El ejercito de los goblinos

El ejercito de los goblinos...

Attached: usminorityparticipationinww2.jpg (1710x762, 276K)

Other urls found in this thread:

test.scripts.psu.edu/nxm2/1993 Publications/1993-nei-roychoudhury.pdf
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

>groups legally defined as white could be considered different races
Top kek, this is your brain on leftist revisionism.
>IRISH WEREN'T CONSIDERED WHITE AND NOW THEY ARE! THIS MEANS WHITE RACE IS A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT!
>actually, the Irish were legally and scientifically considered white
>B-BUT LAWS AND SCIENCE DON'T MATTER! MUH BEN FRANKLIN ESSAY, MUH HARPER'S WEEKLY CARTOONS, ALL MORE IMPORTANT THAN LAWS!

>MUH BEN FRANKLIN ESSAY
Wasn't that bitching about German immigration though?

>science
Nnnnnnnope.
Race is not science, sorry. Race is pseudoscience.

Ben Franklin once wrote an essay that only Anglos are white (since he had misconceptions about Swedes or Russians being "swarthy"), and leftists have used this as as an argument that such a view had to be the historical and scientific consensus for all of American history despite views like this not being found anywhere else.
Despite sounding like a generic /pol/ meme, this is the result of Marxist Jews infiltrating the academia and trying to invalidate and deconstruct the idea of whiteness. Look up Noel Ignatiev.

>El PeruANO

la atrocidad...

Attached: 1515106158047.png (831x838, 357K)

Except race is still not science, user. Race is pseudoscience.

oh really

Attached: 1520925725367.jpg (956x863, 459K)

The fact that forensic archeology exists completely destroys this statement.

>La creatura

>A race is a grouping of humans based on shared physical or social qualities into categories generally viewed as inherently distinct by society. First used to refer to speakers of a common language and then to denote national affiliations, by the 17th century the term race began to refer to physical (phenotypical) traits.
Barnshaw, John (2008). "Race". In Schaefer, Richard T. Encyclopedia of Race, Ethnicity, and Society, Volume 1. SAGE Publications. pp. 1091–3. ISBN 978-1-45-226586-5.
Smedley, Audrey; Takezawa, Yasuko I.; Wade, Peter. "Race: Human". Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc. Retrieved 22 August 2017.

Race classifications are influenced by appearance judgements, implying that phenotype defines genotype, which is wrong.
Race is pseudoscience.

>Hey, these five-footer yellow-skinned guys with slanted eyes, large cheeks and round, black hair are different from us six-footer peach-skinned blonde guys
>Uh no sweetie that's just you being a bigot, we're clearly all the same Dr. Rosenbaum wrote an article on it

>I can't address biological definitions of race, only historical ones

I know user, but some of us actually study biology.

it doesn't imply that at all.
>genetic clustering is pseudoscience

You can break people by their looks as well Sargo-I mean user, is Laurence Fishburn white?

>semantics: the post
Different ethnicities have different physical qualities that are hereditary. Quit being a fucking mong just to spite /pol/.

>i study biology
You mean inherited taxonomical classifications that are influenced by appearance judgements, implying phenotype defines genotype, which is wrong.
>difference between individuals demonstrate race
Yeah the lactose intolerant race, the high skull race, the squatting race...lol

Race is not science. Race is pseudoscience.

>it doesn't
The fact that appearance judgements affect classifications that claim to categorize groups of people by ancestor divergence over generations (genotype difference) is implying that phenotype defines genotype, which is wrong.
>white
No such thing.
>contradicting a scientific fact=semantics
Pseudoscience lovers are entertaining.

Race is not science, sorry. Race is pseudoscience.

neca te ipsum

never read any anthropology from that period?

Attached: nazismracemap.jpg (970x863, 314K)

>white race has subracial types
Whoah... This totally means the Irish weren't considered white!

Attached: stoddard map 1920.jpg (1100x620, 139K)

I'm sorry, user. But race is still not science.
Race is pseudoscience.

The article text didn't say that the Irish weren't white muttard, it stated that even groups legally defined as white could be considered distinct on a racial and ethnic level.

>map literally states "NORDIC RACE" and "EAST BALTIC RACE"
>"those aren't races they're racial sub-types"

Attached: wojakdumb2.jpg (645x968, 106K)

m8 you can froth at the mouth all you want but as long as you can visibly tell the difference between a Inuit and a pygmy, "race" is a biological reality.

>muh tater famine muhfugga I iz be white n shiet

Spot the mestizos

Not him and I tend to have empathy with your frustration at some retard who is able to do nothing more than spout "race is pseudoscience" at you. But the issue is that "race" i.e the idea that you can in any sense satisfactorily scientifically create a coherent and credible taxonomy of the subspecies Homo Sapiens Sapiens into further subdivisions classified as "races" has completely failed.

Obviously one could put a Pygmy and an Inuit side by side (or an ethnic Han Chinese person and a an ethnic Frenchperson) and anyone denying that you couldn't is denying reality.

The problem is that all of our subspecies came from one small population relatively recently in evolutionary history and that diversity within any population you want to study is far greater than any aggregate differences between populations and every single time any Homo Sapiens Sapiens population has come into contact with another mixing has immediately occurred. Sure you can tell who is the Inuit and who is Pygmy by looking at them, trying to build a credible classification system of "races" based on that is also denying biological reality.

same page

>93% of total genetic variation is found within populationos
>only 7.7% of genetic variation in Yanomama tribes is from differences in allele frequency between villages

There are genetic differences between groups of people of course, but the idea that you can so neatly divide people into "Caucasoid", "Negroid", etc. is absurd.

Swarthy doesn't mean black though. Italians are swarthy.

No that was a letter he wrote in I believe 1751

see pic and then see
test.scripts.psu.edu/nxm2/1993 Publications/1993-nei-roychoudhury.pdf

Attached: 23d.png (563x317, 146K)

Aren't all humans descended anyway from that small group that survived the catacylsm that nearly wiped out the species?

les goblinos : the thread

Commie propaganda. White man doesn't share any ancestres with negro. Prove me wrong without kike propaganda you nigger lover

t. amerimutt

Black people and white people can reproduce and create fertile offspring. Literally the definition of a species.

and just incase you are too lazy to read the full paper, here is the part that talks about how wrong you are

Attached: rc1.png (1106x859, 375K)

>mock the racially bastardized as subhuman monsters
>btw race isn't real
The amerimutt meme is such a nefarious hypocrisy that it's like the Elders of Zion themselves are shitposting.

You could literally spend 1 minute googling and find out how many differing species can produce fertile hybrids

>Prove me wrong with sources I deem acceptable
Your an idiot if you think anyone is falling for that shit.

btw here is the fig 2 spoken about, in case you are curious

Attached: fig2d.png (516x683, 81K)

See:Let me quote it for you:
>difference between individuals demonstrate race
Yeah the lactose intolerant race, the high skull race, the squatting race...lol

Race is not science. Race is pseudoscience.

>tfw liberals start denying science more than conservatives

what a time to be alive

I didn't know pseudoscience lovers were liberal nowadays. Thanks for the reminder.

>classifying material phenomena within the natural world via observation is not science
What the fuck user?

Most cross-species hybrids are sterile. Plus are you implying blacks aren't even the same species?

See:Like a typical liberal all you have is derision, no substance. The differences between the average east asian and the average european are extensive, including all sorts of things from limb proportions to alcohol dehydrogenase production. It's not my fault you have scientific articles shoved in your face and you point to me instead of addressing them

I am not saying that necessarily, I am not the same person. But there are plenty of examples of different "species" in the animal kingdom which are closer related than some human branches are to each other. It is a self-defeating premise upon which to base your argument, and you should sooner hear it from me than some one who would take you to task for it.

>Italians are swarthy
Cool, but Swedes aren't.

See: , again.

Do you need me to quote the refutation, pseudoscience supporter?

Already refuted here:

You have yet to address Nei and Roychoudhury, I'm not sure why you think shit posting will help your argument.

Blacks are whites doesn't share same ancestre let alone race

So you want to address race definition, great. Here: Let me quote it for you:
>A race is a grouping of humans based on shared physical or social qualities into categories generally viewed as inherently distinct by society. First used to refer to speakers of a common language and then to denote national affiliations, by the 17th century the term race began to refer to physical (phenotypical) traits.
Barnshaw, John (2008). "Race". In Schaefer, Richard T. Encyclopedia of Race, Ethnicity, and Society, Volume 1. SAGE Publications. pp. 1091–3. ISBN 978-1-45-226586-5.
Smedley, Audrey; Takezawa, Yasuko I.; Wade, Peter. "Race: Human". Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc. Retrieved 22 August 2017.

Race classifications are influenced by appearance judgements, implying that phenotype defines genotype, which is wrong.
Race is pseudoscience.

>white
No such thing.

See: Try actually reading what you are pretending to refute

He won't, because he's disingenuously using two definitions that would be appropriate within the realm of social science to define a word that is context oriented with different meaning in different fields.

le 63.6% northwestern Europe face.

wheres the refutation? all I see is you attacking a strawman.
so tell me, can phenomena be classified via observation?

El Goblino...