Reminder that there's no such thing as a unitary "black race"

That bothers me too! It's a weird omission. I expect they'd be somewhere between Romanian and Palestinian.

Theyr'e literally the most genetically different populations in the world, because they've been living apart the longest. They look similar simply because Africa and Australia have similar climates.

>/pol/tard
Please...

No it isn't.

Differences in population exist, but they rarely break down based on our cultural conceptions of race or evident in appearance.

The chart shows four different black population groups and a single European-West Asian-Indian group. A Tamil person clearly is not white, yet they're more similar to an Englishman than a Nigerian is to a Sudanese.

Most /pol/cucks truly believe in black uniform homogeneity in both culture and genetics. They can't comprehend that black-skinned populations could be distinct from each other.

I mean I see myself as black, my y haplo is A lol
Beta Israeli.

>A Tamil person clearly is not white, yet they're more similar to an Englishman than a Nigerian is to a Sudanese.
Also, H. sapiens is one of the least genetically diverse species on the planet. There is essentially no genetic differences that exist between different populations. Any two given fruit flies will be much more different genetically than the blackest Bantu and the palest Scandinavian.

From the other pics I've seen, S.Italian would be more to the "south" than Sardinians but shifted much more towards the East, so closer to the Near Eastern cluster, central Italians would be above south italians roughly at the same height as Sardinians and Northen italians above them and below Spaniards, Greeks have very heterogenous too so i wouldn't know but they wouldn't be too far from Southern Italians but shifted more to the east and slightly above them

I always see race as more about attribution and identity than anything biological.

I'm white because I look white and consider myself white, but my grandma is an Iraqi Christian. She's pale and also looks white, but has no cultural or genetic connection to Europe.

Meanwhile my girlfriend is half Mexican and half Sephardi Jewish. She's also very pale (people usually peg her for Italian) and has light brown hair but both sides of her family could be considered nonwhite.

I really wonder how /pol/acks deal with this.

Greeks are weird because they have a lot in common with Turks and Arabs but also massive Eastern European admixture due to the Slavo-Turkic migration of late antiquity.

>but also massive Eastern European admixture due to the Slavo-Turkic migration of late antiquity.

Not really, Slavs didn't influence the Southern Balkans much genetically, and I don't see how Greece can have anything in common with "Arabs", since Arabs never settled there.

Turks did settle there though and they might have influenced modern greek genetics to some degree.

Our culture is the result of the Great Aqualithic that created all African societies from Morocco to South Africa, I am black.

While many still call themselves Q'ey meaning Red I and most young Beta Israeli coming to discover our blackness in the West/Israel find it stupid. We are seen as black and share common struggles and histories.

>pic
Sub species are generally determined by visible phenotypes. Genetic distance is irrelevant.

>Race is a dumb idea to begin with, it's happily heading back to the scrap heap of history, where it belongs.
That's what you think you cis-gendered privileged fucking white male who perpetuates rape-culture.

It's more in the neighborhood of 67% of "black" people, and even then the genetic distance between a Nilotic and a Yoruban is still greater than that of the distance between a Pole and Bedouin.

>Genetic distance is irrelevant
Which should give you a good clue on how biologically relevant the whole classification is to begin with.

It's also silly to base anything on raw genetic distance. One gene in the right place can change everything. ie many genes determine a thing like hair colour but the massive difference between the genders is determined by a single gene.

>the massive difference between the genders is determined by a single gene
All the more reason to not create classifications based on differences in morphology if you don't have the genetic data of the root of said differences to back up the relevance and continued existence of said classifications.

Why is the genetic root even relevant? In the end, adaptions succeed because of the morphological different it creates, not because of the genetic distance it creates between the original specimen.

The genetic root is relevant, because two people looking similar in certain ways is not the same as them actually being truly similar biologically speaking, and at the end of the day biology is what we're talking about. Abos, Africans, and even some Indians have very similar skin tone. If you were to make skin color one of the core phenotypical differences on your subspecies spectrum, then you would end up grouping these all 3 of these populations as similar even though their genes and the migratory history of the populations does not reflect that at all. There's more than one way for genes to act to achieve a similar morphological result. Going solely based on phenotype is like throwing darts. Whatever criteria you come up with will have no more significance than somebody else's arbitrary criteria. It's why one person can consider Arabs to be part of the "white" race while another can just consider them "sand niggers." When you base the classification on phenotypical differences, you're opening up the classification to massive amounts of subjectivity that isn't based in any actual science. It's why subspecies is the most vaguely defined taxonomic rank, and why some professionals argue that it shouldn't even exist at all.

The gene for blonde papuans is different from Euro blondness.

I think he means in an American context

What does that mean? There's not Black Americans on that chart so what does "American context" refer to. Even if there were Black Americans there though, they'd be all over the place due to their varying degree of European ancestry and the varying degree of where their ancestors were taken from.

You're right that going off skin colour alone would be silly. But measuring a large sum of physical attributes would be a good way to go in my opinion. Simply saying that a species is categorised by x amount of genetic distance is silly
Yes, and if you've ever met a blonde paupuan or abo with blonde hair, you'd see that it appears different to European hair.

Black means every brown skinned human south of the Sahara, did you also know there is no such thing as happiness its also a social construct ook how smart I am hurr durr eat shit and die OP..

>all caucasoids are in the same cluster, all mongoloids are in the same cluster, all negroids are in the same cluster, all native americans are in the same cluster, all australoids are in the same cluster, all capoids are in the same cluster.
>intermediate populations such as caucasoid/mongoloid uygurs or caucasoid/negroid ethiopians lie exactly halfway between the caucasoid and mongoloid clusters, and the caucasoid and negroid clusters respectively.

Wow this really caused by neurotransmitters to fire up. My synapses are burning.

There is a black race, it's the e/a 2/3 haplogroups. It's just that African Americans are not african.

> I don't see how Greece can have anything in common with "Arabs", since Arabs never settled there.

greeks have a lot of early european farmer blood brought from the near east in the neolithic. all europeans have some neolithic admixture but greeks have a lot. it would be closer to turks then arabs though seeing as it came through anatolia.

>greeks have a lot of early european farmer blood brought from the near east in the neolithic

Don't ever speak again about subjects you know nothing about, European neolithic farmers descended from a line of farmers from Anatolia, not from the Mesopotamian or Levantine ones which were genetically very different from them, the Anatolian ones had more Neanderthal admixture and were significantlly mixed with European hunter gatherers which came to Anatolia from the Balkans.

what about the presence of haplogroup J1 in greece and the balkans. that would have likely come from the arabian peninsula

Not true.

It's got nothing to do with historical Arab migrations

J1 is too broad and can include kike genes. This is a real map of Arab blood in Europe represented by J1-P58 which is a yHg most closely associated with Gulf Arabs as it reaches over 70% there.

As you can see the countries raped by Arabs are Italy, Greece, Spain, Portugal, Bulgaria and Southern France. Switzerland I'm not to sure about but it's presence in Hungary, Romania, Moldova, Ukraine, Croatia is likely due to Ottomans settling Arabs in those areas as frontiersmen.

Except they don't, you're such a bitch.

Don't look now but you're triggered.

could J1-P58 have spread in the neolithic?

How does that disprove his point?

No, because western Balkan countries lack it like Albania and Macedonia which is near to the origin point of the Neolithic revolution in Thessaly.

*origin of the Neolithic revolution in Europe

Race is bullshit.

One drop rule. You are not white.

He's implying that there is more genetic variation among humans than you claim, though the graph doesent really prove that.

If you want an actual example, while humans are rougly 20,000 years old the variation between different types of bear arose in even less time, with enough precedence to characterize behavioral patters in the different subspecies.

basically pic related

youtube.com/watch?v=ues8F393yxg

This is retarded because it excludes Papuan, Australian, and most likely Khoisan populations

Most humans descended fomra genetic bottleneck. You know how most cheetahs left in the wild are extremely close to each other genetically?

Certain Blacks groups actually do pretty well in the UK though so IQ isn't really restricted by race because there are a notable demographic of black Nigerian and Ghanaian who excel extremely well in a school setting.

AFAIK - I haven't looked at the specific data very recently - but African immigrants succeeding in the UK and the US don't seem to follow any particular demographic patterns in terms of racial subgroups

In fact I've seen some very compelling arguments that strongly suggest that the success of African immigrants kids should be taken as evidence that the problem with non-immigrants of African descent actually is primarily cultural

Cultural, social, economic, educational etc.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1196372/

Individuals' claims about their race almost universally corresponded with being placed into the same genetic cluster as others who in the same study who identified as the same race.

>my y haplo is A
It means?

>primarily cultural
This is what people have been saying for decades, bruh. But /pol/tards wanna stick to some "muh biologies" explanation

Is that the supposedly proto-Indo-European admixture?

All it did was show that DNA is useful

"The stats" on african migrant success are a silly thing to look at when making genetic claims. Almost all african migrants are coming on H1B or student visas. Of course these groups will graduate college and make more money than the general pop. That's not to say culture doesn't play a role, it undoubtedly does, but the role which culture plays does not erase factors that clearly go above and beyond controlling for whatever cultural variables may exist. Or do you mean to claim that culture is the reason why African Americans with families that make more than $200,000 a year on mean score about the same as Whites whose families make less than $20,000

*which culture plays does not erase factors which have been shown to have a relationship with performance even when clearly going above and beyond controlling for whatever cultural variables may exist

papuans would likely cluster closer to polynesians and khoisan would fall into the african cluster

In many African families education is drilled into kids and ecouraged.

One father threatened to pull his kids out of sports if they got less then A's

African immigrants come from the right of the african bell curve.

If african immigrants represented the average african, you'd expect africa to be in a better state...

They wallow in denialism.

Polynesians are Eurasians

so are negritos

Not all of them. Many come from varying backgrounds and different ethnicity and class.

Saying every African immigrant is top tier is just as stupid as saying every Indian is the top tier of their nation when they come abroad to the U.S for example.

what is the PX1 and PC2

what do they stand for

i checked out the first gene in OMIM, turns out it's bs and so is the mcph1

i checked 2, both BS

dont really feel doing more

which genes result in higher IQ

IQ genes haven't been discovered

a reminder that asians have a signifcant advantages on whites, 7 is pretty significant on average especially since IQ isn't linear

remember, careful, because you might just blow up the core of your beliefs