Do you believe in a superior race?

.

lol. In all craniometric studies southern Japanese cluster with northern Japanese. They are both Mongoloid. You just don't it....

If you are interested in measurements:

GOL = maximum glabella-occipital cranial length, XCB =
maximum cranial breadth, BBH = basion-bregma cranial
height, BNL = basion-nasion length, BPL = basionprosthion
length, MAB = external palate breadth, AUB =
bi-auricular cranial breadth, UFHT = upper facial height,
UFBR = upper facial breadth (across the anterior
frontals), NLH = nasal height, NLB = nasal breadth, OBB
= orbital breadth, OBH = orbital height, EKB = bi-orbital
breadth (across the ectoconchia), DKB = interorbital
breadth (between dacrya), FRC = frontal chord length,
PAC = parietal chord length, OCC = occipital chord
length, FOL = foramen magnum length, ZYB =
bizygomatic breadth.

All of these things cluster north & south Japanese together. Like most inhabitants of East Asia, they cluster as Mongoloid based on those metrics. Btw, Howells used the above and loads more measurements (57 in total)... none of the data is biased. It confirms the reality of race.

Because a priori systems of categorisation have been used. Equally a priori systems of categorisation could be selected that differentiate between north and south Japanese people, which is what that study did.

You are still relying on circular reasoning.

The fact is, south Japanese and north Japanese are far more similar to each other than caucasoids or negroids. Sure you can say that race is an arbitrary notion. Why did we draw the line there? Well for a fact, race is self identified. We aren't taking a black person and telling him, hey you, you're black. Every single time they self identify. Same with all other races. And scientific tests show that a person who self identifies as a race and be genetically shown to be of that race 99% of the time.

It would be foolish for anyone to dismiss the possibility of certain races having predispositions to certain traits out of hand. In the same way I think it is un-scientific to dismiss differences in, say, intelligence or social skills between genders. Personally I haven't done or read any serious study of this, so make no judgement about which races or gender is 'better' at what, but as someone who strives to be a scientist it would be stupid to reject it simply because it might be emotionally unpalatable.

However the acknowledgement that it is possible that these differences exist does not go at odds with idea that all individuals have equal rights. In the same way we accept that one person being more intelligent than another gives them more rights or privileges.

Nor is it at odds with treating people on their own merits, rather than on the perceived merits of their gender/race.

Apparently race is more of a social than a biological construct. Take a look at this article.

Summary of article if TLDR:

There are four facts about human variation upon which there is universal agreement. First, any two unrelated human beings differ by about 3 million distinct DNA variants. By far the largest amount of that variation, about 85%, is among individuals within local national or linguistic populations, within the French, within the Kikuyu, within the Japanese.

Of the remaining 15% of human variation, between a quarter and a half is between local populations within classically defined human “races,” between the French and the Ukrainians, between the Kikuyu and the Ewe, between the Japanese and the Koreans.

The remaining variation, about 6% to 10% of the total human variation is between the classically defined geographical races that we think of in an everyday sense as identified by skin color, hair form, and nose shape.


When we see someone of a different race some think in totally digital concepts, just as black seems so different from white. Actually the genetic evidence tends to suggest the contrary; we are much more alike than we imagine.

You clearly know what you are talking about. You should start editing wikipedia articles, especially ones related to these topics. There are too many wiki editors who allow their marxist politics alter scientific articles.

Yet, the common consensus in biology, genetics and anthropology is that 'race' doesn't exist in any meaningful or agreed form, which I like to think are the most accurate indicators of the distribution of genomic data. Biological variation exists as a gradient, not as discrete clusters or 'races'.

It shows people can locate themselves to a broad geographic region. They can further locate themselves to increasingly specific regions if they so wished. There is no logical reason to stop at a continental scale. As I said earlier, if there were a 'race' called 'Eurafrican', people would also be able to say they are of this 'race' with a high degree of accuracy.

Well I actually always assumed we are more alike than different, not they I think about it much.

Me, too.


The truth is that in every day life we should treat each other as individuals anyway, so unless I intend on actually doing original research on it myself (which I don't) it makes little difference.



I just find it annoying when people dismiss the possibility on emotional grounds.

Couldn't agree more, the worst page is the ''race of ancient egyptian controversy'' article. I've actually added a few things:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantid_race
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Arthur_Abbie

I have more contributions but were on different IP's (as i used to edit from my University server). I don't go on there much anymore, but i basically check the page on Caucasoids, as it is often vandalised.

There is no sense with this argument. You do realise before European colonisation of parts of Sub-Sahara Africa, the Negroids never had a civilization. The stereotype ''mud hut'' image of Sub-Sahara Africa exists for a reason, since prior to European contact, the Negroid tribes were living still in the Stone Age. You can't blame their non-progressiveness on ''oppression'', because historically prior to European colonisation they were incredibly primitive.

Negroids...christ (not going to lie, I laughed).

ANYWAY, I can see the point you're making but had South Africa not been colonised and hugely oppressed, the blacks may have superceded the whites in terms of development over time. In this situation, it can only be guessed as oppression isn't new in South Africa...so your opinion is as good as mine. Also, superiority doesn't necessarily mean who develops fastest which is what your comment seems to imply. I was merely pointing out that some races, ethnicities, cultures, whatever, aren't given the opportunity and are oppressed by other races...meaning other races get to develop further and others are oppressed.

Are you saying that oppression has not impacted their ability to develop or progress further as a race..? In which case, please, do your research...go look up some negroid tribes and get back to me with sound evidence which shows that blacks in South Africa aren't oppressed (since you put it in quotation marks) or that oppression has not impacted their development.

Negroids...christ (not going to lie, I laughed).

ANYWAY, I can see the point you're making but had South Africa not been colonised and hugely oppressed, the blacks may have superceded the whites in terms of development over time. In this situation, it can only be guessed as oppression isn't new in South Africa...so your opinion is as good as mine. Also, superiority doesn't necessarily mean who develops fastest which is what your comment seems to imply. I was merely pointing out that some races, ethnicities, cultures, whatever, aren't given the opportunity and are oppressed by other races...meaning other races get to develop further and others are oppressed.

Are you saying that oppression has not impacted their ability to develop or progress further as a race..? In which case, please, do your research...go look up some negroid tribes and get back to me with sound evidence which shows that blacks in South Africa aren't oppressed (since you put it in quotation marks) or that oppression has not impacted their development.

There is no sense with this argument. You do realise before European colonisation of parts of Sub-Sahara Africa, the Negroids never had a civilization. The stereotype ''mud hut'' image of Sub-Sahara Africa exists for a reason, since prior to European contact, the Negroid tribes were living still in the Stone Age. You can't blame their non-progressiveness on ''oppression'', because historically prior to European colonisation they were incredibly primitive.

You make it seem as though there was no civilisation and culture when in fact there was there was lots of stuff: even borrowed mathematics and astronomy from the arabs. There was musical development, writing and engineering too:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Great_Mosque_of_Djenn%C3%A9_1.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_of_Ashanti
http://wysinger.homestead.com/ogiso.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mali_Empire
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Songhai_Empire

None of these civilisations is more primitive than Britain 2 thousand years ago. 2 thousand years is but a footstep in the journey of mankind's evolution. There is no racial superiority in that.

And no, I think Africa would have done a lot better without colonisation. There was some good like schools and roads etc but pales into insignificance in the grand scheme of things. The colonial masters drew up the map of Africa in such a way that we would be beset with all kinds of cultural/ politic and religious dischord. It would have been better to start from the bottom with properly defined boarders, than having these constant civil wars, corruption and tribal politics disrupting progress.

I feel obliged to remind you, since your posts are beginning to assume some sense of unearned superiority, that you are not your ancestors, you're just some random internet troll. Keep on undermining other cultures; you're showing yourself to be such a great credit to yours.