Race: Biological or Cultural?

And that's not the reason why. Skin color adapted to the environment regardless.

>with no admixture from other human races
none that we know of at this point

So you admit, the races are biological.

The different races are different ancestry groups. Basically, different families - just large families.

There's tons of differences between the races - not just superficial, but also in terms of which diseases we contract too. Asian Flush is unique to East Asians, because it is a mutation that originated in that part of the world, and spread among East Asian people (picture related - prevalence of Asian Flush among different populations).

It absolutely stands to reason that different racial groups, on average, have slightly different qualities, based on our different genetics. It may well be true that Asians have biological differences that make them slightly better - on average - at mathematics and other such things.

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 it. Incas were superior to europeans.

Source:
Kauffman doig books
"Gran historia del Peru" Comercio

>So you admit, the races are biological.
The difference between any two people in the world is biological. The differences you use to distinguish them can be anything.

> the loci picked are arbitrated, rather than a wholescape genomic comparison, and thus even if you went by that standard it's human arbitration (socially constructed) which defines it.
False. And a genetic distance of 0.2 is nothing insignificant.

>The difference between any two people in the world is biological. The differences you use to distinguish them can be anything.
And skin color, being meaningless by itself, is actually a (relatively) good means to distinguish distinct races, because it is closely correlated to the rest of the racial character that differentiate a race from another race.

Typical meaningless libshit response hahahahahahahahaha

Not necessarily, because some Indians/Bangladeshis have very dark skin

Race is about far more than just skin colour. Race is your genetic heritage. Your ancestry. Every race is essentially a subspecies - they have a distinct ancestral lineage, and distinct phenotypical features.

Shit son, my nigga. Thanks a ton /b/ro.

>Not necessarily, because some Indians/Bangladeshis have very dark skin
Well, I know that, that's why I precised "relatively"

I mean, the white guy looks pretty superior to me, OP.

Humans are to genetically similary to be categorize in races.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14655871

Humans are too genetically similary to be categorize in races.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14655871

>It is only in africa that you can find people with pure homo saipan DNA with no admixture from other human races.
There was a news story about a study finding an unidentified hominid admixture. Not denisovan or neanderthal.

Nah, women prefer africans. So they are superior?

And what exactly does this do to our understanding of race? Are you saying Africans constitute a separate species?

nigger you watch too much tv. mudsharks are shunned by society except in the jewish tv and press. you prolly think mickey mouse is real too

>all behind registry and paywalls
O Y

Unfortunately, for every one to two white couples on our campus, there's at least two mixed couples (I assume they're together).

Well there were some late-surviving members of rhodesiensis still around.

A leftist saying that races aren't biological is like them saying that cat breeds and dog breeds aren't biological.

"Bloodhounds are only good at smelling because of cultural stereotypes! Stop perpetuating the breedist myth that Bloodhounds are more likely to be good at smelling than any other breed! A Chihuahua is JUST as capable of picking up scents as a Bloodhound - you're just a breedist ignorant BIGOT!!!! STOP STEREOTYPING!!!!!!!"

>So you admit, the races are biological.
Wrong. The differences between people are biological, the ambiguous grouping is not

Leftist: "dog breeds don't exist, because my friend has a Labrador-Poodle mix! Therefore it's BREEDIST to say that Labrador is a meaningful category, or that Poodle is a meaningful category! Don't you know that every individual dog differs genetically? Therefore to put them into AMBIGUOUS categories like "breeds" is just BIGOTED BREEDISM, YOU STUPID BIGOTED BIGOT! #StopBreedism #LabradorLivesMatter"

>samefagging this hard

>not having a rebuttal to my correct argument
Sad!

>strawman is an argument
Learn to communicate, subhuman.

>leftist can't understand an argument by analogy
Sad!

Here, I'll help you out. It seems you need a little help. Perhaps you should go back to school, kid.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_analogy

It's cultural in the sense that it's an arbitrary categorization by lay people's whims.

This is what "race realists" don't understand. Genetic differences do exist in people, but that has nothing to do with race. Race is "I FEEL you belong to this group." Even if genetics says two people are highly similar, racists will place them in two different groups because they feel the skin color is different enough. Two people may be highly dissimilar genetically and race realists will put them in the same group because again "I feel they belong together".

Race is an unscientific concept. If you want to know how people differ, study genetics, but racists won't because that doesn't confirm their feelings.

how do you even argue with it though? Can someone bluepill me on what a faggot would say to this argument?

But that's not what race realists say at all. Are you sure you've ever actually engaged with them and that you aren't just parroting poorly constructed strawmen?

I honestly think that biological differences exist, but the significance of such differences are either blown out of proportion or downplayed as much as possible in our culture. Case and point this thread so far.

Yes you made an analogy, what is the consequent argument? Are you implying they are right?

>Race is "I FEEL you belong to this group."
Wow. How is it possible for leftists to be this stupid?

It is impossible to have a sensible discussion about it, because leftists will say "NO THERE ARE NO DIFFERENCES - AFRICANS AND EUROPEANS ARE *EXACTLY THE SAME*!!!"

Leftists would say "but racial categories have fuzzy edges", and they're right about that to an extent. The common "racial groups" aren't homogenous - Zulu people in South Africa are genetically pretty different to Somali people in East Africa. But that doesn't matter. It doesn't matter how you subdivide humans, the point is that there are different groups which genetically differ.

But then leftists will say "MUH SOCIAL CAUSES ARE THE REASON THERE'S DIFFERENCES", hahaha. They're so stupid.

The analogy shows how ridiculous it is to assert that there aren't genetic differences between different groups of humans which have unique ancestry.

>leftists will say
Maybe if you guys didn't act like contrarian assholes just wanting to get a rise out of people, things would be different. Try actually explaining your position instead of calling everyone else idiots, it works wonders for communication.

>are pretty different
You mean in appearance. And you can see how race depends on the belief that aspect changes is proportional to genetic changes. Also that there are negros in melanesia, amerindians are related to central asians and siberians, europeans to west asians, south europeans have more of a middle-eastern gene pool. North-africans even though they are caucasian, have a pretty different history compared to south-europeans.

And all these examples are based on genetic ancestry, meanwhile the race argument keeps pushing for appearance distinction.

>inb4 he pulls the multiregional card
>inb4 muh leftists

That's exactly what they say. I think you're overestimating how much they care about science.

>How is it possible for leftists to be this stupid?
>Doesn't realize the right is being quoted.

Alright here's true facts:

Scientists admit that there are genetically distinct groups of people. They will call them "ethnicities" or "populations" ("populations" is probably the most popular term these days).

The only reason they criticise "racial" categories is because they think they're fuzzy. E.g. do Polynesian people belong to the same race as East Asians (Chinese, Japanese, etc.), or are they a separate race? What about Thais, Cambodians - are they separate to Chinese/Japanese/Korean?

And Spaniards have some Arab admixture from colonisation - so are they still "European"/white? And what about Central Asians like Kazakhs, who are basically a mix of Turkic and Mongol - what race do they belong to?

And also they will point to the fact that those who are normally put together in a racial category have a lot of variation among them. E.g. Somalis in East Africa are pretty different to Bantu people in Nigeria. They look different. They're genetically distinct.

But none of this matters. What matters is that different ethnicities, however you want to group them, are genetically distinct. And it's perfect possible that we have slightly different qualities, based on our different genetics. This doesn't mean our qualities are set in stone - it doesn't mean blacks are ALWAYS going to commit more crime. It just means there could well be genetic factors at play. We admit that with health conditions, so why not with crime? When we're happy to recognise scientific studies that associate some genes with criminal behaviour, as long as race isn't involved in the study?

Anyway, I would argue that the broad races we tend to use (European, African, South Asian, East Asian, Amerindian/Native American, Australian Aborigine) are actually pretty useful. Most groups of Africans, even if distinct, are more similar to each other than they are to groups of Europeans.

Source for picture: science.sciencemag.org/content/319/5866/1100/F1

I think i can understand why dumb liberals don't want to have this conversation about race. It's because it's obvious that whites want to use this information to treat all other races like trash, i don't think you can show me a person that knows this knowledge that has tried to help non-white peoples.

I'm white and I want people to fucking accept the fact that other people's actions (e.g. crime) may well have genetic factors (not the only factors, but an important factor nonetheless)

Because I don't really want to be blamed for something that isn't my fault. I think that's fair, right?

Anyway it doesn't matter - political discussions are not meant for this board, and they're irrelevant to this discussion. The question is whether the races differ - that's a scientific question, it's a question of fact. It's nothing to do with politics.

And the answer is: yes, the races biologically differ.

>tfw school shooter and pedo genes appear predominantly in whites
The backsliding would rival that of the breakup of Pangaea.

>Anyway, I would argue that the broad races we tend to use (European, African, South Asian, East Asian, Amerindian/Native American, Australian Aborigine) are actually pretty useful.

But those aren't the common groups used. For most people who believe race is a very important political concept, Hispanic is a distinct race. This includes people with genes from America, Africa, and Europe. It's just a mess.

I agree that genetic factors could contribute to things like crime, the problem here i explaining this to the masses without them thinking that you're either a racist or a white messiah that has finally forgiven all the cruelty they have caused. Maybe a better jail system with an emphasis on rehabilitation could get us in the right path to maybe suppressing these genes?

What's your argument?
There are similar variants of their offspring and mongrelization all over certain zones. Even then the offspring of both "subspecies" have differences that don't confort politicians, (north-africans and swedes).

There is nothing to pull. Maybe you could already got it, I'll tell you, "race" matter has nothing to do with the scientific method or understanding of the origin of the human being. It only serves a practical purpose which can be omitted as it has been replaced by the simple term as ethnic-group. It's taxonomy. The unique reason people push for this kind of categorization is because they have a political agenda, and that has nothing to do with science either.

Races are real like colors are real.

I've just seen some who misunderstand the hypothesis say that it's either racist or "redbilld" because it says we arose separately, despite that not being the case at all.

Hahaha why are you so threatened by racial differences my friend?

>B-B-BUT MY SCHOOL SHOOTERS!
What a great case of whataboutism.

Hispanics are predominantly Mestizos which means people who are a mix between Amerindian and European, my friend.

Nah, just let blacks make their own country. Give them a couple of states and they can live there.

That's what most whites and blacks in America want anyway - just separate, so each race can live how they want to live. Blacks have high crime rates all over the world - look at Haiti where crime is very high. Blacks have been in control of that country for over 200 years since the Haitian Revolution, so their behaviour isn't a result of being "oppressed" - it's just how they live.

So just let them live in a society where they can live like that. Problem solved.

Anyway I realise this is a political point so really this isn't even relevant to this board.

Actually America belongs to Amerindians the same as europe belongs to europeans. How is this wrong?

>said nothing about the pedos
Fucking kek, it's already begun

>Blacks have been in control of that country for over 200 years since the Haitian Revolution.
Don't you think the reason why Haiti hasn't progressed is more because of the lack of education and resources? The french's shit farming left them with almost nothing

When people say "Hispanics" or spics as I like to call 'em, they mean Mestizos or Indios.

Then Europe belongs to Celtic Pagans amirite?

Please tell me who gave education to Europeans? Which other race bestowed education upon them?

Oh yes that's right, NO ONE. They educated THEMSELVES. Then they taught this wisdom their children.

>sticks to whataboutism because he can't handle the fact that the races are biologically different
Hahahahahahahahaha.

Europeans were able to finally begin their knowledge only because they managed to establish a stable civilization, which is way harder for Haitians as they almost have no land to farm with and no knowledge on how to farm in general.

>Hahahahahahahahaha.
Of course that user is using Ad hominem, that doesn't mean he is wrong, you're trying to make Blacks seem worse than other races when Whites are capable of cruelty just the same.

>blacks have been in control
library.brown.edu/create/modernlatinamerica/chapters/chapter-14-the-united-states-and-latin-america/moments-in-u-s-latin-american-relations/a-history-of-united-states-policy-towards-haiti/

nytimes.com/1995/12/03/world/haitian-ex-paramilitary-leader-confirms-cia-relationship.html
coha.org/wikileaks-cables-show-haiti-as-pawn-in-u-s-foreign-policy/

>celtic
Irrelevant. American belongs to Amerindians the same as europe belongs to europeans. Don't you agree?

Aborigines are dark skinned but more related to yellow people than blacks or indians.

He doesnt have a rebuttal because his points have nothing to do with racism. Just making a clear statement that racial labels do not objectively, unambiguously or even accurately represent a persons ethnicity, ancestry or genetics.

Can we all agree all populations ranging from Europeans, Middle Easterners, South Asians, East Asians, Native Americans/Amerindians (including mestizos) and North Africans are all alright even if some of their countries are not as developed yet or dont have 95+ IQ's yet. But that there seriously seems like there's something wrong with Africans(not North) as a whole almost on every place on Earth.

Ironic cause you guys are misrepresenting leftst arguments. You dont understand the other sides argument either. Leftists do believe in biological difference.

Theres been a million of these useless discussions about race and no time have i seen anyone on here say that genetic diffeeences dont exist. Yet you guys keep coming forward claiming this is what people say.

Agreed, not every leftist is an overly idealistic unscientific SJW fag

Europeans got it from mediterraneans and middle easterns. Ironically these groups are seen as having lowrr iqs than northern europeans.

>no land to farm with
Apart from, y'know, their entire country

>no knowledge on how to farm
Hahaha then why don't they GIT GUD like the rest of us did? Hahahahahaha faggots

Yes whites are capable of cruelty, sure, but I do think there are probably genetic factors which mean blacks are more likely to commit violent crime

Did you know that in England and Wales, blacks are not the group with the lowest household disposable incomes. Pakistanis and Bangladeshis are poorer in that respect. And yet blacks commit far more crimes. Crazy!

Maybe they should git gud HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

FRANCE is dependent on the United States. So is the entire Western World. Are all those countries mired in poverty? NO THEY'RE NOT!

Is China mired in povery? Well some of them are very poor, yes. But they're getting their shit together, aren't they? Maybe blacks should get their shit together HAHAHAHAHAHA

Nah, finders keepers losers weepers hahahaha

They deny that differences between groups exist, or they refuse to acknowledge the possibility that genetics could well be ONE REASON why, for example, blacks commit more crime, or why they do worse academically.

On average, of course. There are bright people like Thomas Sowell who are of African ancestry. And Desmond Tutu as well.

I guess Europeans in general are just the master race to be quite honest famalam

So you agree with european replacement?

>homo sapiens
>(((European)))

>Hahaha then why don't they GIT GUD like the rest of us did? Hahahahahaha faggots
Now you're just baiting, im getting sick of /pol/ spreading propoganda around and thinking it's funny.

Amerindians have a higher admixture of neanderthal genes though.

You can't honestly believe that if you replaced the current population of Haiti with millions of white people who knew nothing about farming, that Haiti wouldn't resemble a 1st-world nation within 100 years.

white people are the best farmers period. just ask the africans, or john deere

Welp, nevermind my neanderthal bit. Ownership technically goes to Antecessor.
>tfw literal cannibals were the first colonizers

>Hur, evidence showed me wrong so I'll pretend you're saying something retarded

Is that Miguelon?
Wrong. Amerindians are relatively the best farmers.

Going off of what I can find, no.

Spot on.

Exactly. And leftists don't have any solid counterargument. Because they're fucking idiots.

>race by skin color
But that ISN'T how race is defined YOU ABSOLUTE FUCKING MORON

Race is about ANCESTRY, just like dog breeds. Some Bangladeshi people have darker skin than some Africans - but they're still part of distinct ethnic groups with distinct heritage.

Good post - it coincides with the image I posted here: And that post has a source if anyone wants to look further at that.

Why do you think it's bait? During the Cold War we didn't assist Russia to educate themselves did we? No, we competed with them. It's not our responsibility to educate the entire world - it's their responsibility to get their fucking act together.

Lads, genetic variation in humans and dogs doesn't work the same way. I know white people treat their pets like family members but try not to embarrass yourselves any further than that

Whites are underrepresented for most VC.

Amazing contribution.

yeah you're right. Chinese people are way better than whites.

>fastest growing economy
>GDP PPP more than entire EU
>smartest people in the world, dominates any iq related test or international olympiads
>cucking cumskins at their own game

Asian century faggot, by the end of it the history books will be different

>dog breeds are equuvalent to human races
Well this presents a problem: are homo sapiens as genetically flexible as canis lupus familiaris, and is artificial selection based on aesthetic appeal really equivalent to steady adaptation to one's environment?

The only thing the Chinese are better at is stealing intellectual property (we're talking $360 billion from the US alone last year).

t. r/asianmasculinity user

> F*cktards
> mentally lazy, pathological brainlets
Humans did not start breeding like asshat Euros did with "Dog Fanciers."
These dogs are not evolved they are bred like all domestic animals.

>So, it's safe to affirm it. Incas were superior to europeans.

No, it's not. Your racism aside, you're talking about all Amerindians then singling out Incas in your conclusion.

The Inca empire was brought down by Francisco Pizarro and a force of 168 men and a militia of locals who sought to end the control the Incas held over their land. How superior...

And the Mayans? Their civilization was already collapsing when the Spanish arrived because they had utterly destroyed their environment via deforestation. It took 20 trees just to make 1 square meter of lime plaster for their ziggurats. How superior...

Isolation is also not necessarily always a disadvantage. Peoples of Europe have had to fight each other for resources, land, women, etc and still progress through all of it.

You seem angry and upset. Your racism shouldn't be this board's problem.

>dog breeds are equuvalent to human races
Yes we are, except we weren't deliberately bred by another species (as is the case with dogs) - BUT there are genetically distinct human populations with distinct features (e.g. Han Chinese, English, Zulu, etc.), just like dog breeds.

>are homo sapiens as genetically flexible as canis lupus familiaris
Probably yes. If we wanted to breed humans for their qualities like we have dogs, then I'm sure we could create the same level of genetic variation if we really wanted.

>and is artificial selection based on aesthetic appeal really equivalent to steady adaptation to one's environment
Okay well then we can use lots of other examples can't we? Tigers. Bengal tigers, Siberian tigers, Caspian tigers (now extinct, but whatever). Different populations separated by distance, with different physical traits. But they can interbreed.

Different human races are the same thing.