Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Do you believe in a superior race?

Announcements Posted on
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I think this thread has proven to some degree that the idea of "race" doesn't really exist, except in the minds of some.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by whyumadtho)
    These traits are gradational and overlapping. Are you going to answer my questions?
    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.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    If there was one race I would consider superior, it would be Ashkenazi Jews.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dirac Delta Function)
    If there was one race I would consider superior, it would be Ashkenazi Jews.
    They are an ethnic group, not a race. Racially they are Caucasoid.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (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/
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    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.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (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).
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    "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).
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    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.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (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!!!
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    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.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by puma21)
    Not really.
    what is such a superior race?i think hardly to accept it.
Updated: May 17, 2012
New on TSR

Ways to improve university

Should university be free and harder to get in to?

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.