>Race? It is a feeling, not a reality. Ninety-five per cent, at least. Nothing will ever make me believe that biologically pure races can be shown to exist today.… National pride has no need of the delirium of race. -abraham Lincoln
Kek. How cucked can one man be?
Other urls found in this thread:
livinganthropologically.com
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
onlinelibrary.wiley.com
americananthro.org
en.wikipedia.org
onlinelibrary.wiley.com
twitter.com
Great post
I can really feel your love for history and the humanities coming out through this thread.
Nice bait
Ask a forensic anthropologist if race and gender is a social construct. They can tell the race and gender of a skeleton
>1/3 of Italian Jews are members of the Italian Fascist Party
>Italian Jews are so loyal to Italy that even Corneliu fucking Codreanu said they didn't need to be attacked
>Hitler forces Mussolini to start deporting them anyway
national socialism was a mistake
small brain: not being nationalistic
medium brain: civic nationalism
big brain: ethnonationalism
ascended brain: claiming to be civic nationalist but hating minorities anway
Let's ask them
livinganthropologically.com
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
onlinelibrary.wiley.com
tl;dr
Forensic anthropologists do not determine race from bones.
What actually happens is forensic anthropologists match bones probabilistic frequencies against known existing assortments. Those assortments can be anything socially relevant. Changing the context of bone discovery could lead to different predictive classification–of the same bones:
[...]
Using the Iowa priors, the highest posterior probability is for “American White” at 0.6976. The identification of “Easter Islander,” which had the highest posterior when we used an uninformative prior, now has a relatively low posterior probability (0.0449). In contrast, using the Hawaii priors the posterior probability that “Mr. Johnson” was an “Easter Islander” is 0.9068, whereas the posterior probability that he was an “American White” was 0.0188. Using the Gary, Indiana prior the highest posterior probability (0.5342) was for “American Black” with “American White” having the second highest posterior probability (0.2728). (Konigsberg et al. 2009:82)
[...]
Rather incredibly, the authors conclude that “forensic anthropologists are not particularly adept at identifying races when they must deal with a very heterogeneous population at large, and this is the one setting in which a definitive racial identification would be useful” (Konigsberg et al. 2009:86). Guessing Mr. Johnson’s bones, when found in Iowa, were “probably white” is a guess anyone could make based on the Iowa census.
He also goes on to point out another example where literally any population cohort, including the same geographic population and their ancestors from a generation or two ago, can be differentiated in the way and so on.
But let's ask anthropologists even more directly:
americananthro.org
The following statement was adopted by the Executive Board of the American Anthropological Association on May 17, 1998, acting on a draft prepared by a committee of representative American anthropologists [...]
Historical research has shown that the idea of "race" has always carried more meanings than mere physical differences; indeed, physical variations in the human species have no meaning except the social ones that humans put on them. Today scholars in many fields argue that "race" as it is understood in the United States of America was a social mechanism invented during the 18th century to refer to those populations brought together in colonial America[...]
"Race" thus evolved as a worldview, a body of prejudgments that distorts our ideas about human differences and group behavior. Racial beliefs constitute myths about the diversity in the human species and about the abilities and behavior of people homogenized into "racial" categories. The myths fused behavior and physical features together in the public mind, impeding our comprehension of both biological variations and cultural behavior, implying that both are genetically determined. Racial myths bear no relationship to the reality of human capabilities or behavior. Scientists today find that reliance on such folk beliefs about human differences in research has led to countless errors.
>in b4 muh cultural marxist jewish academics
you're the one who asked for their opinion
>We do not determine race from bones
>Except when we do.
Yeah ok.
>missing the point this hard
A forensic anthropologist can look at a skeleton and say "yes that is a skeleton of a black female". Forensic anthropologists who work for the police do it all the time when they identify a body.
...
Nigger this article just explained to you how forensic anthropologists work.
Nah you just posted them saying they can in fact identify race from bones. But then they go on to use a bunch of weasel words to say that even though they can do that race isn't "real" or some shit.
See this
I think Hitler would have gone the Mussolini way if Germany didn't have such a strong anti-Jewish sentiment at the time.
There's a photograph of him at Kurt Eisner's funeral with a red armband. He clearly wasn't set on his ideology at the time and idolized individuals who were Jewish and Socialist.
>the conclusion can be reached that the individual on the left is of African American descent
Thank you for obliviously posting this picture, because it ironically illustrates what the article was talking about.
>the successful assignment of race to a skeletal specimen is not a vindication of the race concept, but rather a prediction that an individual, while alive was assigned to a particular socially constructed ‘racial’ category
>In ascribing a race name to a set of skeletonized remains, the anthropologist is actually translating information about biological traits to a culturally constructed labeling system that was likely to have been applied to a missing person
>forensic anthropologists match bones probabilistic frequencies against known existing assortments. Those assortments can be anything socially relevant. Changing the context of bone discovery could lead to different predictive classification–of the same bones
How do you conclude the individual on the left is "African American"?
By assuming the two probable populations to pick from are African Americans and American whites.
As I said weasel words.
They know the race by looking at the skeleton, but are trying to dodge around the fact they can tell.
Dude must have had a tumor on his brain at that time.
How can you tell the individual is of "African American" descent rather than all the other populations classified as "Negroid" by past anthropologists based on phenotypical similarities, which often turn out to be unrelated to each other?
One doesn't excludes the other, ethnicity even apparent ethnicity gives you a very decent sense of belonging.
>which often turn out to be unrelated to each other?
???
>How can you tell the individual is of "African American" descent
Because we have these other bones from confirmed African Americans and we notice that the bones have similar traits.
>One doesn't exclude the other
If your concept of race doesn't rely on biological descent you might want to use another word to avoid the confusion.
I still find it perhaps a bit cavalier to classify people as African American when you don't even know their nationality?
That's my line. What are you confused about?
I wasn't asking you to repeat what the article is saying:
What specific populations are you referring to?
We all know that a lot of soft (((Science))) is just who can be the most politically correct these days.
>>Race? It is a feeling, not a reality. Ninety-five per cent, at least. Nothing will ever make me believe that biologically pure races can be shown to exist today.… National pride has no need of the delirium of race
WTF I am anti-Zionist now
kek
Take your pick:
en.wikipedia.org
Neither the "Negroid" populations outside of Africa nor many of the "Negroid" populations within Africa are closely related to African Americans, yet they share many physical features.
>fascism is raci-
African-Americans are on average 30% white, you can tell the difference between Caucasian, African-American and full blown African just by skull shape, too.
Actually they are closely related to African Americans.
The Bantu expansionists replaced most of the ancient African genetic types.
While there is some difference between Bantu and their Niger-Congo cousins further in West Africa like Senegal that's irrelevant since African Americans are descended from both.
Negroid race essentially means Niger-Congo.
>implying African Americans are the only mulattoes in existence
That's before I actually call your bluff and ask you what features lead you to conclude that the individual is African American instead of a "full blown African" (which I assume means Congoid), let alone one of the many African groups that are mixed with "Caucasoid" people, both whites and semites. Which is basically half of Africans.
Redefining the term Negroid doesn't change the fact that unrelated populations share physical features of African Americans, you're just changing the way you label those other populations.
You're also glossing over the fact that eg Coon's distinction of Negroid, Capoid and Australoid is anything but universal, especially in the specific way he partitioned.
Finally you're dodging the question of how the individual was identified as specifically African American again.
>how the individual was identified as specifically African American again.
Explains in the image 2bh
desu I don't think I have seen racists BTFO so carefully with science.
nice job m8
>unironically citing infographs as proof
bait/10
>unrelated populations share physical features of African American
To some degree but the Negroid type is in full distinct.
Mozambicans, Tanzanians etc are closely related to African-Americans despite not being West Central Africans.
>Mozambicans, Tanzanians etc are closely related to African-Americans despite not being West Central Africans
It might be interesting to note, then, that Coon classifies them as Capoid while others declare most of the Tanzanian coast to be Caucasoid (due to Middle Eastern admixture mostly)
You can tell race and ethnicity by fucking DNA you idiots.
"DNA studies do not indicate that separate classifiable subspecies (races) exist within modern humans. While different genes for physical traits such as skin and hair color can be identified between individuals, no consistent patterns of genes across the human genome exist to distinguish one race from another. There also is no genetic basis for divisions of human ethnicity" - Human Genome Project
"For centuries, scholars have sought to comprehend patterns in nature by classifying living things. The only living species in the human family, Homo sapiens, has become a highly diversified global array of populations. The geographic pattern of genetic variation within this array is complex, and presents no major discontinuity. Humanity cannot be classified into discrete geographic categories with absolute boundaries. Furthermore, the complexities of human history make it difficult to determine the position of certain groups in classifications. Multiplying subcategories cannot correct the inadequacies of these classifications" - American Association of Physical Anthropologists
"With the vast expansion of scientific knowledge in this century, however, it has become clear that human populations are not unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups. Evidence from the analysis of genetics (e.g., DNA) indicates that most physical variation, about 94%, lies within so-called racial groups. Conventional geographic "racial" groupings differ from one another only in about 6% of their genes. This means that there is greater variation within "racial" groups than between them. In neighboring populations there is much overlapping of genes and their phenotypic (physical) expressions. Throughout history whenever different groups have come into contact, they have interbred. The continued sharing of genetic materials has maintained all of humankind as a single species" - American Anthropological Association
I've done a test that literally tells me what country my DNA makeup is made up from.
According to a 2012 survey of 3286 members of American Anthropological Association (onlinelibrary.wiley.com
Why do racialists disagree with the scientific consensus on race?
Fantastic argument
>I wasn't asking you to repeat what the article is saying
>answer my question
>NOOOO not this answer
Get fucked desu. Stop your mental gymnastics before you pop some bone.
>While different genes for physical traits such as skin and hair color can be identified between individuals
De-weaponizes your whole argument right there. Obviously there are traits which can be attributed to a race which can also be found in the DNA.
Why does everyone walk such huge circles around the simple word "race"? It is a mere classification based on common traits within some localized population which developed over many years. Of course in todays globalized society everyone is mixed to hell and back and it will progress further with time, but it does not mean that you can not trace certain traits of someone to an initial race which was classified long ago.
Humanists really should stay out of biology desu.
>anthropology
>science
Well that's basically conceding racialism is pseudoscience by association, being a subset of anthropology.
Do you believe people who dismiss the concept of race are literally blind or are you genuinely incapable of understanding their argument?
>Wow individuals have specific physical traits and these traits get attributed to "races", you just blew my mind
Because soft science is dominated by politics.
The decline of the concept of race was caused not by "political correctness", but by the rise of the concept of cline. The reason why most anthropologists consider race to be a useless category is not political.
To bad nothing has been accomplished since these 'people' are completely incapable of learning.