The main races are Caucasian, Negro, and Mongoloid. Additional races exist. Most Mongoloids are Oriental. The distinction is useful, because the Orientals have higher average IQs. They have build more advanced civilizations. They continue to be more advanced.
Until the Bantu expansion the Bushmen occupied most of Africa. They were paleolithic, and remained so into the twentieth century. When the Bantu acquired the use of iron weapons about 3,500 years ago the Bushmen, who were still in the stone age, could not compete with the Bantu, so the Bantu occupied most of Africa. It may be that the Negroes are more closely related to the Caucasians and Orientals than they are to the Bushmen, but I have only seen one chart that claims that. I will need further confirmation before I make up my mind on the issue.
What race are Nubians? Malagasy? Andaman Islanders? Tuareg? Each of these ethnic groups has been (generally) distinct (from their neighbors) and coherent for thousands of years.
And until you can convince most biology professors at universities to follow your peculiar definitions what you have there are just the ideas of a nowhere man.
I would rather confront the misconceptions and fallacies of my detractors than ignore them. Their intemperate insults demonstrate that they are incapable of responding to my logical and fact based arguments in a way that a competent debate judge would value.
If race is only a social construct, why do those who are wrongfully believed to be a race that does not exist deserve preferential hiring and university admissions?
This is a laugh. You’ve abandoned the ridiculous Lynn because we’ve shown what shoddy science his book was. You’ve never offered ANY genetic evidence- and I’ve shown you exactly what I mean by that. You’ve shown nothing but education and crime statistics- and education and crime statistics do not and cannot tell you anything about genetics.
Because race exists. It’s a social construct, which is a real thing.
You yourself are a perfect example; you keep referring to “blacks” as a unified race, when genetically they obviously are not. To an American in 2012, “blacks” are a meaningful racial group, sociologically speaking. Genetically, it’s meaningless, not much different from referring to the race of “people with brown eyes.”
Wrong. The three main races are Redheads, People Named “Alphonse,” and everyone else, a race which I characterize “Therestians.” There are examples of Redheads who also display Alphonsian characteristics due to miscegenation, but thankfully these cases are rare.
I invite anyone to challenge my research, which is based on sound science and comprises forty-four filing cabinets filled with statistical studies and scholarly works stored in my pants. While not as vast and impressive as the library of original research on race studies that New Deal Democrat has assembled in his rectum, it’s certainly nothing to sneeze at.
So his anti Anthropomorphic Global Warming is an honestly held position to you? Okay, nice to know you feel Brazil84, your lone alley in the thread is a retard, I guess.
He makes slanderous, false, accusations against me like that, and doesn’t back them up. Why should I treat the science denying, lying, brazil nut any different?
I’m not sure if this comment is addressed to me, but I totally concede that there are inherent psychological differences between human males and human females. And that human males are significantly more prone to violent crime than human females.
And my position on policy is essentially the same: The government should not make policies based on the false assumption that the sexes are inherently the same psychologically and that therefore any performance gaps are due to discrimination. Ditto for policies based on the false assumption that any racial disparities must be the result of discrimination.
