Racial realists , anyone out there?

Post Reply New Topic

Lewontin's fallacy does not apply to the major point of the article, which is that human variation is clinal rather than clumped (the latter being necessary for the biological concept of 'race' to be applied to a species).

I am "obsessed" with the fact that someone is proudly posting racist videos that attempt to claim that "whites" are superior to "blacks." The pride is evident in the use of a term like"anti-racists."

I responded to that whole post. People are different. People vary, in some ways biologically.. Certain diseases are more common in certain groups, this is true. "Race" is useful as ONE correlating factor of MANY in detecting illnesses, and a flawed one at that, like any correlating factor. Many people not deemed by one of the MANY differing methods that exist of deciding race, because it is decided (just look at the different ways any given person will be racially defined in different cultures around the globe, or by era) to be of an at-risk-for-illness -group, will have the illness, and many in the group will not.

If race exists as a reliably definable biological fact, though, what race am I and my family members who are consistently INconsistently labelled, if genetic and hereditary origin is meant to be taken into account rather than just " what people would call this person if they saw them on the street based on their cultural training?" Basically what are the factors that "make" someone a certain "race"? Someone can display zero of any signs you give yet be completely of a group you deem that race. Someone can display all the signs and yet be not at all of a group you deem that race. Etc.

Race is bogus. Read this:

Human Genetic Diversity and the Nonexistence of Biological Races
Jeffrey C. Long1 and Rick A. Kittles2
1 Department of Human Genetics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-0618.
2 National Human Genome Center, Howard University, Washington, D.C. 20060.
Abstract
Sewall Wright's population structure statistic, FST, measured among samples of world populations is often 15% or less. This would indicate that 85% of genetic variation occurs within groups while only 15% can be attributed to allele frequency differences among groups. In this paper, we show that this low value reflects strong biases that result from violating hidden assumptions that define FST. These limitations on FST are demonstrated algebraically and in the context of analyzing dinucleotide repeat allele frequencies for a set of eight loci genotyped in eight human groups and in chimpanzees. In our analyses, estimates of FST. fail to identify important variation. For example, when the analysis includes only humans, FST = 0.119, but adding the chimpanzees increases it only a little, FST = 0.183. By relaxing the underlying statistical assumptions, the results for chimpanzees become consistent with common knowledge, and we see a richer pattern of human genetic diversity. Some human groups are far more diverged than would be implied by standard computations of FST, while other groups are much less diverged. We discuss the relevance of these findings to the application of biological race concepts to humans. Four different race concepts are considered: typological, population, taxonomic, and lineage. Surprisingly, a great deal of genetic variation within groups is consistent with each of these concepts. However, none of the race concepts is compatible with the patterns of variation revealed by our analyses.


So there.

ruveyn

It seems to make sense to me that when asserting something, the evidence/hypothesis/etc is given at the beginning..



You mean my personal experiences arguing either here in PPR since 2008, with dozens of users who say the exact same things as you have here (usually less politely)? Or simply reading and observing the practices and "methodology" of racial realists? Furthermore, just looking at who exactly the most outspoken of them are?

I also did not find the references you gave particularly convincing since they went over a few things known to be different but still make the assertion that there is a big difference without really providing for that

Not to play Devil's advocate completely here, but I think its safe to say that the use of the terms "racist" and "racism" are used in a few too many situation where their use is not warranted. Secondly, would anyone object to me saying that blacks are superior dancers, basketball players (except for the shooters as the best ones are white), runners? Would anyone object it to me saying that a side-effect of a bris (Jewish circumcision) is a higher chance at winning a Nobel price?

It's not actually safe to say that. Find me a situation it's widely used in where it's not warranted. People don't point out racism for fun. People literally point it out for their health, it's profoundly unhealthy living in a society where microassaults are made all the time on a person's right to be seen and treated equally.

I object to you saying that "blacks" are superior dancers, basketball players even with whatever exception you are claiming, or runners. Strongly. First of all I wasn't aware that dancing was a measurable sport.

Is this part a joke?

Yes, because it's as offensive as asserting all Aspies are geniuses. It's stereotyping.

I guess I could be called a racial realist in some ways. It's simply a fact that different races are not quite the same, they tend to have different muscle builds and their body's tend to be adapted to certain climates.

There is actually a reason you see so many crazy fast runners from African countries, their muscle builds are on average better for running than Caucasians.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qu8EK7Rq9_w[/youtube]

I don't think you understand what "racial realist" means.

Yes, there are differences. The one I can think off the top of my head is that Caucasians have more body hair for some reason. But the point of "racial realism" is to exploit these differences to make "homogeneous" societies (you did double-click on that one channel to see the "Diversity" video, right?) and other racially-biased outcomes. Just look at David Duke and other racial realists (he was the first person that came to mind for me, I don't understand why he was not used for this topic )

The velesova-sloboda thread says it all. It seemed like a "reasonable" argument until he screwed up there. It is like using the Institute for Historical Review for Holocaust research.

Some people say "anti-racism = anti-white", so I do not understand why some have to try to cover this up.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41s-RcGaLCQ[/youtube]

David Duke was also the first name that came to mind for me

See, the thing is I'm actually a realist, I don't subscribe to crackpot theories about one race being better than another.

Different does not mean inferior or superior, it simply means different.

Racial realist is just a euphemism and its main advocates include men like David Duke. The point is "races" are not actually taxonomical subgroups so any attempt to make it sound scientific is simply incorrect. The implication of Racial realism is that what we think of as "races" are fundamentally different subgroups of Homo sapiens. Unfortunately that is not realism, that is stupidity motivated by malice, and profoundly unscientific. Acknowledging there are differences caused by genetic drift and geography does not make one a racial realist, unless you actually believe in the concept of race

I do believe in the concept of race. I am physically different than an African or an Asian. I just don't see anything past that point. Sure human is human, but differences do exist (even if they do tend to be minor).

Man that sounds just a little too racist to me

You are physically different from many groups of "Caucasians" as well yet few delve down the road anymore of classifying the Irish as a race (for example)