I didn’t say it mapped 1-1 onto anything. No idea what point you’re trying to make.
No, it doesn’t. It specifically distinguishes between the two. And it isn’t an “article.” It’s a journal published study.
The study showed more than that and made conclusions that are used today in the medical field. It also showed many of Monstro’s statements to be wrong.
You quote a paper that uses the two as equivalents
It says they conducted A_A studies because they thought there might be environmental factors, but then turns right around and treats the A-A cohort as though it was a homogenous whole, just like the pan-Asian studies they reference did (I only followed up on a couple, but they used “Asian” throughout)
“article” is a perfectly valid term of art.
Shitty conclusions. The article itself admits that Asian-Americans as a group are heterogeneous:
*There is tremendous heterogeneity among the Asian American subgroups. For example, data from the DISTANCE study might suggest a conventional BMI cut point of 25 kg/m2 as an acceptable threshold (29), especially for South Asians and Southeast Asians. In contrast, the Women’s Health Initiative (28), the Seattle Japanese-American Community Diabetes Study (36), the multiethnic cohort study from Canada (31), and the Multiethnic Cohort in Hawaii (32) would lend support to lowering the BMI cut point, especially for East Asians (Chinese and Japanese).
*
and then goes on to anyway recommend one lower BMI cut-off for the whole population, rather than the separate ones for E Asians vs S&SE Asians their own studies suggest. That’s the kind of bad conclusion poor grouping gets you. Sure, they faff around with reasoning why one lower BMI value would be useful (not very convincingly) but never justify why A-As need to be treated as a cohort. It’s not like they think there should be one universal BMI threshold - they’re happy with there being a seperate one for whites and A-As (and presumably Blacks and Hispanics as well). So why not separate BMI thresholds for 2 groupings in Asian Americans?
OK, so try answering the question:
Define what your “Black” phenotype is. Make sure that it encompasses Ernie Dingo, Haile Selassie, Nelson Mandela and Tiger Woods, who are clearly agreed as being all Black and self identify as Black. If it can’t do that then it’s obviously nonsense.
Tell use what this “Indian” phenotype is that excludes Ernie Dingo, Haile Selassie, Nelson Mandela and Tiger Woods but includes the people in “some” of those photographs those photographs.
You claim that you can see a difference between “some” of those Sri Lankans and Black people such as Ernie Dingo, Haile Selassie, Nelson Mandela and Tiger Woods. So tell use what these phenotypic features are so we can examine them.
I have posted this apparently simple challenge dozens of times over the years, and every time the person making the claim that the can see a difference swiftly recants the claim or else is never heard form again.
I also want to point out that the claim made was that Sri Lankans are not Black. Not that there are some non-Black people living in Sri Lanka, but that Sri Lankans as a whole are not Black people. Even if only Tamils, Veddas and other ethnic groups that make 30% of the country are Black, then doesn’t that prove the comment to be a lie? Only 10% of Americans are Black. Do you think it’s accurate to say that Americans are not Black? And if Americans are not Black, then why are we arguing about all these Black American athletes?
This whole subject is just so full of sloppy thought and sloppy communication that it makes meaningful discussion almost impossible, much less any sort of accurate conclusion.
I will take the challenge. I normally respect you as a poster but your responses in this thread are beyond bizarre as are your examples. I have no idea where you got the idea that Sri Lankans, dark skinned Indians or Australian aborigines would be considered examples of ‘black’ people. They aren’t at least in American terminology. Tiger Woods and Barack Obama are two very famous people with black heritage but everyone knows they are multi-racial. The only example you gave of a true black person was Nelson Mandela.
The problem with your argument is that you are trying to refute things that nobody believes in the first place. However, there is a greater problem with the argument in general. ‘Black’ refers to sub-Saharan African populations in general (but not other dark skinned people around the world). There is a proven genetic break between those populations and the rest of the populations that migrated out of Africa. Europeans and Asians hybridized with Neanderthals and possibly some other early human species while the various populations of sub-Saharan Africans managed to maintain a remarkable level level of genetic homogeneity on their own in some cases. Neanderthal DNA contribution is not trivial. It usually ranges between 1 - 4% or sometimes more for most Europeans (my own DNA test shows about 4%) and some of those genes have evidence that they are active. Sub-Saharan Africans tend to have no DNA contribution from other human species.
I am on the side with posters like MaxTheVool and Mijin. I don’t have any particular bias but I do think that people that claim absolutely that there is no such thing as race don’t really understand what other people are saying. The reverse is also true. I don’t see a problem with there being just two or two thousand races as long as long as that is supported by genetic evidence and that is growing all the time in favor of some sorts of groupings.
And yet, remarkably, at no stage do you actually attempt to do so. Not a single mention of a phenotypic characteristic that can reliably distinguish Black people from Sri Lankans. And I use the term Black people to describe people who consider themselves to be Black and people who are considered by ever major news organisation in the world to be Black.
Shagnasty that post was the most pathetic Gish Gallop i have ever seen on these boards. You should be ashamed. You start out by proclaiming that you will take the challenge, but make no attempt to do so.
You say that you will take the challenge, but instead try to declare the challenge invalid. And it is invalid because Barrack Obama, Ernie Dingo and Tiger Woods are not Black.
Seriously dude, WTF? You actually said that Barrack Obama, Ernie Dingo and Tiger Woods are not Black. Do you not see how utterly fucking stupid that statement is. Those men all consider themselves to be Black. Every major news organisation on the fucking planet considers them to be Black.
But you, alone, in the whole fucking world, think that those men are not Black.
And you think that anybody on the SDMB is going to do anything but piss themselves laughing when they read that rubbish?
You can’t tell us what the Black phenotype is because Barrack Obama isn’t Black? That really is just too ignorant for any response but
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Oh spare me because you just lost in a checkmate. What do phenotypic characteristics have to do with anything? That is exactly the type of thing you were arguing against before wasn’t it?
How much do you understand about human origins? I can start you off with a simple primer (free) if you agree to read it. It explains some of the differentiation fairly well. If you comprehend that one, we can dive down much deeper because it is a fascinating topic with rapidly developing revelations.
http://news.discovery.com/human/evolution/how-neanderthal-dna-changed-humans-140129.htm
Yep, I’m real worried that I lost. I’m sure that the peanut gallery will all agree that you won with your discovery that Barack Obama isn’t Black. :rolleyes:
Honestly man, this is just pathetic. The **sole **point of the challenge was to list phenotypic traits. That was it sole. Exclusively. Nothing else. That was the challenge that you agreed to take.
I issue a challenge for you to give us the phenotypic traits that differentiate typical Sri Lankans from Black.
You declare loudly and boldly that you will take that challenge.
And then you ask what phenotypic characteristics have to do with anything.
Hell, I’ll quote the exchange.
Question to the peanut gallery: is anybody *not * painfully aware of how badly Shagnasty is weaseling here? Did anybody else not see that the sole point of the challenge was to produce a lost of phenotypes?
Oh, I feel confident that anybody who has read my contributions to this board will know that I have a little knowledge of human origins. 
I also feel confident that anybody reading this thread will see the sincerity of your contributions.
I mean, really.
You of all the people in the world know that Barrack Obama isn’t Black? Barack Obama thinks that he is Black. The NAACP thinks that Barack Obama is Black. Reuters thinks that he is Black.CNN thinks that Barack Obama is Black. Fox news thinks that Barack Obama is Black. Stormfront thinks that Barack Obama is Black. The Black Panthers think that Barack Obama is Black. But Shagnasty knows they are all wrong, Shagnasty know that he isn’t Black. I don’t think that anybody here can miss how incredibly bigoted and ignorant that position is.
You accept a challenge to define what your “Black” phenotype is, then respond that you don’t understand what phenotypic characteristics have to do with meeting the challenge.
Shagnasty, you might want to think about your credibility on these boards before you continue contributing in this manner.
They’re the chief basis for how people normally assess and categorize other people’s race.
What? Australian aborigines are very commonly called “Australian blacks” or “black Australians”, by Americans as well as others. (The most well-known recent example is probably the remark to that effect by the (white) American singer Rob Thomas.)
Dark-skinned people without recent African heritage routinely get called black on the grounds that they “look black”.
You seem to be trying to substitute for the traditional “racial” or phenotypic designation of “black” a more population-based ethnic designation of “black”: namely, “sub-Saharan African populations in general”. But this leads you into semantic absurdities like denying that Barack Obama counts as “black”, when in fact the vast majority of Americans would say that he is racially black. (You’re also inconsistent in objecting to the term “black” for Obama but not questioning its use for African-Americans in general, most of whom have a significant admixture of European ancestry.)
If what you’re interested in is ethnic-group identification rather than phenotypic or social categories, then why don’t you just stop using the word “black” to mean “of exclusively sub-Saharan African descent”, and just say “of exclusively sub-Saharan African descent” instead? Most African-Americans would then be called “of mixed sub-Saharan African and European descent”, and so on.
If your point is that people’s ethnic identities can be described in a genetically meaningful way, then you should stick to genetically meaningful categories to describe them, instead of trying to redefine a traditional racial signifier like “black” to mean something very different from its common interpretation.
Nelson Mandela was of part-Khoisan ancestry - he was “mixed” too.
:smack: Yeah, the common social races are totally defined by deep genomic studies.
This is problematic, because it lumps all the diverse ethnic groups in SS-Africa into one group - conflating Bantu, Nilotics, Khoisan and so-called Pygmies into one group. It becomes strictly a geographic designation, not an ethic one.
More importantly, they were the *only *basis for the challenge which Shagnasty loudly declared he was going to take.
The fact that three posts later he is saying “phenotypes, what phenotypes?” is really all that needs to be said.
Of course in Australia, they are just called "Black (“Blacks” being fairly offensive for historical reasons). Ernie Dingo describes himself as a Black man, as does his wife, and I guess they would know if anybody did. And it’s not like that is unusual. I think everybody in Australia would agree that Ernie Dingo is Black.
AKA moving the goal posts. In this case moving them onto a baseball field.
Do you really think that’s absurd? Maybe we’re being harsh. Maybe the fact that Shagnasty is telling Barack Obama that he doesn’t know what race he is perfectly sensible.
Most importantly, he has to accept that all those Black sports stars are Black, because that is the entire basis of this racist argument.
IOW, he is arguing that every black sprinter, footballer and boxer is Black, because the fact that they are Black is the reason why they are so good at their sports.
But he is simultaneously arguing that Barack Obama and Haile Selassie, who very likely have *less *European admixture than most of those sportsmen, isn’t Black at all.
It’s utterly schizophrenic special pleading.
That *is *the reason “race realists” won’t do it. The whole point is to be say “Blacks are naturally good at X and naturally bad at Y”. The last thing you want to have to do is concede that it’s actually mostly people of European descent who are good/bad at those things.
If the race realists use terms that are meaningful and objectively definable, then it becomes immediately apparent what a load of dingo’s kidneys their position is. The whole point of using terms like "Black: is obfuscation.
They will never admit that, which is why I enjoy posting my challenge and watching them scarper. I have to admit, I have never before had such a fantastic response as I have this time. Forcing one to admit that using their definition of Black, Barack Obama and Tiger Woods are not “True” Blacks. Priceless.
Hmm. I wonder if “True” Blacks put sugar on their porridge.
Not to mention that the challenge was laid down because poster claimed that he could see that Sri Lankans were not Black.
Whatever could phenotypes have to do with visible traits that differentiate genetic populations?
While placing Saharan groups into a completely different category regardless of how ethnically similar they may be to the adjacent Sahelian populations. When you end up placing a Khoi hunter gatherer into the same category as a Sudanese Muslim, while saying that a Sudanese Nubian Muslim is completely distinct from an Egyptian Nubian Muslim who speaks the same language, you clearly don’t have a coherent ethnic designation.
Blake has been insisting on calling Australian Aboriginals “black” since at least 2003. I read this thread and immediately wondered if it was that same guy who was asked to knock it off over a decade ago. Yes, it’s the same guy. He hasn’t knocked it off.
As this is an American board primarily conversing in American English, no one is including “Australian Aborigines, Andaman Islanders and Sri Lankan Tamils” when discussing black people. European colonists applied the term elsewhere, but that’s irrelevant here. And no one is confused unless he wants to be.
It’s funny and maybe just a little bit troubling to see a supposed ecologist/botonist attempt gotchas like “Define what your “Black” phenotype is. Make sure that it encompasses Ernie Dingo, Haile Selassie, Nelson Mandela and Tiger Woods, who are clearly agreed as being all Black and self identify as Black. If it can’t do that then it’s obviously nonsense”, because any biologist will know that even when an individual can be placed in one group over another, a random from another group may be closer to that individual than a random from the same group. And that’s with genetics! Not even as squishy as phenotypes.
That’s funny! Without even trying to, I found this place, where these folks doubt that Nelson Mandela is a “true” anything.
Your life experience makes you most familiar with the descendants of American slaves. The descendants of American slaves are generally “multiracial”–possessing 22% European admixture compared to Barack Obama’s 50%. Does that mean the overwhelming majority of black American are not “true black”?
That’s what “black” refers to in the US. But in other countries, “black” refers to the ethnic group(s) with the darkest skin complexion relative to the majority in that society. Which is yet another reason why “black” should not be used in medical parlance. “Black” communicates something different to a Brazilian than it does to an Australian than it does to an American than it does to a South African.
How does this square with the fact that Sub-Saharan Africans contains the most genetic and phenotypic diversity anywhere on Earth?
At any rate, you can’t look at a black person–especially an American black person, the kind you’re presumably an expert in–and make any reasonable conclusion about how much “Neanderthal” they have in them. You can be dark-skinned and nappy-headed and have a grandparent or parent with a high European admixture. If a person fitting this profile strolls into a doctor’s office complaining of a symptoms that are commonly found in Europeans, it is simply bad medicine for the doctor to assume anything about that patient’s risk based solely on his phenotype or self-identified race. So the doctor needs to not be lazy and simply ask the patient about his genetic background. The moment the doctor sees “BLACK PATIENT”, his mind closes just a little. Doctors should fight against this tendency, not embrace it.
I talk about race all the time, so clearly I know that race exists in some meaningful way. But I don’t see its relevance to medicine, especially in this great age of admixture and diversity.
Many of the cues we rely on to peg someone’s race have nothing to do with phenotype, but on cultural signs. Like how they speak, how they’ve styled their hair, their clothing, their surname. Remove these props and I’m betting most Americans would struggle to differentiate an Indian from a “Hispanic”, a native Australian from a “black” person, or an Ethiopian from an Indian.
You’re addressing a guy who couldn’t even reliably identify someone as Hispanic upon moving to El Paso, and who worked with a woman to whom every east-Asian was Chinese. So I’ll not argue that.
Do you dispute genetic studies showing Sinhalese to be from the sub-continent? Are Tamils also black? All Indians? Or just dark skinned Indians? Or are you using black to just mean dark skin? Plenty of people around the world have dark skin but they’re not called black in standard American English.
Interestingly, while searching your claim, I learned there’s about 1k Africans in Sri Lanka, descended from slaves brought in by the Portuguese.
Americans confuse Greeks/Turks/Arabs too.
One common refrain is that American foreign policy is about bombing “brown people.” Not wrong, but a lot of Middle East and North Africans have fair skin (Afghanistan too).
Also I’m pretty sure most Americans have no idea of the huge amount of ethnic diversity going from Europe to Asia. I think they think it’s all a bunch of white Russians, then poof, han Chinese.
It’s utterly schizophrenic special pleading.
Of course, but it’s special pleading in defense of some of the foundational beliefs of US society. Especially US society in the deep South where Shagnastry grew up. That those beliefs are largely, well, fictional, is not something many people are willing to acknowledge. Far easier on the psyche to twist one’s thinking into knots.