Does race actually exist or is it a social construct like c0nc0rdance says?
>Science of Human Race Part 1
youtube.com
>Part 2
youtube.com
I personally am on a crossroads in between believing that yes race does exist in an arbitrary sense but isn't exactly a biological thing but still the morphological differences sort of make me think that they do exist.
What is Veeky Forums's take on this?
No, race does not exist if you believe human genetics did not drift over 500,000 years
It kind of exists, but people can get it really wong. Like black people in America are not a race. They are descendants from a large number of diverse African nations. I would break it down at the geographically bound nation level. Races roughly equate to ethnic lines, defined by groups that have had children together over many generations - usually inside national or tribal boundaries. But it is quite fluid and with the massive amounts of interracial sex we have nowadays - according to porn anyways - the ethnic lines are a lot less clear, especially as people marry people they like or get along with. Like my family is enthnic but seems to marry along pan European heritage so their kids aren't really going to have a definite ethnic group, or race.
Morphological differences exist between every population sub-group you could possibly come up with. Race is arbitrary and based on skin color.
Decide for yourself
...
Dogs were artificially selected, you brain dead cunt
Fuck outta here with that pseudoscience.
>these eyes don't lie
- alberb einstump
telling it like like castes weren't a thing in every major civilization
hell even right now we're all collectively selecting 2D for breeding over disgusting 3D piggus
It made sense a hundred years ago to break things apart by "Race" or overt physical differences, but this really isn't a hard break. There is no set of genes that can be found among one "race" and among no members of any other races. So, race is arbitrary. That doesn't mean it isn't useful though or make a good sub analysis, but ethnicity is probably more important.
The crows have must more genetic distance between them.
Anyone have that orange juice pic?
...
It's a semantic argument
Race is not a construct in the sense that these people are usually separated by a number of generations and as a result have some differences in allelic frequencies and gene polymorphisms. It's also the case that these people tend to have had as a consequence of geographical isolation and historical events had different histories. This is beyond dispute
It's a construct in that it's a human tool of classification. That it classifies objective aspects of reality does not change this. Disagreement over what the list of races should be among people who get a kick from arguing that shows it too, there is no accepted methodical Linnaean race taxonomy everyone agrees upon and in America we end up using some half assed classification (see: "white") for convenience.
People have strong feelings about it because its existence or non-existence is argued alongside questions of whether some such races should be less protected or discouraged from reproducing, to which "there's no race" is a much more half baked "there are no race hierarchies under the law because the government represents all people"
That is literally just cherry picking pictures of the ugliest non-whites. Why not use this picture for the white woman?
The problem is we can measure those genetic differences very precisely. Humans have less genetic diversity than all apes and most animals. There is no genetic justification to divide humans into groups.
The fst ratio for all humans is 0.11. That means that there's maximum of 11% difference in between humans. You need 25% to consider any group of individuals in a species as a subspecies.
How many times a day do you need to post this thread, /pol/?
>The problem is we can measure those genetic differences very precisely.
Yeah, and we can measure the change of allele frequencies and unique genetic polymorphisms that are different between an Angolan and a Chinese person. With a larger sample of genes you can come to predict with a good degree of certainty the ancestral origin of a person.
>There is no genetic justification to divide humans into groups.
There is no genetic justification to divide animals into different species either, neither genes nor the organisms carrying them exist to be classified but we make those classifications because they are convenient in understanding them. Whether these classifications are useful enough as a diagnostic tool, as a feature for the study of groups of people in society, etc. to outweigh the social effects of classifying people you can argue til the cows come home and not get anywhere
Every few days. They have problems with reality when it conflicts with their emotional beliefs. Things like global warming and human genetics really rustle their jimmies. They hate science.
>Yeah, and we can measure the change of allele frequencies and unique genetic polymorphisms that are different between an Angolan and a Chinese person. With a larger sample of genes you can come to predict with a good degree of certainty the ancestral origin of a person.
Sure, but you need some perspective. How much genetic diversity do humans have compared to other animals, and how closely related are these populations of humans compared to other animals?
There’s the space race, olympic race and the real race.
You forgot the rat race.
>Sure, but you need some perspective. How much genetic diversity do humans have compared to other animals, and how closely related are these populations of humans compared to other animals?
The intraspecies diversity of other animals doesn't have clinical, sociological, or historiographic use. That of humans, to the extent that it exists, does offer a useful classification in those areas. The definition of race is not set in stone between species, and is used to mean different things in different areas of biology. That this difference in humans is relatively small compared to others in our taxonomic family is of interest but not relevant to whether the classification should or should not be used.
Sure, but that's how classifications systems work. You're basically trying to say we should divide humans based on taxonomic classifications used by animals, but when confronted with the fact that those models don't fit humans, you try to throw them out and say animal classifications doesn't matter. Are you saying we should divide humans just because you say so?
Based on your first statement, are admitting race has no genetic relevance and we should divide humans based on social factors?
> You're basically trying to say we should divide humans based on taxonomic classifications used by animals,
No, and you missed my point entirely. Please go up and read it again slowly.
>but when confronted with the fact that those models don't fit humans, you try to throw them out and say animal classifications doesn't matter. Are you saying we should divide humans just because you say so?
But there isn't a taxonomical consensus on what constitutes "race" - and there needn't be, I already explained above that it is useful for some disciplines to consider the race of individuals or groups. That the classification carries that utility is justification enough for them to use it and us to know it.
>Based on your first statement, are admitting race has no genetic relevance and we should divide humans based on social factors?
Putting words in my mouth. It's genetically relevant in that it carries understanding of risk for specific diseases (of genetic origin), and in that it helps us to track the general ancestral movement of people, even if in a simple and imprecise way. It also carries social meaning and that's another reason to consider different classifications of race that people have believed in in the past.
In short, I think what you're missing is that the classification is of relevance to fields other than animal taxonomy and that to some extent justifies using it, if the negative factors are not considered
Someone should finally just do a large scale IQ & DNA test and plot one against the other.
If you really think that can get any kind of meaningful results you should consider killing yourself.
Social constructs are fundamentally biological constructs.
What is race? How come /pol/ always loves to talk about race but never wants to say what it is?
Race realists before:
>lel, race just a social construct? You're saying it's imaginary bullshit?
Race realists now:
>W-well, technically everything in science is a social construct!
The human race is defined by a recent common ancestor
subsaharan africans would have to have a more recent common ancestor
jewish tribes define themselves by ancestors
Its quite obvious that race exists.
the only people saying it doesn't are either minorities themselves and what to persuade whites that is doesn't so they feel more accepted, or its an attempt by government to lie to control its populace by saying we're all the same.
Both are wrong.
>exists
...as a social construct?
I guess race could be defined biologically but it would be arbitrary
Race is obviously more than skin colour. There are 3 major races:
1. Caucasoid (Europeans, middle easterners, north indians, Ainu, north africans)
2. Negroid (sub saharan africa)
3. Mongoloid (chinese, japanese, south east asian, native american)
There are many sub-races in these races, each of which have different DNA which is not just skin colour.
Hell, just take the skull shape of a white person vs a black person ffs. A pure nordic many from norway is completely different to a pure black man from the congo, who is different to a pure jap, who is different to a pure aussie abo. Each have differing intelligence as evidenced by certain countries doing better than others and what they've achieved.
This is not difficult to understand.
>muh skulls
>Each have differing intelligence as evidenced by certain countries doing better than others and what they've achieved.
Holy moly
If you took a photo of me and photoshopped my skin colour black, I would not look black. Even if you dyed my eyes and shaved my head, I would still not look like a man from sub-saharan africa,
What exactly are you not getting?
I'm tired of these threads. Why can't /pol/ and Veeky Forums be friends?
Yes. That's why Amerindians had a higher development rate, making them have more civilization potential than europeans.
I believe any kind of POV lead to the same conclusion: Amerindians are superior to europeans.
>race
Not science.
Fuck off and let the grownups talk Juan.
Amerindians are certainly superior to niggers.
Wrong.
Amerindians have demonstrated a higher development rate compared to europeans. In other words, Amerindians have more civilization potential than europeans.
All kinds of POV lead inevitably to the same conclusion: Amerindians are superior to europeans.
Deal with it.
Amerindians are superior to europeans. History demonstrates it. Get over it.
Cool. I'm a brazilian mestizo.
>That's why Amerindians had a higher development rate
Genuinely curious, which period are we talking about here?
Well that explains your attitude, arrogance and low intelligence.
Brazil is shit and will collapse in a few years. Then you will beg us for aid, like the £80 million we gave you a few months ago.
Please get your mongrel ass off this site, Deomingo.
The period comprehended between the first Amerindian stepping foot on America back in 25000BC, to the end of Amerindian civilizations in the XV-XVI centuries.
Why are you guys on Veeky Forums are so racist?
Race is a concept that the europeans invented to remain in power, and to justify to themselves the endless violence and oppression, in direct conflict with the "christian values".
And so they killed and enslaved millions.
Tell me again why would you need such a concept?
I may be a mongrel but at least I'm not a nigger.
>Tell me again why would you need such a concept?
To differentiate niggers from humans.
Any race or people who had the power whites had would've done a fuck ton worse.
Just look at China. They don't give a shit about human rights or the environment and eat dogs. They do not have the sefl-awareness or empathy that whites do... they are just like calculators.
The less said about blacks the better.
I highly doubt that
There are clusters, but to calsify things in terms of race are for sociological observations as there are better means to describe variation in humanity within the field of biology.
Não dou a mínima para sua opinião.
t. joelso neto
>ton worse
Wrong in everyway.
Amerindians demonstrated higher relative civic values in their territories. Amerindians are superior to europeans. Time to deal with it.
> colour
Fuck off, Britbong.
shit bait
Make me fuckstick. and learn how to spell fatty.
>rejects historical facts
Wrong again. Amerindians have demonstrated superiority against europeans in almost every single way. How is this hard to get?
Amerindians are superior to europeans. History demonstrates it. Face it, monkey.
>Amerindians demonstrated higher relative civic values in their territories.
I the past maybe...
I think I broke the autistic kid
Modern leftist scientists? Yes, they indeed hate science and white people.
In all their history.
Try again, subhuman.
Amerindians are superior to europeans. History demonstrates it. Deal with it.
Amerindians are superior to niggers, not europeans or East Asians.
Wrong.
Amerindians have demonstrated a higher development rate compared to europeans. In other words, Amerindians have more civilization potential than europeans.
All kinds of POV lead inevitably to the same conclusion: Amerindians are superior to europeans.
Deal with it.
Ok, why my country is a shithole then?
>why
Is your comparison refered to a zone after Amerindians civilizations ended?
Really, overhaul?
Because I'd be ready to understand that individual precolombian civilizations had some pretty fast development if considered alone, but if you take into account the various civilizational collapses, I don't see how American civilizations as a whole developed faster than in Europe.
There was no civilization in Brazil before the Europeans. Only in the Andes and Bolivia.
>higher relative civic values
dude the Inca were like the most evil empire to ever stand the Earth. We're talking of a working population enslaved to a degree they had to illegally consume coca to keep up with the workload here.
I think all of /pol/ is racist
If you talk to real scientist, they'll probably acknowledge differences between races because they're more objective. However the best ones don't even care. They're just occupied with their work.
>europeans
>from aurignacian proto-gravettian to solutrean:10000 years (30000BC-22000BC)
>from aurignacian-antelian to start of crop development: 9000 years(30000BC-21000BC)
>from start of crop development to neolithic revolution: 12000 years (21000BC-9000BC)
>from neolithic revolution to copper and arsenical bronze: 4000 years (9000BC-5000BC)
>from neolithic revolution to earliest use of tin bronze: 5200 years (9000BC-3800BC)
>Amerindians:
>from aurignacian proto-gravettian to clovis: 5000 years (16000BC-11000BC)
>from aurignacian proto-gravettian to the start of crop development: 7000 years (15000BC-8000BC)
>from start of crop development to neolithic revolution: 5000 years (8000BC-3000BC)
>from neolithic revolution to copper and arsenical bronze independently: 2000 years (3000BC-1000BC)
>from neolithic revolution to earliest use of tin bronze: 3500 years (3000BC-500 AD)
Amerindians had a higher development rate compared to europeans. How is this hard to get?
Considering there was agriculture in most of brazil, and the southamerican civilizations spread to parts of the frontier of Ecuador-Brazil. Yes there was civilization.
Wrong. Prosperity, spread of bronze technology, quipu accounting system, and meritocracy based on intelligence and warrior-like behavior, from Colombia to the middle lands of Chile. All of this relatively ahead of europeans. Try again, monkey.
Race is real, period.
I'm black and my "half-black" children (got a white wife) identity themselves as African and are considered African in society.
what where they doing during those first 14000 years?
>Amerindians have demonstrated a higher development rate compared to europeans
Oh, so that's why they were building pyramids to make human sacrifices while europeans were achieving unseen feats of engineering and science?
Masturbating, eating human flesh and sopa de macaco.
>They were still roaming tribes of people who would skin their neighbors scalp off and rape their women
Sure, bud.
Who and when?
>that's why they were
Let's see:
>16000BC to 1500AD: 17500 years of development. They were sacrificing people.
>40000BC to 3800 BC: 36200 years of development. They were sacrificing people.
So it means that Amerindians spent relatively less time to reach that phase too. Hmm...
See
>The crows have must more genetic distance between them.
Where is your Source to back your claim?
Oh wait... (You) have no Source.
I have a source however to back my claim:
That Race is a Biological Fact.
Determined by Genes/DNA.
>science.sciencemag.org
Get BTFO Social Sciences Retard.
>So it means that Amerindians spent relatively less time to reach that phase too
Yeah, it's kinda easy to do stuff when you have virtually infinite supply of food from the forest, and don't have to deal with the certain death that comes with the winter.
Image from:
science.sciencemag.org
>Asia harbors substantial cultural and linguistic diversity, but the geographic structure of genetic variation across the continent remains enigmatic.
> Here we report a large-scale survey of autosomal variation from a broad geographic sample of Asian human populations. Our results show that genetic ancestry is strongly correlated with linguistic affiliations as well as geography.
> Most populations show relatedness within ethnic/linguistic groups, despite prevalent gene flow among populations.
>Does race actually exist or is it a social construct
Car insurance is a "social construct" but still exists,
Go back to /pol/ "race realist".
>infinite supply of food
"Vanguardist" cultures and civilizations in the Americas weren't located in the Amazonian jungles nor the mesoamerican jungles.
SouthAmerican main cultures were located in deserts and mountains.
SouthAmerican mountainous climate zones were the vanguardist center of civilization of southamerica.
The european comparison considerates middle-eastern cultures, as antelian, thr neolithic revolution and the bronze age started near the middle east.And Amerindians had still a higher development rate.
>identify as
>considered
>in society
Sure sounds like a social construct. So I agree, race is real because social constructs are real. But you can't just say "race is real" as an independent statement because it doesn't mean anything on its own.
...
Why niggers stink so bad? I'm not kidding, this is a serious question.
>nigger
Why the racism?
>smell
For the same reason "whites", if that even exist, have more skin secretions than east asians, making them stink.
Why niggers on average are borderline retarded?
Race doesn't exist in the way humana define it. There are biological differences between people but lumping groups into white, black, ect is all artificial.
Why you cant make question good?
races exist cars and athletes do them every day
No. These classifications are backed by phylogenetic analysis. And you have not answered the question: why niggers are so dumb?
>dumb
[citation needed]
Take your pedophile cartoons back to
>[citation needed]
Circumspice.
Makes sense. The low GDP per head is a consequence of the average low IQ per head.