Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Tigranes, Mar 6, 2015.
So I googled "race".
I don't find the word useful in any way. I don't find "ethnicity" any better.
Timsuptonothing, you're saying a lot of nonsense in this thread.
There is no inherent war culture in Europe, at least not more than in other parts of the world.
France and Germany are not historical archrivals. And even so, Norway and Denmark were archenemies with Sweden for many hundred of years, yet these countries get along well enough these days.
Although this is not really true, the following oversimplification is more accurate then yours:
The processes set in motion after the second world war has reduced the germans to pacifist hipsters.
Maybe. Maybe you are too optimistic and the whole European unity lovefest is really just a brief interlude between rounds.
I count on neither perspective and I'm willing to just wait and see.
All is indeed black and white.
Add some shading of grey and you have it covered.
No. Races emerge when a group of people (either within the group or without) decide to start distinguishing groups of people on the basis of of phenotypic trait or region of origin. The specifics of what these might entail are entirely arbitrary.
What I don't get about all this "Mein Krampf" topic is: There is plenty of media forbidden in Germany because of being anti constitutional and propagating national socialistic ideas, especially those showing a swastika (e.g. the early Wolfenstein games), and this book is neither indexed nor forbidden.
Also the legality of the Bavarian state gaining the copyright of the book after the war is quite debatable. IIRC the Bavarian state inherited the copyright of the book due to the lack of an heir at a time when it was not yet proven that Hitler was dead.
Ignoring the use of "balance of power" (an argument I know the answer to but I don't feel qualified to argue against) and the idea of "historical enemies," once again why Germany? As you said before, you judge Germans based on history. You are uniquely attributing aggression and militarism to a single nation.
Why only target Germany for division and destruction? Why not France? As someone pointed out, France is the preeminent military power on the continent. In fact, why not Russia? The Russian state waged plenty of aggressive wars at the same time the German state was, yet, you don't attribute militarism to the Russian people. The Russian state today has probably greater material resources than the German one could ever hope to have, but Russia isn't "outstripping its neighbors" or "making them paranoid." No, the Russians are the ones paranoid at a unified Germany.
Don't give me crap about the nature of humans being aggressive and then only point to the Germans. You're using century-old racist arguments and refuse to acknowledge it. Furthermore, you take the motivations and actions of state entities and attributing them to nations and people.
No, I actually don't. Had France been partitioned I would be supporting the idea that it would have been better to leave it so. But it wasn't. Russia is a balance that keeps the entire rest of Europe more or less in line, so I don't really see much of a problem there either. I don't really see a whole lot of problem with the united Germany, but that is mostly based on belief that the balance between Russia and the rest of Europe will hold for the foreseeable future, not because I think uniting Germany was in itself a good idea.
I attribute to Germans the exact same tendency to violence when there is something to gain as I attribute to everyone else, be that as individuals or states. If you want to think I'm singling out Germans, you get to think what you want. Generally I am accused of singling out Europeans, which I also don't actually do, so there's nothing really novel about it from my side.
Aber National Geographic claims that "white people" emerged through humans mixing with another species:
This is a January 2014 article from National Geographic's (no, not National Socialist's) website:
"Two new studies suggest that the contribution from Neanderthal DNA was vital to modern human genomes":
"Neanderthal Genes Live On In Our Hair And Skin":
Now I'm really not sure which version is true - because before I've seen a theory that light skin spread only recently (link below):
There seems to be a great difference between "light skin inherited from Neanderthals" and "light skin emerged after farming".
On the other hand, the "agriculture made light skin" theory may be undermined by new findings that (if true) Mesolithic Northern Europeans had light skin:
"Surprising Pale pigmentation in Mesolithic Motala Hunter-Gatherers":
But not all of them - for example the 8000-year-old hunter from what is now Luxembourg had dark skin. So looks like skin colors were diverse.
Moderator Action: Race and human genetics spam.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
If you actually read what you quote you might have noticed that all is mentioned is that Neanderthal genes have been found in the general human population. No mention of 'race', my friend. I suggest you cease using a term you don't appear to understand.
It doesn't really matter which one is true, the genetic differences between human 'races' are overall too small to apply the technical term 'race' as used by a biologist. Skin color doesn't make more or less sense as an indicator of 'race' as nose shape, cheekbone width, or average body type.
The word 'race' is still widely used for humans in some languages, but using Rasse in German will mark you as a Nazi, racist, or at the very least a weirdo, unless you are talking about dogs, cats or horses.
1. In what way does Europe threaten the rest of the world?
2. In what way does Russia keep a curb on this threat?
It says about two genes for light pigmentation inherited by humans from Neanderthals. These genes are not found in the general human population.
Also, Neanderthal genes have any noticeable presence in non-Africans only (read any other article about this, and you will find this info there):
Some Africans on the other hand also have admixtures from other hominid species, but not Neanderthals, since Neanderthals lived in Eurasia.
Melanesians and aboriginal Australians also have some admixture from Denisova hominids: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denisovan
Papua New Guineans include Melanesians (they are famous for having individuals with blond hair).
Among fully aboriginal Australians - especially these indigenous to south-western Australia - you can also find light hair colors.
Don't do it, folks. This way madness lies.
Richard D. Fuerle in his 2008 book claimed that average genetic distance between modern humans and Neanderthals is 0.08%, while average genetic distance between modern Eskimos and modern Bantu Africans is 0.17%. I have no idea how accurate or true is this data, but that's what written there.
So if this is true then Eskimos are more different from Bantu Africans, than modern humans as a whole are from Neanderthals.
Yet Neanderthal is a "different species", but "nowadays race is a social construct". We seem to be racist towards Neanderthals, really...
Fuerle also claims:
"Thus, the largest difference observed between any two human sequences was two substitutions larger than the smallest difference between a human and the Neandertal.” (Krings, 1997).
So Neanderthals - while being different on average, as a collective - indeed fall within the range of variation among modern humans...
Is there even a point in classifying Neanderthals as a distinct species just because their faces looked differently?
It seems that they were simply one specific sub-group of modern humans...
And also this:
"... the Neanderthal and human genomes are at least 99.5% identical ..." (Noonan, 2006).
He also writes that average genetic distance between Homo Erectus and modern humans was 0.19% - slightly higher than Eskimo-Bantu distance.
On what basis have scientists been classifying prehistoric human remains into species ??? Before ca. 1990 it had to be done exclusively on measuring their skulls and bones. Since ca. 1990 it can be done also basing on DNA if it happens to be preserved. But are differences in shape really a reliable method in this case? Neanderthals looked differently, but they were not that distant genetically. Genetic difference between any two individuals alive today (and not necessarily from two distinct continents - it can be difference between two random white-skinned Europeans) might in some cases be greater than genetic difference between a random Neanderthal and a random modern human. So while Neanderthals were not "typical" for modern humans, they did fall within the range of variation.
I guess evolution must be true, that's why we claim that a slight anthropological difference - like in case of Neanderthals - must "make a new species".
Two 'human' groups who are so far apart can't both share the same percentage of their genes with every Neanderthal.
Separate names with a comma.