Racial realists , anyone out there?

Post Reply New Topic

There is an argument to evolution here, where one could argue that certain traits would have been more likely to pass on in different settings. Sickle cell anemia which tends to affect people of recent African descent (seeing as we're all technically Africans if you go far enough back) also gives some protection against malaria. It's fully possible that people with different ethic origins possess different traits that manifest in culture and abilities. Wouldn't this be supported by the reported higher median IQs of certain groups of Jewish descent based on reproductive selection?

So far there has not been a single hypothesis presented with any real supporting evidence by "racial realists". Linking to book reviews and questionable Youtube videos is not evidence. Race is not a recognized taxonomical subgroup. There is only one species of Homo Sapiens on the planet right now.

The first thing that has to be done really is to move away from the term "race" and use something like "evolutionary genetic variation in homo sapiens". The second thing to do be done is to take the racists, IE people who hold the belief that one set of genes is more valuable than another set of genes based on what is observable by the naked eye only and the people who see racism everywhere, stick them on an Island and let them beat each other to death.

Then, the rest of us can sit down and have a rational discussion based around the topic of genetic variations within human beings. Pretty much everyone agrees that the reason why we have different skin colors is due to adaptation, the same thing with body hair, so is it unreasonable to suspect that there may be other differences as well? Some that stem from natural selection and some from cultural selection?

Race is a construct. How would you define these twins? If a policeperson were stopping them and writing a description of each, one would most probably be listed as black and the other as white (let's assume they've grown up). Police as is the case with most of society does not stop and ask a stranger about their parentage, heritage, genetics, they judge themselves based on what they see, and in this case they if they made a judgment like police do would judge wrong. This isn't an isolated "strange case" either. It's just a hard-to-ignore one given the tradition of seeing "difference" in terms of skin color variation and a few other traits. Physical differences tell you basically nothing. This is of particular interest to me because I come from a "racially admixed" tribe with heritages from three continents, and noticeable differences in appearance even from sibling to sibling are common, so that to eyes trained to label "race" based on physical markers, one sibling will look and be judged Race A, another will be judged Race B, another Race C, another some other race.



http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/07/ ... 68x593.jpg

There's no evidence that on the human genome skin color or other traits are inextricable from intelligence predisposition or other traits.

If a woman with very light skin, straight blonde hair and blue eyes who scores high on intelligence tests has children with a man with very light skin, straight blond hair, and blue eyes who scores low on intelligence tests, and some of their kids end up scoring low on intelligence tests and some high, no one would attribute it to their father's whiteness. Change the father to very dark skin, dark brown eyes and highly curly dark brown/black hair however and "racial realists" would link intelligence to race (as they already do). As I've already mentioned these hypothetical adults based on their physical descriptions could viably be closely related (hopefully not if they're having kids together, but just saying) and of the same racial description. What is wrong with this picture? "Race" is being defined in order to keep whiteness culturally privileged. I am referring to cultural privilege so often lately because a lot of people act as if it doesn't exist.