What year did scientific racism get debunked?

Acts 17:26 From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands.

Sounds like segregation.

>What year did scientific racism get debunked?
When people actually used legit science instead of stuff ripped from people head canon and.guestimates

After IQ tests were invented and Asians outscore the whites. The excuse then became "well asians just study or well asians just memorize." IQ was then seen as a bad science by the mainstream people.

Define scientific racism. Early anthropometric measures of african and european skulls have been vindicated as recently as 2011, by non-controversial sources. There's no widespread denial of obvious biological differences among ethnic groups. Even physiognomy, to a degree, is contemporary in CS and forensics.

20th century models of racism, fundamentally rooted in religion and pseudo-science, are what have become "debunk". If actual scientific inquiry demonstrates a difference between ethnic groups it's not racism, it's science.
>protip: >g-score and vandenberg & kuse rotation tasks are not the sole judge of human performance

before someone calls me a /pol/tard
>Samuel George Morton, in the hands of Stephen Jay Gould, has served for 30 years as a textbook example of scientific misconduct [12]. The Morton case was used by Gould as the main support for his contention that “unconscious or dimly perceived finagling is probably endemic in science, since scientists are human beings rooted in cultural contexts, not automatons directed toward external truth” [1]. This view has since achieved substantial popularity in “science studies” [2]–[4]. But our results falsify Gould's hypothesis that Morton manipulated his data to conform with his a priori views. The data on cranial capacity gathered by Morton are generally reliable, and he reported them fully. Overall, we find that Morton's initial reputation as the objectivist of his era was well-deserved.
journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001071#s8

It's important to distinguish legitimate pursuits like anthropology, forensics, population genetics, and endocrinology, which see their results published in actual journals, from "10 blood based reasons Tyrone stole my bike and my GF - #4 will shock you!" that you only see in Amren and their cohorts.

Attached: journal.pbio.1001071.g002.png (1251x1551, 1.38M)

Take a look at those skulls and tell me which one looks the most human.

This quote from the Ancestors Tale by Richard Dawkins summarizes the current state of it.

>We can all happily agree that human racial classification is of no social value and is positively destructive of social and human relations. That is one reason why I object to ticking boxes on forms and why I object to positive discrimination in job selection. But that doesn’t mean that race is of “virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance.” This is Edwards’s point, and he reasons as follows. However small the racial partition of total variation may be, if such racial characteristics as there are highly correlated with other racial characteristics, they are by definition informative, and therefore of taxonomic significance.

Are you really trying to claim that the criminality of blacks is not genetic?

Only one that looks like it could be considered not human is the Aborigine. The Sub-Saharan African just looks like a dorky guy with an overbite, the Caucasian manages to somehow look almost as dorky as the African, the Native American just looks like a guy that took bad care of his teeth, and the East Asian Mongoloid actually looks like the most normal person of the bunch.

It's never been debunked it's still sound science. Ironically anthropologists like Boas and Gouldy who attempted to debunk it were the ones who were actually pushing a non scientific agenda.

>a bit of an overbite

Y-yeah

Attached: o7k2lw.jpg (316x194, 16K)

Asian obviously. And if you look at female schools they would be even more "human-looking".

>only 5 races
Now with genetic research we can divide people based on their genes on many more groups. It also seems like virtually everyone is a mix of many different populations.

Thats just not true. The most prominent proponents of IQ differences like to talk about Asians being on top, because thats how you cant be made into a white supremacist, AND the blacks cant claim that whites score well because the tests were made for whites.

Just listen to an interviewcof lets say Charles Murray, he loves to talk about Asians.

It was the blank slaters that stopped talking about IQ when it came clear that it was genetic, not emviroment, as Asians in the same enviroment outperformed blacks and even whites.

each large group share common genes that other large groups don't

All Eurasians are closer to all other Eurasians to to any sub-Saharan African, so if our closeness defines us, where does that leave us?

Jesus considered non-Jews no more than dogs, begging for scraps.

It's not sound science. There is no 'black' race. Africa is more diverse than the rest of the planet put together and lumping all of them into one 'black' category makes no sense on a genetic level.
The racial categories in contemporary American 'white' 'black' 'Asian' 'Hispanic' are nonsense at a genetic level and are socially created. An obvious example is the definition of Asian is different in different countries eg UK.
Not to mean the genetics are useless, but racial categories are socially constructed without no basis in science. Eg Megan markle is raced as black despite obviously being mainly white genetically

Sure, Africa is more varied, but their variation is still less than their separation. See

Youre arguing semantics, what should we call groups etc. Population genetics can still break down Mexicans into their respective components, just as they could with Meghan Markle. Sure, the everyday categories people use where they lump especially mixed blacks as just black, but that doesnt mean that people studying this cant assign proper labels.

The human least related to you is still more closely related to you than two gorillas of the same species from separate parts of the same jungle are related to each other

>The racial categories in contemporary American 'white' 'black' 'Asian' 'Hispanic' are nonsense at a genetic level and are socially created

No they are not. Send me a sample of any person from one of those groups, and I will tell you their ethnic makeup.

Those labels fall apart under scrutiny we have the much more accurate genetics to go with with said term being labels the public can digest easily.

This is some "you are 60% genetically related to a plant" creationist tier argumentation.

Hispanic means a Spanish speaker and in the eyes of the American republic Mexican Mestizo are the image. Many people fuck up on guestimating genetics with latam bi/tri/multi- racial. Guess Condoleezza rices ancestery.

Except we are all the same species, but Africans at risk of sickle cell anemia are because of their environment

Well yeah the everyday labels are bullshit. And people studying do use proper labels, and they don't lump everyone darker than a paper bag into one category. Nobody actually studying human genetics believes all of humanity fits neatly into 3 or 4 different races like it's an rpg or something.
When someone gets raced as black and treated badly because of that, the people doing the mistreatment haven't carefully examined the persons genome and come to their conclusions. They're using the bullshit socially determined idea of race

No, its a "humanity almost went extinct relatively recently" argument

Yes, and human genetic variation can be grouped into clusters that funnily enough, reflect ethnicities and even the old geographic races.

when cherry picking became more distributed

Then why did he praise the Good Samaritan even though he was a filthy mud blood

And after that separated into an Eurasian and sub-Saharan group, that have evolved separately for at least 60,000 years, with Africans staying closer to our simian cousins since they had less varied enviroments to affect their evolution.

People get raced differently in different cultures you moron. In Europe we don't treat Spanish people as Hispanic. But when Spanish people go to america and speak Spanish suddenly they're in this Hispanic category they didn't even know existed before.
I work with a lot of pajeet programmers, and when they have to come to the states they get raced as Hispanic, black, Asian depending on who they're talking too.

I've seen a man wearing a confederate flag shirt praise a black man who helped his drunk ass on the train. Same thing.

>less varied enviroments to affect their evolution.
>Africa
>not varied

There's been several backfires though.

Again, you are talking about peoples ignorance about populations, not the validity of the categorisations. A lot of the time people will refer to whales as fish, but that doesnt mean the classification of species is flawed.

And those clusters cam be also modified to fit anyone's definition and criteria.

It isn’t? White flight? Lead? Systemic poverty? Covenant clauses? Insane loan interests? Little local funds? Drugs and alcohilism? Exploitative businesses exploiting the bad situation of these people by for example offering lump sums for way larger spread out reparations for lead poisoning(which were specifically spread out so the recipient wouldn’t waste it all)? Many reasons that should absolutely be considered firstly.

>Africa
>As varied as Eurasia

Just fuck off, Europe has more variance in climate than the whole of Africa basically. Or remind me again, in which part of Africa do they have winter you have to prepare for months in advance or you freeze in the snow? Thought so.

Indians have Sickle Cell though. And Italians or just about any place with a history of heavy malaria.

They've been trying so hard to bunk both science and race, but I don't think that will end well.

>peoples ignorance about populations
Yes exactly. The social experience of race which is bullshit as any scientist will tell you. Just because genetic diversity exists doesn't justify your racism against people you consider black. You aren't racist because you carefully analyse the genetics of people, but due to social cues and the prevailing tenor of your society.

Why didn't you guess Condoleezza rice's ethnic makeup?

No they cant, you cant make lets say east Asians closer to Europeans than to lets say south east Asians just by tweaking the clusters. The clusters fall where the data places them, ie based on whos closer to who.

>muh winter.

Just a reminder the Europe's xiastline and ocean currents prevented winters from being testicle shrinking cold.

None of those are better predictors of criminality than race is. Lead can account for differences of 1-2 IQ points, not 15.

I can define any race as having xyz thing in common.

>this whole post
Have you got your information about Africa from the lion king or something?

Lead is just the last of the enviromentalist arguments, but can be easily debunked. Pic related. Why havent the differences in intelligence gone down when the difference in lead went down?

Attached: blog_elevated_lead_1976_2010.jpg (560x251, 37K)

According to the US Census bureau these people are "Hispanic".

Attached: Keiko-joven.jpg (700x402, 36K)

Why do black people in a different culture do as well as white people in intelligence tests? Is it possible USA is racist against black people?
telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/11987142/Ethnic-minorities-more-likely-to-go-to-university-than-white-working-class-British-children.html

Daily reminder that Europeans are from three ancestral groups thag all lived in completely different enviroments (mammoth steppe, glacial Europe, mediterranean) while all blacks are either from tropics or subtropics. Just face it, you have had less enviromental pressure to select for higher intelligence.

Yes, but good luck proving it by genetics.

This is another "Hispanic".

Attached: laz-alonso1.jpg (430x376, 91K)

racial profiling, vicious cycle. Black people get arrested for weed use way more even though whites consume weed at similar rates.
Lead is often a sympton of poor housing conditions as it comes from pealed off paint, people eat it because it is sweet. That this paint is less present doesn’t mean that these conditions no longer exist

She is "Hispanic" too.

Attached: Rory-Gilmore-image-rory-gilmore-36522284-500-375.png (500x375, 1.05M)

Because of brain drain. African Americans are to a great extent the progeny of slaves, while Africans in Britain are the result of brain drain in African countries. Of course those chosen few will outperform the dull Anglo masses.

>people eat it
children eat it

>racial profiling, vicious cycle. Black people get arrested for weed use way more even though whites consume weed at similar rates.
Are black murder rates the result of racial profiling as well? ~50% of all homicides despite being somewhere around 14% of the populace?

Hispanic is a creole identity basically, they are still of their respective populations. When we talk about race and huspsnics, their racial makeup is around 60% european, 30% amerindian and 10% sub-Saharan. Just because you classify them as a race does not mean they are one. They are mixed race.

>>Is it possible USA is racist against black people
>>he says as he posts a study that includes all ethnic minority groups in britain not just blacks
lol You do realize that here in the US we bend over backwards to get blacks and browns into higher education yeah?

Furthermore, the children of upper class or middle class nigerians who migrate to the US are the very definition of an outlier as far as the average black is concerned. You can try to deny it all you wish, but blacks really are dumber and less intelligent on average.

>these intellectual gymnastics
So when black people succeed it's due to complex socio-economic factors, but when they fail it's because they're stupid. Nothing to do with systemic racism in the USA.

And of course finally the typical "Hispanic" mestizo most common in Mexico and across the Rio Grande

Now tell me, do these people look like a single race to you?

Or would it be more accurate to refer to them as Japanese-Peruvian, Afro-Cuban, German-Argentine and Mexican-American mestizo which is what they are?

Attached: GabyPromo.png (835x1169, 983K)

I was just adding it to the list of reasons, really though, it was just to show a factor that is more obviously on racial fault lines, the other factors are often too unfortunately

>complex socio-economic factors,
No. It's because smarter people are more likely to have smarter children. The US black population consists to a great extent of slaves. Of originally lower class, low-value individuals who were sold to slavery because they were shit and lost wars and battles. You can look at modern African migrants, brain drained individuals, in the US for your good and successful examples. The new migrants are successful, intelligent, educated and do not face, or even claim to face any of this "systematic racism".

Because they are a heavily selected group that is definitely not reflective of the averages from their countries.

As for selection among African immigrants, it is obvious and enormous. To use Nigerian immigrants to the US as an example, 58.6% have college degrees and 28.3% had graduate degrees. Among Nigerians as a whole, less than 10% have college degrees. The immigrants are therefore a highly non-representative selection of the Nigerian population.

No, because they are mixes as everyone already knows. But you could still find out their respective ancestries.

Yeah, because one black guy represents an entire "race".

Look. Theres 200,000 nigerians the UK, 400,000 in the states. Going by normal distribution, that still means around two million nigerians who have >100 IQs. More than enough to explain how the selected group can do better.

I have yet to see a non-khoisan African without either european admixture from slave times or serious overbite.

So America is not racist? Or if it is, racism does not affect the targeted group?

Look at those goalpost fly.

If I was talking about their ancestry, or something related to biology for example, absolutely. If I was referring to their social identity, maybe I would use Hispanic or something like that. Again, I am NOT defending the US Census racial classifications so fuck off with your strawmanning.

>Now tell me, do these people look like a single race to you?
In an age where we can break down an entire persons DNA to specific genetic code with real world causality, this is still being used as an argument.

Racism just doesnt effect your success unlike IQ does apparently. Who wouldve thought blacks in America do worse than others because of their intelligence, and not because of racism? I know, its a shock to me too.

>Hispanic is a creole identity basically
Hispanic is a made-up word that only exists in the United States and it's 100% a construct of the US census bureau.

>they are still of their respective populations.
Yeah that's the point I'm trying to make.

>When we talk about race and huspsnics, their racial makeup is around 60% european, 30% amerindian and 10% sub-Saharan.
??????
What the fuck? No. Hispanics can be of any race and it varies a lot depending on the country. This "average" you made up is total bullshit and missing the point.

If you go to Brazil almost nobody has native ancestry, but there is a majority of mulattoes and people with black ancestry. In Bolivia, full blooded natives are the majority, they'd be offended to be confused with the Spanish people that conquered them. Then in Argentina and Uruguay natives were exterminated and there was European mass migration just like it happened in the United States. In Mexico most people are mixed but there is no black ancestry at all, there are also subtantial white and native populations.

Triracial populations like you describe (white-native-black) only exist in Venezuela, Colombia maybe Puerto Rico and Ecuador.

>They are mixed race.
Precisely the point was to show that they aren't. Millions of Latin Americans are not mixed, in many countries they aren't the majority group, not everybody is "brown" (mestizo native-white mix), and among those that are mixed, the proportions can be very different.

Pic: Bolivians.
Not a drop of European blood in them.
The majority group there is full-blooded Natives.

Attached: main-qimg-cde6f52837805ff55a857fdd46620bfd-c.jpg (602x402, 110K)

Africans kept evolving too, they weren't always that dark skinned or looked the way they did. Look at the Khoisan, they're the closest examples of stock Homo sapiens.

>Among Nigerians as a whole, less than 10% have college degrees
Well duh, Nigeria is a poor country why would you expect a similar level of education to the USA?

American college degrees are worthless. Doesn't matter if nty % of your population has a degree, when most of them are bachelors' degrees in pizza baking or feminist art interpretation.

>IQ
I like the way jews magically increased their IQ scores over the 20th century from the lowest to the highest

They aren't all mixed, especially not Asian Hispanics and Middle Eastern Hispanics.

Its actually been shown time and time again that these days even the most native Bolivians carry European admixture.

>proportions of ancestry were statistically different in La Paz and Chuquisaca: the Native American component was 86% and 77% (Mann-Whitney U-test: un-adjusted P-value=2.1×10(-5)), while the European ancestry was 13% and 21% (Mann-Whitney U-test: un-adjusted P-value=3.6×10(-5)), respectively. The African ancestry in Bolivians captured by the AIMs analyzed in the present study was below 2%.

Contrary to what you may believe most people in Latin America are not mixed.
Mixed race people are a subset of the population, and they are the majority only in some countries, like Mexico.

Tell a Bolivian Aymara that he is mixed and he will kick your ass.

Attached: 4f4497c824a9c9b4aee9ab21f66e29a6.jpg (427x640, 256K)

>all these /pol/mutts believing white people are genetically more intelligent
So for thousands of years non whites in the middle east, North Africa, India and China raced ahead developing advanced civilizations while white northern Europeans lived in primitive squalor. Then, suddenly in the last few hundred years these superior whites decided to use their brains and develop their own culture.
If whites were more intelligent due to their enviroment, civilisation would have started in Sweden not Africa and the fertile crescent

they do burn coal though

Attached: b20_16784535.jpg (990x708, 190K)

The vast majority are.

Heres on Brazil:

>In all regions studied, the European ancestry was predominant, with proportions ranging from 60.6% in the Northeast to 77.7% in the South.

Can you link me to that paper please?

Because that looks like an average of the ancestry for the whole country. There are minorities of White people in Bolivia too, and mestizos.

If I did a similar study in America I could say the "proportions of average ancestry in the United States have a 60% European component, 10% Native component, 25% Native component, and 5% Asian component".

Quoting that type of phrases without understanding them can be very misleading.

Whites are a product of violent steppe invaders from Ukraine mixing with civilized Anatolian farmers. That's why whites are intelligent, powerful and expansionist. And that's why they conquered the world.

>Tell a Bolivian Aymara that he is mixed and he will kick your ass.
He's genetically predisposed to being a weakling shrimp.