Does Race exist?

[H4run]

The ancient (greek) view was that a people are tied by having a common language, common culture and common religion. By and large if enough of the three is there i think you can speak of an ethnos/similar. For obvious reasons language is the more stable of those three.

I think the concept of Greek (polites?) And non Greek (Barbaros?) also determined by language, this is even etymologically true if im not mistaken

 

[Kyriakos]

I think the concept of Greek (polites?) And non Greek (Barbaros?) also determined by language, this is even etymologically true if im not mistaken

Yes, although that isn't about dividing into races. It is just two categories: greek and barbarian. And barbarian refers to people not speaking greek, so using languages which typically were filled with "var var var" sounds Varum? they might ask

PS: it isn't about citizen(ship) (polites), cause at different greek states you had non-locals not be full citizens (eg they might be having less rights in the state), but still identified as greek if they were from another greek state.

 

[H4run]

Doesnt it refer to something more than simply those who speak and dont speak Greek?

Iirc it also refered to the civilized and non civilized? the one who embraced the "high" culture vs the "low" culture. It seems to includes the speaker to be closer to the group

 

[Lexicus]

I'm not going to disagree that racial disparities exist, but why is this? I'm going to assume you believe that it's due to racism?

Well, yes, it's obvious that it's due to to racism.

If racism is the reason for the disparity, can you list a law that is specifically racist that would create this disparity?

Why do you think that racist discrimination can only happen in the law?

 

[Kyriakos]

Doesnt it refer to something more than simply those who speak and dont speak Greek?

Iirc it also refered to the civilized and non civilized? the one who embraced the "high" culture vs the "low" culture. It seems to includes the speaker to be closer to the group

Yes, though i am not sure about:
a) which sense predates the other
b) that all barbarians were identified as equally barbaric in the non-linguistic sense. This doesn't seem to hold much water going by comparing (eg) persians to ancient north europeans. A main difference between greek and non-greek civs is regarding political systems and education. Higher education (eg math and philosophy) seems to have been only a small caste affair in Egypt, Persia, Babylon, India and (when/if applicable) the west/north euro world.
But that non-greek meant lesser is obvious; when the second athenian empire was about to be ruined by Philip B', Demosthenes wanted so much to claim that actually only athenians were greek, and literally autochronus (risen from the earth itself).

 

[Truthy]

Except from some islands and some really peripheral (and hard to travel or sustain) areas, tribes wandered all over Europe-Asia-Africa during those tens of thousands of years.
There were at the start of Homo Sapiens some issues to get out of Africa, but once the area of the Euphrates and the Tigris rivers were reached, nothing stopped further wandering in all directions, continuously.

Thank you for the thoughtful response. However, I know this.

Look what I say here:

There's been mention of how genetically divergent populations have historically tended to mix. This is totally correct and is a major blow to classic racial theories. Most modern Europe-dwellers are the descendants of Europe-dwellers and ancient steppe people who migrated into Europe in several waves. There is no primordial European race that's been isolated and static for tens of thousands of years. But that doesn't mean there aren't important genetic differences between ethnic English and Bantu peoples because you still need to go back tens of thousands of years to find common ancestors. Admixture is a fundamental part of the human story. But that even being possible implies the existence divergent groups that can admix in the first place.

And here.

When I say two populations were isolated from each other prior to colonization, I am not saying those were two static, unchanging populations for millennia. I am saying you need to go a long ways back to find common ancestors.

Migration, intermixing, and diversity are essential parts of the human story. I have written about this several times on CFC, usually to some fanfare. However, it seems that once I fail to repeat that point over and over again, people become extremely suspicious of what I'm saying.

2.
Historical tribal genocides and/or surpression/social stratification.

This was interesting, thanks.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

If racism is the reason for the disparity, can you list a law that is specifically racist that would create this disparity?

White privilege most certainly existed before, during, and then after the civil rights movement up to some point (and elsewhere even longer, e.g. South Africa and other colonised African countries among others), but to say that white people have this privileged advantaged (privilege that is unearned) in today's society I think is a hyperbole, especially when you take into consideration affirmative action and other racial programs, then it starts to go the other way.

You sound out of touch, black people are in danger everytime they're stopped by cops, which happens disproportionately to them, one only needs to look at the spate of cops shooting people of colour, whilst handling white people for comparable crimes differently.

 

[Truthy]

That's a lie. I stated my position clearly more than once. I chose not to "address the points" because it's just going in circles and I see no need to just repeat what I've already said over and over.

I will note that you demonstrate the same intellectual schizophrenia that many proponents of scientific racism demonstrate: the constant balancing act between disavowing racism, claiming to agree that race is a social construct, and then at the same time insisting (in a rather roundabout way, in your case: Reich states it much more clearly and concisely) that race is biologically meaningful.

First of all, I have been treating you with respect and assuming you are arguing in good faith and would like the same treatment. I am not your racist boogeyman. I am not saying races exist, have a biological definition, or any Charles Murray stuff. The so-called balancing act is not an inconsistency. It only appears to be so because apparently I haven't made it sufficiently clear what I am actually saying.

Respond to the following:

These clusters are also correlated with some traditional concepts of race, but the correlations are imperfect because genetic variation tends to be distributed in a continuous, overlapping fashion among populations. Therefore, ancestry, or even race, may in some cases prove useful in the biomedical setting, but direct assessment of disease-related genetic variation will ultimately yield more accurate and beneficial information.

What is wrong with the above statement in your view? It is from the study that had that figure you liked. Explain your objections concretely. Do not just say "it's race science." Explain how it's the same as saying this:

all people who look "black" (or asian or w/e) have some essence of "blackness" about them

 

[Hrothbern]

Thank you for the thoughtful response. However, I know this.
Look what I say here:
And here.
When I say two populations were isolated from each other prior to colonization, I am not saying those were two static, unchanging populations for millennia. I am saying you need to go a long ways back to find common ancestors.
Migration, intermixing, and diversity are essential parts of the human story. I have written about this several times on CFC, usually to some fanfare. However, it seems that once I fail to repeat that point over and over again, people become extremely suspicious of what I'm saying.
This was interesting, thanks.

ok

When I say two populations were isolated from each other prior to colonization, I am not saying those were two static, unchanging populations for millennia. I am saying you need to go a long ways back to find common ancestors.

Regarding that common ancestor:
Do mind here the effect of the asymetry between males and females survival after tribal conquests.

If you look at the mt-DNA Haplogroup maps across Europe (that Eupedia link) you see them much more evenly spread over Europe than the male Y-DNA haplogroups....
If you combine that with for example the period 6,000-2,000 BC where male Y-DNA diversity goes down (implying wars killing males), you combine that with the typical Celtic-Germanic chieftain nobility culture with polygamy...
And tribes warring and roaming through Europe, killing most male, making offspring with conquered females (at probable higher fertility/lower mortality rate from better food-status etc)...

You end up with tribes that all the time mix almost completely (!) with all the conquered tribes (except for that one Y-DNA chromosome of the 23 in total).
=> those tribes... those "populations... were continuously mixed (with 22 chromosomes) with all other populations as long as there were wars from expansion or wandering between populations.

now... mixing does not mean that the populations were for those 22 chromosomes the same between north and south Europe.
Three helpfull ways to look at that are the tolerance for lactose (milk was an important protein source in more Northern Europe and BTW Basque area), look at skin color (because of the need for Vit D, important for more elastic pelvis for lower maternal mortality), and look at plant poison food tolerances.
These factors make a difference in survival-mortality and fertility rate, and were able to adapt the population to the geographic area by reducing people with unfit genes regarding lactose, Vit D, food allergies.

To put that to a more extreme example:
* Tribe A invades in 5,000 BC a more Northern area with ofc less sun (needing a lighter skin for enough Vit D), with milk as normal protein food (lactose), with other crops (food allergies).
* Tribe B is conquered and for sake of simplicity all male killed, and the female become wifes of Tribe A males. 1 male + 2 wifes (one of A, one of B) => one-third of (the genes) of Tribe A is now Tribe B, except the Y-DNA (0%) and the mt-DNA (50%)
* Give that some generations time with all the time the offspring having those 22 chromosomes of the victorious Tribe B have a higher mortality rate, produce less offspring with B chromosomes.
* Too lazy to do the math, but I guess they could very well blend 50/50 in a reasonable fast period.
* rinse and repeat with the next war and victory of Tribe "A". Or should I say Tribe AB ?
=> not so much adaptation to the environment by new mutations, but more a removing of genes that do not fit to the environment after a quick start by picking up the usefull genes for that environment from existing tribes.
With a Northern tribe going south I guess the mixing would take more time. But IDK. In the South you need more protection against the sun, again other food allergies, other insects and diseases....

(The same could have happened BTW when Homo Sapiens moved out of Africa (a big hurdle) and was in need of some Neanderthaler genes to get the food tolerances for the different plants in Europe (compared to Africa). They needed some crossbreeding first, followed by a period of optimising, before really moving on into EuroAsia).

As main conclusion:
The common male ancestor of the colonists 500 years ago could very well be many thousands years ago. But the common female ancestor much more recent.
And from there: the bulk of the genes (of those 22 chromosomes) except for some genes filtered out by the local environment... the bulk of the genes of colonists were already highly and "recently" mixed.
Whereby noted that this high speed mixing process stopped with Christianity and monogamy, spreading from South Europe to more Northern Europe, and normal intermingling took over (at a much lower rate because the period of wandering tribes was over incl polygamy)

 

[brennan]

You sound out of touch, black people are in danger everytime they're stopped by cops, which happens disproportionately to them, one only needs to look at the spate of cops shooting people of colour, whilst handling white people for comparable crimes differently.

This is not the first post in this thread in which someone who claims that distinguishing between people by their skin colour makes no sense distinguishes between people by their skin colour. It won't be the last either.

 

[Senethro]

This is not the first post in this thread in which someone who claims that distinguishing between people by their skin colour makes no sense distinguishes between people by their skin colour. It won't be the last either.

Lots of people act upon beliefs that are..... insufficiently resembling reality. The belief may be based on falsehoods but the effect of the belief is real.

 

[brennan]

I'm having fun looking at how well defined the taxa above race are in biology btw. They are all very well defined and because of this there is absolutely no disagreement about which organisms can be divided clearly into the different ranks - in obvious contrast to 'race', which is so ill-defined as to be meaningless.

"The standards for genus classification are not strictly codified, so different authorities often produce different classifications for genera."

" There are no hard rules for describing or recognizing a family. Taxonomists often take different positions about descriptions, and there may be no broad consensus across the scientific community for some time."

"What does and does not belong to each order is determined by a taxonomist, as is whether a particular order should be recognized at all. Often there is no exact agreement, with different taxonomists each taking a different position. There are no hard rules that a taxonomist needs to follow in describing or recognizing an order. Some taxa are accepted almost universally, while others are recognised only rarely."

"Insofar as a general definition of a class is available, it has historically been conceived as embracing taxa that combine a distinct grade of organization -- i.e. a 'level of complexity', measured in terms of how differentiated their organ systems are into distinct regions or sub-organs -- with a distinct type of construction, which is to say a particular layout of organ systems.[1] This said, the composition of each class is ultimately determined by the subjective judgement of taxonomists. Often there is no exact agreement, with different taxonomists taking different positions. There are no objective rules for describing a class, but for well-known animals there is likely to be consensus."

Incidentally - Phylum is actually based upon the Greek word for race (and again, it has no clear definition, so everyone should abandon it).

 

[Hygro]

If racism is the reason for the disparity, can you list a law that is specifically racist that would create this disparity?

White privilege most certainly existed before, during, and then after the civil rights movement up to some point (and elsewhere even longer, e.g. South Africa and other colonised African countries among others), but to say that white people have this privileged advantaged (privilege that is unearned) in today's society I think is a hyperbole, especially when you take into consideration affirmative action and other racial programs, then it starts to go the other way.

I disagree.

 

[Senethro]

I'm having fun looking at how well defined the taxa above race are in biology btw. They are all very well defined and because of this there is absolutely no disagreement about which organisms can be divided clearly into the different ranks - in obvious contrast to 'race', which is so ill-defined as to be meaningless.



Incidentally - Phylum is actually based upon the Greek word for race (and again, it has no clear definition, so everyone should abandon it).

This guy is being somewhat sarcastic and also missing the gigantic point that there aren't ideologies looking to exterminate geni (genuses?), orders, or phyla.

 

[Kyriakos]

This guy is being somewhat sarcastic and also missing the gigantic point that there aren't ideologies looking to exterminate geni (genuses?), orders, or phyla.

Gene (Γένη)

 

[Farm Boy]

I disagree.

It gets confusing when you realize that some people prefer to think in terms of a sledge and others a bottle jack in this task of relative position.

 

[jarred!]

Has it been pointed out that Modern Science has discredited race biology? It's been thrown in the bin with other pseudoscientific claims like IQ tests, Astrology, and Phrenology.

 

[H4run]

There's been mention of how genetically divergent populations have historically tended to mix. This is totally correct and is a major blow to classic racial theories. Most modern Europe-dwellers are the descendants of Europe-dwellers and ancient steppe people who migrated into Europe in several waves. There is no primordial European race that's been isolated and static for tens of thousands of years. But that doesn't mean there aren't important genetic differences between ethnic English and Bantu peoples because you still need to go back tens of thousands of years to find common ancestors. Admixture is a fundamental part of the human story. But that even being possible implies the existence divergent groups that can admix in the first place.

So Anatolian Turkic are European dwellers? when the emerging of nation-state concept meets globalization, flog of immigration and many of other factor, this racial understanding not only incorrect but also becomes problematic.

Do Abdul Latif Jandali Ibn Abdul Fattah aka Steve Jobs is European Dweller or Middle Eastern Sand Dwellers?

 

[Kyriakos]

So Anatolian Turkic are European dwellers?

According to various theories the majority of the population of current Anatolia isn't really turkic but islamisized populations of the former state (Byzantine empire). So greeks, armenians, slavs and others. Iirc the Il-Khanate only numbered a few tens of thousands of actual turks, with the norm being taking over existent populations and just being the new hegemony and the locals already being many millions.
Which makes it not much surprising that some turkish people look similar to south europeans (including slavs).

The opposite phenomenon also exists (turkic people in south euro countries) but to a very smaller degree.

 

[H4run]

According to various theories the majority of the population of current Anatolia isn't really turkic but islamisized populations of the former state (Byzantine empire). So greeks, armenians, slavs and others. Iirc the Il-Khanate only numbered a few tens of thousands of actual turks, with the norm being taking over existent populations and just being the new hegemony and the locals already being many millions.
Which makes it not much surprising that some turkish people look similar to south europeans (including slavs).

The opposite phenomenon also exists (turkic people in south euro countries) but to a very smaller degree.

Exactly my point Kyriakos, my question was rhetoric. Our tribal instinct fools us, we want to be proud and feel connected to something that totally unrelated to us (the past glory and all that BS, when we were not even a sperm when all of that happened), and we like to feel intrinsically superior or in some case inferior than other.

edit: While if we look after Turkish nationalism they related themselves with their supposed to be Central Asian ancestor which is totally wrong. Also how the Serbian seeing the Bosnian as a Turk (not a fellow Slav) this was used as a main fuel for the massacre, all thanks to the ill definition of race. What you need to trigger for a community to massacre their own neighbor and friends were pretty simple, you just need some nationalist anthem and some story telling about the evil Bosnian Turk.