The Student Room Group

This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Do you believe in a superior race?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Blutooth
Please just ignore them. You are unlikely to change their minds, just as they are unlikely to change yours. I feel this debates is getting a bit stale now. The man facts have been stated: free-thinking readers of the thread can decide for themselves. All this discussion will do is leave a sour aftertaste, better to stop chewing over the facts and be done with it.
But I must admit, you do seem to have a sensible and amusing character.


His agenda is just driven by politics. That is the main difference between us. I have no agenda, i just accept the biological reality of race which is confirmed through every area of science.

Generally a good site - http://racialreality.110mb.com/
How many races exist?

5.

Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid, Australoid, Capoid.

Evidence supporting this notion:

(a) All five groupings have historically differentiated in unique geographic locations.
(b) Individuals within any of these groupings can be easily distinguished from the vast majority of individuals in other groupings by 1) a visual examination of overall physical appearance; 2) multiple, say 21-24, craniofacial inter-landmark distances and 3) 20 discrete cranial traits. This is because members of a race share a set of phenotypic characters consistent with their evolutionary history.
(c) There is recognizable phylogenetic partitioning between the five groupings in the form of overall physical appearance and also neutral genetic markers.

Concordant evidence for the classification of these five groupings as separate subspecies/races comes from genetic studies involving a) 993 microsatellite markers b) 79 autosomal RFLPs, c) 8 Alu insertions, d) 40 biallelic slow-evolving insertion-deletions

Modern racial denialists ironically end up proving the above 5 racial divisions, based on craniometric clusters:



The 5 races (left) which modern racial denialists cluster exactly the same. LOL. But they won't then claim they are races.
Original post by Pyramidologist
Those traits are not ''gradational and overlapping''. Perhaps one day open up an anthropology book. Like i said, you can disprove my claims anytime. But you already failed. If all phenotypic traits are overlapping, find a photo of a Negroid with straight hair.
It is a gradient. Select areas of sub-Saharan Africa are at an extreme of this gradient, but it shifts thereafter alongside other characteristics. If qualitative measurements determine the categorisation of 'races', any number of 'races' can be identified. Your opinion in saying "X is distinct enough to be a new race" is not evidence for anything other than your opinion. As I said, the more markers one uses, the more geographically accurate somebody can become.

"In Japan, DFA using 18 variables classified Howells’ Northern and Southern Japan samples 89% correctly, and K-means cluster analysis allocated 81% of each Japanese group into separate clusters. Therefore, the Northern and Southern Japan samples would also represent different biological races. It would seem that the number of biological races may be limited only by the number of samples, contradicting the classic view that there are only a few discrete biological races. [...] if biological distinctiveness is an accepted criterion for biological races, a very large number of biological races can be discerned using craniometric data alone. [...] There are so many possible distinctive biological races that the concept is virtually meaningless." (Ousley et al., 2009).

"The assignment of skeletal racial origin is based principally upon stereotypical features found most frequently in the most geographically distant populations. While this is useful in some contexts (for example, sorting skeletal material of largely West African ancestry from skeletal material of largely Western European ancestry), it fails to identify populations that originate elsewhere and misrepresents fundamental patterns of human biological diversity.

Finally, the assumption that cranial form is an immutable “racial” character is very likely to be false, given the diversity of studies of immigrants and the known effects of food preparation and masticatory stress upon cranial form. Cranial form, like other aspects of the body, is a phenotype partly determined by heredity but also strongly influenced by the conditions of life" (Williams et al., 2005).
"Finally, white males born between 1840 and 1890 can be separated from white males born 1930 to 1980 very well, and they are distinguished by time, and would appear to qualify as different races" (Ousley et al., 2009).

What is found is what is sought:

"Using the Iowa priors, the highest posterior probability is for ‘‘American White’’ at 0.6976. The identification of ‘‘Easter Islander,’’ which had the highest posterior when we used an uninformative prior, now has a relatively low posterior probability (0.0449). In contrast, using the Hawaii priors the posterior probability that ‘‘Mr. Johnson’’ was an ‘‘Easter Islander’’ is 0.9068, whereas the posterior probability that he was an ‘‘American White’’ was 0.0188. Using the Gary, Indiana prior the highest posterior probability (0.5342) was for ‘‘American Black’’ with ‘‘American White’’ having the second highest posterior probability (0.2728). [...]

The use of different priors also shows the importance of prior information, as ‘Mr. Johnson’ would have been classified as a Pacific Islander had his remains been found on Hawaii and as an ‘American Black’ had his remains been found in Gary, Indiana.

[...] forensic anthropologists are not particularly adept at identifying races when they must deal with a very heterogeneous population at large, and this is the one setting in which a definitive racial identification would be useful" (Konigsberg et al., 2009).
In a symposium held by anthropologists (Caspari, 2009; Edgar, 2009; Gravlee, 2009; Hunley et al., 2009; Konigsberg et al., 2009; Long et al., 2009; Ousley et al., 2009; Relethford, 2009; Wolpoff, 2009):

"The points of agreement in the following articles reflect a shared evolutionary perspective that focuses on describing and interpreting the apportionment of biological variation between individuals both within and among groups (see also Lee et al., 2008). We agreed that:

There is substantial variation among individuals within populations.

Some biological variation is apportioned between individuals in different populations and among larger population groupings.

Patterns of within- and among-group variation have been substantially shaped by culture, language, ecology, and geography.

Race is not an accurate or productive way to describe human biological variation.

Human variation research has important social, biomedical, and forensic implications."


"There was really only one fundamental difference of opinion among the symposium participants, which was about the precise nature of the geographic patterning of human biological variation" (Edgar and Hunley, 2009).

Not only do several academics collectively state, "race is not an accurate or productive way to describe human biological variation", they also disagree about the exact patterns of variation altogether.
Original post by whyumadtho
It is a gradient. Select areas of sub-Saharan Africa are at an extreme of this gradient, but it shifts thereafter alongside other characteristics.

It only shifts in Sub-Sahara Africa because of Caucasoid admixture, particularly in Ethiopia. Unadmixed Negroids have limited physical diversity. In West Africa which is not Caucasoid admixed, differing phenotypic traits don't exist.

The gradients in Africa only came about through race admixture with Caucasoids, they are not in situ phenotypes.
Original post by ckingalt
Yes different races evolved with different attributes being more prevalent amongst their masses. It is pointless to argue which attributes favor which group because when such information is applied to the individual it means nothing.

The inevitable truth is that as we mix our races more and more those lines will become blurred anyway. Ultimately it is for the better because if we do believe in evolution then we should believe that mixing races will ultimately select the most survivable traits from each race and combine them into the next "superior race".

So to answer your question, the next superior race will be the mixed race.


That's the stupidest thing I ever heard. Survival of the fittest doesn't apply anymore. There is only survival of those who breed most, who tend to be the poorest and stupidest of society. We are experiencing a period of dysgenics where positive genes are being eliminated in favour of inferior ones.
Original post by whyumadtho
In a symposium held by anthropologists (Caspari, 2009; Edgar, 2009; Gravlee, 2009; Hunley et al., 2009; Konigsberg et al., 2009; Long et al., 2009; Ousley et al., 2009; Relethford, 2009; Wolpoff, 2009):

"The points of agreement in the following articles reflect a shared evolutionary perspective that focuses on describing and interpreting the apportionment of biological variation between individuals both within and among groups (see also Lee et al., 2008). We agreed that:

There is substantial variation among individuals within populations.

Some biological variation is apportioned between individuals in different populations and among larger population groupings.

Patterns of within- and among-group variation have been substantially shaped by culture, language, ecology, and geography.

Race is not an accurate or productive way to describe human biological variation.

Human variation research has important social, biomedical, and forensic implications."


"There was really only one fundamental difference of opinion among the symposium participants, which was about the precise nature of the geographic patterning of human biological variation" (Edgar and Hunley, 2009).

Not only do several academics collectively state, "race is not an accurate or productive way to describe human biological variation", they also disagree about the exact patterns of variation altogether.


Will you stop quoting anthropologists? They are social scientists, not real scientists, their nonsense has zero value, and the only purpose of their work is to give fuel to left wing fools like you who eat that stuff up.
Original post by OmeletteAuFromage
Will you stop quoting anthropologists? They are social scientists, not real scientists, their nonsense has zero value, and the only purpose of their work is to give fuel to left wing fools like you who eat that stuff up.


There are many good anthropologists and their work is valuable. The problem in recent years though is that PC agendas have plagued anthropology with a cranky ''race denial'' faction.
Original post by Pyramidologist
There are many good anthropologists and their work is valuable. The problem in recent years though is that PC agendas have plagued anthropology with a cranky ''race denial'' faction.


When a supposed scientist of society's scientific study is biased by politics, he is no longer a scientist. There is not a single anthropologist that I respect and I find none of their work of any relevance or worthy of any intelligent debate.
However, political biases are not confined to the social sciences, the geneticist Richard Lewontin who posited the false theory that races are purely a social construct with misanalyzed genetic statistical studies is an avowed Marxist who even stated at one point that his research was for the sole purpose of his political beliefs.
Original post by Pyramidologist
They are the main five racial types in the geographical boundaries listed. They look nothing alike, the fact they may share a few traits through convergent evolution is irrelevant, as they widely differ in many craniofacial features (it is the differences that seperates the races based on phenotype):

Caucasoid - orthognathic, leptorrhine nosed, wavy haired
Negroid - prognathic, platyrrhine nosed, wooly haired
Mongoloid - mesognathic, mesorrhine nosed, straight haired

Negroids don't have wavy or straight hair and a thin nose, nor do Caucasoids have a wide nose or wooly hair. These are only basic differences from a quick observation, but anthropologists know many more, and i can give you a whole list from craniometric measurements, bone thickness to ear wax type.


You should meet my family. In addition to my Mom's sister and one of their brothers, all of my ancestors on my Mom's side (including my Mom, of course) were born with amber or blue or blue and green eyes (i.e. depending on the intensity of the light that the eyes are exposed to, the eyes can be as blue as the sky or as green as the grass--not to be confused with a type of Mediterranean eyes). They're all relatively fair skinned, but the blue eyed and blue and green eyed people were born with "white" skin. Oh and I used to be a bit lighter, but now I'm brown, and I've had freckles since I was 3 or 4 or 5 years old and now I'm 20; my hair also gets red tones under the sun; also, I have high cheekbones (actually, quite a few people in my family do) and big eyes. On the other hand, our distant relatives have darker features. In fact, there are a few, who are really really dark, like almost black. However, we all have straight hair. Oh I'm South Asian, btw.

Although there are occasional comments about skin color and nose shape, no one from my Mom's immediate family puts an emphasis on features because in the end, no matter where we are now, we were born in South Asia and that makes us South Asians. How much protein (i.e. melanin) and how narrow our nostrils are doesn't matter to us. We know that our DNA determines this. People have always migrated from one place to another since the origin of anatomically modern humans in East Africa. So no one, including you, is either Caucasian, Negroid, or Mangloid. Why? BECAUSE RACE DOES NOT EXIST.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by Pyramidologist
His agenda is just driven by politics. That is the main difference between us. I have no agenda, i just accept the biological reality of race which is confirmed through every area of science.

Generally a good site - http://racialreality.110mb.com/


Read the post above. And another thing: you know how the DNA works in terms of reproduction, right?! Everyone acquires a unique combination of traits almost all the time. So in that way too, no one can group people by what place their most recent family is from. I mean, if you don't acknowledge this, it's like saying that people never interacted with other people, wars never happened, invasions never happened, and trade never happened; and as a result, mixing of people never happened. However, all of that did happen, and the infinite set of potential combinations for each individual can't be bogged down by an ignorant, a foolish, and an ugly term, such as race. Everyone is different. Celebrity the beauty of diversity, for godssake!!!
(edited 11 years ago)
Reply 152
It seems clear that different races process information differently; for example, Asians appear to have a higher IQ than caucasians and Africans.

But even if this is true it makes no difference whatsoever; I treat everyone as an individual and on merit.
Original post by TieMeUp
It seems clear that different races process information differently; for example, Asians appear to have a higher IQ than caucasians and Africans.

But even if this is true it makes no difference whatsoever; I treat everyone as an individual and on merit.


That's not necessarily true; the intelligence stereotype, I mean. Whoever works the hardest and is encouraged to get a good education from an early age succeeds academically. There are other factors that affect academic performance as well: family interaction. I'm Asian and I haven't had all A's since my older sibling got into a really good school. My parents ignored my previous academic accomplishment and started putting me down and putting her up on a pedestal. Soon after this started, they didn't even provide me with the same educational opportunities as she had in hs. That doesn't mean that I'm not smart though. Race doesn't mean anything in any way or form, except to Colonists, who needed something to dominate the then well-off regions of the world.
(edited 11 years ago)
Reply 154
Original post by greenblueandorange
That's not necessarily true; the intelligence stereotype, I mean.


I meant East Asians; Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, that kind of thing. And they *do* do better on standardised IQ tests.

Race doesn't mean anything in any way or form, except to Colonists, who needed something to dominate the then well-off regions of the world.


Your understanding of history is flawed.

I'm caucasian, and I'm not afraid to admit that East Asians may be, *on average*, intellectually superior to caucasians. Whether this is the case or not, it makes no difference to me. I treat everyone on merit.
Original post by puma21
Not really. :s-smilie:


what is such a superior race?i think hardly to accept it.
Original post by OmeletteAuFromage
Will you stop quoting anthropologists? They are social scientists, not real scientists, their nonsense has zero value, and the only purpose of their work is to give fuel to left wing fools like you who eat that stuff up.


I quoted numerous geneticists and biologists earlier in in the thread, but Pyramidologist still thought craniology as a component of anthropology was an indicator of 'race', despite genetic patterns saying otherwise. Hence, I've quoted numerous anthropologists to thoroughly refute his belief. :smile:

Here:

"The myth of major genetic differences across “races” is nonetheless worth dismissing with genetic evidence." (Owens & King, 1999).

"Although conventional ‘racial’ categories as typically understood may not be defined by particular genetic markers, ‘pockets of populations’ living in particular geographical locales could be so defined." (McCann-Mortimer et al., 2004).

"We discourage the use of race as a proxy for biological similarity and support efforts to minimize the use of the categories of race and ethnicity in clinical medicine, maintaining focus on the individual rather than the group." (Lee et al., 2008).

"Because of a history of extensive migration and gene flow, however, human genetic variation tends to be distributed in a continuous fashion and seldom has marked geographic discontinuities. Thus, populations are never “pure” in a genetic sense, and definite boundaries between individuals or populations (e.g. “races”) will be necessarily somewhat inaccurate and arbitrary." (Jorde & Wooding, 2004).

"In short, while human biological variation certainly seems to be real, the ways that we cut it up, name and describe it are the product of our scientific imagination." (Morning, 2005).

"[...] The number of races observed expanded to the 30s and 50s, and eventually anthropologists concluded that there were no discrete races (Marks, 2002). 20th and 21st Century biomedical researchers have discovered this same feature when evaluating human variation at the level of alleles and allele frequencies. Nature has not created four or five distinct, nonoverlapping genetic groups of people." (Ossorio & Duster, 2006).

"Our results show that when individuals are sampled homogeneously from around the globe, the pattern seen is one of gradients of allele frequencies that extend over the entire world, rather than discrete clusters. Therefore, there is no reason to assume that major genetic discontinuities exist between different continents or “races.”" (Serre & Pääbo, 2004).

"To avoid making "race" the equivalent of a local population, minimal thresholds of differentiation are imposed. Human "races" are below the thresholds used in other species, so valid traditional subspecies do not exist in humans. A "subspecies" can also be defined as a distinct evolutionary lineage within a species. Genetic surveys and the analyses of DN A haplotype trees show that human "races" are not distinct lineages, and that this is not due to recent admixture; human "races" are not and never were "pure." Instead, human evolution has been and is characterized by many locally differentiated populations coexisting at any given time, but with sufficient genetic contact to make all of humanity a single lineage sharing a common evolutionary fate." (Templeton, 1998).

"Race is an accepted socio-cultural concept that lacks supportive genetic evidence." (Kittles et al., 2007).

"Biologists also disagree about the meaning of ‘race’, and whether it is applicable to human infraspecific (within-species) variation." (Keita et al., 2004).

"It has not been demonstrated that any human breeding population is sufficiently divergent to be taxonomically recognized by the standards of modern molecular systematics." (Keita et al., 2004).

"Studies of human population genetics and evolution have generated the strongest proof that there is no scientific basis for racism, with the demonstration that human genetic diversity between populations is small, and perhaps entirely the result of climatic adaptation and random drift." (Cavalli-Sforza, 2005).
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by Pyramidologist
It only shifts in Sub-Sahara Africa because of Caucasoid admixture, particularly in Ethiopia. Unadmixed Negroids have limited physical diversity. In West Africa which is not Caucasoid admixed, differing phenotypic traits don't exist.

The gradients in Africa only came about through race admixture with Caucasoids, they are not in situ phenotypes.


What population has no admixture? A history of colonialism, war and migration would have created admixture everywhere; your precious anthropologists have stated this clearly. Odokuma et al. (2010) found craniometric variance amongst Nigerian ethnic groups. Do you have evidence to suggest biological heterogeneity amongst West Africans? :rofl: Why are differences between the women depicted in that photo extant? I have no trouble distinguishing between various Europeans, Africans and East Asians because everyone looks different. It's well known and accepted that variation within populations is greater than what is between populations, which is something your precious anthropologists have also agreed upon.
(edited 11 years ago)
Reply 158
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3455741

"blacks had a 15% higher testosterone level and a 13% higher free testosterone level."

Black people apparently do have higher testosterone, which means they are more athletic.
Original post by DudeRugs
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3455741

"blacks had a 15% higher testosterone level and a 13% higher free testosterone level."

Black people apparently do have higher testosterone, which means they are more athletic.


Maybe they do, but the origin of this difference could easily be environmental. Europeans used to be extremely strong and hardy, in contrast to how we are now and it has been shown that testosterone rates for men in all age groups have been falling in the developed world and black people who may be more marginalised, poor and lead lives which expose them to more violence might be "sheltered" from the cause of this. Isolating the chemical trigger of their success in sports hasn't proved the chemical difference is an innate one, even things as symple as diet and exercise can alter a persons hormone level very much.

Latest