So where did the idea of whiteness originally come from? I hear that it was a colonial concept...

They actually didn't. And race had a different meaning back then.

>The nations inhabiting the cold places and those of Europe are full of spirit but somewhat deficient in intelligence and skill, so that they continue comparatively free, but lacking in political organization and capacity to rule their neighbors. The peoples of Asia on the other hand are intelligent and skillful in temperament, but lack spirit, so that they are in continuous subjection and slavery. But the Greek race participates in both characters, just as it occupies the middle position geographically, for it is both spirited and intelligent; hence it continues to be free and to have very good political institutions, and to be capable of ruling all mankind if it attains constitutional unity.

race isn't mentioned in your greentext

they were the same race then becasue they are the same race now. No matter their past relations. This type of racial confusianism is the worst to ever come out of academia

>the Greek race
This is Aristotle by the way.

Greeks themselves said
>Every barbarian is of different ethnos to us
They considered every barbarian a different ethnos(race)

Basically, it's an "ethnic" grouping for fair-skinned people who have either lost their ethnic group, or needed to group themselves with other Europeans for various political purposes.

A true traditionalist only identifies by linguistic and ethnic group. Fuck all this globalist nonsense.

What if I told you "white" can exist as a social construct with race existing as a reality simultaneously?

>but I want to know if those distinctions were drawn even earlier
Definitly, as it was obvious that blacks are black and whites are white. However it was not a relevant distinction.

One must take in fact that human biodiversity naturally occurs as gradient and hence people would rarely feel the need to distinguish race.

Compared to the native Americans, the Spanish were white. I bet 90% of the tripulation was heavily tanned, after months at sea. If you've ever seen a very tanned Spaniard, they can get pretty dark, some as dark as the natives they encountered I'm sure.

Anyway, later the Anglos took hostage the term and declared everyone but themselves non-white, gradually opening up to Germanics, Slavs, and today depending whom you ask southern Europeans aren't white.

>White
>Race
There's several races considered "white"

dumb leftypol poster

The vast majority of human genetic diversity is on the individual level, human 'races' aren't comparable to dog breeds.

>repeats the fallacy directly mentioned in the centre of the fucking picture
Do you have an IQ in the single digits?

>Phenotypes are genotypes
Stay in school

"differences in genotypes among organisms can result in major phenotype differences" = phenotypes are genotypes?

ah yes, blank slatist intellect

>A pale hispanic is the same race as a dark Germanic
So now I know you're a fuckwit

Non argument.

>White is a race
No sweetie

America

So is that book a mix of copious amounts of we wuzery and my ancestors :)

The whole skin color thing is an American invention.
Even the Nazis iin WWII saw race as a far more complex thing than that.

Scientifically race (as defined by skincolor) simply doesn't exist. Genetics and the history of Mankind are infinitely more complex. However socially it's thing now. Ironically everyone kept saying that we needed a colorless multicultural society but in practice race/skincolor is given far more importance than ever before.

That's a perfectly fine argument. You're wrong, get over it. You're probably some American with 3/16 German, 1/16 Irish, etc. Fuck off, disgusting mutts.

>So where did the idea of whiteness originally come from?
in prehistoric Afro-Eurasia.

Haha when did I say that it's the fault of whites?
It's the fault of liberal governing policies

It's hilarious how anti-racists that deny the existence of race have become the strictest policers of whiteness.

no, it's just a video about white people :^)
youtube.com/watch?v=wmyF-DBIq2I

Yup. They have the same level of misunderstanding as the /pol/tards with regards to "race". To them, its "hurr we're all human there's no differences". The opposite is over-simplification and half-arbitrary groupings just to satisfy autism and political viewpoints.

I guess its hard to understand how ethnic groups work if you're not part of one, lmao.

because they hate white people and want to make it harder for them to band together and stand up for their own interests

Why should "white people" band together at all? Why should an Orthodox Slav give a fuck about a Catholic Spaniard? Why are there any common interests where the only commonality is skin color?

If your answer is "they both are endangered by muslims" or something similar, then yes I agree, perhaps they should band together. But not because they both count as "white", but rather because they both happen to have similar interests at this time.

If a Korean also has similar interests to me, its the same as if some random other European does (controlling for religion and things that matter).

If people think nationalism is a meme, why don't they realize that groupings as dumb as this are a meme too?

Race is not science, sorry. Race is pseudoscience.

It's been mentioned many times ITT. The Chinese (see East Asians today) and Greeks thought the same way.

Modern biology and genomics disagree with you. Social sciences are dragging the academy

>So where did the idea of whiteness originally come from?

Biology.

Sure. Niggers and East Asians are the same.

because white people are being attacked on the basis of their being white. that's their common interest

Right, so the issue is that the people attacking have a retarded understanding of race.

Also, I'm pretty sure said "attack" only exists in some western countries, so assuming you're right about said attack, yes I agree that "whites" in your nation should be defensive. Not in my country, so I have no reason to give a fuck about your problems, and no reason to lump myself with people that don't share my culture.

The issue with this sort of thinking, is that it encourages mixing between groups that are perceived as part of a greater whole. I'm just as adverse to my children marrying Brits as marrying Arabs, thank you.

>genomics
>phenotype "studies" lacking genotype component
Not even a chance.

Race is still not science, user.
>difference between individuals demonstrate race
Yeah, the lactose intolerant race, the high skull race, the squatting race lol

Race is pseudoscience.

People saying race is not science is honestly a completely modern form of scientific denialism. You might as well be an anti-vaccer. I don’t know why I’m bothering because you believe out of emotion, not logic, but you do realise the meme of “more variation between individuals than races” is completely explained by the fact that most of your DNA is total junk that serves no function. Seriously, if this was a real argument against being able to cetagorise things, do you know how many not only subspecies would be invalid distinctions, but also how many SPECIES we could no longer claim are separate?! This is not an argument against sub-speciation.

Moreover, the argument that whiteness not being strictly defineable means it doesn’t exist is pure sophistry. It isn’t exactly defineable. It’s a spectrum, and yes we pick an arbitrary point as the extreme of whiteness and work out from there. It doesn’t mean that there isn’t a discernible difference between one extreme and another. Animal and plant biologists use these exact ways of thinking when dealing with spectra of subspecies of animals and plants all the time. It’s basic biology.

Anti-racialists use so many arguments that would never fly when talking about any animal except the human animal, because being scientifically illiterate is fine as long as you’re on the right side of history.

>3 strawmen
Wrong. It's up to race supporters to demonstrate race is science, which it isn't. Race is pseudoscience.

Nobody can argue with any of the genetics. Or at least, they shouldn't.

>It’s a spectrum, and yes we pick an arbitrary point as the extreme of whiteness and work out from there
Alright, you're free to do this, just as we classify animals. The difference here is, humans organize themselves into societies and groups based on politics, culture, language, and a bunch of other things that animals don't.

What's to say that those things aren't the more important factors when determining groups of humans? Ethnic groups are going to be fairly well-clustered in DNA-space anyways, so why not use those instead of "race"?

Plus, when we classify animals, we do it to study them scientifically. Yes, we should feel free to do this with humans. It presumably helps with Anthropology, and shouldn't be seen as an issue.

It becomes an issue when these arbitrary divisions become someone's identity or overrule more important divisions of culture and traditional ethnicity.

Race exists because there are traits suited for different environments that exist in huge proportion in some groups and don’t in others. It’s proven. Open your eyes.

>three strawmen
It’s like you counted the paragraphs and didn’t read them. The third paragraph isn’t itself an argument, it’s a conclusion, and the first two were things I’ve read in this thread.

I don’t disagree with this. I would say though that genetic difference is a logical thing for an in-group to care about because these things can be big behavioural predictors, and also aesthetics can be an important way people pick up on who is and isn’t in their in group. Not every society needs to focus on these things and some societies can surely function without caring about these things, but it’s the right of a group to decide to pay attention to these things and I think they can sometimes be important.

Not to nitpick by the way, but there are actually birds that speciate by their behaviour ie. culture/language, interestingly.

And when you say:
>It becomes an issue when these arbitrary divisions become someone's identity
I know I used the word arbitrary originally, but I should really have said semi-arbitrary. There are reasonings for why extremes and lines get put where they get put, but the more detailed things get they can sometimes fall into partially socially-derived categories. But they aren’t perfectly arbitrary.

(continued)
I also want to note that I generally shy away from the word race because it isn’t well-defined scientifically and it ropes me in with people who make unscientific claims, but for the sake of the context I’m using that word.

>genetic difference is a logical thing for an in-group to care about
Yup. And I come from a place where you can tell which province someone is from by their looks, and what village they are from if you give the surname. I rather enjoy it, having clear aesthetic differences between groups ("guys from that area have hooked noses" etc.). Sure its not always accurate, but it gives an extra sense of community. This is the way humanity was through antiquity really.

>birds that speciate by their behaviour
I was of course generalizing "animals". Didn't know birds did it though.

>But they aren’t perfectly arbitrary.
Agreed, they do have some logic to them (culture, region, etc.). But they should be taken with a grain of salt, and not considered the primary form of identification. In the case of "whiteness" I think its not really that logical at all: only if the only groups you're working with are Europeans and Africans (which is what its good for). If you throw some Tajiks, Greeks, Indians, Georgians and Levantines in there, it becomes really far too complicated.

I want to point out that we really agree on basically everything, except that I think your last few sentences were an extension of this sort of spectrum fallacy. The existence of orange does not make the distinction of yellow and red illogical, even if orange is 99% more common than red and yellow combined. Maybe you could say it doesn’t make it a very useful distinction, which, I mean, kind of. It depends on circumstances.

>tfw lactose intolerant race

>illogical
I used that word incorrectly. I should say, "useless", as you suggest. Yes, I think we agree.

>It depends on circumstances.
As far as I can tell, the only times it's useful is (a) anthropology and studying genetics in general (b) when you have a population which is heavily clustered into a few identifiable clusters, and you want to refer to the clusters in aggregate. Are there other cases I'm missing?

In the case of (b), yeah that might be useful in plenty of places, for ease of referencing. But my frustration is when people extend what might be useful in THEIR part of the world or their society, to the rest of the world, as if it reflects some underlying reality. It's also an issue when people think that these groupings reflect cultural similarities, when often times they don't at all.

White people in the west are systematically discriminated against as whites and vilified as whites. I have certain things in common with a Boer and a Southron being trash talked by Yankees. I think in roughly the same way as a Greek like Plato about reincarnation, which is roughly the same way (araics [as far as I can see]) as a top tier Nord thought about it when they were pagan. I think as a European. My being has been formed by Europe. I have common traits with these people and somewhat of a shared destiny. It’s not the only thing, but it’s an important thing. Across the West, whites are starting to be treated like crap, and it’s done against them as whites.

Ancient Greeks clustered pretty close to Lebs and such so they weren't really all that familiar with people who aren't genetically close to them.
Makes sense they didn't develop any race ideas which don't involve Greek people specifically being superior.

>so they weren't really all that familiar with people who aren't genetically close to them.
That's totally wrong. They held their attitudes well into a period where they knew Scythians, Germanics, Celts, Ethiopians, Indians, etc.

They wrote plenty on how these people look different too. They just didn't see themselves with any kinship to Celts just because they have a closer skin tone than the equally barbaric black africans.

Modern Greeks cluster more closely with modern Europeans, even after centuries of Turkish rule. So unless you’re going to tell me when the Europeans colonised Greece en masse sometime after the classical period, I’m going to need some sauce

Northern Greeks are mixed with Slavs.
Anyway they're still not that far from Lebs although Sicilians are closer, clustering close to Ashkenazi.

>Not in my country, so I have no reason to give a fuck about your problems, and no reason to lump myself with people that don't share my culture.
No such country exists.
All European countries are being targeted for population replacement.

>The issue with this sort of thinking, is that it encourages mixing between groups that are perceived as part of a greater whole. I'm just as adverse to my children marrying Brits as marrying Arabs, thank you.
Bullshit.
Nobody here believes you for a second, you might as well be claiming to be a dinosaur people who genuinely think like that haven't existed for a hundred years. You're just taking a role to discourage cooperation among whites against the groups that seek to destroy us.

Why liberal creationists are so repulsive?

>difference between individuals demonstrate race
Wrong. See.Race definition literally claims that appearance judgements affects the categorizations, implying that phenotype defines genotype. Which is false. That's why "race" has no scientific rigor. Pseudoscience.

I said pretty clearly that you should cooperate if there is a threat. So much is obvious.
> No such country exists
Lol ok
>Bullshit
I'm Orthodox, and find Arab Orthodox people far closer in values to my family than Western European Christians are. Brits are degenerates and muslims are savages, what's so hard to understand that I'd be extremely averse to either?

Phenotype is defined by genotype, what would mean to say I don’t think that? This is absurd, disgusting sophistry of the highest magnitude. I’m a god damn bio major for fuck’s sake. I spend all day learning about genetics and statistics. Do you not realise that the majority of Biology PHDs say that race is real when surveyed?

You don’t need to have the majority of your phenotypes not exist in multiple groups in order to be a defined group. This is never and has never been a definition for subspecies. I really fucking hope I’m being trolled.

Not to mention man, that I never said differences between individuals defined race. The filthy irony that you would accuse me of strawmanning and then spew this shit it is beyond my comprehension. You’re a fucking animal.

This.

>you don't
Except race categorizations claim to classify individuals by ancestry, yet they are influenced by appearance judgements, implying phenotype defines genotype.
This problem won't go away with buzzwords.

Race definition contradicts genetics facts, so race is not science. Race is pseudoscience.

>denying your own text
wut

Funny, considering Italics and Celts were closely related groups. Kind of like the Japs think the Koreans are barbarians.

Quote it now. Quote where I said that individuals demonstrate the race. It's groups. It's statistics. It's averages. It's the inside and the out. There is a spectrum, but there are still defined differences between these groups at the ends of the spectrums.

So you're saying that because there's a lot of debate and subjectivity about where to draw lines, there should be no lines drawn?

So if they considered "snowniggers" as subhuman, why did they venerate blond hair? It's seen from gods to heroes like Alexander.

I think you're confucing them hating on uncivilized people, nothing about their appearance.

>you are saying
Wrong. SeeI'll quote it:
"Race definition literally claims that appearance judgements affects the categorizations, implying that phenotype defines genotype. Which is false. That's why "race" has no scientific rigor. Pseudoscience."
>quote it
"there are traits suited for different environments that exist in huge proportion in some groups and don’t in others"
SeeI'll quote it the answer:
>difference between individuals demonstrate race
Yeah, the lactose intolerant race, the high skull race, the squatting race lol

I think we should be objective about this matter. The people who made europe surpass the other continents aren't "nordics", nor "snowniggers".

Right, and so you see how your answer is ridiculous. Think not just colour of skin, eye colour, nasal shape (which also serve environmentally-correspondent functions), but also surface-to-area ratio, gestation period, UCP1 uncoupling activity. These are things they teach in basic biology classes at major American universities, and they teach that they exist in different proportions in different areas. Your ignorance and poor grammar isn't an excuse to be a neo-Christian moralist who lies to people and obfuscates the truth.

>"there are traits suited for different environments that exist in huge proportion in some groups and don’t in others"
Oh yes, I see where the word "individual" is in there, right there, where I talk about group proportions. Thanks for clearing that up.

It's useless to argue with these brainwashed sjw retards dude. They're worse than creationists.

Thanks, I needed to hear that. I think I'm getting a hemorrhoid, lol.

>you are x
Race still contradicts a scientific fact. Race classifications are influenced by appearance judgements, which implies phenotype defines genotype. This is not a "word" or another buzzword-problem.

>individual
Group=individual1+individual2+...+individual(n)

Race is not science. Race is pseudoscience.
Nice scientific argument.

It's easy to notice the lack of scientific rigor these pseudoscience lovers support. Pathetic.

Honestly, I've officially decided I'm being trolled. Really, I don't know what else this is. I'm so thoroughly reminded of when I was in Middle/High school and used to get into arguments with creationists in youtube comment sections and PMs.

All classifications are based on the concept of monophyly. Be it species, race, order, class whatever.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monophyly

>troll creationist
You've used strawmen, buzzwords in literally every post.

I love how pseudoscience supporters don't address the main topic frankly. It's funny seeing your "irony smug face" type of posts; all of your posts are the same, then you face scientific rigorousness and start crying for help. lol
>taxonomy terms
Yes. And here is race definition:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)
"Race is a concept used in the categorization of humans into groups, called races or racial groups, based on combinations of shared physical traits, ancestry, genetics, and social or cultural traits"

Race is not science, race is pseudoscience.

How do you use bootstrap in a phylogenetic analysis?
What's the difference between a clade an a grade?
What's the difference between tokogeny and phylogeny?

If you can't easily answer these questions, you should not lecture others about systematics.

I'll bite one more time.
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)
Check this out, faggot
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(biology)
And also note that I've been very specific that I prefer the term "subspecies."

>You've used strawmen, buzzwords in literally every post.
lol

>Race still contradicts a scientific fact.
Give me the fact.

SeeLet me quote the answer:
">taxonomy terms
Yes. And here is race definition:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)
"Race is a concept used in the categorization of humans into groups, called races or racial groups, based on combinations of shared physical traits, ancestry, genetics, and social or cultural traits"

Race is not science, race is pseudoscience."

Race is a label, like species, subspecies etc. You are confounding taxonomy with systematics.

>race biology
Check this out, "homophobe".
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)
Race definition denies a scientific fact. That makes race not science. Race is pseudoscience.
See the first part of this post. ^

I'm talking about systematics not taxonomy.
The term race for taxons is indeed not used anymore. The term subspecies is more adequate.

But it does not matter since it is a matter of convention. What matters is the evolutionary relationships between the populations, that is, if we are talking about clades or grades. If a group is monophyletic or polyphyletic etc.

See my first post:And take a minute to think about what your next post will contain.

It's useless. They are worse than a religious cult.

You've reminded me. >give me the fact
Genotype defines phenotype.

Race contradicts this scientific fact implying that phenotype defines genotype. So race is not science. Race is pseudoscience.

if anything that proves further that "race" is only a recent construct. The greeks would've looked favourably on a blond-haired greek, but not a blond-haired gaul or german, because despite having very superficial outward similarities, the differences in culture, society, etc. would've made them a completely different group of people in the greek's eyes

You do know that Japs were made fun of for a long time for being supposed dwarf island barbarians right? Chinks were mega arrogant but even they respected other sedentary civilisations like Korea or Vietnam. Japan was practically unknown to them with the exception of making good blades.

>implying that phenotype defines genotype
It doesn't. It absolutely doesn't. It relies on both because they're both interconnected. It observes genotype by proxy of phenotype, as is commonplace in all science, and then it's proven that these phenotypes have a genetic correlation in a laboratory through example. A lot of the human genome is mapped. The idea that looking at phenotypes which are provenly caused by genes is not sufficient to prove sub-speciation is a standard held in zero cases in taxonomy.

Thank god the paint eroded off those statues.

This. They look so much better unpainted.

>correlation=causation
>proxy=cause
Not even a chance, boy.

>it doesn't
Denying race definition now? See: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)
"Race is a concept used in the categorization of humans into groups, called races or racial groups, based on combinations of shared physical traits, ancestry, genetics, and social or cultural traits"
Race categorizations are influenced by appearance judgements. If race categorizations are supposed to classify individuals by ancestry, but literally take into consideration appearance claims in their categorizations, then race contradicts science. Race is not science. Race is pseudoscience.
Race is not science, race is pseudoscience.

Oh shit, the quote made me repeat that. lol

Correlation = causation if causation is proven in a laboratory and/or statistically. Do you know how human genome mapping works?

Stop using race when I keep telling you I prefer sub-speciation. Stop wrestling a ghost.

Also, are you saying that if a categorisation takes appearance into consideration, among other things, the appearance consideration invalidates all the physiological considerations?

>if causation is proven in a laboratory
Yes. There is no causation proven that appearance judgements determine genotype.
>stop using
See my first post, again: Consider what will your next post contain.
>the appearance consideration
If a non-scientific approach influences a supposed scientific attempt at categorization, then the scientific rigor requirement is violated. As it lacks scientific rigor, even worse, as it contradicts a scientific fact, race is not science.

>Consider what will your next post contain.
I'm done.

>white
No such thing.