Cavalli-Sforza on race and racism

George Orwell: 1984 »

Cavalli-Sforza on race and racism

Mon Feb 28th 2011 by abagond

The following is based on chapter nine of “The Great Human Diasporas” (1995) by Francesco and Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza:

Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, a Stanford geneticist, has studied the genetic history of the human race. That makes him quite unlike the leading lights of present-day scientific racism, most of whom are psychologists armed with IQ tests who know little of genetics.

Some points that Cavalli-Sforza makes (as ordered and numbered by me):

The differences between individuals are much greater than that between races for almost all hereditary features. Skin colour is in fact one of the rare cases where this is not so.
There is no agreement on what the races are, neither in Darwin’s time nor in ours, because:
1. There is no way to tell how many races there are – are there six or ten or a hundred or a thousand?
2. There are no clear, sharp genetic lines where people can agree that one race ends and another begins.
There is no such thing as a “pure” race. People move from place to place and mix together way too much for that. Nor would such a thing even be desirable since it would have to be created through heavy inbreeding.
Power does not prove that one race is better than another. Because power rises and falls way faster than the underlying genetics. Besides, those who make this argument are often confusing race with culture or civilization.
The “us and them” feeling is probably genetic since it is common, but no one has proved that yet.
The “us and them” feeling is not the same thing as racism. Plenty of people think in terms of us and them without being racist about it. For example, many think of Jews as a “them” but only a few hate Jews and fewer still are violent against them.
Success does not protect one from racism. As European Jews found out in the most terrible way possible in the 1940s.
European Jews:
1. You can tell that European Jews came from the Middle East by looking at their genes (not so for Ethiopian Jews). But they have been held together more by culture and, to a lesser degree, by religion, than by race.
2. If Jews count as a “race”, then there are thousands of races. In that case, the people of northern Italy, for example, would be a different race than those in the south.
Black Americans:
1. If Americans married without regard to race for a hundred years, the differences in skin colour would disappear. (That seemed too quick to me, Abagond, but it works out mathematically.)
2. A good rough measure of racism is the rate of intermarriage. By that measure whites are still pretty racist against blacks, way more so than against other races.
3. Even if whites stopped being racist, it would still take about a hundred years for blacks to catch up to whites.
Two ways to lessen racism: education and strong government policies against it.

See also:

Posted in stuff | 149 Comments

149 Responses

on Mon Feb 28th 2011 at 01:58:11 Jack Crow

One of my favorite books. Thank you for leading with it.

LikeLike
on Mon Feb 28th 2011 at 05:02:02 zek j evets

If you like this book, then you’ve gotta get Ashley Montagu’s Man’s Most Dangerous Myth: The Fallacy of Race. He talks about all the points that Cavalli-Sforza makes, only he did it (and proved it) in 1942! He also did a lot of great work during the UNESCO “The Race Question” statement and research.

More importantly however, the plethora of good research on this issue is staggering. And the vast majority points towards the obvious: 1) race is a sociocultural construct, 2) no race or ethnic group is better or worse than another, and 3) people who claim otherwise to the above two… are racists.

LikeLike
on Mon Feb 28th 2011 at 05:14:48 Schwartz

*** 1) race is a sociocultural construct, 2) no race or ethnic group is better or worse than another, ***

Which isn’t to say there isn’t human genetic diversity amongst groups. As Bruce Lahn & Lanny Ebenstein explained in Nature a year or so ago, people need to get better at understanding this diversity, rather than assuming biological sameness across groups.

LikeLike
on Mon Feb 28th 2011 at 05:18:05 Schwartz

***The differences between individuals are much greater than that between races for almost all hereditary features.***

This is of course correct, but if you get different averages you’ll get considerable differences at the upper or lower end of the distribution. Steve Hsu explains this here:

“On the other hand, for most phenotypes (examples: height or IQ, which are both fairly heritable, except in cases of extreme environmental deprivation), there is significant overlap between different population distributions. That is, Swedes might be taller than Vietnamese on average, but the range of heights within each group is larger than the difference in the averages. Nevertheless, at the tails of the distribution one would find very large discrepancies: for example the percentage of the Swedish population that is over 2 meters tall (6″7) might be 5 or 10 times as large as the percentage of the Vietnamese population. If two groups differed by, say, 10 points in average IQ (2/3 of a standard deviation), the respective distributions would overlap quite a bit (more in-group than between-group variation), but the fraction of people with IQ above some threshold (e.g., >140) would be radically different.”

LikeLike
on Mon Feb 28th 2011 at 05:26:07 Schwartz

***The “us and them” feeling is probably genetic since it is common, but no one has proved that yet.

The “us and them” feeling is not the same thing as racism. ***

I’m not sure that Cavalli-Sforza is correct about this. Infants display ethnocentric bias.

LikeLike
on Mon Feb 28th 2011 at 06:45:53 sam

@schwartz:
“Infants display ethnocentric bias.”

I haven’t seen this, not with my kids nor anybody elses either. Maybe it is in the eye of the beholder. I have seen kids, 1-2 years old, hitting their own siblings on the head with anything they can, though. And with no apparent reason either.

This “Them and Us” feeling has nothing to do with ethnicity. Just visit a brittish football stadium. The atmosphere in the terraces is something you’ll find nowhere else and it is most definetly Them and Us. ManU vs. Chelsea. Millwall vs. Stoke, Tottenham vs. Liverpool. Not “which ethnicity your present genetically”??

You can juggle with your numbers anyway you want but the biological truth is that there is one human race. If the differences between individuals are bigger than between ethnic groups gentically, how the hell there can be diffrent races?? Well, there can not be. There is no other race.

Which brings me to the earlier point of mine; why on earth it is so important for some guys to find scientific evidence for their racism? Why it is important to “prove scientifically” that there is more than one human race? What purpose this knowledge would be? For what it would used?

These are the real questions.

LikeLike
on Mon Feb 28th 2011 at 07:25:04 zek j evets

@Schwartz:

There’s more genetic diversity between siblings than between groups (comparatively speaking). But all the genetic diversity you want to pretend exists won’t prove that race exists.

The problem with your argument (among many others) is that phenotype is NOT genotype, never will be genotype, and all the basis for physiological differences ultimately don’t define race — not at the genetic level, or the physiological one. There is too much gradiation between groups to separate. There are no “pure” races. There is no definitive gene or chromosome that codes for race, because race is such a multifaceted label that is not only ambiguous, but ultimately futile for reasons that were apparent to Darwin so many years ago.

It seems like, to me, that you have an obsession with “proving’ something that has been disproved by more disciplines than you could properly become an expert in.

That to, to me, says quite a lot. About you. And about HBD in general.

LikeLike
on Mon Feb 28th 2011 at 07:25:31 Schwartz

***“Infants display ethnocentric bias.”

I haven’t seen this, not with my kids nor anybody elses eithe***

I’m referring to a study described in Newsweek a couple of years ago.

***If the differences between individuals are bigger than between ethnic groups gentically, how the hell there can be diffrent races??***

What differences are you referring to? If you required a bone marrow transplant would you not care whether it came from someone of your racial background? Because it would certainly make a real difference in the likelihood of finding a suitable match.

LikeLike
on Mon Feb 28th 2011 at 08:51:50 Schwartz

***There’s more genetic diversity between siblings than between groups (comparatively speaking).***

For individual genes maybe, but aren’t you overlooking the correlations? For instance, apparently the human male genome has more in common with the male chimpanzee genome than it does with the human female genome. By ignoring the correlation structure and doing a simple count and tally, you’d have to conclude that men are more closely similar to chimps than they are to women.

***there is too much gradiation between groups to separate. There are no “pure” races. There is no definitive gene or chromosome that codes for race, because race is such a multifaceted label that is not only ambiguous, but ultimately futile for reasons that were apparent to Darwin so many years ago.***

I’m not sure what you mean by pure races or definitive racial genes – we’re not talking about distinct species. This is something that Dobzhansky pointed out over 40 years ago.

As I said on another thread, the idea that race is social construct (like most categories) is sometimes confused with the idea that those identified groups don’t correspond to genetic clusters.

LikeLike
on Mon Feb 28th 2011 at 10:53:17 zek j evets

@Schwartz: Yes, but your “correlation” (which isn’t really a correlation, so I think you need to check your definition) only proves my point. Using genes as a basis for race is not only false, but contradicts observable evidence. If a male genome is supposedly more closely related to a male chimp (and I’m not so sure that it does, since you didn’t cite your information) yet we know that humans are genetically more similar than chimps due to being the same species, it is OBVIOUS that a genetic basis for these distinctions will not work. And this holds true for larger taxonomical arguments as well, as taxonomies are constructs as well.

By “pure race” I mean a “race” which is purely Mongoloid, or Caucasiod or whatever. Humans are all intermixed genetically, and the time-frame for the kind of observable genetic variation to form a basis for different races simply does not exist.

And races do not correspond to genetic clusters because, like most arm-chair HBDers, you forget gradiation. As you move across geographic populations you find physiological similarities blending together. Even more importantly, so do genetic similarities, as groups tend to be descended from yet other groups until you go back to the original ancestors of humanity in Eastern Africa.

Basically, you’re trying to make extreme examples representative for whole populations, and that frankly doesn’t work in real science.

Another problem of yours is that you seem to think the biological idea of race is somehow separate in the discussion from the cultural construction and application of race. They’re not. Race exists socioculturally, and not at all biologically. However, when it comes to talking about race, correcting the misconceptions people have about the genetic/biological basis for race requires explaining why there is none.

It’s okay though Schwartz, we’ve had this discussion over and over again, and it’s quickly becoming apparent that you’re not familiar with the complicated information I’m trying to condense for you. More important, it’s becoming apparent that you don’t really want to admit when you’re wrong, which is fine.

But it hardly engenders an honest discussion…

LikeLike
on Mon Feb 28th 2011 at 12:16:59 Shady_Grady

I’m not sure that the rate of intermarriage per se in and of itself is a good measure of racism. It is possible of course to marry interracially and still have deep set bigoted/racist views against your partner’s group or even your own group. People do this ALL the time. They see their wife/husband as an “exception to the rule”.

There are also people who do not believe in the supremacy of one race or another and treat all people kindly and according to how they are treated but still nonetheless are primarily or almost exclusively attracted to their own kind.

Humans have always mixed and always will but there is also a worldwide preference (at least as far as marriage goes) for one’s own. I don’t think that this automatically means “racism” although obviously with some people it does.

It’s also not just white rejection of blacks that causes a low B/W IR marriage rate. It’s also black rejection of whites-this is often spoken of as preference or cultural solidarity or what have you. Goose meet gander and all that.

Ultimately intimate relations are pretty complex. We can’t just boil them down to racism or lack of racism.

LikeLike
on Mon Feb 28th 2011 at 13:45:25 Mira

Us vs Them dichotomy is universal, but it’s not restricted to what we call racial or ethnic differences. Whenever you identify with a group- whatever that group it may be (your chess club, for example), you begin to create such dichotomy.

Also, assigning positive characteristics to your own group and negative to others is also universal. Once again, it’s not restricted to race or ethnicity.

LikeLike
on Mon Feb 28th 2011 at 14:13:07 Femi

What differences are you referring to? If you required a bone marrow transplant would you not care whether it came from someone of your racial background?

The bone marrow argument again…

In order to find a suitable donor, the matching has to be done on individual level regardless. There can’t be any exception to this rule as that would be medically irresponsible.

IT systems are advanced enough in the 21st century to be able to handle an automated search on an individual level. It just has to be implemented properly.

I wouldn’t care where a donor organ comes from as long as it’s compatible with me. AFAIK, in most countries the receiver is not informed who the donor was.

LikeLike
on Mon Feb 28th 2011 at 14:32:37 Femi

What I find absurd about this innate “us vs them” hypothesis is that when it concerns “race” (by whose standards btw?) it is theorised that it might be genetic. However, when it’s within a perceived phenotypically “same” group – for instance the animosities between Basques and Castellanos, Brits and Irish, Pakistanis and Indians etc etc…- then it suddenly becomes social, cultural and learned.

Can you smell the hypocrisy? I can.

LikeLike
on Mon Feb 28th 2011 at 14:40:43 jas0nburns

” rather than assuming biological sameness across groups”

this is such a strawman. nobody is saying everyone is the same. That’s just something you ascribe to liberal ideology but it’s really just a crutch for you. The problem is when you cherry pick a set of differences and call it a race arbitrarily. Why not call all tall people a race? Or all redheads? Or all left handed people? Or anyone who goes bald before 30? Or anyone with green eyes? Or a pointy nose? Or freckles? Or flat feet?

LikeLike
on Mon Feb 28th 2011 at 15:02:12 Femi

@ jas0nburns

Absolutely. It’s confirmation bias par excellence. Those people are on a relentless quest to “finally” find their evidence for dividing humans into “negroids”, immigrants and “decent humans”.

LikeLike
on Mon Feb 28th 2011 at 15:26:12 Randy Garver

Femi said, “What I find absurd about this innate “us vs them” hypothesis is that when it concerns “race” (by whose standards btw?) it is theorised that it might be genetic. However, when it’s within a perceived phenotypically “same” group – for instance the animosities between Basques and Castellanos, Brits and Irish, Pakistanis and Indians etc etc…- then it suddenly becomes social, cultural and learned. “

Why couldn’t it be natural for both types to arise?

LikeLike
on Mon Feb 28th 2011 at 16:03:40 Kwamla

@Randy.

“…Why couldn’t it be natural for both types to arise?…”

Lets say I agree with this. Then I could with equal validity state: “we are all one and the same”

Such is the recognition indigenous native peoples of the past had when they first encountered white Europeans.

Wouldn’t this too count as an equally universal view?

Its certainly qualifies as being more “naturally” representative than “them” vs “us”.

LikeLike
on Mon Feb 28th 2011 at 16:48:04 Randy Garver

Kwamla,

Saying that racial divisiveness is natural (along with the huge taxonomy of all other out-groupisms which humans have a predilection for creating) certainly doesn’t preclude some groups from not being that way.

LikeLike
on Mon Feb 28th 2011 at 17:00:45 Femi

Why couldn’t it be natural for both types to arise?

I think we’re turning in circles again around the question of what is natural.

I think it’s plausible that it is a natural instinct to take distance to someone who reveals himself as opposite to our beliefs and ideals or who disrespects us. Each one of us might even develop strong animosities against someone who is hostile towards us.

However this is on an individual level.

The collective component in this is clearly under our control. It’s a human choice. It’s not that there’s no way around it, like instincts. It takes initiators, passing on of information, propaganda, brainwashing in the worst case to raise such group dynamics. It’s all man-made. There’s this old peacenik saying “imagine there’s war and nobody shows up”. Or as Muhammad Ali said, no Vietcong has ever done anything wrong to me, or something like that.

It is not favourable at all for evolution or the survival of our species to cultivate “us vs them”, unless the other group has a contagious disease or is 100% collectively hostile. It seems very unlikely to be hardwired in our genes. If that was the case then those who don’t subscribe to this attitude must be genetically quite different.

LikeLike
on Mon Feb 28th 2011 at 17:07:37 Kwamla

Randy,

That being the case. The problem with believing that divisiveness is the preferred natural state of being is this:

When it can be shown that other groups of peoples (human beings) do not display this tendency – in the first instance – than how can it be considered to be natural?

It only takes one exception of peoples not to show this on first contact and your argument (and any body else’s) for this being a preferred natural or innate part of human nature falls down.

It becomes a logical false proposition.

LikeLike
on Mon Feb 28th 2011 at 17:14:34 Kwamla

I think you’ve just summed this up very well Femi.

Such beliefs: “Us” v “Them” are human choices NOT a genetic component or function of genes.

LikeLike
on Mon Feb 28th 2011 at 17:15:40 The Cynic

So does this mean that when we ask these HDBers to classify or define races they aren’t allowed to cite Cavalli-Sforza anymore?

LikeLike
on Mon Feb 28th 2011 at 17:25:52 jas0nburns

Yeah, we definitely are going in circles again, but I think that has more to do with a general lack of understanding of human psychology than anything else.

Also, just because you have a genetic predisposition to engage in a particular activity doesn’t mean you must engage in that activity. For example, I think men are less biologically geared toward monogamy than women, yet many of us manage to be monogamous anyway.

This ability to make choices that run contrary to our biological instincts and drives is what makes us uniquely human imo.

With racism I think that there is an element of it that definitely clicks with our natural us vs. them wiring. That doesn’t mean that racism is natural, but it does seem to fall in line with some intrinsic stuff.

I mean just think about how popular team sports are around the world. How quickly we give allegiance to our “team” (and our teams colors) and how emotionally we react when “we” win or lose. How could something that universal not be intrinsic.

Yet of course, some of don’t like sports so…it’s not like we’re all robots. As with anything there is middle ground and diversity.

LikeLike
on Mon Feb 28th 2011 at 17:42:57 Kwamla

Jas0burns

“…This ability to make choices that run contrary to our biological instincts and drives is what makes us uniquely human imo…”

Anything that involves choice is not a biological instinct or drive! For example: Eat, Sleep, Crap, procreate….

To be human is also to be in line with nature as well!!!

LikeLike
on Mon Feb 28th 2011 at 17:49:39 The Cynic

“Infants display ethnocentric bias”

It’s also natural for small children to generalize and classify. For example, a toddler may see a cow and shout out, “horsey!” The young child confusing the cow with a horse since he is still learning how to associate objects with words. Any large four legged mammal is a horse to him. However, as he grows older his schema eventually develops enough to put ‘horse’ and ‘cow’ in two different groups.

This example can also be used for those who associate emotions with groups. Imagine a child has been frightened by a horse. Now when he sees a horse or ANY other large four legged mammal he will shout and cry frantically, unable to discriminate between the two.

An adult is not a child. An adult should be smart to see the difference between a horse and a cow.

Racism is immature. Trust me, it really isn’t that hard to separate our feelings towards an individual to the group that individual is in.

LikeLike
on Mon Feb 28th 2011 at 17:50:15 sam

@schwartz:

“If you required a bone marrow transplant would you not care whether it came from someone of your racial background?”

If I ever needed one I don’t give a shit if he/she is from Mars and bright green as long as it is a match. If I need a heart transplant, I do not care if it is a darkest skinned black gangsta rapper in the planet or shortest pygmi or what ever, as long as it helps me. And after I have received this help, I will thank this individual for the rest of my days.

I do not know what kind of life you have lived, but let me tell you: when the shit hits the fan, you do not look at races. You see only humans. When the last count is in, when the last call is on, we are all humans. You do anything you can to save your fellow humanbeing and so does he/she. I’ve been in that kind of situations and let me tell you, at that moment we all know that we are One. You will know it when the time comes.

You don’t believe me?? Grow up. You think those guys who went to save people in 911 in those towers thoughed that ok, I will save only my own race? Black cops said: “ok guys, we just save other blacks, leave the whiteys”? Firefighters said: “ok, lets leave the blacks behind. No mehicanos out”??

No. They tried their best to save EVERYONE. ALL. Actually some of them got stuck in one tower when it collapsed because they would NOT LEAVE A DISABLED BLACK WOMAN behind. Why they did it? Because those guys know that we are all humanbeings, One Race. One.

That is why they go into burning buildings every day regardless who is inside. They know that those guys inside are humans just like they are. They have to be saved. That is human. That is because we are all one race. One.

PS. Sorry about the preaching, abagond. 😀

LikeLike
on Mon Feb 28th 2011 at 17:55:32 Kwamla

@The Cynic.

“…Racism is immature. Trust me, it really isn’t that hard to separate our feelings towards an individual to the group that individual is in…”

This is because its a learned response or behaviour. And like all learned responses or behaviour they can be un – responded to or un – learned. So what does that teach us about their nature?

LikeLike
on Mon Feb 28th 2011 at 18:51:17 Femi

So does this mean that when we ask these HDBers to classify or define races they aren’t allowed to cite Cavalli-Sforza anymore?

Of course. They might to want start with this quote:

“The classification into races has proved to be a futile exercise for reasons that were already clear to Darwin.” (Cavalli-Sforza)

LikeLike
on Mon Feb 28th 2011 at 19:08:04 jas0nburns

“Anything that involves choice is not a biological instinct or drive! For example: Eat, Sleep, Crap, procreate….”

ok, im sure this is just going to end with you just insulting me in some way as usual but

do you not have a choice about what you eat, where you sleep, and with whom you procreate? Why then would you make a statement like the above? Also of course many people choose to eat much more or much less than is appropriate biologically. same with sex. many people choose to abstain entirely. all of these biological drives you listed involve choice. except crapping I suppose. But thankfully that’s not really the topic at hand so.

Besides, there is way, way, way more to human behavior than eating, sleeping, and procreating. even something like painting which you would probably believe to be totally divorced from any biological instinct is of course part of a hardwired desire for expression. It doesn’t make sense to think of any human behavior through this either/or lens. It’s not nature vs. nurture. It’s nature and nurture inextricably intertwined and constantly reinforcing one another.

LikeLike
on Mon Feb 28th 2011 at 19:09:41 Femi

Let’s face it. The whole “this is all natural” argument is first of all a welcome excuse, a scapegoat for certain shortcomings, like racism, all sorts of bigotry really, violence, greed etc.

It’s in fact essentialism.

I agree with Kwamla, there is nothing immutable in most human behaviour. If it really is innate and natural to humans to be able to make a choice, which choice is the natural one?
Any choice we make would have to be considered natural then.

LikeLike
on Mon Feb 28th 2011 at 19:13:38 Schwartz

***If I ever needed one I don’t give a sh1t if he/she is from Mars and bright green as long as it is a match. ***

@ Sam,

I think you’re confusing a moral issue with a genetic one. The point is that you’re suggesting there are no biological differences. So I asked about bone marrow transplants, where donations need to be genetically similar to their recipients. That’s why the vast majority of successful matches take place between donors and patients of the same ethnic background.

You seem to think that to acknowledge this diversity means that people won’t have equal rights, or that you have to treat people badly. Which isn’t correct.

LikeLike
on Mon Feb 28th 2011 at 19:24:42 Schwartz

***And races do not correspond to genetic clusters because, like most arm-chair HBDers, you forget gradiation. As you move across geographic populations you find physiological similarities blending together. ***

You’re attacking a strawman again. As I noted above, we’re not talking about different species.

The issue of fuzzy boundaries occurs in any number of categories. People don’t say there is no such thing as color because specific colors don’t fit into discrete boundaries.

LikeLike
on Mon Feb 28th 2011 at 19:32:22 jas0nburns

“argument is first of all a welcome excuse, a scapegoat for certain shortcomings, like racism, all sorts of bigotry really, violence, greed etc.”

who’s excusing anything? Some people might use “natural” as an excuse but they are wrong to do so.

Have you ever really taken a look at the natural world? it’s not all sunsets and flowers and nice sh*t like that. there is a lot of dog eat dog, ugly stuff too. Saying that something is related to a genetic predisposition isn’t the same as saying it’s acceptable.

And If you think that violence is unnatural then you haven’t really been paying attention. Violence is natural, so is choosing to be non-violent. I suppose there are people who believe that god or aliens handed down this ability to choose and it’s somehow divorced from our biological selves but i’m not one of those people. If you are we can just leave it at that.

LikeLike
on Mon Feb 28th 2011 at 19:43:07 Schwartz

***(and I’m not so sure that it does, since you didn’t cite your information)***

The claim that human males have more genes in common with male chimpanzees (99.4%) than we do with female humans, comes from a 2007 book ‘Boys Adrift’ by Dr. Leonard Sax MD PhD. He references:

Journal Nature September 2005: “Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome” &

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences May 2003, “Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees: Enlarging genus Homo.”

LikeLike
on Mon Feb 28th 2011 at 19:53:41 Femi

@ jas0nburns
“And If you think that violence is unnatural then you haven’t really been paying attention. Violence is natural, so is choosing to be non-violent.”

The unambiguous answer to that (up to date) is:
We don’t know. No scientific evidence has been found.

You seem to suggest that being only non-violent is a choice. If choice is a natural innate human trait then resorting to violence is also a choice.

I don’t know specifically which public persons are bringing up the “it’s all nature” excuse for being wrong. I’ve read and heard it from people before though at several occasions. It does exist. Probably more than we can imagine as many people who have this belief are often also hypocrites.

@ Schwartz
The wavelenghts of colours can be precisely measured and represented in mathematical figures, unambiguously. “Blue, green, yellow” etc are names coined by humans.

LikeLike
on Mon Feb 28th 2011 at 20:14:50 Tyrone

Abagond,

“Race-Reality & Race Neutrality”

1. Black vs. Non-Black is how the world deals with race, not White vs. Non-White.

2. African slavery built the wealth and power of Europe and the United States. America is just as black in it’s design and construction as it is white in it’s population.

3. All human beings are racist. We all want the best for our individual tribe and group. Wanting your group to succeed and prosper in relation to others does not make you a racist. Using force to enslave and harm others outside of your tribe for political and financial gain makes you a racist.

4. Black people should not apologize or feel guilty because we’re black and others are not. Blackness doesn’t mean that we’re better than others because we have melanin in our skin. Being black comes with a lot of perks that others don’t have, so, let’s not be fake about it. I don’t know any black people who would give up their african ancestry to be un-black, but, I know a lot of non-blacks who would do the opposite.

5. Whites, and other non-blacks have to live in reality. Having black blood in you doesn’t make you black, having brown skin doesn’t make you black, having dark hair and brown eyes don’t make you black……Everybody can’t be black, and they should accept that fact of life.

Tyrone
“Blackness Is The Ultimate Aim & Objective”

LikeLike
on Mon Feb 28th 2011 at 20:24:07 jas0nburns

‘You seem to suggest that being only non-violent is a choice. If choice is a natural innate human trait then resorting to violence is also a choice.”

I worded it that way because I was thinking in terms of animals and other natural disasters. violence occurs constantly and always has existed with or without the presence of beings who are capable of making choices. but non-violence is just as much a human trait as violence. They arise from emotions which arise from chemical reactions which evolved in our brains over millions of years.

I think that we are animals. My dog makes choices all the time. sometimes he will choose to forgo a treat because he’s comfortable on the couch or he’s having fun with a toy. Babies and toddlers make choices. Adult humans make more complex choices. but all of these choices we make are based on innate drives. biology.

LikeLike
on Mon Feb 28th 2011 at 20:27:19 jas0nburns

That’s not to say we are slaves to our biology or anything.

as for evidence of violence? I mean what are you talking about? people get pissed of and fight. feel threatened and fight. fight or flight. it’s hardwired and their is plenty of evidence of this.

LikeLike
on Mon Feb 28th 2011 at 20:29:40 jas0nburns

“All human beings are racist. We all want the best for our individual tribe and group. Wanting your group to succeed and prosper in relation to others does not make you a racist. Using force to enslave and harm others outside of your tribe for political and financial gain makes you a racist.”

you contradicted yourself there Tyrone.

LikeLike
on Mon Feb 28th 2011 at 20:42:17 Femi

Well, violence is a topic that we better leave in the human realm. If I’m not mistaken, humans are the only species that kill and maim out of greed, hate, anger or just “for fun” without any biological purpose.

The issue here is that some assume racism, irrational hate, violence etc to be an genetic immutable trait, not even driven by choice. The people who firmly hold on to that hypothesis should come up with biological evidence.

About the chimps, the interesting thing is that their geographically separated groups are more genetically diverse than any two human populations, despite their very similar phenotypical traits.

LikeLike
on Mon Feb 28th 2011 at 20:44:50 Femi

In chimps one can truly talk about races (if you want to use that term) or sub-species.

LikeLike
on Mon Feb 28th 2011 at 21:27:31 sam

@tyrone: “All human beings are racist.”

Not in my experience. I argue that not so. If an individual or ethnic group or what ever group does not feel any fear, it has no need for anything like racism. Fear breeds hate, of which racism is just one form. It is fear. I have no fear for no man, therefore I have no need for racism.

It is very american to see the world as a place in which everyone and everybody are fighting for resources and such, killing off enemies and competing against everybody. Very american view, enforced by tv shows from American Idol to even sillier gameshows in which only one wins and the rest get nothing. This is a political message: life is competition and only one wins and takes it all. But, luckily for the rest of us, most of us do not see the world that way.

I was once the only white man, alone, with no money, no weapons, no nothing, in middle of blackest Africa, at night, in a country which has suffered because of white men, and all around me were drunken black guys and women, many of whom were criminals even by their own standards. What happened?

They offered me some drinks, gave me some food, looked after me and made sure that I, stupid white man, got out form their neck of the woods safely. Now, if your world view would be the correct one, they would’ve killed me. I mean, why not. I am a white man, whom they supposedly hate. I am alone. There is no way they would be caught. Payback time Big Time… No. They took care of me.

I have had my share of hairy and scary moments around the world but they have had very little to do about the race of men. Couple exceptions happened, ta daa, in USA. Now, what that tells you, Tyrone??

LikeLike
on Mon Feb 28th 2011 at 22:13:15 Randy Garver

Femi,

Male chimps are known to go on raiding parties to harass and kill other groups of chimps, even eating the young.

LikeLike
on Tue Mar 1st 2011 at 00:00:05 Herneith

These are the real questions.

For which you will not get any answers from these folk!

LikeLike
on Tue Mar 1st 2011 at 00:22:40 Herneith

do you not have a choice about what you eat, where you sleep, and with whom you procreate?

Yes, but when you have to go, you have to go!

The claim that human males have more genes in common with male chimpanzees (99.4%) than we do with female humans,

No wonder men love scratching their nuts and scalps! Thanks for the info!

***If I ever needed one I don’t give a sh1t if he/she is from Mars and bright green as long as it is a match.

I’d happily give you a blood transfusion sam! It may kill you but I’d do it anyways! It is the thought that counts.

Male chimps are known to go on raiding parties to harass and kill other groups of chimps, even eating the young.

Yes but do they waterboard them before they kill them?

LikeLike
on Tue Mar 1st 2011 at 00:32:20 Mira

No wonder men love scratching their nuts and scalps! Thanks for the info!

Indeed! Some things do seem clear now.

LikeLike
on Tue Mar 1st 2011 at 00:39:00 Kwamla

@Sam

It is very american to see the world as a place in which everyone and everybody are fighting for resources and such, killing off enemies and competing against everybody. Very american view, enforced by tv shows from American Idol to even sillier gameshows in which only one wins and the rest get nothing. This is a political message: life is competition and only one wins and takes it all. But, luckily for the rest of us, most of us do not see the world that way.

I agree with this entirely Sam and its about time some of the posters here stepped outside their “USA world view” of life and actually checked out what the REAL experiences of people outside the US really are. America is not representative of the the world (thank god!) and how it is viewed. Therefore it is unwise and some what arrogant to insist that you can generalize what the essential nature of humans might be and project that onto the rest of the world’s inhabitants!!!

You can’t. And it is simply madness, ignorant and disrespectful of other peoples cultures and way of life to try!!!

But this has been the “American way” for the last 100 years…but look around (Egypt, Tunisia, Libya etc…) even as we discuss these things are changing…

LikeLike
on Tue Mar 1st 2011 at 00:56:47 zek j evets

@Schwartz:

No, we’re not talking about different species. But the genetic differences you’re claiming (IQ, for example) are more closely related to variation between species than races.

Even so, the principle holds true no matter what taxonomical level you want to talk about — species, family, genus, whatever, the point is that gradiation means the evidence you cite is confirmation bias. For example, nasal passage size can easily be seen as a gradient when you remember to include populations between the extremes people normally focus on, instead of looking at it as just Black & White.

Is it just me or am I beginning to repeat myself a bit too much? I feel like a broken record with this. Are you being purposefully obtuse?

If you are, I’d be curious to see how you handle Neven Sesardic.

LikeLike
on Tue Mar 1st 2011 at 01:05:30 jas0nburns

And maybe if you don’t live in America you shouldn’t think watching our television shows makes you an expert on how we actually live.

LikeLike
on Tue Mar 1st 2011 at 01:20:02 Kwamla

“…jas0nburns

“All human beings are racist. We all want the best for our individual tribe and group. Wanting your group to succeed and prosper in relation to others does not make you a racist. Using force to enslave and harm others outside of your tribe for political and financial gain makes you a racist.”

you contradicted yourself there Tyrone…”

Well at least we can agree on this one Jas0n.

Now think about something else you said: “…I think that we are animals…” This is true and as I have already stated Animals eat, sleep, crap and procreate just like humans so there does appear to be some agreement between us here. Just like animals we have free will to decide when we wish to carry out these biological necessities. And just like animals we can not choose NOT to do them. Why? Because it is built into the same nature (biological imperatives) we share. In other words we could not continue to exist if we chose not to do these things. That is why we do not have choice.

The areas in life in which we do have choice do not threaten our imminent survival. Just like NOT breathing would!

LikeLike
on Tue Mar 1st 2011 at 01:32:40 jas0nburns

@ Kwamala.

Ok, but that’s not the same as saying those things don’t involve choice. they do. And besides why limit the discussion to such basic drives? We are animals but our drives are much more complex. Our actions reflect that complexity.

but still, we are animals and so what we do is going to be based on instincts and biological drives. in other words nature.

What would racism be without fear? Complex ideologies CANNOT take root in the human heart unless they are in line with basic natural human drives and desires. But still, it doesn’t matter because even as fear and hatred are human so is love, respect, and understanding. So you see it’s not about excusing anything. But it’s nieve to pretend human nature does not include ugly things.

LikeLike
on Tue Mar 1st 2011 at 01:38:00 Schwartz

***If you are, I’d be curious to see how you handle Neven Sesardic.***

I cited him on the other thread I was commenting on.

LikeLike
on Tue Mar 1st 2011 at 01:38:44 Kwamla

Again. Femi has summed up this discussion quite accurately:

The issue here is that some assume racism, irrational hate, violence etc to be an genetic immutable trait, not even driven by choice. The people who firmly hold on to that hypothesis should come up with biological evidence.

LikeLike
on Tue Mar 1st 2011 at 01:44:28 Schwartz

***The issue here is that some assume racism, irrational hate, violence etc to be an genetic immutable trait, not even driven by choice. The people who firmly hold on to that hypothesis should come up with biological evidence.***

People have a choice, but as Cavalli-Sworza points out “The “us and them” feeling is probably genetic since it is common, but no one has proved that yet.”

Racism is probably another manifestation of that in-group/out-group bias.

LikeLike
on Tue Mar 1st 2011 at 02:06:20 Kwamla

“…But it’s nieve to pretend human nature does not include ugly things…”

No…its arrogant and presumptuous to conclude “human nature” stands apart from “nature.” Its also a delusion.

Animals do not pretend this. The extent to which some humans do this is the extent to which they distort, seek to corrupt or control this natural balance.

LikeLike
on Tue Mar 1st 2011 at 02:28:44 The Cynic

@Schwartz

Do you personally believe that racism is a good thing or that it is beneficial to society? Maybe you think the “us and them” mentality is an in-born trait, but you do concede that some ppl hold on to this mentality more than others

LikeLike
on Tue Mar 1st 2011 at 03:11:01 jas0nburns

“No…its arrogant and presumptuous to conclude “human nature” stands apart from “nature.” Its also a delusion.”

Please show where I’ve drawn that conclusion. I haven’t. Quite the contrary in fact.

LikeLike
on Tue Mar 1st 2011 at 08:23:53 Femi

And maybe if you don’t live in America you shouldn’t think watching our television shows makes you an expert on how we actually live.

I’ve been living and working in the USA for a total of about 6 years, on and off over the past 20 years.

Although the cases Sam described are considered “extreme and rare” by most Americans who live quite comfortably in their neat suburbs, they do exist. Most just don’t make it into the news unless someone gets shot, and even then it might just be a two liner in the usual daily column for shootings.

I can confirm that the majority of at least unpleasant if not hairy situations I got into throughout my 49 years of existence have happened in the USA. I grew up in Paris, lived in London, Amsterdam, Berlin, Jakarta and Douala to name only the metropolitan areas and in all of them I felt safer overall than in even just a mid-size town in the US.

LikeLike
on Tue Mar 1st 2011 at 08:26:51 Femi

If my previous comment was off topic, I apologise. Won’t happen again.

LikeLike
on Tue Mar 1st 2011 at 08:44:23 Femi

Male chimps are known to go on raiding parties to harass and kill other groups of chimps, even eating the young.

Chimps are very territorial and so are many other species. Inner-species killing of offspring is also relatively common. However, there’s a biological purpose for that. It would be extremely hard to prove whether other species kill out of irrational feelings with no purpose or advantage for the species whatsoever.

LikeLike
on Tue Mar 1st 2011 at 11:52:41 sam

@herneith: thanks for the thought! 😀

@kwamla: I think that some misunderstandings here on these debates are due to the language (english is not my mother language) but very much also about the experience. If one has seen the world little bit more, one tends to realise few facts of life on this planet. But if one lives his whole life in one country, one state, one county and one town, that kind of narrows the world view.

These few facts are: there are only humans. We may look different but we all laugh, cry, love and hate pretty much the same way. We all get hungry, scared, we may even get serious or be brave. All of us. I’ve seen this all over the world. Litterally.

@jason:”But it’s nieve to pretend human nature does not include ugly things.”

I think nobody whose been around denies this. We all are capable of terrible things. The thing is: we don’t have to do them, usually. There are times when we must, but with little thinking we can avoid most these moments. On the other hand, there are times and moments when one has to do what has to be done in order to survive. These moments come too, but rarely, since our lives are not usually that kind. Most humans just want to live their life in peace and thats it.

I have shared my meals with humans of colors and creeds. Very serious muslim will share food and water with me, even though I am not a religious person at all. East asian guys will laugh with me, at me and at themselves, when the mood is right. Africans will listen to me and tell me stories when the time is right. We all share. Why? Because we are all humans. We can relate to each other. Racism tries to deny this fact.

I can punch you into nose, steal your money, what ever, but I do not have to. I can pick up a rifle and shoot and kill a man, but I don’t have to. Usually we don’t have to. Anybody who tries to make a claim that humans kill because animals kill too forgets one thing: animals never kill for no reason. We humans do that. We are even worse than animals. We will kill someone just like that. It has been done in the past, it is done right now and it will be done in the future by humans.

BUT: we very seldom do so. Yes, we can make war, we can be serial killers, but most of us, overwhelming majority does not kill. Think of any big city. If our instinct would be to kill and eliminate all and percieved enemies, what would happen in NYC? LA? Mexico City? Mumbai? London? Moskow? Livin together would be impossible. Most of us manage that so well that we do not even think about it.

LikeLike
on Tue Mar 1st 2011 at 13:46:38 Boddler

Tyrone said,

“4. Black people should not apologize or feel guilty because we’re black and others are not. Blackness doesn’t mean that we’re better than others because we have melanin in our skin. Being black comes with a lot of perks that others don’t have, so, let’s not be fake about it.”

cosign

LikeLike
on Tue Mar 1st 2011 at 13:52:10 Femi

BUT: we very seldom do so. Yes, we can make war, we can be serial killers, but most of us, overwhelming majority does not kill.

@ sam
Exactly. Looking at the small number relative to the entire world population, it gives a clue about what might safely be considered “natural”. As long as people respect each other there is simply no purpose for the “us vs them” mentality. Why should anybody be hostile to someone who means no harm to them? It makes no biological sense. Animals just get along with each other most of the time unless there is a reason to be alerted, when an individual trespasses their territory or get aggressive etc.

There are just a few biological instincts, notably fear and defence mechanisms, that might provoke extreme reactions in some people. However it’s always on an individual level first. Now there are admittedly cultural differences where in some cultures people might blow a fuse quicker than in others. However, if that happened on a group level involving all bystanders as a “natural instinct” for all sorts of trivial reasons, humankind would have already exterminated itself.

The instinct to either escape or protect ourselves and then help any other human in distress is instantaneous. When asked, almost all people who helped or saved somebody’s life state “I don’t know, something inside me drove me to do it, I didn’t think” etc. I would consider that natural. Sam also pointed it out with the 911 example. Any other consideration (especially “racial”) requires thinking and making a choice out of learned behaviour. How equally natural that is as opposed to the former is the question.

LikeLike
on Tue Mar 1st 2011 at 15:03:02 jas0nburns

You guys are talking extremes. If a Stanford geneticist is saying that us/them mentality is probably genetic, what are you saying here that is contradictory to that? That most people don’t kill other people? yeah, so what? What does that have to do with anything?

it’s true that average people don’t go around killing each other but they do allow, support, go to war. Why?
us/them mentality. It allows us to disconnect from the idea that our enemies are humans just like us.

Think about crips and bloods killing each other in Los Angeles. If there were ever 2 groups of people who had more in common than the people from those 2 gangs I don’t know who it would be. They kill one another with astonishing coldness, yet when one of theirs gets shot it’s a travesty. It makes no sense whatsoever but it’s only made possible by this us/them mentality. This kind of thing happens all over the world. Face it, it’s part of being human. Again, it’s not the ONLY thing we do. we also live in harmony with each other. that’s human 2. it’s not a one or the other choice here people. Human nature encompass a wide spectrum of behaviors. some nice, some not so nice.

LikeLike
on Tue Mar 1st 2011 at 15:08:53 jas0nburns

but us/them mentality has more to it than killing and war, that’s just the extreme. It’s everywhere all you have to do is look around. Do any of you work in an office? notice how the different departments will become competitive for resources and Start talking about each other in terms of “well they do this or that”

People form groups and become wary of outside forces. Is this really news?

LikeLike
on Tue Mar 1st 2011 at 16:46:58 Femi

People form groups and become wary of outside forces. Is this really news?

Of course not.

News would be when geneticists can pinpoint the genes that determine “us vs them” behaviour. Even more interesting would be then what switches it on or off. Just the human brain itself out of the blue because “it’s natural”?

Nothing has been found and it seems unlikely it ever will. Are there any scientists seriously doing targeted research on this? I doubt it.

There are many people in this world who remain individualists all of their lives or who don’t share a “ganging up” mentality. There are many people who don’t seek competition between groups but try to unite groups once they’ve formed. There are countless humans who would rather fight against their own government, switch sides or refuse to go to war than to actually comply to group dynamics.

LikeLike
on Tue Mar 1st 2011 at 19:00:42 Kwamla

“…jas0nburns

“No…its arrogant and presumptuous to conclude “human nature” stands apart from “nature.” Its also a delusion.”

Please show where I’ve drawn that conclusion. I haven’t. Quite the contrary in fact…”

Here is video I recently came across part of which reminded me of this discussion and of the issues touched on. Essentially its about this “us” v “them” programming and how it comes about.

You don’t have to believe it but at least it enables you to question the originality of some the ideas raised here.

Oh…and Stanford geneticists can be wrong and can be unwittingly lending support to racist ideologies too…!

LikeLike
on Tue Mar 1st 2011 at 19:01:14 sam

@jason:

“it’s true that average people don’t go around killing each other but they do allow, support, go to war. Why?
us/them mentality. It allows us to disconnect from the idea that our enemies are humans just like us.”

C’mon, man! You are more intelligent than that. Why do people supported the war in Irak? Because the massive propaganda war against themselves! Because the collective trauma of 911. Not because the genes.

How the hell the target of USA changed from genuine Al-Qaida terrorists hiding in Tora Bora to that crackpot dictator Hussein? By huge bunch of lies. Hussein actually fought against Al-Qaida when they tried to establish themselves in Irak and somehow the amercan people were convinced that Hussein was in cahoots with them. By the genes? No way.

Actually one black dude went to UN and lied his eyes and ears off how Hussein was a treath to US and the world with his massive quantaties of weapons of mass destruction. When this black guy realized he was used despite of his professional backround he resigned in disgust. Yes, that guy was general Powell.

Well, not only Hussein had nothing to do with Al-Qaida but he had no weapons of mass destruction. He had nothing to do with 911 but still somehow the goverment duped american public and polticians believe that Irak should be the target. What happened? Bin Laden sneaked out of Tora Bora while US troops fought barvely in the wrong place. By genes? I don’t think so.

How the hell that mess was genetical? Them vs us maybe very old thing, it might be partly in our genes, but it is so much more than just genes. In order to kill other human beings in war a soldier needs deep psycholigical orientation. He needs to be brianwashed. He needs to be psyched up. That is called military training. I know that becauise we have mandatory service in here. I went trough that. I know how it feels when you change those round shooting targets to those who show a figure aiming at you.

Did you know that even in war most of the soldiers do not fire at the target? They shoot “that direction”. In Korean War they called it “spray and pray”. In Winter War, one of the most ferocious and bloody conflicts in the history, finns spent thousands of cartridges per one single dead enemy. And yet, they did so amazingly that the whole world wondered WTF was going on. The most prolific sharp shooter in the history was a finn in that war, who killed more than 500 men. Simo Häyhä, the White death. But most finns were just shooting away. Just like their enemies.

It takes very exceptional individual to shoot to kill knowingly, with full intent. That is why they have special forces. Those are the guys who can. Most of us can’t. That is why not everybody can walk in to some mafia clan. You have to be able to kill other men, humans, just like that. Most of us just can not. Period. Genetical? I’m not convinced.

When people talk about the atrocities commited by the Waffen SS in WW2, usually they forget some things. One: SS troops consisted mostly guys who had grown all their life under the natzi propaganda. The were result of totalitarian propaganda system. Two: they got testosterone hormones regulary, male hormone which causes so called droid rage. Three: most of them were in their early 20’s and scared. When this kind of bunch of kids are told: “go there and kill everything”, they will do so very likely. But just because their genes? No way.

As a matter of fact, in one police batallion which was actually active participant in the holocaust, not all men took part in mass killings. If I remember correctly out of few hunderd men, five soldiers refused to participate at all, and more took part just once. And heres the most strange thing: they were not punished by their superiors. Them vs us? Genetical condition??

I don’t think so, man. It is much more complicated.

LikeLike
on Tue Mar 1st 2011 at 19:50:13 jas0nburns

@ sam

dude, i’m not saying we’re all genetically inclined to kill people. you and others are just not getting what i’m saying. It might be a language thing maybe.

let’s look at this

“Why do people supported the war in Irak? Because the massive propaganda war against themselves! Because the collective trauma of 911. Not because the genes. ”

You can’t just say “it’s propaganda” and stop there. Why are we so susceptible to propaganda in the first place? propaganda fits the human mind like a plug in a socket. It’s designed to manipulate people. people accept propaganda as truth because it is comforts their fears. If people weren’t so quick to see outsiders and those who are different as a threat. than propaganda would NOT BE EFFECTIVE IN THE FIRST PLACE. But as you have illustrated it is very effective and it ALWAYS HAS BEEN. because people have always been people. We have always feared the other. we have always had a us/them mentality. Propaganda does nothing but stokes and feeds a fire that has always been burning.

Furthermore, why do you think we were all so traumatized by 911? because it was an attack on US. get it US. US. US. by THEM THEM THEM.

911 is a great example of the evolutionary purpose of this mentality. It brought us together didn’t it? that’s why us/them exists. To bind a unit in a time of stress to give that unit a better chance for survival. And it’s an effective strategy which is why it’s coded into all of our genes. The people who are willing and able to bind together in the face of a common enemy survived and passed on those genes to you and I.

Propaganda takes advantage of those inborn feelings that’s all. We do most of the work ourselves. Or we may choose to reject propaganda because we aren’t ants after all.

LikeLike
on Tue Mar 1st 2011 at 19:59:34 Kwamla

Speaking of ants Jas0n I don’t think you’ve been able to watch that video I posted just yet!

LikeLike
on Tue Mar 1st 2011 at 20:27:31 jas0nburns

I watched it until It started with the Illuminati bullsh*t. That sh*t is a joke to me.

LikeLike
on Tue Mar 1st 2011 at 21:58:21 Kwamla

@Jas0nburns

That is not a major component of it particular whereas the divide and conquer explanation is. Both issues which Bill Hicks and George Carlin often talked about in the excerpt and who also are both dead now.

LikeLike
on Tue Mar 1st 2011 at 22:10:56 jas0nburns

I’m familiar with devoid and conquer though. Ever wonder why that also works so well?

LikeLike
on Tue Mar 1st 2011 at 22:28:08 sam

@jason: then why not the french or britts? Or Germans? They have suffered of terrorism for decades. 911 guys came from Germany. France was target for the muslim terrorists from Algeria and Al-Qaida well before you guys. Granted, Osama could not destroy a stadium during the World cup in France but they did bomb the Paris subway etc. The britts got IRA bombs for decades, but they did not attack Ireland. The french did not attack nor bombed Algeria. Spain did not send their foreign legion after Al-Qaida nor the spanish demanded it after the train station bombings.

Actually, in most countries, including mine, most of the people did not nor do not support the goverments desicion to send troops to Afganistan or Irak. We just do not want to go to war. Americans, how ever, have gone to war every time the goverment has decided so. Why is that, jason? Because the genes?? Or could it be something else?

Sure, there is that element in humans, in our “cultural genes”, maybe in our biological genes too, but how do you explain the massive attack on Grenada back in 80’s? I mean, this island was a size of an sandwhich, had few dozen cuban workers building an airport, left wing president, some americans in island of whom none was arrested, abused nor prisoned by the Grenadan goverment. And yet, USA attakced there. And sure, american public supported its troops once again. Was that because Grenada was actually treathning you and you just reacted genetically, or is it maybe that you guys are conditioned??

As much as I love USA and everything it has given to the world, the culture of violence is something that I haven’t got around. You, my friend, do not see it because you were born into it. It is your culture, part of the very essense of “America”. It has been so from the earliest and still goes on.

In the beginning it was the indians who were Them. It remained so for surpisingly long and still is. Bunch of native americans still put the fear in your hearts, particulary if they put on the show and act like you have learned from the childhood on how hostile indians behave. I have seen it with my very own eyes and not just once in US when I was living there. And this goes for both civilians and authorities.

Now a days Them can be anything. The thing is that there is someone out there that is treathning you. It is a siege mentality from the days of the first immigrants who listened dark night and waited for the injuns to come. It can be gangbangers, blacks, rapists, home invaders, drug cartels, gangsters, thieves, cheaters, your wifes lover, biker gang, serial killer, anything. The whole culture, the very undertone and the foundation is this. Treath. Them out there somewhere. Somebody other than us. Me. Is this genetical or cultural??

I say that it is the culture that makes you react like that. In other countries it is never granted. Going to war is the last option. It is something to be avoided to the last. In your culture, going to war is always among the first reactions to anything. And supported by this massive propaganda machine, that is very understandable reaction to any treath, real or imaginary. You are conditioned into it.

And still, there is an opposition in US for the war. There always has been. Not all americans wanted these wars. Not even after 911. Why is that jason, if its in your genes? The opposition is not homogenic group. It consists all ethnic groups, across the political spectrum. From the day 1 till today. If you were right, there would be no opposition to the war. All of you would support it. But you do not and not all ever did. Genes?

So I am not just saying propaganda and stop there. I am saying that you live in a culture which has conditioned you to both the violence and Them vs Us mentality, which keeps the Fear up. This is why it is relatively easy to get you guys to support any war. Your gut feeling, because of your conditioning, says that it is the right thing to do.

You learn to see the world as a battelfield, as a competition, fight for the survival from very early on. You learn from very early on that world is a place were there are Them and Us. And They do not belong. Them are outsiders, not Us. Bad guys in comics, bad guys in animated movies, movies, tv shows, bullies at schools, gangs on the streets, criminals and maniacs in the night. and the good guys who beat up the bad boys. Them, the Bad, are out there and Us, the good guys, must beat them. We must eliminate them in order to survive. We, Us, must go to war against Them.

Cultural or genetical? Biological or cultural? Genes or something else too?

LikeLike
on Wed Mar 2nd 2011 at 02:32:32 James

Steve Sailer, “The Reality of Race,”

http://www.isteve.com/RealityofRace.htm

A must-read article on why Cavalli-Sforza said some of the things he did. Hint: PC

LikeLike
on Wed Mar 2nd 2011 at 03:54:39 James

Steve Hsu, “The Genetic Reality of Race,” Univ. of Oregon Science Blog

http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2010/08/connect-dots.html

LikeLike
on Wed Mar 2nd 2011 at 07:57:53 abagond

This seems to be what James wanted to post but could not get past the spam filter:

bibliography on race

_10,000 Year Explosion_ by Cochran and Harpending

This book is a must read for anyone wishing to discuss race intelligently. In fact, as someone recently pointed out, no one can today really intelligently discuss race without addressing this book.

Neven Sesardic, “Race: a social destruction of a biological concept,” Biology and Philosophy

Click to access getfile.php

Steve Hsu, “The Genetic Reality of Race,” Univ. of Oregon Science Blog

http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2010/08/connect-dots.html

Steve Sailer, “The Reality of Race,” VDARE

http://www.isteve.com/RealityofRace.htm

Steve Sailer, “IQ-Race Crimethink Alert! Francis Crick, James Watson’s DNA partner, also guilt,” ISteve

http://isteve.blogspot.com/2008/01/francis-crick-james-watsons-partner-was.html

Kin Selection, Ethnic Nepotism and Darwinian Conservatism by Steve Sailer
http://www.vdare.com/sailer/nepotism.htm

Humans and Neanderthals: Svante Pääbo’s Finding by Conservative Heritage Times
http://conservativetimes.org/?p=5366

Charles Darwin Research Institute by Dr. Philip Rushton
http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/

ISteve by Steve Sailer
http://isteve.blogspot.com/

LikeLike
on Wed Mar 2nd 2011 at 12:26:29 jas0nburns

I’m no expert but I think there were French and brittish troops there as well sam.

Either way is sounds like you’re trying to make the point that Americans are more violent or something based solely on 911 and Iraq. And it’s somehow new. That laughable because I’m pretty sure that both France and the UK have throughout history been involved in more bloody conflict than we have in our shoot history. So whatever you may be seeing now, it’s nothing in comparison to what was going on in Europe for hundreds of years.

LikeLike
on Wed Mar 2nd 2011 at 12:31:10 jas0nburns

Yes sam I checked. No french troops but definitely british.

LikeLike
on Wed Mar 2nd 2011 at 13:40:55 jas0nburns

“Actually, in most countries, including mine, most of the people did not nor do not support the goverments desicion to send troops to Afganistan or Irak. We just do not want to go to war. Americans, how ever, have gone to war every time the goverment has decided so. Why is that, jason? Because the genes?? Or could it be something else?”

Why would you even try to base an argument about human nature on current political events.

“oh this one group of people did this one thing this one time so i’m right”

I mean please. You need to broaden your scope on this. Or are you just more interested in feeling superior to us stupid, violent Americans.

how about this. pick up a map. point out any 2 countries that border one another at random. then go research those countries. your probably going to find out that they were at War with each other at some point in their history.

LikeLike
on Wed Mar 2nd 2011 at 14:06:38 jas0nburns

here’s your awesome peace loving French.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution#Reign_of_Terror

LikeLike
on Wed Mar 2nd 2011 at 14:56:08 jas0nburns

By the way Sam what country do you live in?

LikeLike
on Wed Mar 2nd 2011 at 17:09:46 Femi

Steven Hsu – physicist
Neven Sesardic – philosopher
Steve Sailer – journalist
Philip Rushton – psychologist

Where are the biologists/geneticists in those “indispensable must reads”?
What does Svente Pääbo have to do with the others. Is it him they hijacked data from? Or is he just an alibi function for credibility?

Another question is, what makes these people so keen on dabbling in a field that requires many years of study and meticulous work? They seem to be exceedingly motivated to make a point.

I read the Sesardic paper. His conclusion is actually that there isn’t any. On the one hand he states that he is not attempting to prove the genetic validity of “races” in humans (also failing to come up with an unambiguous biological definition for it), on the other he is appealing to the reader to give the idea a chance. Basically to just believe it.

Was Darwin “PC”? I doubt that the term in its current meaning even existed in his lifetime.

LikeLike
on Wed Mar 2nd 2011 at 17:18:33 sam

Well, I happen to live in a country that is the most violent in western Europe, well, actually in northern Europe. Finland. When in Germany 7 out 10 face injuries requiring hospital care come from accidents, in Finland roughly the same numbers are because of violence. So I know something about cultural violence.

I understand you feel sensitive about your country. It is your homeland after all. But I never said stupid americans or anything like that. I just tried to argue that going to war or Them vs Us is not simply genetic feature in humans.

I lived in US back in 80’s so it is not unknown to me at all. I lived there twice actually for few years. I love the country. Like I said before I love the food, I love the music, movies and the litterature, arts, the people. BUT I also learned how violent american culture is. Or that there is very violent undercurrent in the society.

The competitive spirit is promoted everywhere and it is held in high esteem. American culture is not teaching “Look after the others”. It is saying: life is a competition and you better win. Winner takes it all. Just think about all the game shows. How you guys see the world even in these conversations. It just comes trough. And you want to see confirmation of your culture in nature, in biology etc.

When you say that Them vs. Us is in our genes, I think you are trying to see a confimation of this culture in nature. I argued that is much more complicated thing, that it has much to do with culture. And I argue that american culture is aggressive, violent one. I also argue that USA is very aggressive in international level partly because this cultural thing.

Yes, Europe suffered a lot of wars and such, but we try to avoid them from repeating over here. Since WW2 Europe has done everything to ensure that it would not get into war again. Same thing happened between USSR and Finland. After two very bloody wars, both agreed to live peacefully, if not always nicely, at the same border.

Now, before you think I am somekind of a peacenik, let me tell you that I have served in our army, did some boxing, judo, target shooting, played american football etc. And yes, when I was a kid I did lot of stupid things and got once hit into head by a bench. Yes, a wooden bench, about six feet wide. I still have some skull deformations from that. So I am not a stranger for some ruff stuff between humanbeings.

But nowhere I have seen such culture of fear and guns, violence, as there is in USA. Inside the country that is. I’ve said before that I have faced gun toting cops twoce in my life and both times happened in US. I have been arrested in Europe, many times, in Africa and so on, but only in USA the cops took me to their sights. Only in US the cops were so scared and hysterical that I thoughed for a second that his time I might get it.

Only in USA I have met a young woman who studied birds in nature and was packing automatic pistol and pump action shotgun. When I asked why she needs those since she is living and working alone in a desert, her answer was: “you’ll never know, there might be somebody with a gun out there”. Yeah, indeed…

So my point is not that americans are stupid, because they are not, but that Them vs. Us mentality is not just about genes. It has much more to do with a culture than genetics.

You know what was the nickname finnish soldiers used about their mortal enemies? Neighbours. They had many names but this was one of the most used. The enemy was a neighbour, nothing foreign and strange. It was the “old foe”. We knew them well. There were even some russians fighting in our side and some finns on the other side. Karelians were on both armies. Them vs. Us? I don’t think it is genetical.

LikeLike
on Wed Mar 2nd 2011 at 18:00:20 jas0nburns

“When you say that Them vs. Us is in our genes, I think you are trying to see a confimation of this culture in nature.”

But why argue about what you think I want to see based on what you know about my culture. Why not just talk about the issue as you see it and I’ll talk about it as i see it and we can talk about the merits that way. If you have a problem with something I said address what I said. Don’t try to guess at the motivations behind what I said because you’re just going to piss me off. I know you’re not a troll so that’s probably not your intention.

If you’re trying to say that violence is a cultural thing I agree with that as well. as I have said many times either/or is usually a false dichotomy. it’s both. it’s in our genes and it’s in our culture. it’s in all of our cultures. singling out America is ridiculous. I could copy paste links to people butchering each other all over the world if I felt like it and you know that. As I type this a certain Lybian leader is bombing his own people so he can stay in power.

but the most important thing when determining if violence is cultural or genetic is this. It’s part of every. single. culture. that ever existed. yes. some groups are more violent so in that way you can see that it’s not totally genetic. but the fact that it’s ALWAYS there is proof that it’s not ONLY cultural. it’s also part of our DNA. culture and circumstances are going to mitigate it but never ever ever ever ever get rid of it. and that’s OK. it’s who we are why pretend otherwise. we need to face it and deal with it and channel it appropriately instead of pretending it’s not there.

LikeLike
on Wed Mar 2nd 2011 at 19:31:47 jas0nburns

Also Finland looks amazing. i wish i could live there instead of lame a** Cleveland Ohio. I’m Norwegian by blood.

LikeLike
on Wed Mar 2nd 2011 at 20:02:24 Tyrone

Abagond & Family:

“Race Neutrality & The Truth”

1. Non-blacks have no problem mixing with each other, because, they’re not black. They have nothing to lose or gain either way.

2. Blacks don’t believe in race-mixing, because, we have something to lose and nothing to gain…Our Blackness!

3. Biracial should never be confused with real blackness. Mulattos are half-black, and thus, have no loyalty to black people. Jason Taylor, Tony Parker, and Hank Baskett are biracial athletes in the NFL and NBA. Neither of them are in relationships with blackwomen. Their blackness makes it easy for them to pull non-blackwomen, but not enough to be with real blackwomen. Instead, they lust after so-called “White Chocolate” such as Jennifer Lopez, Kim Kardashian, Eva Mendez, Nelly Furtado, and so forth.

4. Blackmen who are members of the (OJ Simpson Club) have graduated from pale-skinned, blonde-haired whitewomen to olive-skinned, raven-haired whitewomen who hail from the Middle-East and Latin-America. They wrongly assume that blackwomen will look the other way because they have a lot of black blood in them…Wrong! It doesn’t matter how black a whitewoman looks on the outside, she’s still a whitewoman at the end of the day.

5. Inter-racial sex is a component of black manhood that we as blackmen are not honest about. P***y is the blackman’s best friend and his worst enemy at the same time. Blackmen have what women like, and a lot of us take full advantage of our physical and sexual gifts. Women love the idea of an oversized chocolate bar gliding in and out of them at various rates of speed. We shouldn’t be afraid to interact with blackwomen and non-blackwomen alike. As blackmen, we should be comfortable in our own skin, and able to stroke (FP) foreign p***y from time to time, and keep it movin” at a high rate of speed nonetheless. Sistas, I know you don’t like brothas to dip the chocolate in other women, but it happens on a daily basis all over the world. Inter-racial marriage should be the primary concern, not sex. Blackwomen should know the whole story!!!

Tyrone
Don Aquarius

LikeLike
on Wed Mar 2nd 2011 at 20:10:00 jas0nburns

LOL

LikeLike
on Wed Mar 2nd 2011 at 20:59:59 Doug1

zek–

And the vast majority points towards the obvious: 1) race is a sociocultural construct …

Cavalli-Sforza does not say race is ONLY a sociocultural construct anywhere in the above quote, and the whole body of his vast work amply demonstrates that there is an underlying genetic/biological non arbitrary reality to it.

Race is about ancestry.

Ancestral groups can be divided coarsely or finely. As I endless said on the race realist thread, in response to your endless mindless parroting of the leftist PC dogma that “race is just a social construct.” Hence above CS says:

There is no way to tell how many races there are – are there six or ten or a hundred or a thousand?

Further at clinal borders where the races can intermingle realtively easily and aren’t separated by great oceans, high mountain ranges or vast deserts, a lot of race mixing has gone one, and one can speak alternatively of racial mixtures, or name the mixed race groups with some separate racial name. Hence CS says above:

There are no clear, sharp genetic lines where people can agree that one race ends and another begins.

There’s a bit of squid ink to this, because his own and other genetic testing can readily determine the percentage ancestry of the say 6 major geographic races a person has, and also much finer subdivision than that, such as how much bantu versus east african ancestry the person has. However it’s a social construct that Americans with 60% white ancestry and 40% African are called African Americans, whereas Americans with 60% white and 40% E. Asian ancestry will be called Eurasians or mixed.

But you stubbornly and obliviously stick to your ideological maxims in politically sensitive areas of science.

LikeLike
on Wed Mar 2nd 2011 at 21:22:34 Femi

Race is about ancestry.

That ancestry goes how far back exactly? Hundreds, thousands, hundreds of thousands of years?

Or should I ask, how far do you want it to go back until it fits your concept of “race” in humans?

You just keep assuming that there are 6 human “races” without even having come up with a clear scientific definition for it. Even scientists know it could be hundreds or just one depending on where you put the yardstick on.

It raises the question where ideology is really hidden.

However you twist it, it will remain arbitrary. If you want to talk about biological races, take chimps. Geneticists have found significantly sharp genetic differences between three chimp populations. That is, despite their fairly insignificant phenotypical differences and the fact that they live on the same continent.

LikeLike
on Wed Mar 2nd 2011 at 21:43:58 laromana

Tyrone,
As far as your comments in Abagond & Family:“Race Neutrality & The Truth” regarding BM and BW are concerned, you/BM who think like you need to GET OVER your INFLATED OPINIONS of YOURSELVES and stop lecturing BW on what we may/may not think about BM/NON-BW IRR’s or BM’s relationship habits in general.

BM/their relationships don’t MATTER to BW as much as you ERRONEOUSLY CLAIM.

BW are living OUR OWN lives SEPARATE from whatever BM think/do.

LikeLike
on Wed Mar 2nd 2011 at 21:44:13 Doug1

Zek—

And races do not correspond to genetic clusters because, like most arm-chair HBDers, you forget gradiation. As you move across geographic populations you find physiological similarities blending together. Even more importantly, so do genetic similarities, as groups tend to be descended from yet other groups until you go back to the original ancestors of humanity in Eastern Africa.

Basically, you’re trying to make extreme examples representative for whole populations, and that frankly doesn’t work in real science.

Races and finer racial divisions DO correspond to certain genetic clusters as the body of Cavalli-Sforza’s work and that of many others makes abundantly clear. He does make general squid ink statements like some of those above, that don’t contradict this, but sort of fudge it a bit for PC protection purposes.

No those who think in HBD terms and know much about it don’t forget about gradations at clinal boundaries. I talked about that all the time on the race realism thread before you ever started talking in those terms.

However whites in America don’t come from a clinal area with lots of major races interbreeding, such as N. Africa. They came from Europe, and mostly northern, central and eastern Europe, where there until very recently there’s been vanishingly little interbreeding between whites and another of the six major continental races, or for that matter, with Caucasians from outside Europe, except a bit in the SE corner of Europe. The vast majority of self identifying American whites have vanishing little ssAfrican ancestry, unless there’s been an interracial marriage in the last two generations and they don’t follow the one drop rule. But still they’d almost always call themselves mixed rather than white.

Self identifying blacks in America average about 20% white ancestry, though about 10% (like Haley Barry and Henry Louis Gates) have 50% or more white blood, with the remaining 90% who generally don’t look heavily mixed, having about 16% white blood.

So these divisions are pretty strong here and in Europe into long ago splitting apart largely non interbreeding ancestral groups or continental scale major races. The split apart long enough ago and largely didn’t interbreed enough for there to have been AMPLE opportunity for significant physical and mental trait and especially amplitude of trait differences to have occurred.

Cavalli-Sforza’s work has however never been concerned about finding such phenotypic difference effects of human genetic differences. He’s been interested in the history and geographic of human genes, and in human pre historical great migrations.

LikeLike
on Wed Mar 2nd 2011 at 21:47:13 Doug1

Zek–

@Schwartz – The problem with your argument (among many others) is that phenotype is NOT genotype

Let me clue you in:

Genotype differences interacting with environmental differences in sometimes complex ways create phenotype differences.

LikeLike
on Wed Mar 2nd 2011 at 22:16:48 Doug1

Tyrone–

2. Blacks don’t believe in race-mixing, because, we have something to lose and nothing to gain…Our Blackness!

Are you the same Tyrone that comments at Roissy’s a fair bit, from time to time?

I had the impression from things he said that Tyrone is married to a white European woman he met in Europe. I guessed a German, since I also guessed from stuff he said that he’s an officer is the US military.

LikeLike
on Wed Mar 2nd 2011 at 22:22:52 Doug1

Femi–

That ancestry goes how far back exactly? Hundreds, thousands, hundreds of thousands of years?

Tens of thousands of years, in the case of the major continental scale geographic races. See this post on migrations that Abagond got largely from a good website he referenced at the top of the post.

https://abagond.wordpress.com/2011/02/18/human-migrations/

In the case of the further subdivision that Cavalli-Sforza and others also do into finer sub groups or sub, sub races, often more like thousands of years.

See this for a succinct discussion of the genetic distance measurement between 1000 or so different human sub groups that CS has genetically studied:

http://www.isteve.com/RealityofRace.htm

LikeLike
on Wed Mar 2nd 2011 at 22:32:07 Doug1

Femi–

If you want to talk about biological races, take chimps. Geneticists have found significantly sharp genetic differences between three chimp populations. That is, despite their fairly insignificant phenotypical differences and the fact that they live on the same continent.

How significant or not the phenotype differences are between different ancestral groups of humans are even when they’ve split into largely non interbreeding groups except at clinal boundaries is a separate matter. We would expect the differences to be greater with the climatic, means of obtaining food and human social environments were significantly different, and when the split was quite long ago — although with enough selective pressure for certain trait differentials Cochran and Harpendig’s work has shown that e.g. IQ could possibly go up by an average of 10 or 15 points in as little as 30-40 generations (800 years or so).

We certainly notice phenotype diffenences between whites and West African blacks. Shin color but also nose and facial appearance.

We certainly notice wide differences in success in school and in income between whites and blacks in America, and between whites in America and black in black run ssAfrican countries, and Caribbean ones. Similarly between whites and blacks in Europe.

LikeLike
on Wed Mar 2nd 2011 at 23:16:28 sam

@jason: yeah, I am not trying to piss you off. I just tried to state my point of view of this thing.

I belive that for some reason, maybe because they are so important biologically in so many ways, today there is a belief that genes can explain more than they really do. I believe that cultures decide ultimately how violent we are.

If the genes would decide alone these things, then things would be a lot different up here. The swedes havent had a war since 1809 or something like that. Their whole culture is more open, discussing, problem solving and peaceful than ours. Yes, there are violent men and women in Sweden too, but the basic theme in their culture is solving conflicts peacefully and respecting others and their views too. It is not a violent culture and you see it in the numbers.

In Finland we have ideas like ” hard will puts a man trough grey granite”, “real finn eats iron and shits chainlinks”, “put up or shut up”, ” a man eats what man orders” etc. In finnish cluture a hard man was a good man. Good man did not ask mercy nor gave any. A Good man took a beating and did not complain or snitch. He took his lickin and kept on tickin. And took his revenge.

When I grew up and went to school it was clear as sunny day that sooner or later you have to fight at school. It was part of the process. I had fights in every class from class one up to class six. That was considered natural way of boys life. My father taught us how to wrestle and how to hit with our fists before we were seven years old. I got my first knife when I was five as was the tradition back then.

Contrary to swedish culture, finnish culture took pride on being hard and tuff. Even if you could not fight, if you were eager to do so and showed no fear, you got respect. If you avoided fighting and conflicts, you were a sissy. You work hard, drink hard, party hard, die hard. You’d rather kill yourself than show softness. We had the highest suicide rates in the world for a long time. It was a way out. When somebody killed himself, people said: oh, he ran away. Meaning, that guy was a coward but at least he did something about it.

I once asked form my childhood friend who is now a police has the violence among the teens increased as the media claims. He laughed. Today when somebody throws an ice ball to somebodys eye at school yard, it becomes a mugging and police matter. When we were kids, if the ambulance did not show up, nobody even bothered.

Even when I was in the army, our instructors made no bones what we were doing. We were told straight up that our job was to survive as long as we can and kill as many enemies as we can. We were told how to kill from distance, with guns, traps and mines and bombs, with a knife and shovel and axe. In those days it was granted and the only reason for the whole show. Today it is about peacekeeping, international relief operations and such too. They even let women in the army now.

It has really changed since then. Finnish guys are now told that they can be emotional. They learn from the kindergarden that they can be scared and theres nothing wrong with it. They don’t have to be tuff, hard. They can ask help. When I grew up, we were told that you ask help only in case of absolute emergency. Otherwise you are on your own and survive alone and do what you have to do. Alone.

It took some time to learn to see things differently. Now I am more mellow, more softer, more accepting, more open. I am no longer hostile towards anybody. At 15 it was Them vs Us. My friends and others. Our gang and others. Not any more. I changed the way I see the world. I learned. I travelled. I met others. Black guys, foreign guys, asians, women who looked different. I realized that they have nothing against me and I have nothing against them.

This is part the explanation why I don’t believe that it is genetical to see the world Them vs Us. I believe we learn it.

Genes make us aggressive in time of need, yes. But they don’t make us see enemies. Them vs. Us. Our cultures do.

LikeLike
on Wed Mar 2nd 2011 at 23:21:16 zek j evets

Hmm Doug…

You frequent Roissy’s? As I’ve heard that’s a common place for people who like to study Game. In fact, as I’ve seen, that place is basically a haven for mostly undersexed, sometimes over-privileged, and generally Angry White Males.

And that, probably more than your entire argument, makes you suspect.

However, since you want to play fowl, I’ll be the parrot. Meanwhile, you can keep on playing the ostrich ; )

The genetic testing your speaking of traces genetic markers for populations, rather like we traced mitochondrial Eve, but these populations do not correspond to your/our ideas of race.

Basically, you’re doing science backwards. Constructing an idea of how the world is, and going out to find evidence to prove it.

You seem to forget, absurdly, how much our idea of race is created from mutable factors such as: nose-size, eye-shape, eye-color, hair-color, culture, place of birth, language, even what clothes a person wears. Physiological characteristics mixed with cultural stereotypes are the general foundation people build their idea of race on.

But, of course, you seem to believe that your definition of race is solely biological and genetic! It’d be funny, if you weren’t also so self-righteous about it.

Actually, that makes it more funny =)

The gradiation I’m talking about is a process operating on an evolutionary timescale. The frame you’re attempting to shove HBD pseudo-science into is simply too small for it’s racist fat-a**. There has been too much contact between humanity over the course of its evolution, and too little time has passed during which populations were supposedly isolated enough to give rise to the kinds of differences of IQ, aggressiveness, and other essentialist BS that HBD seems intent on foisting upon Black people, as well as other races.

And again, like I told Schwartz, if you’re not studied in this field, then it’s hard to take you seriously. Especially since I am, and more importantly, I interact on a daily basis with people who know even more about this than you or I will ever.

But don’t hide behind Steve Sailor, or any other academic who isn’t a geneticist/biologist. Because that ship won’t hold water either.

As for Cavalli-Sforza, it appears you misunderstand him COMPLETELY. His work, as he himself has stated, is to challenge the assumption that races have any useful meaning in biology or genetics.

I suggest you go back to basics. Read his laymen version, entitled, Genes, Peoples, and Languages.

Or you could always go back to your dogmatic racism, which is probably what you will do.

LikeLike
on Thu Mar 3rd 2011 at 00:27:21 Doug1

Zek–

You frequent Roissy’s?

I frequent Roissy’s as an older alpha (in terms of casual hot girl sex success, which translates to getting hot girls for long relationships too if you want it to, as I have) offering advice to younger fleglings. And also for it’s gender realism, and anti radical feminism. Yeah I’m a gender realist too.

Evo psych bio realist all round.

LikeLike
on Thu Mar 3rd 2011 at 00:30:26 Doug1

Zek–

His work, as he himself has stated, is to challenge the assumption that races have any useful meaning in biology or genetics.

Complete bullcrap.

To the extent he’s ever said anything like that for general audiences in introductions and to the press, and I haven’t seen it to anything like that extent, it’s completely squid ink, protection from leftist PC persecution of those that show that race does have a genetic reality. His work amply shows that it does.

LikeLike
on Thu Mar 3rd 2011 at 00:33:16 Schwartz

***The genetic testing your speaking of traces genetic markers for populations, rather like we traced mitochondrial Eve, but these populations do not correspond to your/our ideas of race.***

Have a look at these papers. They do correspond pretty closely.

Li, J. Z., D. M. Absher, et al. (2008). “Worldwide Human Relationships Inferred from Genome-Wide Patterns of Variation.” Science 319(5866): 1100-1104. or

“In summary, the observation of [10] of stronger clustering with increased geographic nonrandomness was not seen in our analysis of a larger number of samples. Additionally, geographic dispersion was seen to be the least influential of the five study design variables that we considered. By using fewer loci and individuals in their various tests, and by assuming an uncorrelated allele frequencies model, Serre and Pääbo chose study design parameters in such a way that clustering was less pronounced than had been previously observed. In no way does this alter the fact that when a sufficiently large sample and number of loci are used, together with the more appropriate correlated allele frequencies model, individuals do cluster into populations that correspond largely to geographic regions. Indeed, the observation of essentially the same clusters with a larger dataset further supports the robustness of our original analysis…

For population pairs from the same cluster, as geographic distance increases, genetic distance increases in a linear manner, consistent with a clinal population structure. However, for pairs from different clusters, genetic distance is generally larger than that between intracluster pairs that have the same geographic distance. For example, genetic distances for population pairs with one population in Eurasia and the other in East Asia are greater than those for pairs at equivalent geographic distance within Eurasia or within East Asia. Loosely speaking, it is these small discontinuous jumps in genetic distance—across oceans, the Himalayas, and the Sahara—that provide the basis for the ability of STRUCTURE to identify clusters that correspond to geographic regions.”

Rosenberg, N. A., S. Mahajan, et al. (2005). “Clines, Clusters, and the Effect of Study Design on the Inference of Human Population Structure.” PLoS Genet 1(6): e70.

LikeLike
on Thu Mar 3rd 2011 at 00:36:08 Schwartz

Also, see Risch & Tangs 2005 paper:

“Genetic cluster analysis of the microsatellite markers produced four major clusters, which showed near-perfect correspondence with the four self-reported race/ethnicity categories. Of 3,636 subjects of varying race/ethnicity, only 5 (0.14%) showed genetic cluster membership different from their self-identified race/ethnicity.”

‘Genetic Structure, Self-Identified Race/Ethnicity, and Confounding in Case-Control Association Studies’

Am J Hum Genet. 2005 February; 76(2): 268–275.

LikeLike
on Thu Mar 3rd 2011 at 00:39:39 Mira

Isn’t Roissy that pathetic individual with ego problems? I honestly thought his blog was a joke.

I might consider him to be a few things, but alpha is certainly not the word I’d use. All guys interested in learning a few tricks should seek another mentor.

LikeLike
on Thu Mar 3rd 2011 at 00:41:48 Herneith

Americans, how ever, have gone to war every time the goverment has decided so. Why is that, jason? Because the genes?? Or could it be something else?

It’s the colon clogging food sam! I went there weighing 120 pounds for a two week vacation and came back weighing 500 pounds. Now don’t get me started on the Mexican Mom and Pop restaurants I frequented! It’s the food, not the genes. It makes you want to fight over a burrito!

Steven Hsu – physicist
Neven Sesardic – philosopher
Steve Sailer – journalist
Philip Rushton – psychologist
Herneith a Ph.d in b*llsh*ttology

Wow! Next time my hemorrhoids act up I will go see an ear, nose and throat specialist! How about an orthopedic surgeon?

In fact, as I’ve seen, that place is basically a haven for mostly undersexed, sometimes over-privileged, and generally Angry White Males.

That’s what it boils down to with these guys Zek—sex drives and genital size. These fellows are bizarre! Well here’s something that might help them out:

http://www.allabout-penis-enlargement.com/?gclid=CJHVpMKTsacCFZ065QodahVWEQ

Not only will they be smarter but they will have bigger genitals instead of being hung like field mice and being consistently teed off about it!

LikeLike
on Thu Mar 3rd 2011 at 07:27:36 sam

@doug:

“I frequent Roissy’s as an older alpha (in terms of casual hot girl sex success, which translates to getting hot girls for long relationships too if you want it to, as I have) offering advice to younger fleglings. And also for it’s gender realism, and anti radical feminism. Yeah I’m a gender realist too.”

That was hilarious, man! Alpha male?? 😀

If you really are an alpha male doug, you have no need to talk about anywhere. Trust me, I’ve met some real alpha males and they don’t waste their time in explaining what it means. See, they don’t have to nor they feel like it is something that has to be talked about at all. There is no need for any of that 😀

I know that guys who are little insecure and are not so lucky with women have some misogynist tendencies, which are sometimes called “genrder realism”, just like the insecure and little racisists call their racism “race realism”. Real men do what ever they do without any excuses. They have no need for explanations, tips or any other crap about male-female relationships. They just do their thing.

Now, I do not call or consider myself an alpha male at all, but just to let you know I have had even some feminists in my bed ( yes, feminist can have sex with men!!!! I know it is incredible but true!), just like I have had a fashion model, nude model and some other women too. Still, at this age, I haven’t had any problems for getting “hot women” if and when I have wanted one for casual encounter. Why is that? Must be the genes…

And I give you a tip here: women like men who are ok with themselves. Yeah, I know it sounds unbelievable, but there you go. They also like to feel good and have some fun. They also enjoy if you respect them as who they really are. Weird, isn’t it? They like guys who listen, too! Sometimes, women even enjoy male presence without sexual activities. I know, that sounds really incredible, but it is true, too! 😀

Now I am short, look like a love child of hunch back of Notre Dame and orangutang, with little cave man thrown in for good measure, tattooed, longhaired bearded guy. I am as wide as I am tall. If anybody is counter the image of good looking guy, it is me. And yet, I have women. I even have kids! And I am not an alpha male, try to be one, I do not even try to impress anyone, including women, with my masculinity. It must be the genes, or something! 😀

@herneith: 😀 You migh be into something there. I ate so good bagels in NYC that if anybody would tried to take them away from me, I would’ve gone for survival mode. And also, one chinese restaurant was so good, I really would have killed for its meals. Luckily it never came to that!

LikeLike
on Thu Mar 3rd 2011 at 07:30:26 sam

UPS, ” I even have kids” because I have been married, I meant to say 😀

LikeLike
on Thu Mar 3rd 2011 at 13:14:24 jas0nburns

@ sam,femi

maybe an analogy might help me get my point across.

You could make a lot of really great arguments that language is a cultural thing. I’m no linguist and I speak only English, but I know that some languages differ greatly from one another and tend to reflect the values of the cultures that speak them.

However, language itself exists within the confines of what would be considered a human trait. We have the capacity for language at birth. That capacity is coded into our DNA. You can’t say that language is simply cultural or more cultural than genetic. it doesn’t work that way.

So we can choose not to speak or we can choose to learn many languages. We can use our words to tell people we love them and form connections or we can use language to destroy others and cause general harm.

But there is no denying that language is a part of us on a fundamental level.

I believe it’s exactly the same with us/them feelings. You can’t discount the fact that gift for language is a genetic trait by talking about how different languages are from one culture to the next. So you can’t do that with us/them feelings either.

LikeLike
on Thu Mar 3rd 2011 at 13:43:09 Doug1

zek–

As for Cavalli-Sforza, it appears you misunderstand him COMPLETELY. His work, as he himself has stated, is to challenge the assumption that races have any useful meaning in biology or genetics.

What a laugh riot your utter dogmatism is.

LikeLike
on Thu Mar 3rd 2011 at 14:13:04 jas0nburns

I’ve also heard a similar argument made about religion. Religion is something that on the surface would seem like a totally cultural thing. But once you study various religions around the world including even the spiritual practices of remote tribes in Africa you start to see patterns that constantly repeat themselves over and over again no matter where you look. Consistent themes will show up among Groups of people that would have had no contact whatsoever. This proves that there is something fundamental about humans that drives us to not only create religions but to do so along very specific perimeters and themes. So again, Just because something is cultural does not mean that it is not also genetic.

LikeLike
on Thu Mar 3rd 2011 at 14:45:24 Sagat

I haven’t even read through this endless argument going on here, but I found this part from Zek to be pretty hilarious:

Basically, you’re doing science backwards. Constructing an idea of how the world is, and going out to find evidence to prove it.
…

As for Cavalli-Sforza, it appears you misunderstand him COMPLETELY. His work, as he himself has stated, is to challenge the assumption that races have any useful meaning in biology or genetics.

Ha, talk about the irony.

LikeLike
on Thu Mar 3rd 2011 at 14:49:20 John

10.Two ways to lessen racism: education and strong government policies against it.

Doesn’t work in Pakistan where they want both education and Islamism, and assasinate the Christian minister whose job is to tend to the needs of minorities

LikeLike
on Thu Mar 3rd 2011 at 15:22:07 Femi

Ha, talk about the irony.

Where’s the irony? “Race” once started as a human concept with absolutely no scientific leg to stand on. Even today, if there is a leg at all, it is boneless and supported by dodgy crutches. The claim that there is a scientific basis for “race” in humans came first.
Ever heard of debunking?

So these divisions are pretty strong here and in Europe into long ago splitting apart largely non interbreeding ancestral groups or continental scale major races. The split apart long enough ago and largely didn’t interbreed enough for there to have been AMPLE opportunity for significant physical and mental trait and especially amplitude of trait differences to have occurred.

Wolof and Herero, Ibo and Kamba, Yoruba and Hutu etc were largely non-interbreeding either. They are genetically distinct enough for their geographic origin within the continent to be pinpointed with a fairly high confidence.
(Then again, all humans are genetically distinct enough from each other to be identified with a very high confidence. 6+ billion “races” then, right?)

The multitude of African ethnic groups are closer to the stem where it starts to branch out into all the other peoples of the world but that doesn’t mean they’re not genetically distinct, depending on how you choose to look at it. The point is that the “race realists” apply a very selective focus on the data. They only see what they want to see. That is, “Negroes”, “some kind of foreign peoples” and “worthy humans”.

People who are obsessed with calling others “PC”, “leftist” and similar rubbish send out clear clues that their motivations are definitely not scientific.

LikeLike
on Thu Mar 3rd 2011 at 15:24:54 King

“I haven’t even read through this endless argument going on here, but I found this part from Zek to be pretty hilarious:”

Judging by your comment, I seriously doubt if you even read entirely through through Zek’s post.

Oh wait… I know… we’re all suffering from that bad old PC, right?

LikeLike
on Thu Mar 3rd 2011 at 16:17:03 sam

@jason: I still do not get it, I think. Sorry.

The ability to learn to speak is in our DNA, usually, because we develop the area of brain which enables us to learn how to form sounds which are the bases for languages. Some brain damages disable this ability, some times one looses this ability, sometimes one looses it only partially. Some loose the ability to comprehend language, some can not speak etc.

Language is always cultural. It belongs to a certain group of people and is constantly evolving with in this culture. If language was genetic, we would all speak the same and one language, not hundreds like we do now. But we have the ability to learn other languages, like I have learned english and some others ( not too well, I admit), because our ability to learn how to speak. That ability is genetical.

However, if one can not speak or understand the basics of speak, that individual can not learn languages.

So my view is that languages are cultural but ability to speak is in our genes. Just as the cabability for violence is in our genes, but Them vs Us mentality is learned and cultural.

I migh be sounding like a repeating bot here and sorry for that, but I really try to work out your take on this.

LikeLike
on Thu Mar 3rd 2011 at 16:48:20 Femi

To pick up on sam’s view, “us vs them” with emphasis on the versus is probably the point where we talk across each other.

We as humans are group animals and each individual is able to bond with another for many reasons. I think it is plausible that this is innate to all of us. However, the forming of groups for the purpose of ganging up against another group is clearly learned behaviour. Especially when it happens on absurd levels, such as skin colour, nationality or other superficial traits.

Team sport players switch teams all the time and integrate without problems. People switch jobs from one company to its fiercest competitor, seamlessly. People move from one place to another, learn new languages (even the ones of former or present enemies) find new friends etc. Even if “us vs them” is 100% genetic, it’s on an individual level and mutable at any time. It’s very unlikely that humans have an innate genetic sense of loyalty to one particular group throughout their lives, not even to their own family.

LikeLike
on Thu Mar 3rd 2011 at 16:51:32 jas0nburns

“but Them vs Us mentality is learned and cultural. ”

Then explain why it’s always present in every culture that has ever existed. What evidence do you have that it’s a cultural phenomenon other than jas0n is American.

LikeLike
on Thu Mar 3rd 2011 at 17:46:23 Femi

Going by the scientific method, it’s those who make the claim that it is genetic are the ones who have to deliver evidence.

I suppose we all know very well that this is all speculation. Some just don’t want to admit it and are quick to jump to conclusions.

All we can safely say for now is – nobody knows.

Even if someone finds evidence one day, it will be difficult to give an explanation for the undeniable fact (outside of anecdotal evidence) that there are many individualists who never comply to any group dynamics. Or a genetic explanation for the fact that the “us vs them” mentality gets more and more diluted the more one travels, interacts with people of different origins on their turf, experiences differences and commonalities first hand. Not from a “safe” distance, by books or in vitro but in vivo.

LikeLike
on Thu Mar 3rd 2011 at 18:26:01 jas0nburns

“Going by the scientific method, it’s those who make the claim that it is genetic are the ones who have to deliver evidence.”

I’m not sure about that either way. but even so. I haven’t even seen any convincing speculation from your camp. Besides once you have irrefutable evidence of something, talking about it isn’t any fun anymore. 😉

LikeLike
on Thu Mar 3rd 2011 at 19:02:01 Doug1

Femi–

“Race” once started as a human concept with absolutely no scientific leg to stand on.

Race has always been understood by those with half a brain to be about ancestry. From the get go.

Ancestry is fundamentally biological, duhhh, and can be and is studied scientifically.

It takes a consciousness mired in a whole lot of self protecting dogma to not realize this, and to keep pathetically denying it once it’s amply demonstrated on these threads, time and time again.

Anyone who doesn’t realize that there’s a ton of obfuscation, intentionally misleading pronouncements to the wider intelligent public, and outright lying by journalists, academics and scientists on left and keeping shut to keep their careers by those less dogmatic or more inclined to be honest, in areas of PC sensitivity such as “race is just a social construct” is either enormously ignorant and hoodwinked, an denying ideology of the left, or an idiot.

LikeLike
on Thu Mar 3rd 2011 at 19:32:02 King

“Race has always been understood by those with half a brain to be about ancestry. From the get go.”

Yes, but what happened to the other half?

What a blind and deaf ideologue.

LikeLike
on Thu Mar 3rd 2011 at 19:32:24 jas0nburns

@ doug1

you did it. we’re convinced. congratulations yaaaay

LikeLike
on Thu Mar 3rd 2011 at 19:40:54 abagond

Doug1:

You need to step up your game. Stating that everyone who disagrees with you is either a liar or a fool proves nothing. It is not even a proper argument:

https://abagond.wordpress.com/2010/07/26/the-seven-levels-of-disagreement/

LikeLike
on Thu Mar 3rd 2011 at 20:25:08 Femi

Wow! Next time my hemorrhoids act up I will go see an ear, nose and throat specialist! How about an orthopedic surgeon?

How about an engineer? He might be able to provide some relief with his spanner.

LikeLike
on Thu Mar 3rd 2011 at 20:30:40 Gen

I’m getting deja vu instances a lot on this blog lately.

This is probably the 4th time I’ve seen this Doug1 guy go on and on about basically nothing.

Traceable ancestry = Race as natural fact?

The idea of race is and has always been about “perceived” ancestry, thus it’s a social construct. It’s kind of sad seeing this struggle to implement “science” into it.

LikeLike
on Thu Mar 3rd 2011 at 21:00:18 jas0nburns

“it will be difficult to give an explanation for the undeniable fact (outside of anecdotal evidence) that there are many individualists who never comply to any group dynamics. ”

I think this might be part of our misunderstanding. You (and others kwamla, sam) seem to think that if a behavior had a genetic basis than we would all strictly adhere to it or act it out at all times. that’s not so. Especially in today’s society where norms are constantly being challenged. I mean it’s quite obvious that human bodies were designed for walking long distances and running. Yet how many people do you know who do that much walking? Most of us don’t even begin to approach the level of activity for which our bodies were designed. So to say that we are designed to do something specific is not necessarily to say that we actually do that thing in practice. But you can say these things are within the spectrum of behaviors which we are specifically designed to carry out.

Try to imagine what would happen if you didn’t have your concept of us/them. just use your imagination. What if your group (which wouldn’t exist without us/them concepts) were attacked by outsiders? You wouldn’t even be able to form the concept of outsiders. You wouldn’t be able to figure out what was happening and why? how would you fight back? who would you fight? them? there is no them as far as your concerned right?

clearly this concept evolved as a survival mechanism along with our ability for cooperation. They are at odds with each other because we have always needed to survive as groups and at the same time compete with other groups for resources.

LikeLike
on Thu Mar 3rd 2011 at 21:18:45 zek j evets

Doug,

I’m sad to hear that you dabble in all manner of blatant ignorance, especially in the field of gender, because I consider myself sympathetic to MRA issues. In fact, I frequently write about them on my blog.

But I will give you this: at least you’re consistent in your ideological need to turn your lackluster life into a pariah-complex surrounded by fools, liars, and PC Leftists out to get you like a bunch of Red Commies! Seriously, Old Senator McCarthy would be proud.

Anyhoo, Check out Cavalli-Sforza’s interview with The Economist, and you’ll see what I’m talking about. Trust me, he’s not about the pseudo-science.

In the meantime, I suggest you start re-educating yourself on these issues, because frequenting those HBD blogs has apparently given you a group-think mentality, complete with confirmation bias, ad hominem denial, and all that jazz.

Face it buddy, you’re wrong. You’ve been wrong. And if you keep going like this, you’ll continue to BE wrong. Coming here and debating everyone, only to be so entirely disproved that you’ve fallen back on conspiracy is proof enough of that.

As Mr. T says: “I pity the fool!”

Sagat,

You may find it hilariously ironic, however take note that Cavalli-Sforza made that statement AFTER his work was completed and published. He didn’t state that at the beginning, before having done any research. This is an important distinction.

Which is why so many HBDers fail. The inability to understand fine little points. They really do make a difference in science.

LikeLike
on Thu Mar 3rd 2011 at 21:25:00 Femi

What if your group (which wouldn’t exist without us/them concepts) were attacked by outsiders? You wouldn’t even be able to form the concept of outsiders. You wouldn’t be able to figure out what was happening and why? how would you fight back? who would you fight? them? there is no them as far as your concerned right?

“My” group? Who would that be? What if someone close to me is attacked by insiders?

What if your cousin attacks your wife (who might have origins from another continent)? Or your kids? What if your father beats up your mother? What if your sister’s friend who is from a foreign country is harassed by your neighbours?

The instinct is on an individual level first of all. All else is very likely to be learned behaviour.

LikeLike
on Thu Mar 3rd 2011 at 22:57:47 sam

@jason: “What evidence do you have that it’s a cultural phenomenon other than jas0n is American.”

I never said anything like that. I’m not tryin to get you angry or anything, I just state my view on this. Based on my personal experiences.

Let me tell you one incident from some twenty years ago. I am a white european guy. I am in a african country. I am the only white guy around, next one is maybe fifty miles from where I am. This is definetly Them vs. Us situation. I am the Only white guy around, absolutely. I speak no local language, do not look like anybody etc. Right?

Locals are eyeballin me, after all, what I am doin there. White european guy alone in their neck of the woods. This is not a turist destination. There is nothing here. No sights to see, no elephants or gazelles. Just bush and this village which is not one of those exotique native villages with round huts and spear carrying warrior tribes men. This is a village with depleted houses, tin roofs, couple cars and a broken down truck.

Now I don’t cause any trouble so they let me sit in this bar and eat something. It is late so it is getting dark and I figure that I better stay here till dawn. At this point we have not been introduced and I havent talked to anyone else other than the girl behind the counter. Is this Them vs. Us? They vs. Me?

Next thing I know two cars show up. Guys come out swinging machetes and clubs and stuff. They shout something, the guys at the bar shout back, somekind of trouble. What can I do? Try to stay away from this? What those other guys will think? That I just happened to be in this bar with these guys?

One guy in the bar looks at me and hands me a stick, two inches thick, about fifty centimeters long. He has never seen me before and I haven’t seen him before. He does not know a didi about me. He does not know what I will do. What will I do? I don’t know any of these guys, not the guys in the bar or outside. I have no beef with nobody here. This has nothing to do with me. It is me alone and all these guys shouting at each other.

Nothing happens, the guys outside drive away, I never know what that was about other than that they knew each other, but after they are gone, the guys at the bar talk to me. They treat me all right. I did not do anything, I did not join them or anything.

How they accepted me as one of them, even when I am white, don’t know anybody, look totally different?

For these guys I am a stranger, a foreigner and a white one for that, one of “Them” rich white europeans, where as those guys who came to shout and show their weapons were other local guys. ” Oh, we know them well”, I am told.

So why they accepted or even thoughed that I would side with them? Even I don’t know what I would’ve done. Was our behavior something learned or something genetical? I say again that is is more complex thing.

Like Femi said, conflicts can exist inside a family. Between siblings. My own brother once kicked me into head. I beat him up. For real. Was that Them vs. Us? I don’t think so. It is much more complex thing than just DNA.

““but Them vs Us mentality is learned and cultural. ”

Then explain why it’s always present in every culture that has ever existed.”

You nor anybody else does not know if that is the case. We do not know how human cultures behaved say ten thousand years ago. We just assume today that they were as violent as we are. I seriously doubt it.

In some lab tests they have learned that when rat population is small, it is very peaceful and does not behave aggressively towards new individuals who just show up. But once the population grows big enough, its dynamics start to change to more aggressive and violent. Our DNA might be a part of the answer, but our cultures are involved too in how we think about these things.

There has been cultures which have been very open, peaceful and so on. Some native tribes have lived that way untill europeans have shown up and done them away. When the first europeans showed up at your shores, what did the natives do? Kill them off? They could have done it easy. It was Them vs. Us.

No. The natives actually helped the first whites to survive. They helped them, saved them from hunger. Few years later the whites decided to kill these savages off.

The natives of Lapland, the Saami people, have always been nomadic and rather small family units and so on, and also more peaceful that other groups around here. Yes, they have had violence, but they have always tried to avoid war. Something that we finns or the swedes or norwegians have never been too eager to do. We have gone to war trough the history. Is that because of genes or culture, or something more complex than either one?

I think so.

LikeLike
on Fri Mar 4th 2011 at 08:11:37 jas0nburns

Sam your story just illustrates exactly why and with great clarity how us/them works.

You became one of “us” (guys in bar) for one reason and one reason only. Because you weren’t one of “them” (dudes with clubs, machetes) see that’s how it works. it didn’t matter if you were white because those guys who were about to attack you were an eminent threat to everyone in the bar. So those in the bar became “us” in an instant. Bonded and united against “them”. the fact that your cultural differences became unimportant is just More
proof that it’s an innate subconcious reaction to danger.

LikeLike
on Fri Mar 4th 2011 at 10:28:32 Kwamla

Its about time people like: Randy, Doug1, Schwartz, etc, etc actually came clean about the real implications of the arguments they persistently try to state here.

IF they really have any validity.

In my view its cowardly to try to hide behind arguments which seek to prove:

(1) The validity of IQ amongst “races” and how this translates to eventual “success” in life.
(2) The effects predetermined genetics has on people
(3) The existence or validity of “race” in biology

And not unequivocally state how society should respond or treat certain groups or individuals of a particular “race”.

Its cowardly because they never say.

Well here is a video which discusses some of these issues and then clearly states what the implications are of taking this particular view.

http://www.tubechop.com/watch/137232

LikeLike
on Fri Mar 4th 2011 at 12:06:57 abagond

A great quote from that video Kwamla posted:

“It’s all in the genes”: an explanation for the way things are that does not threaten the way things are. Why should someone feel unhappy or engage in antisocial behavior when that person is living in the freest and most prosperous nation on earth? It can’t be the system! There must be a flaw in the wiring somewhere.

People like Doug1 are not honestly following the science wherever it may lead. Instead they are trying to use science to excuse the injustice of society.

LikeLike
on Fri Mar 4th 2011 at 13:00:10 Randy Garver

Kwamla,

I watched your video and agree that “nature v. nurture” is a false dichotomy. I don’t recall anyone here suggesting that “it’s all in the genes.”

It’s also not all in the environment either.

My attitude towards science is that “it is what it is”. If you think I’m not “coming clean”, perhaps you can tell me what my real motivations are.

LikeLike
on Fri Mar 4th 2011 at 15:04:10 King

Nice find on that video, Kwamla.

Randy, the points raised in the Zeitgeist clip go far beyond simple admissions that it’s not “all in the genes.” The clip goes on to explain to you that genetics can be effected or overcome even after birth. In other words, genetics are not always static, and can be changed and even when they can’t be, they can be deactivated, or simply counteracted.

This SHOULD be good news for White Supremacists who constantly lament the bad behavior of certain minorities. The fact that the behavior is not genetically hardwired gives hope that it can be changed. …EXCEPT for the fact that the real objection of White Supremacists is not, at root, bad behavior at all, but the faces of little Black and Brown children polluting their imagined construct of society.

If bad behavior is truly and significantly genetic, then the only remedy is to remove the Black or Brown people from the society altogether. In other words, get the “darkies” out of my country—this has always been the real goal “race scientists.”

LikeLike
on Fri Mar 4th 2011 at 15:12:44 essbro

Sam,

Interesting post about Europeans now doing what it takes to avoid conflict after World Wars I & II.

The thing is, they, along with Asians, seem to be chanelling that agression into making money rather than being the world’s A$$-Kickers like they once were. It’s my perception that since Europeans are now seen as soft and paralyzed by Political Correctness, Arabs, Hispanics, and blacks are picking up that mantel.

Plus, once Europeans (actually the US but England and France also now have it) developed and deployed that bomb, they became less agressive after seeing what it did.

Unfortunately for the world, as wealth dries up in Europe, the US and Asia, they may re-focus on A$$-Kicking again. You’re already starting to see European leaders denouncing multi-culturism. A convenient place to start without them realizing where it could lead.

Something to consider–No?

LikeLike
on Fri Mar 4th 2011 at 15:13:19 abagond

White racists WANT blacks to be bad. You see that in how they twist crime statistics, particularly rape statistics.

LikeLike
on Fri Mar 4th 2011 at 15:44:03 jas0nburns

@ Kwamla

good vid. It seems like what they are saying is that behavior is both genetic and environmentally determined and the flaw lies mostly in the way people interpret genetics as being the end all.

LikeLike
on Fri Mar 4th 2011 at 15:55:23 Randy Garver

King,

I’m not a white supremacist, so I can’t comment on their motivations.

However, I am open to considering that genetic propensities towards violence can exist. Let me use a related example that was on the news recently.

A pit bull bit a child, injuring the child severely. This raised the debate as to whether pit bulls constitute a public hazard.

Defenders pointed out that how a dog is raised has a greater impact on whether or not a dog will bite than which breed it is. They state that in a poor environment, even a black lab will bite a child.

While it’s true that proper raising will make all dogs less violent, the reality still exists that under any given set of environmental conditions, regardless of whether they’re good or bad, pit bulls will always tend towards violence more than black labs.

Proper raising can decrease the overall level of dog violence, but pit bulls will always be more dangerous.

Before anyone gets their knickers in a twist, I’m not saying that people are dogs. I’m just using that example to illustrate how differences in genetics can still manifest themselves in optimal as well as sub-optimal environments where nurture plays an important role.

LikeLike
on Fri Mar 4th 2011 at 16:08:44 King

“I’m not a white supremacist”

I know that.

But the Zeitgeist clip pointed out that genes can even be changed (in some specific cases) by our experiences.

Pit bulls are a breed, “Blacks” or “Hispanics” (for instance) are broad and fuzzy ethnic categories which contain a lot of genetic and ancestral diversity, even within the categories.

LikeLike
on Fri Mar 4th 2011 at 17:11:15 Femi

Excellent video Kwamla.

@ essbro

Unfortunately for the world, as wealth dries up in Europe, the US and Asia, they may re-focus on A$$-Kicking again. You’re already starting to see European leaders denouncing multi-culturism. A convenient place to start without them realizing where it could lead.

You know, there’s something over here in old EU that still keeps me quite confident that those who might instigate “arse-kicking” will always face fierce opposition. The same applies to some (and ultimately perhaps all) of the Arabic nations and parts of sub-saharan Africa.

The instigators aren’t the problem. They will always exist and can ultimately be dealt with. Complacency of the so-called silent majority is the real problem. It sometimes seems like it’s creeping in ever so slowly but then watching the Tunisians, Egyptians etc recently gives me hope that the majority over here might be inspired by that if ever it gets that far. (Unlikely, but I hope not).

LikeLike
on Fri Mar 4th 2011 at 17:44:29 sepultura13

Here’s an interesting article that may explain a lot of the ‘neo-race realism’ atmosphere lately:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/12/21/white.persecution/index.html?hpt=P1&iref=NS1#

As Spock would say: “Fascinating…”

LikeLike
on Fri Mar 4th 2011 at 19:28:17 Femi

@ sepultura13

Fascinating indeed.
Certain people confuse depression with oppression. Apparently even deliberately…

LikeLike
on Fri Mar 4th 2011 at 20:23:19 Kwamla

I’m glad most people found last video I posted to be of help to this discussion. I think its conclusions were best summarized in the comment King posted:

Randy, the points raised in the Zeitgeist clip go far beyond simple admissions that it’s not “all in the genes.” The clip goes on to explain to you that genetics can be effected or overcome even after birth. In other words, genetics are not always static, and can be changed and even when they can’t be, they can be deactivated, or simply counteracted.

A fact that clearly demonstrates that even if all the genetic arguments were valid or true. So what? They can still be changed or ameliorated given the will and belief that this is possible. A point that clearly still eludes Randy.

I think this further clip from the video places in context the ongoing discussion between Sam and Jas0son about violence and the nature of competition in our society. Is it really just simply a natural state of human nature?

http://www.tubechop.com/watch/137367

LikeLike
on Fri Mar 4th 2011 at 20:23:46 Femi

Once again,

The video Kwamla posted is highly recommended, especially in full length

LikeLike
on Fri Mar 4th 2011 at 20:41:06 Kwamla

Your comments are appreciated Femi!!!

LikeLike
on Sat Mar 5th 2011 at 05:57:14 Schwartz

***In the meantime, I suggest you start re-educating yourself on these issues, because frequenting those HBD blogs has apparently given you a group-think mentality, complete with confirmation bias, ad hominem denial, and all that jazz.***

Zek,

I would recommend that in setting an example you too could perhaps consider exposing yourself to some other blogs. I’d recommend Discover/GNXP run by Razib Khan. Also, as a fan of Cavalli-Sworza I think you’d find anthropologist Peter Frost’s posts on his career interesting.

LikeLike
on Sat Mar 5th 2011 at 18:55:27 zek j evets

@Schwartz:

I am already deeply immersed in the field. I spend my entire work-week, and much of my weekends writing, reading, and studying these exact issues, as well as constructing my own arguments for/against. And then I get graded for them.

In essence, I am quite exposed to diverse points of view on the subject.

And this a common thing among HBD as well, that if HBD scholars are not being given equal weight to real scientists, somehow other people are skewed. Which is obviously not the case.

LikeLike
on Sun Mar 10th 2013 at 12:44:44 Fleecyhead Milagrero

interesting post, this. i just might buy this book.

LikeLike
on Fri Jan 2nd 2015 at 05:40:52 Mezza

Jew is a made up word and so any thing relating to the word JEW is not relevant as it is IOUDIAS and that is someone from Judea.. Not Jew.

LikeLike