You guys wield skin color like it’s a cross against a vampire. I have no issue there, sorry. (I have known several very dark-skinned South Asian people who were exceedingly intelligent.)
Good points, nachtmusick, except I don’t know about your final paragraph. I interpreted Klein as implicitly conceding the scientific argument, but valuing motive above all.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
An article by David Reich (Harvard geneticist) in the NY Times set off the current round of bickering over the Murray/Harris podcast. Reich argues that there is a biological basis for race and that the idea that race has no biological meaning has become an orthodoxy on the left, but isn’t supported by current genetic science.
A typo, idiot, is when you spell it “Glacail” or similar. What you had was a brain fart.
Yes, we’re well aware of your memory and literacy issues, obviously
I’ve already said, GD is over that way. This is the PALATR(acist) thread.
Sorry but I laughed about this enough that i just had to point it out.
And
Not only is the claim of my extreme “nurture” a false dichotomy, it is also a strawman 
Lets think of some terms that would be accepted under modern science for grouping of individuals.
[ul]
[li]subclade[/li][li]cline[/li][li]population[/li][li]family[/li][li]haplogroup[/li][/ul]
And those can be traced to actual markers and may have some scientific value.
But if you are going to make any claim that race or discredited ideas rooted in folk lore and codified by individuals like Johann Friedrich Blumenbach’s 1779 era categories of.
[ul]
[li]Negroid race[/li][li]Caucasian race[/li][li]Mongolian race[/li][li]Aethiopian race[/li][li]American race[/li][li]Malayan race[/li][/ul]
Which was based on crania research, or the shape of skulls. Where they thought they could judge the intellectual capacity of a race by the cranial capacity and then codified laws based on those false assumptions we have a problem.
Race is a social construct, not based on scientific categories but based on bias and it is a Social Construct. Money is also a Social Construct BTW, so don’t hand wave away the very real implications of the non-biological based categorization of Race
There is absolutely no controversy in suggesting that there may be differences between populations, but to base any claim on the concept of Race, which is NOT a biological trait is a pretty good indicator that the presenter is full of bullshit.
Lumping people into arbitrary groups, whether it be negroid, alpine, or aryan and ignoring that those groupings are arbitrary and NOT based on biological traits and then making claims about inferiority or broad claims on behavior is the problem.
I don’t even have to approach the issues with IQ tests, as the concept of human races is broadly accepted as not being a biological trait the claims can be dismissed right there.
What Charles Murray needs to do is to show that he can reliably categorize a person as a Negro first, and second he needs to explain why Africa, which has more human genetic diversity than the entire rest of the world is unified in a trait such as to the level that we can even consider if these Negros are dumber than the Aryans.
I want to be 100% clear here, while using terms like Black or African American is common today, they are just 1:1 replacements for the term Negro
Charles Murray is arguing that Negros are inferior to Aryans and that it is a genetic trait. He goes to great efforts to maintain that Negro classification, despite the implications and discredited nature despite the fact that there are better more specific terms that he could use for his argument.
It is not a strawman for me to point out that your argument is that Negros are inferior, which may not be purely intentional but fits the textbook definition of racism.
One really has to be tone deaf to the origin of the concept of race for this to be true.
As a bonus point Some of the mutations responsible for lighter skin in Europeans turn out to have an ancient African origin
As the preponderance of evidence shows that race isn’t a biological trait, I will not accept theories which are based on that flawed claim. I don’t even have to consider if there is a genetic component to intelligence to do so as being based on disproven claims the evidence lacks the ability to prove that Negros are inferior to me. As differences between individuals are far greater than the differences between these groups even if they were valid I can assume that socio-economic factors are the main difference as my null, and will do so until evidence can show that this is in error.
This is not a extreme “nurture” position, it just a dismissal of baseless racist claims.
He had to clarify a week later, he still sticks to his silly Race claims, but in general his error is a perfect example of what privilege is.
Note he has refused to provide clarification on what makes someone a Negro
Here is a response from other researchers.
He is probably just tone deaf, or ignorant about the origins of the term race but ya, this just goes to show how far we have to go.
There is a slim chance that he may have other intentions, but for the most part he just seems to have made this mistake.
“From Clerks 2, about Porch Monkey”
David Reich seems to be arguing that he want to *take Negroid back*. It is unclear if Reich likes the Third Reich, or if he just can't spell cline or population or any other usable modern term.Note in some cases there are very clear dog whistles as historical racist tropes are yet again disproven by genetics.
Like how the Economist abused the term “Aryan” is clearly based in bigotry and the rise of modern fascism. The populations in this paper would have been Untermensch under the Nazi Nordic racial model.
I do challenge any posters who are defending the use of “race” to mark some populations as inferior to provide any definition for Negroid or other racist classification which could be applied to biological unique traits.
That may be the best method to demonstrate just how flawed this idea and sidestepping the thorny issue around explicit and implicit bias.
Here is a chance to fight my ignorance if you can rise to the challenge.
I realized that people will probably discount some of my above points under Godwin’s law.
So here is a direct cite to show that Finns, and Asian pastoralists, which are either considered “white” today or are the origin of many of the traits that people think of as “European” including 75% of the genetic makeup of modern Europeans were Der Untermensch
[
](Der Untermensch www.HolocaustResearchProject.org)
And these categories were in a large part pulled from an American book called “The Passing of the Great Race” and directly relates to the stupid attempt to reuse this un-scientific historical term in a modern context.
You can consider Teutonic Nordics == Aryan for the most part, and the Slavic Alpines are both more related to the pre-metal era Europeans that supposedly bred this mythical superior race.
I understand that this history isn’t exactly broadcast in our school history classes, but this is what you are championing when you are advocating the use of a non-biological grouping based on politics like ‘race’
The Passing of the Great Race is available on the internet, and it’s themes and claims directly map to the recent rise of nationalism and fascism in the western world today.
Go read it for yourself if you think anything I have posted here is hyperbole. There is a good reason people won’t accept efforts to dehumanize random populations, especially when they intentionally try to sidestep the need to actually prove the sub-population they are marking as inferior is a valid grouping (which race is not on a biological level)
Naah, you’re more about the “hair texture”…
You were on defensible ground criticizing Murray, until you pulled me in and imputed to me the same perspective. That shows you either have jumped in late and not really read my posts in this thread, or you are purposely strawmanning me. Anyone paying attention, even my detractors, know that I have specifically said over and over that people of sub-Saharan African ancestry are far too diverse genetically to be considered a single population or “race” in genetic terms, and that I do not believe they are “inferior”, with Caucasians setting the standard for “normal”.
Mighty white of you.
Ice Age Europe was different from today. Livable areas were much smaller, but the glaciers could cut off and isolate areas from each other even if they were close as the crow flies. Siberia was vastly different too. With vast glaciers blocking the northward flow of water, the hydrology was extremely different.
In the west of Europe, the forests of Spain and the tundra of France, was the Western Hunter-gatherers. They were a black-skinned, blue eyed people. Where Romania is today, there was a second group of people. We know fuck-all about what they looked like, although it seems they may have had more Neanderthal in them than other peoples. About the same level of difference as Europeans to Japanese, maybe. They were extinct by about 34 000 BP as far as we can see. There was an offshoot of the Western Hunter-Gatherers in the Caucasus mountains. Split off maybe 40 000 BP, and isolated from neighbors for a time there.
The most Robert E. Howard people were the Basal Eurasians. Its starting to look increasingly likely that their main territory was the Persian Gulf, back then a valley with good stable water sources. These guys didn’t seem to mix with anyone for a long while, and they split off from the main out-of-africa lot about 88 000 years back. So they’ll have been more different genetically from everyone else outside of Africa than Australian Aborigines and Europeans. Also no hanky-panky with Neanderthals or Denisovans. Their genes finally mixed with other peoples about 13 000 years ago. They are associated with the first sedentary peoples, the first agriculture and quite possibly Göbekli Tepe.
In Siberia, there was another lot of isolates that went extinct without passing on their genes. There was also a continuum of people running from central China to the Baltic, which did exchange genes. This is where white skin showed up, maybe 15 000 years ago on the mammoth plain. It was in Europe 10 000 years ago, just about.
Sorry, just find this fascinating and wanted to rant about it.
For those hereditarians on the thread,
The only large study I could find tracked six genetic markers that are believed to be related to cognitive ability. Yet those six markers could only demonstrate ~1% in variation.
As that side of the debate is quick to invoke science can you provide cites from sizable studies that will show an effect that is meaningful?
Even if we ignore the terms used for categories and their flaws, do you have data that shows that the claim about a biological marker that is more impactful that will survive corrections for socioeconomic and cultural differences?
Very interesting, Grim!
If you think thats interesting, keep an eye out for Sriram Sankararaman and Arun Durvasulas work on archaic admixture in Africa. Going to be published any day now
Cool. Link here if you remember.
I was returning your strawman
Of which this is another example of.
Part of the reason I care is because our whole society suffers when we pretend that race is even has a trace of being biologically valid as a descriptor.
The Social costs for this bullshit racist concept are huge, we need to quit pretending it had any basis in biology to help move forward and address the very real and tragic implications of this bigotry that effects our fellow Americans today.
I can see how you were trying to build another straw-man here, suggesting that I am somehow in the bullshit post-racial camp, but I am not even close.
In fact our cultures refusal to address this very real and painful reality terrifies me. But I would point out how you are childishly responding with ad hominem attacks, while I was very clearly addressing ideas.
But to address your concern that I am purely building a straw-man let me re-quote you.
My “extreme ‘nurture’ position” is not extreme, but matches the evidence.
And your claims about 40K years of evolution are bunk, which you failed to address and resorted to ad hominem attacks to deflect from the problems with your claims.
There is no isolated development narrative about Europeans for the past 40K years. It was a continuing series of migrations, replacements and interbreeding of populations that actually washed the genetic material you are claiming is a differentiator mostly away.
This image will have to do as I am trying to find cites that aren’t behind a paywall.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14507/figures/8
The middle panel will show how Anatolian farmers first, then the Yamnaya herders replaced much of the mesolithic genetic material.
A bout of plague 6000 years go likely lead to the dominance of more recent Y DNA, compared to the presance of pre-bronze age mtDNA as the Yamnaya herders seemed to be largely male.
This is before the Corded Ware and other migrations.
Grim, the earliest references I can find for light skin was in Sweden 7700 years ago, but it wasn’t common in Central Europe for another couple thousand years later, if you have any cites for the 10K date I would appreciate it. SLC24A5 is around in the Mesolithic but SLC45A2 not until the Neolithic. But as in Europe the Mesolithic is 10,000 to 5000 BCE that puts it close to the Paleolithic which would be news to me.
Even though this is from 2015 this chart is slightly out of date but from that same article above which will show this in graphical format.
This homogenization seems to fit more of a founder effect then selection.
What is clear is that Nordicism is clearly not supported at all, for people wishing to use “race” I am not sure what grouping they expect to use if they won’t touch the Alpine/Nordic/Negroid labels at all.
Here is a better link for my second link, which will give a description of the data in the chart.
How about this, which doesn’t require any romantic notions of “pure” “Nordicism”:
If your ancestors pushed out from the ancestral home of humanity, into an inhospitable environment (recall that some migrations died out), and kept the fire burning for tens of thousands of years through a harsh ice age, you are guaranteed to have nothing but resilient, adaptable ancestors in your lineage. This doesn’t have to be about evolutionary change over that time so much as selecting for expeditionary groups that started off with good genes.
If all your ancestors stayed in the cradle of humanity, your existence might be simply chance (that diverse genome ping-ponged its way through random mixing down to you). Or your ancestors may have strong sperm that outcompete other men’s sperm, and the women come to puberty earlier and produce more offspring over their lifetime. Or the men may better physically dominate other men in a dense, extant population.
BTW, have you ever notice how “invasive species” tend to be more evolutionarily fit than the ones who have been in one ecological niche throughout their evolutionary history?
The rest of your post is nonsense as well, but no, invasive species are not more fit, they don’t have predators. It’s usually specifically because they were confined to one ecological niche that, once they leave it, there is nothing in the new areas that is adapted to hunting it.