This is just a non-statement. If someone killed someone I love, my baked in response would be to seek revenge. I also have baked in compassion, forgiveness, the ability to reason about the consequences of violence, empathy, knowing that people change, long term goals that override short term impulses. To name a few.
If you have Netflix, watch the first 5 episodes of Sandman
True enough but the point is racism is a part of who we are.
Passing can happen because of certain amounts of common ancestry, but this is not uniform around the world. Europeans, South Asians, and Middle Easterners can sometimes look like each other because they share some level of ancestry due to population movements 3,000 years ago. For example, English, Russian, Greek, Persian and Hindi are all related languages because of this moving around. While all humans share very ancient ancestry, enough time has passed that the people who left Africa now look very different from Africans and from each other.
As for different races not existing, genetics says something very, very, very similar to races does exist.
If I remember correctly, tribalism developed because the who looked like you were more likely to help you survive because they are genetically related to you. (Still true today). Racism is an offshoot of that.
Youâre right that racism may narrow the gene pool, but not all gene pools are equal.
Well, if you want to go back to the survival age, you are right. But that was a long time ago and hopefully, we have become just a little more civilized.
IMO, today it is no longer survival competition, but competition for material goods, i.e. Greed; whatâs mine is mine , whatâs yours is mine.
Same principle, just a little more sophisticated.
Your point has lost all meaning. Lots of things are part of who we are. We still get to choose how we will act.
âgenetics saysâ
The article concludes, âMany will point out, reasonably enough, that racial categories are an unreliable proxy for ancestry, with horrible social baggage. Theyâll also point out that average differences between ancestral populations are typically very small compared to the variation within those populations, for most traits that scientists have tried to measure quantitatively.â
That doesnât sound anything like racism. There is just no connection between science and racism.
No it is not. It maybe part of history, but it is not part of who we are, because we donât have to be racist. What you say is nothing more than a stupid excuse to be racist against others, which makes you a racist. You donât have to be racist. After we become of age and move out of the home those who taught racism, we have the choice not to be racist.
All it can take is one white person mating with a Black person, especially during and after slavery. If the person enslaved had a family history of being in the States, then massa raping a woman can produce a child who can pass.
I never said there werenât different ethnic group. I said there is just one race, the human race. Now oneâs ethnicity maybe Latino, European, or Middle Eastern, but they are all still human and that is the only human race/species.
Not always though. That statement is 100% true. Blanket statements can always be proven false, especially nowaday when we are hopefully less barbaric. Of course, some humans, such as the KKK, Skinheads, Nation of Islam, and other brainwashed supremists groups, are still barbaric and primitive in their beliefs about others, who they view as âdifferentâ.
Saying they are not always equal is not only racist, but not at all true. âGene poolsâ maybe have different chances of getting something, such as Sickle Cell, but truth is, a white person, with two white person can get Sickle Cell. Itâs rare, but it can happen. Two people, who believe they are both all white can produce a child who looks Native American. This does not mean that the one ancestor, possessing the dominant gene, was not equal to the ancestors. Unless they both have the recessive gene for red hair and blue eyes and nature, by luck of the draw, throws both of those recessive genes together, two people with brown eyes and dark hair wonât produce a child with red hair and blue eyes. However, one parent, with Native or African genes in their ancestors, whether they know it or not, can contribute to a child looking darker than either parent. This does not mean any gene is unequal⌠except maybe the red head, because they burn the extremely easily. My mother is a blue eyed redhead, so this isnât racism. Itâs a truism. With my Native genes, from my fatherâs side, I donât burn in comparison. In that light, I gave my sons a gift of having even a harder time of burning easily. They can burn and one (the one with the lighter complexion) has burned once their life. Skin burning is no fun and if you want to say that is unequal, even unfair, Iâll give you that one, because redheads, especially those with blue eyes, have a higher chance of skin cancer even than any of us, but gene pools are neither equal or unequal. They just have different qualities, with some being rare.
Let me put it to you this way- cats. The species/race is cats. Under the heading are many different breeds or ethnicities, if they were human. A Siamese v an American shorthair are both cats (species or race), but their breed or ethnicity is Siamese and American shorthair. Both groups have different health issues. A prime example is the Persian (breed/ethnicity), who can have a smashed faced or a doll-face. The smashed face is more desired (not by me), in cat shows, than the doll-face (which I appreciate more). The smashed face carries more respiratory health issues than the doll-face does (thanks to stupid hoo-mans). Which, for a pet, would make the smash face less desirable, but both are still cats (species/race) and very lovable and are of the same species/ethnicity, but not the same breed/ethnicity as the Siamese. All are cats though (species/race). Humans are much the same- their species, or race as you like to call it in humans, is human, but their breed (or ethnicity, if you prefer) is either European, African, Latino, N.A., etc, yet they are all of the species/race of human. This even applies to dogs (specie/race), who also have many ethnicities/breeds too. Of course all of this has one heading above it, concerning cats, dogs, and humans, which is animals. Of course, calling humans animals is an insult to other animals, because humans are nasty, especially if you ever seen public bathrooms after a stupid human smears feces, blood (womenâs restrooms, except in the case of murder or suicide), other human waste, toilet paper, tampons (womenâs room) etc and yes they do smear all that disgusting crap everywhere. Cats are cleaner in comparison, which would make them, in your way of thinking, superior to humans or the superior race. Cats rule, dogs drools, and humans are down right nasty and disgusting.
Tell that to the chimpanzees. They fight not from racism but from territorial protection.
The only known chimp that freely shares food and sexual favors with strangers is the Bonobo.
Good analogy with cats. Additionally, different animal breeds are inevitable with evolution.
Iâll have to agree to disagree, here.
What none of these mention is anything supporting racist claims, like associating laziness or intelligence to geographic origin of ancestors.
In the tropics, sickle cell anemia is a defense mechanism against malaria.
Sickle cell trait (AS) confers partial protection against lethal Plasmodium falciparum malaria. Multiple mechanisms for this have been proposed, with a recent focus on aberrant cytoadherence of parasite-infected red blood cells (RBCs).Jun 26, 2018
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1804388115#
Eskimos use a fat-rich diet that would kill most people in moderate climate.
The genetic differences allow the Inuit to physically adapt to survive Arctic conditions and live healthily on a traditional diet which is rich in omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids from marine mammal fat.Sep 18, 2015
A city dweller would not last a week in the desert, whereas the nomadic Bedouin spend their entire lives in the desert.
All species have evolved adaptations to their environment, a sign that intelligence is always geared towards survival, but can easily be trained to learn other forms of knowledge.
Skin color is just another evolved adaption to environmental exposure.
None of these differences have anything to do with intelligence per se.
Maybe some are inevitable, but many were the result of humans breeding for traits they wanted as though cats were slaves, not nature. These traits, such as the smashed in face, are not good for the cats and lead to inherited health issues, such as respiratory issues in smashed face Persians.
Thatâs OK up to a point. However, it becomes a problem when those who disagree spew racist ideology and donât realize thatâs what they are doing, due to their brainwashing.
Quite true. In that case, it probably doesnât turn into a health issue like it does outside of the tropics.
Again true. There are traits, which develop in certain parts of the world to help us survive. These traits could happen in white people if they lived there many generations. However, it would take many generations, not just 4 or 5 centuries of living there (ie those with African ancestry have lived in the states for centuries and not change that much from their ancestors) for these changes to happen.
True, but it doesnât make the city dweller inferior.
Again, it takes centuries
Prime example of centuries. Black people in the States or the U.K., who have ancestors brought from Africa to be slaves, in the 17th Century, are still fairly dark today, with the exception of those who have white mixed in their genes. Those who have white mixed in can be as white as a white person or as dark as a Black person. So these changes take longer than 5 or 6 centuries, but this does not make them inferior.
In my memory, one hypothesis is that, a very long time ago, every human being was black skinned. âWhiteâ and âYellowâ skins would be relatively recent mutations.
Yes, and while may sound like a long time, for humans it is just 6 or 7 generations, whereas fruitflies can produce 25 generations in 1 year and can exhibit drastic genetic change in just 1 or 2 generations of humans. This is why they are preferred for lab testing.
Moreover, the genes of the fruitfly is some 60% similar to human genes and are affected the same way to testing.
6 or 7 generations is only about two centuries. 5 Centuries would be more like 15 generations. My great grandmother, who I knew for 18 years, was born just before the 20th century in the 19th century (late 1800s). I was born mid 20th century and my sons late 20th century, just before the 21st century, that we are in now. That is 5 generations in one century. My grandson was born in the 21st century. I was talking 5 to 6 centuries (1600s and 1700s) Thus, from the 1600s to 2000, that is 4 centuries, thus 20 generations.
Yes! Very good points.
True enough. I meant evolution makes phenotype diversity inevitable.
Maybe, but then again, even humans have inbreeding issues too. When you have generations of cousins (there have been siblings too) you get issues like deafness, blindness, or even other issues, like mental delays or illnesses and these things have happened in history.