and thus are less prone to osteoporosis.
There are also differences in general intelligence and athletic performance in different areas, which are of course more controversial, but, I believe, supported by ample evidence. I started reading about the race and IQ debate years ago when I was still very liberal, and I noticed after a while that there were no decisive studies on the “there is no correlation between race and IQ” side, whereas there was a plethora of evidence supporting the other side. I didn’t want to believe there could be differences in IQ at first, but after some reading I came to realize that this is the case. Eventually, because I had this belief, I began flirting with alt-right politics, but when I realized how stupid white nationalism (and white nationalists) is I abandoned that line of thinking.
The differences which you stated in your first paragraph are genetically/biologically speaking very minor int he grand scheme of things; they are caused by a handful of genes.
As for intelligence, there is not inf act much decisive evidence showing that the IQ has a racial basis. There is significant correlation, but it is much decreased and less significant when you correct for things like income and location. As you know, although correlation can help build a case for causation, correlationd eos nto necessarilly mean causation.
So I'm right and race isn't a social construct? Cool glad we sorted that out. I don't know why you're arguing with me about the word white being arbitrary, I don't care, I'm no ethno-nationalist.
It turns out that genetic variation in human populations is mostly a matter of differences in the relative proportions of the same sets of alleles. In fact, the distribution of particular phenotypes shifts gradually from place to place across populations as the frequencies of some alleles increase, whereas those of others decrease or stay the same. Moreover, the distributions of some traits (like skin color) do not match the distributions of other traits (like hair type). Such a pattern of gradually shifting frequency of a phenotypic trait from population to population across geographic space is called a cline. Clines can be represented on maps such as those that show the gradually shifting distribution of differences in human skin color from the equator to the poles.
Phenotypic contrasts are greatest when people from very different places are brought together and compared, while ignoring the populations that connect them (Marks 1995, 161). This is what happened when Europeans arrived in the New World, conquered the indigenous peoples, and imported slaves from Africa to work on their plantations. But if you were to walk from Stockholm, Sweden, to Cape Town, South Africa (or from Singapore to Beijing, China), you would gradual changes in average skin color as you moved from north to south (or vice versa). Evolutionary biologists argue that skin pigmentation is distributed in this way as a consequence of natural selection: individuals in tropical populations with darker skin pigmentation had a selective advantage in equatorial habitats over individuals with light pigmentation. By contrast, populations farther away from the equator faced less intense selection pressure for darkly pigmented skin and perhaps even selective pressures in favor of lighter skins. But different selection pressures would have been at work on other traits, such as stature or hair type, within the same population, which is why the geographical distributions of these traits do not match up neatly with the distribution of skin pigmentation. To make things even more complex, different genes may be involved in the production of similar phenotypic traits in different populations: for example, although different ancestral populations of humans living near the equator have dark skin, the identity and the number of alleles involved in the production of this phenotypic trait may be different in different populations.
Evidence for this gradual geographical intergradation of human phenotypes led biological anthropologist Frank Livingstone (1964) to declare more than 40 years ago that "There are no races, there are only clines" (279). Clinal variation explains why people searching for "races" have never been able to agree on how many there are or how they can be identified. Clines are not groups. The only group involved in clinal mapping is the entire human species. Each cline is a map of the distribution of a single trait. Biologists might compare the clinal maps of trait A and trait B to see if they overlap and, if so, by how much. But the more clines they superimpose, the more obvious it becomes that the trait distributions they map do not coincide in ways that neatly subdivide into distinct human subpopulations; that is, clinal distributions are not concordant. Since the biological concept of "race" predicts exactly such overlap, or concordance, it cannot be correct. In other words, clinal analysis tests the biological concept of "race" and finds nothing in nature 10 match it. And if biological races cannot be found, then the so-called races identified over the years can only be symbolic constructs, based on cultural elaboration of a few superficial phenotypic differences—skin color, hair type and quantity, skin folds, lip shape, and the like. In short, early race theorists "weren't extracting races from their set of data,
they were imposing races upon it" (Marks 1995, 132).
But we decided which phenotypes to use as the determinants of someone's "race." For example, people 500 years ago decided that wiry hair, dark skin, dark eyes, broad noses, and prominent lips were the defining traits of the "Negroid" race, and those traits happened to include almost everyone in sub-Saharan Africa (although, interestingly, in the 19th century some European anthropologists agonized over how to classify Ethiopians, who broadly speaking have lighter skins and narrower noses than most Africans).
Of course, those five traits were arbitrarily chosen because they can be determined at first glance. But if we'd decided that human "races" could be grouped into those with more fast-twitch muscle fibers and those with more slow-twitch muscle fibers (i.e., natural sprinters and natural distance runners), then East Africans and West Africans wouldn't be considered members of the same race.
The fact that they're arguing about who counts as white kind of confirms that. If the distinction between races was real there shouldn't even be a debate, and yet historically there's been a ton of variation in who is considered which race.
And as has happened to Italians and the Irish before them; as soon as they became an important segment of the population they changed from immigrant invaders to born-and-bred Americans.
People are different from each other, but those differences vary across a spectrum, not in discrete steps. What is socially constructed is the way people are divided based on their differences: what traits are relevant, as well as where's the cut off point. Hence, the discussion on who is and isn't white; if race wasn't a social construct there would simply be a self-evident criterion and nobody would disagree in good faith.
Not that it matters, social constructs are a perfectly reasonable (and, possibly, the only) basis for policy.
I don't know if anyone remembers the old r/altright subreddit that got banned ages ago. I scrolled through the top post of all time and it was filled with posts like this.
It got into this weird messed up abusive relationship where you had posts by asian and indian people asking them if they were "alright". The comments would be a mix between "racist_slur go away" or "only if you accept america as a true white nation".
I think the sub completely broke apart whenever there was a post from a middle eastern person asking if they were okay. Sorry for ranting and srs-posting.
1500 years before he was born, Socrates's ancestors climbed into bed with ancient Lebanese sailors, and 2,000 years after he died, his descendants did the same thing with the Turks.
It always baffles me that so many people (mainly retard Americans) don't know anything about what the Nazis actually believed, yet the label "Nazi" is thrown around so much.
They were German nationalists first. They believed in Nordes being aryan, but for largely pragmatic purposes (and of course they looked quintessentially "Aryan").
They wanted to make Poles Aryan, but they didn't get along so they became undermetchen.
I don't understand what you're saying. Yes, they were German nationalists, but their whole racial ideology was based off the belief that Nordic (Germanic) people were the most superior and pure Aryans. Also, what you said about Poles is untrue.
The Nazis did not want to make Poles Aryan. Polish people are Slavs. You sound like a retard white nationalist who fell for the "The Nazis only hated Poles because Poland was killing Germans and shiet!!!!!!" lie.
Yes, they were German nationalists, but their whole racial ideology was based off the belief that Nordic (Germanic) people were the most superior and pure Aryans. Also, what you said about Poles is untrue.
I'm not 100% on the Polish bit, but the Nazis were often times pragmatic about their race theory.
They wanted to make Poles Aryan, but they didn't get along so they became undermetchen.
This made me think you were a white nationalist. The reason why is because many white nationalists/supremacists will say that the Nazis acted aggressively towards Poland not because they viewed Poles as subhumans, but because Poles were killing innocent Germans in the interwar period, refusing to compromise on issues related to Danzig, etc. The reality is that Poles, for the most part, were not considered part of the master race.
No, the Arabs didn't really think about the Jews until Zionism became a thing, and even then they didn't trust Hitler that much. That one Grand Mufti certain people bang on about was in a very small minority. That's not saying prejudice didn't exist in Arab societies, but they weren't constantly obsessed with Jews the way Europeans were.
Muhammad’s relationship with the Jews wasn’t great, but it was pretty similar to any conqueror of the time dealing with a conquered population that didn’t fully accept him as a ruler. The fact is, though, that Muslims until the modern era generally got along much better with Jewish minorities than Christians did. Muslims and Arabs learned the paranoid “secret plot to control the world” style of antisemitism from Europeans.
It's amazing how they can have these big arguments about who is/isn't white and still lack the self awareness to realize the term itself must be too vague to actually mean anything.
129 comments
1 SnapshillBot 2018-08-12
This is why we need mayocide.
Snapshots:
I am a bot. (Info / Contact)
1 Tytos_Lannister 2018-08-12
no white people, no arguing about who is white or not
Snappy, you are a genius
1 Nick12506 2018-08-12
Sounds like a good plan for niggers!
1 bearonaui 2018-08-12
This but intentionally.
1 Sticklymo 2018-08-12
Oh, I do love you snappy.
1 Wraith_GraveSpell 2018-08-12
Alright, close it down boys, nothing else to add here.
1 better_bot 2018-08-12
TIL Mexico is illegitimate.
1 orangetato 2018-08-12
Genetic garbage arguing over who has the best genetics
1 throwaway_999912 2018-08-12
...
Imagine seeking validation from the bottom of the barrel NEETs🤢
1 westofthetracks 2018-08-12
i see even the last proud whitoids of mde have fallen for globalist propaganda
1 HodorTheDoorHolder 2018-08-12
Everyone is an immigrant except for the natives and by natives I mean the pure blood patriotic Wendigos.
1 ironicshitpostr 2018-08-12
This, but Solutreanically.
1 Fletch71011 2018-08-12
I'm a dirty Slav and only recently did I learn that some people don't think Slavs are white. I have no idea what I am then.
1 mr-strange 2018-08-12
Better than them, is what you are.
1 kermit_was_right 2018-08-12
The untermensch of course.
1 DistortedLines 2018-08-12
Slavs are humanoids, sort of human but not quite there yet.
1 deep-end 2018-08-12
You're a slav and you just found out slavs aren't aryan? Jeeze maybe we are inferior.
1 sooth_ 2018-08-12
both white and aryan have extremely mudded definitions
1 Fletch71011 2018-08-12
What color are we then? I need to learn how oppressed I've been my whole life. I look like an olive but I don't know if that makes me a Hitler or a saint.
1 Pepperglue 2018-08-12
Aren't Slavs Mongolians?
1 sooth_ 2018-08-12
you can just say americans
1 oxyhaledrine 2018-08-12
Master race spelling skills, eerybody.
1 KingWayneX 2018-08-12
? Hes making fun of the way slavs pronounce V
1 BonoboZilla 2018-08-12
Imagine them being so retarded they think that's a thing
1 Nick12506 2018-08-12
Of course slaves are going to have slight better physical characteristics though give that nigger a fish and he'll fuck it to death.
1 DeathBahamutXXX 2018-08-12
I'm of greek decent an I am counted as white until they find out I'm greek...
1 cmakk1012 2018-08-12
Why are you DENYING THE TRUTH OF ALEXANDRSKI THE GREAT SLAVOMACEDONIAN?
1 parduscat 2018-08-12
1 seshfan2 2018-08-12
Lmfao they're so close to figuring out that race is a social construct but they juusssst can't quite get there.
1 better_bot 2018-08-12
Let's be honest, someday they'll admit it and the very next sentence out of their mouth will be "but our construct is superior."
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2018-08-12
this but very much as it is
1 Daxx46 2018-08-12
Hello, I'd like to introduce you to Jordan Peterson.
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2018-08-12
Mcmemerson is truly ahead of his time.
1 oxyhaledrine 2018-08-12
Memrson isn't aut-right though.
1 SomeoneOnThelnternet 2018-08-12
You actually believe race is a social construct? But then why are there visible differences between people of different races?
1 Dolphin_McRibs 2018-08-12
Yes people look different, but the idea of Whites, Blacks, Asians, etc. Is something we created.
1 SomeoneOnThelnternet 2018-08-12
What do you mean we created? You mean created names for people from different places on Earth and who share similar skin color and facial features?
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2018-08-12
Half white, half Japanese mom + half white, half Dominican dad = wtf is that child's race gonna be? Apart from growing to be hot af probably.
You see the problem here laddie? Obama is half white btw.
1 NotDexterMcSnuggles 2018-08-12
Race mixing is rare, so this isn't a common problem, but like I said to the other guy, give me a blood sample and I can tell you the exact ancestry. This is a pretty well documented science. You don't even need to do a genetic analysis most of the item, people actually get it right when they self-identify.
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2018-08-12
Is Obama black or white?
1 NotDexterMcSnuggles 2018-08-12
Does he self-identify as black or white? I have no reason not to believe him either way.
1 Pepperglue 2018-08-12
You just proved his points. How you identify yourself is something you do arbitrarily. He identify himself as Black, then he forfeits his White genes, and vice versa.
1 oxyhaledrine 2018-08-12
And concepts of race have nothing to do with genetic ancestry. A Greek has way more common with a Turk than an Icelandic native, but Greeks and Icelandic natives are white and Turks aren't.
1 NotDexterMcSnuggles 2018-08-12
Says who? Define white.
1 oxyhaledrine 2018-08-12
Gr8 job admitting to it being a social construct, m8.
1 siempreloco31 2018-08-12
lmao @ human genetic clustering is uncontroversial science
1 Locadoes 2018-08-12
There so much wrong with this. I just going to look at the first point. Most of the countries in the Americas are mixed race. There a lot of people who have a combination of black, indigenous, Asian, Arab, and European ancestry. In Brazil for example, people will use 136 terms to describe their race. In the US virtually all American Blacks who were descended from slaves have white ancestry. If the definition of a white person is ancestry from Europe does that mean all American Blacks are really white. Also there many people who appear white but have black ancestry. You trying to put people in five boxes but that system doesn't take into account what happened when people start intermarrying. Is a person white if only one of their great great grandparents are black, or great grandparents, or grandparent, etc.
1 oxyhaledrine 2018-08-12
Didn't know you were such a mutt Rajesh.
1 NomDuGloom 2018-08-12
These women have the same hair colour and almost the exact same skin colour. Which one is white and which one is black?
1 NotDexterMcSnuggles 2018-08-12
Give me a blood sample and I'll tell you.
1 NomDuGloom 2018-08-12
It can also tell you how much of your family line is from the balkans and how much is from Wales. Are the welsh and the Serbs not both “white”?
1 NotDexterMcSnuggles 2018-08-12
I don't really care, I'm not interested in the who is white debate.
1 NomDuGloom 2018-08-12
The fact that there is even a debate with who is considered white in the first place is proof that “whiteness” is socially constructed. Can you really not see this?
1 Dolphin_McRibs 2018-08-12
He's right there with the people arguing. Lol all these people giving different valid proofs and he just wont budge.
1 NotDexterMcSnuggles 2018-08-12
Whiteness is socially constructed, it's used as a colloquial term to refer to people of european descent, or those who have a pale skin color. Race as a concept is not socially constructed however.
1 NomDuGloom 2018-08-12
So race itself isn’t but the individual races are?
1 oxyhaledrine 2018-08-12
That's like claiming that countries are socially contructed but the concept of a country isn't.
1 shallowm 2018-08-12
It turns out that genetic variation in human populations is mostly a matter of differences in the relative proportions of the same sets of alleles. In fact, the distribution of particular phenotypes shifts gradually from place to place across populations as the frequencies of some alleles increase, whereas those of others decrease or stay the same. Moreover, the distributions of some traits (like skin color) do not match the distributions of other traits (like hair type). Such a pattern of gradually shifting frequency of a phenotypic trait from population to population across geographic space is called a cline. Clines can be represented on maps such as those that show the gradually shifting distribution of differences in human skin color from the equator to the poles.
Phenotypic contrasts are greatest when people from very different places are brought together and compared, while ignoring the populations that connect them (Marks 1995, 161). This is what happened when Europeans arrived in the New World, conquered the indigenous peoples, and imported slaves from Africa to work on their plantations. But if you were to walk from Stockholm, Sweden, to Cape Town, South Africa (or from Singapore to Beijing, China), you would gradual changes in average skin color as you moved from north to south (or vice versa). Evolutionary biologists argue that skin pigmentation is distributed in this way as a consequence of natural selection: individuals in tropical populations with darker skin pigmentation had a selective advantage in equatorial habitats over individuals with light pigmentation. By contrast, populations farther away from the equator faced less intense selection pressure for darkly pigmented skin and perhaps even selective pressures in favor of lighter skins. But different selection pressures would have been at work on other traits, such as stature or hair type, within the same population, which is why the geographical distributions of these traits do not match up neatly with the distribution of skin pigmentation. To make things even more complex, different genes may be involved in the production of similar phenotypic traits in different populations: for example, although different ancestral populations of humans living near the equator have dark skin, the identity and the number of alleles involved in the production of this phenotypic trait may be different in different populations.
Evidence for this gradual geographical intergradation of human phenotypes led biological anthropologist Frank Livingstone (1964) to declare more than 40 years ago that "There are no races, there are only clines" (279). Clinal variation explains why people searching for "races" have never been able to agree on how many there are or how they can be identified. Clines are not groups. The only group involved in clinal mapping is the entire human species. Each cline is a map of the distribution of a single trait. Biologists might compare the clinal maps of trait A and trait B to see if they overlap and, if so, by how much. But the more clines they superimpose, the more obvious it becomes that the trait distributions they map do not coincide in ways that neatly subdivide into distinct human subpopulations; that is, clinal distributions are not concordant. Since the biological concept of "race" predicts exactly such overlap, or concordance, it cannot be correct. In other words, clinal analysis tests the biological concept of "race" and finds nothing in nature 10 match it. And if biological races cannot be found, then the so-called races identified over the years can only be symbolic constructs, based on cultural elaboration of a few superficial phenotypic differences—skin color, hair type and quantity, skin folds, lip shape, and the like. In short, early race theorists "weren't extracting races from their set of data, they were imposing races upon it" (Marks 1995, 132).
1 LongPostBot 2018-08-12
Sorry ma'am, looks like his delusions have gotten worse. We'll have to admit him,
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 NotDexterMcSnuggles 2018-08-12
You're obviously learned on this, so how do you explain certain traits such as IQ, genetic risk of certain diseases, certain types of muscle fibers, and a plethora of other non-superficial trait, matching very closely with what individuals would self-identify as their race? In plain english, why is the 100 meter sprint dominated by individuals who would call themselves black?
Regardless of what other comments say, I am willing to change my mind on this given proper evidence.
1 dootwiththesickness 2018-08-12
The density is starting to distort space-time.
Nobody is denying that with a DNA test you could find out that some of Meghan Markle's ancestors lived in Africa more recently than Kate Middleton's. What they're saying is that this doesn't make her "black" in any meaningful biological sense. You couldn't make accurate predictions about her behavior, or her health, or her intelligence based on where her ancestors were living 2,000 years ago. You could probably do that from specific genes, and yes, a gene can be more common in some areas than others, but merely being from that area doesn't mean that she has a gene associated with that area.
Case in point: Being descended from West Africans doesn't cause you to have sickle cell disease. Having two copies of the sickle cell gene is what does that. The sickle cell gene is correlated with West African ancestry, but correlation is not causation.
As for the social definition of "black," even that isn't determined by ancestry. In Brazil, or Cuba, or the Dominican Republic, or Haiti, Meghan Markle would not be considered black. Even in South Africa, she wouldn't be considered black, but "coloured." The one-drop rule for determining who is black is a (retarded) American invention.
1 oxyhaledrine 2018-08-12
Slave, Italians and Celts are considered whites yet Pashtuns aren't.
1 NotDexterMcSnuggles 2018-08-12
What is this postmodern bullshit? We created the idea of a "meter" as well, is the meter a social construct?
1 oxyhaledrine 2018-08-12
Yes; length is scientific fact but the meter as a unit of length is socially constructed.
1 NotDexterMcSnuggles 2018-08-12
Yes you fool, I know that the meter as a unit of length is socially constructed, that's because EVERYTHING is. Most things, however, have a basis in reality, and saying they're socially constructed, while technically true, has certain implications.
While race is indeed a "social construct," it has a firm basis in reality, as shown by genetics and anthropology, and is be scientifically referred to as ancestry, so dismissing it as a social construct, while again is TECHNICALLY true, it is irrelevant and misleading.
1 oxyhaledrine 2018-08-12
Nope. Human "races" aren't genetically valid clades.
Ah yes, because historically Nordics, Romans and Greeks had similar cultures.
I ask you again, are Iranians white?
1 NotDexterMcSnuggles 2018-08-12
Did I say that I support an ethno-state for white people? My only problem was with the nigga saying that race is a social construct.
1 oxyhaledrine 2018-08-12
Where did I say you support an ethnic state?
I'm showing that saying that human "races" are rooted in scientific facts is retarded.
1 NotDexterMcSnuggles 2018-08-12
You're asking me if Iranians are white, as if I give a shit. And they absolutely are.
1 Imperial_Sardaukar 2018-08-12
Just because race as socially constructed isn’t 100% accurate to biological reality doesn’t mean that the differences between human populations are insignificant. For instance, just because it’s arbitrary where you draw a distinction between white and non-white, doesn’t mean that the differences aren’t important. It’s also arbitrary where blue ends and green starts on a color spectrum, but that doesn’t mean you scrap the entire concept of colors.
1 oxyhaledrine 2018-08-12
To be serious, the differences between different ethnicities of humans is very slight froma genetic standpoint; we simply aren't very genetically diverse.
1 Imperial_Sardaukar 2018-08-12
The differences are significant from a medical standpoint. There are many diseases which afflict certain ethnicities more than others, and West Africans for instance tend to have denser bones and thus are less prone to osteoporosis.
There are also differences in general intelligence and athletic performance in different areas, which are of course more controversial, but, I believe, supported by ample evidence. I started reading about the race and IQ debate years ago when I was still very liberal, and I noticed after a while that there were no decisive studies on the “there is no correlation between race and IQ” side, whereas there was a plethora of evidence supporting the other side. I didn’t want to believe there could be differences in IQ at first, but after some reading I came to realize that this is the case. Eventually, because I had this belief, I began flirting with alt-right politics, but when I realized how stupid white nationalism (and white nationalists) is I abandoned that line of thinking.
1 oxyhaledrine 2018-08-12
The differences which you stated in your first paragraph are genetically/biologically speaking very minor int he grand scheme of things; they are caused by a handful of genes.
As for intelligence, there is not inf act much decisive evidence showing that the IQ has a racial basis. There is significant correlation, but it is much decreased and less significant when you correct for things like income and location. As you know, although correlation can help build a case for causation, correlationd eos nto necessarilly mean causation.
==udne construction===
1 Daxx46 2018-08-12
Except they don't...if that were true then we'd still discriminate against Irish the way we do against blacks.
1 NotDexterMcSnuggles 2018-08-12
So I'm right and race isn't a social construct? Cool glad we sorted that out. I don't know why you're arguing with me about the word white being arbitrary, I don't care, I'm no ethno-nationalist.
1 Daxx46 2018-08-12
It depends on whether you conflate "race" with "ethnicity" because one is a technical term and one is a social construct.
Retard.
1 oxyhaledrine 2018-08-12
Let's be real here: pretty much everybody thinks race means skin colour/whether you have slanty eyes, not anything rooted in genetic ancestry.
1 NotDexterMcSnuggles 2018-08-12
How pedantic.
1 snallygaster 2018-08-12
Pedantic? Race and ethnicity are two completely different things...
1 oxyhaledrine 2018-08-12
Are you illiterate?
1 NotDexterMcSnuggles 2018-08-12
Are you? White may or not be a social construct, I don't give a shit either way. Race as a whole definitely isn't, that's my fucking point.
1 oxyhaledrine 2018-08-12
So you admit to the possibility of races/classifications like white or black being social constructs, but somehow human races aren't?
1 NotDexterMcSnuggles 2018-08-12
Now you're just being difficult. I can't make my point any simpler. I'm sorry that school failed you so badly.
1 shallowm 2018-08-12
It turns out that genetic variation in human populations is mostly a matter of differences in the relative proportions of the same sets of alleles. In fact, the distribution of particular phenotypes shifts gradually from place to place across populations as the frequencies of some alleles increase, whereas those of others decrease or stay the same. Moreover, the distributions of some traits (like skin color) do not match the distributions of other traits (like hair type). Such a pattern of gradually shifting frequency of a phenotypic trait from population to population across geographic space is called a cline. Clines can be represented on maps such as those that show the gradually shifting distribution of differences in human skin color from the equator to the poles.
Phenotypic contrasts are greatest when people from very different places are brought together and compared, while ignoring the populations that connect them (Marks 1995, 161). This is what happened when Europeans arrived in the New World, conquered the indigenous peoples, and imported slaves from Africa to work on their plantations. But if you were to walk from Stockholm, Sweden, to Cape Town, South Africa (or from Singapore to Beijing, China), you would gradual changes in average skin color as you moved from north to south (or vice versa). Evolutionary biologists argue that skin pigmentation is distributed in this way as a consequence of natural selection: individuals in tropical populations with darker skin pigmentation had a selective advantage in equatorial habitats over individuals with light pigmentation. By contrast, populations farther away from the equator faced less intense selection pressure for darkly pigmented skin and perhaps even selective pressures in favor of lighter skins. But different selection pressures would have been at work on other traits, such as stature or hair type, within the same population, which is why the geographical distributions of these traits do not match up neatly with the distribution of skin pigmentation. To make things even more complex, different genes may be involved in the production of similar phenotypic traits in different populations: for example, although different ancestral populations of humans living near the equator have dark skin, the identity and the number of alleles involved in the production of this phenotypic trait may be different in different populations.
Evidence for this gradual geographical intergradation of human phenotypes led biological anthropologist Frank Livingstone (1964) to declare more than 40 years ago that "There are no races, there are only clines" (279). Clinal variation explains why people searching for "races" have never been able to agree on how many there are or how they can be identified. Clines are not groups. The only group involved in clinal mapping is the entire human species. Each cline is a map of the distribution of a single trait. Biologists might compare the clinal maps of trait A and trait B to see if they overlap and, if so, by how much. But the more clines they superimpose, the more obvious it becomes that the trait distributions they map do not coincide in ways that neatly subdivide into distinct human subpopulations; that is, clinal distributions are not concordant. Since the biological concept of "race" predicts exactly such overlap, or concordance, it cannot be correct. In other words, clinal analysis tests the biological concept of "race" and finds nothing in nature 10 match it. And if biological races cannot be found, then the so-called races identified over the years can only be symbolic constructs, based on cultural elaboration of a few superficial phenotypic differences—skin color, hair type and quantity, skin folds, lip shape, and the like. In short, early race theorists "weren't extracting races from their set of data, they were imposing races upon it" (Marks 1995, 132).
1 LongPostBot 2018-08-12
If only you could put that energy into your relationships
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 NomDuGloom 2018-08-12
Uh yeah?
1 NotDexterMcSnuggles 2018-08-12
Look at my other reply.
1 GIANT_BLEEDING_ANUS 2018-08-12
Opinion discarded
1 dootwiththesickness 2018-08-12
But we decided which phenotypes to use as the determinants of someone's "race." For example, people 500 years ago decided that wiry hair, dark skin, dark eyes, broad noses, and prominent lips were the defining traits of the "Negroid" race, and those traits happened to include almost everyone in sub-Saharan Africa (although, interestingly, in the 19th century some European anthropologists agonized over how to classify Ethiopians, who broadly speaking have lighter skins and narrower noses than most Africans).
Of course, those five traits were arbitrarily chosen because they can be determined at first glance. But if we'd decided that human "races" could be grouped into those with more fast-twitch muscle fibers and those with more slow-twitch muscle fibers (i.e., natural sprinters and natural distance runners), then East Africans and West Africans wouldn't be considered members of the same race.
1 JoJoPetrov 2018-08-12
Same with dog breeds.
1 melokobeai 2018-08-12
The fact that they're arguing about who counts as white kind of confirms that. If the distinction between races was real there shouldn't even be a debate, and yet historically there's been a ton of variation in who is considered which race.
1 aelfwine_widlast 2018-08-12
Shoot a black kid and look like this? White man!
Be called names by Roseanne and look like this? Proud POC!
As soon as Republicans realize the demographics tide has turned, Hispanics will be granted their caucasian card, the same way Jews have.
1 oxyhaledrine 2018-08-12
And as has happened to Italians and the Irish before them; as soon as they became an important segment of the population they changed from immigrant invaders to born-and-bred Americans.
1 imstartingtogetangry 2018-08-12
People are different from each other, but those differences vary across a spectrum, not in discrete steps. What is socially constructed is the way people are divided based on their differences: what traits are relevant, as well as where's the cut off point. Hence, the discussion on who is and isn't white; if race wasn't a social construct there would simply be a self-evident criterion and nobody would disagree in good faith.
Not that it matters, social constructs are a perfectly reasonable (and, possibly, the only) basis for policy.
1 Crucial_times 2018-08-12
Lol
1 FLATEARTHISPYSOP 2018-08-12
lol at a Somalian being equal to a European
1 DeprestedDevelopment 2018-08-12
Lol at the sky being blue
1 FLATEARTHISPYSOP 2018-08-12
the chad mentally retarded nation to the virgin 100 iq average
1 vikingmechanic 2018-08-12
An MDE poster complaining about some other group's IQ is like an aborted fetus complaining about how someone chooses to live their life.
1 FLATEARTHISPYSOP 2018-08-12
much like the aborted fetus it’s not my fault
1 Shalabadoo 2018-08-12
If God wanted them alive he wouldn't have allowed them to be aborted. And you made it through, so imagine how shit the aborted ones would be
1 FLATEARTHISPYSOP 2018-08-12
Yeah it’s sad
I look at myself in the mirror and I scream
I ask my parents
I ask god
Why
1 Vladith 2018-08-12
They'll basically admit this when explaining why they think Italians are white but Jews aren't
1 ManOfBored 2018-08-12
Fun fact: The drawing was originally just of the Mediterranean guy, and it was shitting on a sickly-looking Nordic guy.
Then it got unironically turned into a pro-Nordic drawing.
1 PooperPantoons 2018-08-12
Yeah there are many variations of this. It's the right-wing Brownie Greek's method of coping
1 storejet 2018-08-12
I don't know if anyone remembers the old r/altright subreddit that got banned ages ago. I scrolled through the top post of all time and it was filled with posts like this.
It got into this weird messed up abusive relationship where you had posts by asian and indian people asking them if they were "alright". The comments would be a mix between "racist_slur go away" or "only if you accept america as a true white nation".
I think the sub completely broke apart whenever there was a post from a middle eastern person asking if they were okay. Sorry for ranting and srs-posting.
1 imissyouseattle 2018-08-12
I think the sun got banned when it got banned, fam.
1 snallygaster 2018-08-12
goddamn imagine being so secure that you have to ask a greasy basement-dwelling NEET if they'll accept you
1 dootwiththesickness 2018-08-12
1500 years before he was born, Socrates's ancestors climbed into bed with ancient Lebanese sailors, and 2,000 years after he died, his descendants did the same thing with the Turks.
1 Sojir 2018-08-12
I'm Mediterranean and I can tell you that I'm not white: I can handle spicy food , I arrive late at stuff .
NOT HWHITE !
1 snallygaster 2018-08-12
post recipes
1 Sojir 2018-08-12
That's sooo culturally insensitive
1 d4ddyd54m4 2018-08-12
Huzzah for not being hwhite
1 constantinople_2053 2018-08-12
reminder that reductionism to skin color was a purely american concept that only became common thanks to america's iron grip on pop-culture.
The extermination war by the Nazis was fought against "white" slavs, while they had very amicable relations with the "non-white" muslim arabs.
1 RedditorsAreRetarts 2018-08-12
It always baffles me that so many people (mainly retard Americans) don't know anything about what the Nazis actually believed, yet the label "Nazi" is thrown around so much.
1 Wraith_GraveSpell 2018-08-12
We wuz vikangz n shit
1 Zackcy 2018-08-12
They were German nationalists first. They believed in Nordes being aryan, but for largely pragmatic purposes (and of course they looked quintessentially "Aryan").
They wanted to make Poles Aryan, but they didn't get along so they became undermetchen.
1 RedditorsAreRetarts 2018-08-12
I don't understand what you're saying. Yes, they were German nationalists, but their whole racial ideology was based off the belief that Nordic (Germanic) people were the most superior and pure Aryans. Also, what you said about Poles is untrue.
The Nazis did not want to make Poles Aryan. Polish people are Slavs. You sound like a retard white nationalist who fell for the "The Nazis only hated Poles because Poland was killing Germans and shiet!!!!!!" lie.
1 Zackcy 2018-08-12
I'm not 100% on the Polish bit, but the Nazis were often times pragmatic about their race theory.
But I'm not even white.
1 RedditorsAreRetarts 2018-08-12
This made me think you were a white nationalist. The reason why is because many white nationalists/supremacists will say that the Nazis acted aggressively towards Poland not because they viewed Poles as subhumans, but because Poles were killing innocent Germans in the interwar period, refusing to compromise on issues related to Danzig, etc. The reality is that Poles, for the most part, were not considered part of the master race.
1 oxyhaledrine 2018-08-12
To be fair, the Arabs shared their opinions in the Jewish menace.
1 dootwiththesickness 2018-08-12
No, the Arabs didn't really think about the Jews until Zionism became a thing, and even then they didn't trust Hitler that much. That one Grand Mufti certain people bang on about was in a very small minority. That's not saying prejudice didn't exist in Arab societies, but they weren't constantly obsessed with Jews the way Europeans were.
1 oxyhaledrine 2018-08-12
It was a joke lol.
1 dootwiththesickness 2018-08-12
Muhammad’s relationship with the Jews wasn’t great, but it was pretty similar to any conqueror of the time dealing with a conquered population that didn’t fully accept him as a ruler. The fact is, though, that Muslims until the modern era generally got along much better with Jewish minorities than Christians did. Muslims and Arabs learned the paranoid “secret plot to control the world” style of antisemitism from Europeans.
1 dootwiththesickness 2018-08-12
صحيح، وكان الفينيقيون الساميون الحضارةَ الأولى على البحرِ الأبيضِ المتوسط، ولم تكنْ "حضارةُ بيضاءُ" حتى يُعَلِّموا اليونانيين الكتابة.
In cavespeak, I'm saying that the Greeks were banging sticks together until the
PhoeniciansBoat Arabs taught them how to write.1 melokobeai 2018-08-12
It's amazing how they can have these big arguments about who is/isn't white and still lack the self awareness to realize the term itself must be too vague to actually mean anything.
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2018-08-12
this is your brain on conservative autism
1 kris_1313 2018-08-12
daily reminder: americans are not white
1 GIANT_BLEEDING_ANUS 2018-08-12
Why the fuck do people want to be white anyway?
It sucks, your skin gets burnt so easily.
1 reallyrunningnow 2018-08-12
Would a historian or genetist cringe harder reading that crap?
1 BonoboZilla 2018-08-12
How does that subreddit even still exist? It's just a whitepower place
1 oxyhaledrine 2018-08-12
That's like claiming that countries are socially contructed by concept of a country isn't.
1 GuillotinesNOW 2018-08-12
What I'm getting from some of those guys is that no one is white.
Nice try, Mayos. You won't escape the Mayocide that easily.