Human Races

how do you have the time to post on every thread? are you a NEET?

You didnt get the memo about Russian based viral marketing firms?

I just made an observation about Amerindian superiority. How is this wrong?

No, because races are taxonomic categories, not genetic clusters.

Is a certain degree of racism justified?

Only if it manages to BTFO eurangutans back to eurangutanland.

What have they achieved that's so superior to Europe?

Genetic clusters do occur
Also your comment about the australoid is not at odds with what I said

Simple.
Europeans settle on europe: 40000BC
Amerindians reached Canada: 25000BC; then after the deglaciation (10000 years later) populated the rest of the continent in 15000BC

European crops date from 10000BC.
Amerindian crops date from 6000BC.

Europeans getting the bronze from other culture in 3200BC.
Amerindians reached the bronze age in 500BC approximately.

Also as a great factor:
Horse domesticated in 3000BC approximately.

Knowing that the rests of all amerindian populations of 14000BC to 10000BC were pretty much paleolithical-tier and all lived as nomads, practiced some artistic manifestations as european paleo-populations. It's safe to assume they started again in the paleolithic and had to morph the environment of woods, jungles and coasts to their convenience, the same the europeans did with their environment for thousands of years before the Neolithic.

Then let's compare:
Europeans lurking around as nomads: 30000 years.
Amerindians lurking around as nomads: 9000 years.

Europeans reaching the bronze age from other cultures after the Neolithic stage: 6800 years.
Amerindians reaching the bronze age by themselves without the influence of a culture thousands of years ahead of development: 5500 years.

Let's check also how many years have humans modifyed the horse population and environment: 37000 years.
Let's check how many years have amerindians affected the camelids of South-America, when the spaniards came: 16500 years. They had less than half the time, yet they already domesticated diverse species for food and whool. Llamas can carry up to 50 Kg.

And I didn't mention the disadvantages such as continental isolation (north-south and east-west), Niño fenomena that destroys coastal villages, less cultures to trade with, and no naval technology, iron, horses, wheel, and writting from north-african nor anatolian cultures.

So, it's safe to affirm. Incas were superior to europeans. Their higher development rate was excellent compare to europeans.

Nothing to do with taxonomy (races).

Yes genetic clusters occur but they do not align with those old categories (negroid, caucosoid, mongoloid, etc...)

>thankfully science has proven beyond all reasonable doubt that the main groupings are correct
I never understood what the debate here was about
I mean, doesn't the fact that you can tell these groups of humans apart by sight show that races are real? It's not like anybody contests that physical appearance is heritable
Let's say those physical-appearance traits didn't correlate with anything "deeper" biologically speaking
They would still correlate with certain genetic profiles--the genes for those appearances, if nothing else
Even if race is only "skin deep" that would still mean races are real
How can you deny the existence of race without denying the evidence of your own eyes?

If human races don't exist, what do we call the different kinds of humans then? There's clear differences between people from different parts of the globe and how they've evolved. For instance adoption studies show that children adopted from Korea as babies and raised in the West still have the IQ advantage that Koreans have.

sauce?

>iq inheritance
Irrelevant.
Try again.

Stealing this as pasta

Explain why it's irrelevant

This is a meme but damn

It is very sad that Andean cultures were not able to properly develop

Racial taxonomy doesn't fit with the gradual genetic diversity of humanity.

sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0191886989902468

>consensus
>meme
Hmm?

I'm not saying the established races are correct, I'm asking what you'd call the different sorts of humans around the globe that have clearly evolved in different directions

Populations

The evolution isn't concrete as it has been affected by a century-measured change, k.years, etc... Also the phenotype and performance of such diverse people isn't well defined as all of them live on diverse cultures, raisings, social treatments, and environments.

Acknowledging race is okay.
Saying 'my race has a right to exist' is okay
Saying your race.
Having an in-group preference is okay.
Saying everyone of any race that isn't yours is evil and should be exterminated is not okay.

What about claiming that a land belongs to x race?

>Saying your race
Meant to remove this but didn't, oh well.

Difficult because someone could always come along and say 'well actually this race existed here before yours so you have no right to this land' and the argument would go on forever. At the end of the day, the land would belong to whichever group is most populace there, and there is nothing wrong with racial groups trying to either become the dominant force or maintain their status as a dominant force in a land.

I don't think it's completely unjustifiable as having more than one raise could arguably lead to conflicts even if there is no oppression (people tend to prefer their own at the bottom even if they aren't actually racists), but I wouldn't really support it.

>nothing wrong
>against racial groups
According to your definitions, it is wrong. As it limites and forbids the population of the other racial groups.

The ideal sceneario would be such as the one which doesn't want to exist anymore, gets assimilated.

>strawman lol

It seems like it's a tribal instinct of preference over different people.

>i wouldn't support it
Hmm... (((interesting))).

>It seems like it's a tribal instinct of preference over different people.
Just look at Africa, one of the biggest problems there is the massive ethnic tensions all around

See

>Europeans reach major milestones first
>this proves Amerindian superiority

>Amerindians existed before 25000BC
?

>Is there such a thing as race
Yes.
>Meme of race and heritage not existing until the colonial age
No.

Simple as that, the concept of heritage and kinship predates the colonial area by thousands of years. People who deny race do so out of ideology rather than dialectic in most cases.

For instance
>The only real racial variance between people is skin color and sickle cell
False
>Race is only skin color and has nothing to do with genotype
False
>Biological determinism and neurobiological mechanisms that influence of human behavior do not occur on an ethnic or racial basis
False
>There is a total academic consensus on the non-existence of race
False

How can race be real if our eyes aren't real?

>Europeans settle on europe: 40000BC

Nay. Even Sunghir man who lived in 32k BC wasn't the ancestor of modern Europeans.

>How can you deny the existence of race without denying the evidence of your own eyes?
This is retard tier. Race will always be a social construct. You might consider someone white, others might not. What constitutes 'whiteness' or 'blackness' will always differ.
Eg, Neymar is white in Brazil but black in America, or arabs are black in Europe but white in America

But you Can't. There are the negritos throughout South East Asia, that appear to be "negroids" but are genetically Asian

So...this is what Japanese people looked like 10000 years ago

Also these poo-in-loo Indian girls, which of course you can tell are Indian by looking at them

Indians actually assault people for looking North_Eastern aka Asian if they venture outside their home provinces.

they cluster more with australoids and papuans.

Indians look Asian you nitwit. They are literally from Asia.

>phenotypes arent defined by genetics

Irrational leftist retard pls

>"Europe is thought to have been colonized by northwest-bound migrants from Central Asia and the Middle East, as a result of cultural adaption to big game hunting of sub-glacial steppe fauna.[55] When the first anatomically modern humans entered Europe, Neanderthals were already settled there. Debate exists whether modern human populations interbred with Neanderthal populations, most of the evidence suggesting that it happened to a small degree rather than complete absorption. Populations of modern humans and Neanderthal overlapped in various regions such as in Iberian peninsula and in the Middle East. Interbreeding may have contributed Neanderthal genes to palaeolithic and ultimately modern Eurasians and Oceanians."

>"An important difference between Europe and other parts of the inhabited world was the northern latitude. Archaeological evidence suggests humans, whether Neanderthal or Cro-Magnon, reached sites in Arctic Russia by 40,000 years ago.[56]"

Cool story but modern day Europeans came to Europe at some point after Sungir man lived.

That's not exactly flattering for Europeans considering the high level of art that the Aurignacians had but it's just the way it is.

And modern Amerindians didn't come from the people from Blue Caves in 25000BC.

The oldest human remnant is from 14000BC more or less, and it even shows what I stated over there

Depends on which group You are talking about. There are several in SEA labeled "negrito" based on how they look, but are genetically distinct. Some are more closely related to their surrounding Asian population.

Yes. Races are defined by skull shape, which is highly genetical.

/thread

That's pretty pathetic actually, so they got a head start in terms of agriculture but barely entered the bronze age at the same time Europeans had made it far past the iron age? I mean at least three Europeans had to deal with winter in the North and coastal raids along Rocky shore lines in the mediterranean , what is the excuse for the Amerindian settlers?

>Depends on how miscegenated they are
True

>head start agriculture
>6000BC first Amerindian crops
>10000BC first european crops
Hmm...
>there are no seasons in America
>comparing the climate stabilization of seas to the landmass of mountains of America where the pacific ocean coast got punished constantly by the Niño
Hmm?

Oh yes I'm sure the weather where it gets slightly more dry or wet is the reason you couldn't even invent swords or mass produce bronze weaponry.

I mean your oc basically gives credit to the Europeans for achieving every milestone earlier than the Amerindians when they had to deal with winter, as in, everything freezes and it's easy to starve/freeze to death?

This is also you pretending that amerindians ever left their nomadic lifestyles en masse as well, when the majority of them lived as nomadic Hunter gatherers with a few major tribes producing crops in the background, hell there are still tribes in the Amazon today who are paleo-lithic in terms of technology. It wasn't until you were colonized that civilization even began in the Americas , if you think about it.

>gives credit
Actually Amerindians achieved such things as the neolithic revolution and the bronze age stage in less time. Even though Amerindians had more disadvantages.
>left nomadic lifestyles
All europeans didn't left their nomadic lifestyles too until the classic era. Even when the neolithic revolution happened in 4500BC, thousands of years after developing european crops, there were several hunter-gatherers with a semi-nomadic life in europe.

The majority of Amerindian populations lived by agrarian societies. Literally all archaeological settlements before the arrival of the epidemics show big settlements all over north-America from agrarian societies. The people who lived like semi-nomads were the jungle brazilians, south-patagonians, and some northAmerican tribes, which population numbers were insignificant before the epidemics.

>civilization began
Incas already civilized the left hunter gatherers from Chile and Colombia. The other ones already had civilizations on their own. The north american agrarian societies had trade networks, with art and hierarchical social structures, in other words, civilization.

Amerindian superiority is unrefuted. Try again.

all thse are subhuman

...

Fuck yes

Homo sapiens sapiens is the only surviving human race.
We're dealing with breeds here.

Division based on phenotypes.

>doesn't the fact that you can tell these groups of humans apart by sight show that races are real?
>>>/Genetics book/

kek they never even had a bronze age

arr rook same

>Is there such a thing as human races?
That's a bit like asking if there is such a thing as breeds of dog.

There are observably different phenotypes of humans that are homogeneous within certain geographic areas and reliably breed true to the appearance of their parents.

If that isn't race, what is?

Yes and no

Black Africans for instance considered everything north of the Sahara "white"

Arabs recognized "whites", themselves, "blacks", "hindoos", and East Asians.

Europeans saw "Germans", "Slavs", Mediterraneans, and the British

>reliably breed true to the appearance of their parents

People can vary a lot in appearances user especially for ones with long contact with other groups.

classify this

>Black Africans for instance considered everything north of the Sahara "white"

They never had the concept of white and black until the colonial period user.

>tfw I am actually Mediterranean
cool

looks middle eastern af

...

Not entirely

The Songhai empire even had a "department of white affairs" white referring to the Berbers & Arabs

The Old Nupe kingdom had a policy of killing whites on sight due to a diplomatic nightmare committed by Arabs

...

...

asshole what the fuck are you trying to say?

...

...

...

...

That dynamic of white and black is different form the one during the colonial period.

>nordic (englishman)

Bigger question: how would we reconstruct extinct races? If we found and Abo skull after their demise and had no records of them, would they be men or apes in our eyes?

both disgusting, but the left has potential for ugly-cute

Both of them look like trannies.

Considering we even consider Neanderthals to be human, i'd say we'd consider Abos human.

No, because peoples who are classified in one group is more closer genetically to a people outside that group.

Races are arbitrary thus socially construct
Phenotype isn't 100% of our DNA
Institutions have been rejecting this.
We weren't bred to make one specific phenotypic trait
We weren't isolated long enough to make a new genetic group

what if one race has an absurd amount of kids and repopulates like rats, than uses socialism to enter another aces land and out populate them, and when these 2 races mix the offspring is always more genetically similar to the alien race?

is it ok to believe that the alien race should be contained and kept at a reasonable re population rate in order to prevent them from overpopulating your race and race mixing until your race is extinct? is it ok to hate them then?

what about when one race has a substantially lower intelligence (IQ) and want to live in a more successful races land while contributing nothing and consuming more. Than said race preys upon the women of a more successful race as well? is it ok to say no more then?

>when these 2 races mix the offspring is always more genetically similar to the alien race
Holy shit /pol/acks are more retarded than I thought