I’m a gene poolist, but iiandyiiii keeps thinking I’m a racist, even though I don’t even care to define races.
I let people group themselves, and then point out how mother nature has driven the average gene pool for the group with which they decide to self-identify to cluster for different genes than some other self-identifying group.
Then I argue that skillsets among these groups vary, and are likely to vary because of the average gene pool differences, since mother nature tends to tinker with all genes. I can’t bring myself to think that she has set aside some genes as too special to be dinked with.
And what do I get for my analysis? A charge of racism.
It’s so depressing, when I’m really just a gene poolist. But I think my self-identified group is genetically more inclined, on average, to depression. So I guess I’ll just learn to live with it.
That is ok, while I suspect you are very naive and can fall into that category it is more likely that you are just a crackpot that follows other crackpots. There, that makes it better.
It amuses me that Chief seems to think that there’s no relationship between his precious “SIRE groups” and the traditional racist races, and using the former makes him not a racist .
“It’s OK, they’re labelling themselves!” is the “Stop hitting yourself” of scientific racists.
Close, but what I really argue for is that social labels carry no scientific weight.
The anti-egalitarians have figured out that since “racist” is such a socially inflammatory term, if they can get something labeled “racist” they can kill discussion and perhaps even kill research into average biologically-based differences among any two groups.
So they begin this anti-genetic quest by first advancing the idea of a strictly-bounded biological definition of race, and then attacking that as nonsense. The tactic is to “define race,” and if race cannot be narrowly defined, draw an inference that average biological differences among large pools cannot be genetically driven because you can’t define “race” for any given individual rigorously enough to make meaningful biological groupings.
It’s been spectacularly successful, but of course science will win in the end. It’s child’s play to prove which clades roughly diverged when, and gene mapping lets us show clustering for a couple thousand genes already even at the level of self-identification for a SIRE group.
So the “no-race” argument is doomed, except in circles who stubbornly cling to their egalitarian faith without personally looking at a scientific argument that average biological pools vary be SIRE group, and that nature has more likely than not tinkered with every gene in those pools randomly. Nature herself does not seem to Intelligently Design anything a priori, and does not herself seem to be particularly interested in making sure every human population gets exactly the same share of genes driving “significant” differences.
A cry of “scientific racism” is the last pitiful gasp of those who can’t argue with the actual science of average biological differences among SIRE groups.
If we can just raise the RACISM flag, we can quell actual discussion. It works pretty well.
Just to be clear; I don’t give a crap about being labeled a “racist.”
Happens all the time on this board, for reasons mentioned above.
When you don’t have a scientific counter-argument, holler “RACIST” as loudly and indignantly as you can.
I have neither time nor inclination to swab off flung mud. By iiandyiiii’s definition, I’m a racist (more precisely, he might say I have racist ideas, but that fine point fails me), but I’m not interested at all in battling language use. I just want to understand the science of what makes the world the way it is, and use that to make a better world for everyone.
A recent thread (“Asking an African-American woman to give up a bus seat in the handicapped section makes me racist?”) makes an instructive point.
At the time of the incident, that OP said “Maybe they’re pregnant.” Another Doper wrote:
I suppose these Dopers would have defended their comments by claiming that in a racism-free society, such rude responses would not depend on the race of the insultee. By treating such insults as “racist” it means one cannot say things to a black that one might say, if angry, to a white.
But that reasoning ignores that U.S. is still a racist society.This page has a video of diversity training with a message that black people need and want to be seen as black. (And, please don’t criticize the preceding sentence unless you watch the video.)
Which is it? “no scientific weight” or not? I’m confused here, because SIRE groups are social labels.
And of course science will win in the end. That’s why there are all those statements from groups like the AAA, the AAPA, etc, saying that race is a non-starter in their fields.
This would be more persuasive if anyone besides yourself ever relied on SIRE groupings for the discussion. You are the only one who does so. Every other “race realist” on this board argues for a reality of race–that they then fail to define.
It is unfortunate that other posters simply refuse to accept that you have a slightly different position than all the others who argue very similar claims to the ones you make. On the other hand, you have argued your “egalitarian” straw man so broadly and so often that it is difficult to work up a lot of enthusiasm for trying to unbundle the various arguments. If you cannot distinguish between separate arguments against you, why should anyone spend any effort to try to defend your argument as different form the others who hold such similar views?
I would judge MrDibble’s claims that lump you in with those who do argue “race” to be inaccurate, but I see no point in trying to distinguish between broad brush claimants on either side of the discussion.
I’m pretty sure I’ve never called you a racist. I try to avoid making any judgments that imply an understanding of people’s motives or what’s going on in their mind, because you can never know. I’ve called various claims racist, because they fit the definition of “racist”. But calling a claim racist is different than calling a person racist.
However an understanding of human migration history and the way evolution works will make it self-evident that a gene which evolves after a divergence of groups and is advantageous enough to become highly penetrated into a descendant population will change the average gene pool between the two groups at the point of the split. For example, any gene which arose after the point of the mtDNA L3-M/N split (roughly at the point some human groups left africa) would appear only in the descendant population from the point the gene evolved. If it evolved early enough, and was penetrated enough, the average gene pool would change for that particular population.
As a rule of thumb (on average, in other words), SIRE groups tend to be continental origins of the source group. Even if you let people arbitrarily self-identify, most US blacks will identify with a gene pool that has about 80% of its average genes from west africa source groups. US whites, on the other hand, will have over 90% of their genes from source pools in europe.
These two groups can (and have) been evaluated to see if some genes are so highly penetrated in a given group that they cluster by SIRE category. Sure; the Barack Obamas and the Navin Johnsons screw up any rigid genetic boundary definitions. But equally remarkable is the clustering of genes by SIRE group. In other words, you can find average gene pool differences even when all people do is claim a social attachment to one group or the other. IIRC, one study found 1,800 such genes. We’re not just talking about hair shape or skin color here.
So it doesn’t matter if there are 100 black races and 30 white ones. It doesn’t matter if there’s only one race. It doesn’t matter if a Navin Johnson thinks he’s black. From the standpoint of a pro-genetic argument for skillset outcome differences in SIRE groups, what matters is that they are different average gene pools. Given that they are different average gene pools, and given that mother nature tinkers with all genes randomly, with no thought of Intelligently Designing fairness, it becomes a plausible explanation that skillset differences may be driven by genes.
To be fair, magellan is quite happy to share his conception of race. It seems to boil down to a three-group model of:
[ul]
[li]Black skin and frizzy hair[/li][li]Slanty eyes[/li][li]None of the above[/li][/ul]
It’s over the top, all right. But I no longer am shocked by such a combination of ignorance and lack of empathy. There was something a while back about a white racist carrying a “clever” sign playing on the NAACP’s letters. (I just recalled that it was in a “This Modern World” cartoon by “Tom Tomorrow” (Dan Perkins) – Maybe folks can look it up if they are skeptical.)
“N— Are Always Crying Racism”
– and it wasn’t Negros, Negroids, or even Nigras – Not that it would have been much better, but the word omitted was the one used in lynchings, I believe. And that’s why I am reluctant to even write it out to make a point.
I am certain I have observed a handful of situations with white racism assumed when other factors were at work. But talk about an irony meter blowing up!
I had to look up “picaninny” to see whether it referred only to little girls of color or to all children of color. It’s the latter. I was unfamiliar with the term growing up and first recall it in an underground comic.
Here’s a thought experiment. I really doubt it would do any good, and I have a feeling you, digs, would agree.
Hypothetically:
Ask them whether such a “cute” term would be okay for a little white girl or boy. See the shocked looks on their faces and hear them say: “Oh, no! That would be disrespectful!” :rolleyes:
Where? I consider the “racist” card the pitiful last bastion of those with no science. I don’t think I’ve ever objected to being called a racist personally, nor have I objected to a position I take being called racist.
I’m interested in science, not name-calling.
You, on the other hand, are delighted to label a position “racist” a priori of its correctness being proved or disproved.
