[Moderator Hat ON]
Don’t trash other boards here; we’ve found it leads to “board wars”. Don’t directly link to hate sites.
[Moderator Hat OFF]
Gaudere: Got it. Thanks for the clarification.
While the author of the quoted post has been banned, I think the bolded part (at least) still ought to be addressed. And I have already done so, here (specifically, see posts 438-440). The data there are from 2001, but I very highly suspect the proportions have not changed in the intervening 2-3 years. The whole “blacks are scary, and dangerous to white folks” canard is derived from nothing more than paranoia and bigotry (it sure as hell isn’t supported by the facts).
Oh, and while I’m at it, this:
…was also addressed, in the same thread that I linked to above - see post #409. Since I only went out a “mere” 98 years then, how about showing some some evidence for the 200 year timeline wherein “whites” have suddenly disappeared from the face of the earth?
And just what is “unique” about “our” genotype, anyway? How about pointing out, I don’t know, one gene that all whites share, but that does not exist in “non-whites”. If we are oh-so-unique, this should be both possible, and easy. Otherwise, this is another bullshit claim on your part.
Oooh…bad example. Here’s a thought: don’t make arguments about topics wherein you are uninformed (e.g., taxonomy). “They” have already figured out what to do with Archaeopteryx. You seem to be about 30 years behind the times here…
Sorry. They couldn’t figure out what to do with Archaeopteryx. I think it was the lack of turbinate bones, if I recall correctly (perhaps not), that made them realize that they weren’t the ancestors of modern birds. The Cladists still want to put Aves under Order Crocodilia, though.
The point is, taxonomy is complicated. Phyla are constantly rewritten as we learn more. Anthropology, which is just a form of intraspecial taxonomy, while more complicated due to the occurence of admixture, is not that much less cut and dry. Most people don’t even know there are six kingdoms now. We learn more all the time, and the funding to find racial differences just isn’t there (Gee. Wonder why?). We can, however, see that there are obvious physical differences and regionally developed characteristics.
Before modern biology, “they” didn’t have the knowledge to explain why a horse was different from a donkey. But, they didn’t try to insist they were the same when the differences were obvious.
Dont start talking about mules. 
**The individuals shown in that “test” were almost entirely mongrels. And though there was indeed some confusion differentiating between “Asians” & “Hispanics” (who are racially part Mongoloid anyway) as well as the the motley collection of mixed-race Groids (African-Americans to the PC crowd here) one thing was clear: none of the individuals shown were “white” as whites are traditionally known. In short, the whole exercise proved nothing, except for what white nationalists have long proclaimed - “I know a mongrel when I see one”.
And I saw plenty.**
Can you provide any actual evidence of that claim (aside from your own self-reinforcing prejudices)? Or is this just one more, example of not letting facts get in the way of one’s opinions (however oddly shaped)?
We are all mongrels by someone’s definition. I, for example, am a mongrel of English, Irish, and Scottish, with a few drops of German, Dutch, and French. And all of the populations in those places are hybrids of various different groups, you know, the Anglos and Saxons and Celts and Romans, ect. ect.
Actually mules (or the production thereof) is all that technology “they” needed to put horses and donkeys in different species. You’re right that the term “species” is used inconsistently by biologists, but the fact that mules are almost always sterile is enough to put horses and donkeys in different species, and “they” have known this for hundreds of years.
The lack of respiratory turbinates has thus far proven inconclusive either way. Since its discovery, Archaeopteryx has been considered a bird, as well as providing evidence as to the origins of birds. Since then, the weight of the evidence points to the fact that birds are dinosaurs, and dinosaurs are reptiles, therefore birds are reptiles.
Cladists don’t bother with Linnaean orders (or classes, or families…) in the first place.
Most people apparently don’t know that the whole “kingdom” paradigm is outdated, and the current taxonomy involves three domains with numerous sub-branches, either…
And what you fail to realize is that mere “physical differences” in themselves are insufficient to justify your taxonomies, since many of those differences can be attributed to the results of acclimitization or sexual selection or genetic variation or developmental variation, rather than adaptation. One could just as easily claim that there are “obvious physical differences” between Southern California women and just-plain Southern women, for example. Otherwise, why would the Beach Boys wish they could all be California Girls in the first place?
The point which you seem to be missing here is that there are no suite of traits which can be universally attributed to any “race”. There is diversity, but that diversity itself is so varied that it is virtually impossible to lump humans into three or four or even ten well-defined categories based on appearance. There is a reason why species are the lowest category officially recognized in modern taxnomy: because anything lower is arbitrary.
Humans are diverse physically and diverse culturally, and these two areas of diversity do not cleanly overlap. As such, your desire to pigeon-hole all of humanity is destined for failure, and there is nothing useful to be gained in the attempt.
Xenologist
The difference between Archaeopteryx and humans is easy – humans are still around. It is easy to establish relationships between population groups and species now that we have molecular genetics.
a) If two individuals produce fertile hybrids, then they are the same species.
b) If they don’t, then they are something else.
c) If they are something else, they can be ordered on a number of criteria, including the fossil record, biometrics, and of course comparitive genetics. These usually agree.
We can do the same with humans, adding linguistics and archaeology and the like. A huge tool to me is the Human Genome Project, coupled with the HapMap project and several other polymorphism and genetic diversity projects. The genetic literature repeatedly shows that European populations are a complete amalgamation, with successive waves of African and Middle Eastern migration from before the Stone Age through to modern times. The “pure” gene pools of those populations are figments of your imagination. This supports data from linguistics and archaeology. Skin tones changed with latitude, as vitamin D became more of a commodity. This has happened many times across the globe, and perhaps even a few times within Europe. There is nothing uniting genetically about the white race. Take an honest evaluation of the cultural history of Europe and you will see that it is certainly nothing to brag about either. Even if you immediately write off violence against Jews and violence against darker skinned people, you still have plenty of wars and genocides on your hand.
The White Separatists always scream about how multiculturalism isn’t working. Well, there are plenty of examples that they conveniently ignore of it not working throughout Europe. Just look at how well Greater White Culture has worked out in Ireland and Yugoslavia, for example.
In the end, you have neither a genetic nor a cultural leg to stand on.
Ahhh. I’m looking at a cladogram of Archosauria; it seems I had equated Archaeopteryx with Pterosaurs, when their lineage was, in fact, very seperate, according to what they know now. Ugggh. Whoops.
Nothing to see here.
Fair enough. But it was my understanding that they wanted the traditional Linnaean taxonomists to cave on this one.
Bacteria, Archaea, and Eukarya or something, right? As far as I knew, that one hadn’t flown yet.
How is acclimatization not adaptation?
While this is difficult to call, “adaptation”, it is still very much Natural Selection. Sexual selection is the most primitive form of eugenics, that exists in many animals and drastically alters their appearance and behaviour. It is worthy of note here that in many animals, especially humans, sexual selection is based highly on behavioural criteria. So much for “mere"physical differences.”
Do you mean mutation here? I don’t understand.
Ontogeny? Hey, that reminds me of something. You know how humans have been getting rapidly taller over the course of hundreds of years? I heard something similar about paedomorphosis. I heard… somewhere… that the average age of puberty has been dropping by something like 1.3 years every century, for the past few hundred years. As in, the average age for puberty was past 16 a few hundred years ago. I’ve been looking for information on this because it could open a whole new can of worms; and if anybody might have heard something it sounds like you may have.
BTW, changes in ontogeny can be attributed to adaptation. Even if they can’t, they still provide diversity.
I don’t know. What disgusts me about White women in Cali is that they think they have to lay in the sun all day to change their natural hue, because of the anti-White sereotype that attributes beauty to dark skin. They could get skin cancer, which Whites, especially Celtics, are very susceptible to.
THe trained eye can distinguish them by sight with accuracy from 70 toover 95% Even I can usually tell the diference between a Chinese and a Filipino. Each unique people has its own “signature” that gets more blurry as you narrow down the ethnic tree.
No one is disputing this. The categories are fuzzy. The point is, there is diversity. And each branch of the tree is beautiful and unique in its own way.
Species can become arbitrary as well. There are populations that can interbreed with a population that can interbreed wtih other populations the first couldn’t. I’m sure you’ve heard of this.
No, they do not. But, there are general trends, as with anything else.
It is not my place to “pigeon hole” an alien people. But, it would be in the best interest of Whites if we “pigeon-holed” ourselves. Nothing useful? IMO, survival is useful. And unless a miracle happens, that’s what it will take.
I am having difficulty finding the SD article, but somewhere around here it was discussed how very pale skin use to be considered more beautiful as it signified a life of luxury where you did not have to work outside. After the industrial revolution, though, darker skin signified that you were not stuck in a factory all day, but rather had time to relax on the beach. You see it is a developement of our industrial culture rather than race based.
I’ve seen the modern tanning ‘fad’ attributed mostly to Coco Chanel. That was WAY before any of the PC forces (or whatever) were in power. What’s it have to do with being anti-white?
Damn, I know there was a column on this tanning thing here somewhere, anyone know the one I am referencing?
I’ve always understood it to be a class thing. In the past, peasent women browned their skin by toiling all day in the field, while noblewomen lounged all day in their manors. Therefore, in classical poetry paleness was associated with beauty. As of the 20th Century, lower-class women had to live all day in smoggy cities, while the upper crust spent their summers in Saint-Tropez. Naturally, tans became attractive.
This is when you run into problems…trying to fit your errors of history, culture and science into a worldview. The problem is of course such errors are easily corrected and you find yourself pushed closer to the wall.
As stated early there is a CULTURAL reason why tanning became popular and it has nothing to do with white peoples’ self-hatred…yet in your mind that must be the reason. You ignore history and culture, in order to create “proof” of the destruction of the white race.
I don’t understand your point on physical differences. No one has even claimed that a Swede and an African look alike. What I’m saying is that the differences are unimportant and based on who happens to be setting the rules at the time.
In order to prove Race, you must be able to define it and you can’t. Rules can’t be fuzzy and defined at the same time, there has to be a line.
I’ll give a real world example, part my family’s from England, they’re third generation American now. When we go to England, there is NO DOUBT that the great grand kids are American. You can tell by sight that they are not ‘typical’ English.
According to the rules you seem to be espousing, I should be able to call these Americans a different race:
-
They have a different, unique culture.
-
Their physical characteristics, are unique and easily recognizable… throughout the world. They is no doubt what they are…to the “trained eye”. I’ll go even further and say that ALL Americans who’ve been here for a few generations, have more in common with each other than they do with their original “homelands”, but that’s another issue.
-
Their “adaptations” are based on geography, IMO only America can create such a “look” due to access to nutrition, environment, health care, vaired genetic material etc.
-
Even their skin, hair and eye color are different than the ‘typical’ English, but you wouldn’t give them a second look in America. Remember you have admitted that there is great variety within the “white race”…
So are Americans a Race? If not, why not?
I’m talking about why it became attractice to be tanned as opposed to being pale, which is what the standard was for a long time. There was a time when being muscular was lower-class as well.
The thing is, as far as I can tell every society, every race has subsets within which they discriminate. Earlier in this thread, I think it was Millen88 who said, “I know white when I see it,” yet said both his parents were from the Republic of Ireland. It wasn’t that long ago that the English (Anglo-Saxons) considered the Irish (Celts) a separate race and, after a fashion, non-white. Earlier today I was reading in Newsweek about discrimination within Islamic culture between Shi’ite and Sunni Muslims. In Japan, which I’ve described as the most mono-racial culture I know of, there is rampant discrimination against the Ainu. For that matter, while many white people may consider Japanese and Koreans to belong to the same rate, discrimination is still prevalent in Japan against people whose grandparents may have immigrated to Japan from Korea because they are, in Japanese eyes, of a different race and culture. Read about American society 100 years ago. You might be surprised to find out which nations were considered a threat to American society as we know it.
CJ
Xenologist
i have a question. Suppose you get your white homeland and everyone you consider worthy gets in.
Of course American genetics and history being what they are, the first generation of children aren’t as ‘white’ as you and the leaders hope.
Using your blue eye theory, the leaders decide that only blue eyed males should be allowed to reproduce. All others, must be sterilized to “save” the race.
The goal being, if all the people in the “community” have blue eyes, there’s less chance of the genetic stock being continuously diluted from past “sins”…all it takes is the genes of 300 year old tryst with an african slave to kick in…
No one is kicked out…but do you realize there is going to be a ‘caste’ system.
Women are of course aren’t sterilized and it’s encouraged that they have more than one partner…“to get the birthrate up”.
Would you be okay with that? I mean, you would be willing to do whatever it takes to save your race from extinction in 200 years, right?