kenandkids
New Member
With the recent discussion that, yet again, demonstrated racism by those who like to declare themselves better than some other group of people (so shockingly a conservative/libertarian... :roll: ), I thought I'd share some of what I see in the concept of "race."
I come from a very racist family. A very republican, conservative family. A family that constantly pisses and moans about the halcyon days of yore when it wasn't "illegal to be a proud white man." I had an uncle who "defended" his white wife from a black guy who was "obviously hunting for white whores" and a father who helped bury the body. Most of my sister's side of the family belongs to either the AB (Aryan Brotherhood) or the KKK. I've dealt with racism all of my damn life, and nonsense like "genetic inferiority" has been a staple of the ridiculous crap I've had to listen to.
This has lead to a lot of thinking on the subject and reading numerous studies and articles on genetics over the last few decades. Here are my thoughts and ruminations.
As Anachronous Rex pointed out elsewhere, every credible study points to greater overall genetic diversity and difference within generally perceived races than compared to other races. What this means is that if I and another "white" person near me are genetically compared, then we will have a statistically greater chance of genetic difference than I and the nearest "black" person standing near me. The perceived race issue has little to do with the differences, the situations in which the perceived similar race developed is far more important.
Eastern russians and Ukrainians are considered white, yet they have mongoloid (no, not retarded or Down syndrome) genetic material. A great deal of north western Asia has the same genetic markers yet have other markers that make them considered to be Asian. The famous warlike tribe that conquered vast amounts of land in the region is the cause of the widespread diversity of their genetic material. In context, for the people that confuse a human's paint-job with her race, this means that the "white" russian immigrant is likely less similar to the "white" German immigrant than either is to "black" guy sitting next to them. Yes, I realise and acknowledge that I'm over-simplifying, I just wanted to point out how the concept works.
Another idiot idea, and one that WAS brought up in the other thread, is that some "races" have evolved "more" than others. In the other statements, an allegation that some races had evolved more intellectually than others. This doesn't pass any bullshit test. These types of racists like to misconstrue reality in order to think that African blacks have had less intellectual and more physical development than whites or Asians. It is my contention, due to what I've read over the years, that this is sheer stupidity. The general root of this thought is that because the tribe or group or race is closer to the original "home" of the species, it needed less development to belong in it's niche. Lets look at the "intelligence" niche and whether it favours the european or the african human.
What makes our species, the human form of African ape, special in regards to our environment? Our capacity for rapid accumulation of knowledge and our ability to pass it along to our progeny. In other words, intelligence. In Africa, intelligence made us viable competitors for food and territory. Africa has a great (the greatest?) collection of large and violent creatures that can compete with humans for both food and territory. Intelligence is absolutely required for us to maintain a foothold and to be as successful as we have been there. If you wish to argue this, notice that our close cousins have very restrictive territorial needs that must be met because they easily become prey or lack the capacity to easily adapt to other food and housing situations elsewhere. Notably, they require forests or trees for defence and comfort. The human's capacity to adapt quickly is directly related to our ability to learn and communicate new concepts, something that our ape cousins do not have to our degree.
European and Asian humans did not exactly have the same competition to survive. Although the poisonous nature of so many of Asia's animals is famous, simple visual and auditory acuity can assist the population to avoid the dangers for the most part. Asia's humans had to adapt to a different problem, housing and travel. The outward manifestation is the slitted eyes, these reduce glare from sunlight on reflective surfaces. Intelligence was no less needed for the Asian development, just for slightly different reasons and it was accompanied by a physical change, lighter skin and slitted eyes.
In Europe intelligence had the least to do with the human populations development. The climates were temperate and predators few. Material was easy to find and often at hand, and prey animals were everywhere. The harsh northern winters were the primary difficulty for the European humans.
As I said, this is a simple breakdown of what I've come up with, but one that racists could learn from. Since nearly every racist I've met has sense of white, European, superiority; it nearly always makes them angry when I take their "less evolved" argument and point out that European whites are "likely" the least "evolved." They had the fewest hurdles when it comes to natural selection.
My basic view
Race is a stupid term because of the image or concepts that it involves. We aren't technically different races or subspecies. People who like to attach themselves to either of these terms have a misinterpretation of reality. A common comparison is made to "breeds" of animals. Dogs are the most common comparison. This is technically not a good comparison though.
Races are like breeds
Wrong. Canines can breed together, and this is often the basis for this claim. I understand the logical leap, and I used to use it. But it is entirely inaccurate. The reason why is that dogs are far more prevalent and diversified than apes. We have very few comparisons to other apes that can carry through to a comparison to dogs. Guided Selection is what makes this a terrible comparison. We have guided dog breeds to exhibit specific traits. Some dogs are known for intelligence, some for cunning, some for physical strength, some for physical endurance, some for size, etc.. This is why the comparison breaks down, a person that compares human race to dog breed may unwittingly be fortifying the opponents talking points.
I prefer the comparison to like forms of a single "breed" of dog. My favourite are pitbulls. Humans are different from each other in a very similar manner that pitbulls are different from each other. Brindle pits have a distinct paintjob and a few minor physical differences, they are also susceptible to certain physical ailments. The American PB Terrier has it's own paintjob and susceptibility to ailments. Yet, when you compare the two breeds objectively and closely, you'll notice the overwhelming similarities, not the differences.
Humans are like this, different paintjobs, differences in minor aspects of appearance, but similar in both form and function. Any person that tries to pull genetic or evolutionary bullshit to explain why some races are superior has clearly never studied or attempted to make honest comparisons.
Feel free to argue or expand on concepts I didn't touch. This is more of just a general touching from the top of my head.
edit: Small irony, just after writing this I was channel surfing and saw a white-pride program featuring Tom Metzger. I've actually met the dude more than once... what a piece of work...
I come from a very racist family. A very republican, conservative family. A family that constantly pisses and moans about the halcyon days of yore when it wasn't "illegal to be a proud white man." I had an uncle who "defended" his white wife from a black guy who was "obviously hunting for white whores" and a father who helped bury the body. Most of my sister's side of the family belongs to either the AB (Aryan Brotherhood) or the KKK. I've dealt with racism all of my damn life, and nonsense like "genetic inferiority" has been a staple of the ridiculous crap I've had to listen to.
This has lead to a lot of thinking on the subject and reading numerous studies and articles on genetics over the last few decades. Here are my thoughts and ruminations.
As Anachronous Rex pointed out elsewhere, every credible study points to greater overall genetic diversity and difference within generally perceived races than compared to other races. What this means is that if I and another "white" person near me are genetically compared, then we will have a statistically greater chance of genetic difference than I and the nearest "black" person standing near me. The perceived race issue has little to do with the differences, the situations in which the perceived similar race developed is far more important.
Eastern russians and Ukrainians are considered white, yet they have mongoloid (no, not retarded or Down syndrome) genetic material. A great deal of north western Asia has the same genetic markers yet have other markers that make them considered to be Asian. The famous warlike tribe that conquered vast amounts of land in the region is the cause of the widespread diversity of their genetic material. In context, for the people that confuse a human's paint-job with her race, this means that the "white" russian immigrant is likely less similar to the "white" German immigrant than either is to "black" guy sitting next to them. Yes, I realise and acknowledge that I'm over-simplifying, I just wanted to point out how the concept works.
Another idiot idea, and one that WAS brought up in the other thread, is that some "races" have evolved "more" than others. In the other statements, an allegation that some races had evolved more intellectually than others. This doesn't pass any bullshit test. These types of racists like to misconstrue reality in order to think that African blacks have had less intellectual and more physical development than whites or Asians. It is my contention, due to what I've read over the years, that this is sheer stupidity. The general root of this thought is that because the tribe or group or race is closer to the original "home" of the species, it needed less development to belong in it's niche. Lets look at the "intelligence" niche and whether it favours the european or the african human.
What makes our species, the human form of African ape, special in regards to our environment? Our capacity for rapid accumulation of knowledge and our ability to pass it along to our progeny. In other words, intelligence. In Africa, intelligence made us viable competitors for food and territory. Africa has a great (the greatest?) collection of large and violent creatures that can compete with humans for both food and territory. Intelligence is absolutely required for us to maintain a foothold and to be as successful as we have been there. If you wish to argue this, notice that our close cousins have very restrictive territorial needs that must be met because they easily become prey or lack the capacity to easily adapt to other food and housing situations elsewhere. Notably, they require forests or trees for defence and comfort. The human's capacity to adapt quickly is directly related to our ability to learn and communicate new concepts, something that our ape cousins do not have to our degree.
European and Asian humans did not exactly have the same competition to survive. Although the poisonous nature of so many of Asia's animals is famous, simple visual and auditory acuity can assist the population to avoid the dangers for the most part. Asia's humans had to adapt to a different problem, housing and travel. The outward manifestation is the slitted eyes, these reduce glare from sunlight on reflective surfaces. Intelligence was no less needed for the Asian development, just for slightly different reasons and it was accompanied by a physical change, lighter skin and slitted eyes.
In Europe intelligence had the least to do with the human populations development. The climates were temperate and predators few. Material was easy to find and often at hand, and prey animals were everywhere. The harsh northern winters were the primary difficulty for the European humans.
As I said, this is a simple breakdown of what I've come up with, but one that racists could learn from. Since nearly every racist I've met has sense of white, European, superiority; it nearly always makes them angry when I take their "less evolved" argument and point out that European whites are "likely" the least "evolved." They had the fewest hurdles when it comes to natural selection.
My basic view
Race is a stupid term because of the image or concepts that it involves. We aren't technically different races or subspecies. People who like to attach themselves to either of these terms have a misinterpretation of reality. A common comparison is made to "breeds" of animals. Dogs are the most common comparison. This is technically not a good comparison though.
Races are like breeds
Wrong. Canines can breed together, and this is often the basis for this claim. I understand the logical leap, and I used to use it. But it is entirely inaccurate. The reason why is that dogs are far more prevalent and diversified than apes. We have very few comparisons to other apes that can carry through to a comparison to dogs. Guided Selection is what makes this a terrible comparison. We have guided dog breeds to exhibit specific traits. Some dogs are known for intelligence, some for cunning, some for physical strength, some for physical endurance, some for size, etc.. This is why the comparison breaks down, a person that compares human race to dog breed may unwittingly be fortifying the opponents talking points.
I prefer the comparison to like forms of a single "breed" of dog. My favourite are pitbulls. Humans are different from each other in a very similar manner that pitbulls are different from each other. Brindle pits have a distinct paintjob and a few minor physical differences, they are also susceptible to certain physical ailments. The American PB Terrier has it's own paintjob and susceptibility to ailments. Yet, when you compare the two breeds objectively and closely, you'll notice the overwhelming similarities, not the differences.
Humans are like this, different paintjobs, differences in minor aspects of appearance, but similar in both form and function. Any person that tries to pull genetic or evolutionary bullshit to explain why some races are superior has clearly never studied or attempted to make honest comparisons.
Feel free to argue or expand on concepts I didn't touch. This is more of just a general touching from the top of my head.
edit: Small irony, just after writing this I was channel surfing and saw a white-pride program featuring Tom Metzger. I've actually met the dude more than once... what a piece of work...
