DuneyBlues
Deinonychus
Joined: 23 Nov 2011
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 306
Location: Enjoying Solitary Confinement
14 Apr 2012, 2:41 pm
14 Apr 2012, 2:41 pm
14 Apr 2012, 2:49 pm
14 Apr 2012, 3:10 pm
14 Apr 2012, 3:13 pm
DuneyBlues
Deinonychus
Joined: 23 Nov 2011
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 306
Location: Enjoying Solitary Confinement
14 Apr 2012, 3:19 pm
Quote:
CrazyCatLord wrote:
DuneyBlues wrote:
CrazyCatLord wrote:
DuneyBlues wrote:
Race is still a valued taxonomy: http://books.google.ca/books/about/The_ ... edir_esc=y
I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say with this. Race can't be a taxonomy. Taxonomy is the science of identifying and classifying living organisms. Race could be a taxon or a taxonomic rank within the biological taxonomy, but that is not the case. The term has been used in plant taxonomy in the past, but botany has also long replaced it with the species / subspecies taxa.
As for your link, as far as I can tell it has nothing whatsoever to do with your statement. It leads to a review of a book written by Richard Dawkins. I don't think that he is a big supporter of the idea of different human races, but I'm open to being convinced otherwise. Could you please quote the relevant part of the book? Without a quote, it makes little sense to use it as a reference, don't you think?
PS: I'm still waiting for your reply to my post. Do you have a list of human races, preferably one that was published in this century or the second half of the last century and has some scientific validity? Alternatively, you could post your own hypothesis. I still have no idea what exactly you mean when you talk about races. How many are there? What are they called? What are the classification criteria? We need to know this if we are meant to have a meaningful discussion about this subject, and I can't find any racial classification system for humans in the scientific literature for some weird reason.
( Para 2 ) I'm sorry for shifting the burden of proof on you but the whole book is based on this idea that there are different human races.
If the book is about early human evolution, as the description says, it is probably even about different human species. Until approx. 28,000 years ago, there used to be more than one species of humans. But since Neanderthals and other archaic members of the genus Homo are extinct, only one human species remains, which is Homo sapiens.
This thread is about your attempt to divide H. sapiens, the only human species on this planet, into categorical groups. I'd like to know which groups these are supposed to be. You can't really expect all thread participants to read an entire book first. If you propose that different human races exist, it is up to you to provide us with evidence for this idea, or at least with more information.
Quote:
( PS ) Critics of the concept of "race" in humans usually argue that race is a folk taxonomy rather than a scientific classification , typical.
http://www.americanethnography.com/article.php?id=36
^ This argues for my statement.
http://www.americanethnography.com/article.php?id=36
^ This argues for my statement.
Did you read the information next to the article?
ABOUT THIS ARTICLE
“The concept of race” originally appeared in American Anthropologist October, 1962
1962... that's a bit dated, don't you think? Anthropological research didn't stop back then. If you want to read the current scientific consensus on the topic of human races, here is a link to a more recent article of the American Anthropological Association:
http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm
This is the important part:
Quote:
"Race" thus evolved as a worldview, a body of prejudgments that distorts our ideas about human differences and group behavior. Racial beliefs constitute myths about the diversity in the human species and about the abilities and behavior of people homogenized into "racial" categories. The myths fused behavior and physical features together in the public mind, impeding our comprehension of both biological variations and cultural behavior, implying that both are genetically determined. Racial myths bear no relationship to the reality of human capabilities or behavior. Scientists today find that reliance on such folk beliefs about human differences in research has led to countless errors.
At the end of the 20th century, we now understand that human cultural behavior is learned, conditioned into infants beginning at birth, and always subject to modification. No human is born with a built-in culture or language. Our temperaments, dispositions, and personalities, regardless of genetic propensities, are developed within sets of meanings and values that we call "culture." Studies of infant and early childhood learning and behavior attest to the reality of our cultures in forming who we are.
It is a basic tenet of anthropological knowledge that all normal human beings have the capacity to learn any cultural behavior. The American experience with immigrants from hundreds of different language and cultural backgrounds who have acquired some version of American culture traits and behavior is the clearest evidence of this fact. Moreover, people of all physical variations have learned different cultural behaviors and continue to do so as modern transportation moves millions of immigrants around the world.
At the end of the 20th century, we now understand that human cultural behavior is learned, conditioned into infants beginning at birth, and always subject to modification. No human is born with a built-in culture or language. Our temperaments, dispositions, and personalities, regardless of genetic propensities, are developed within sets of meanings and values that we call "culture." Studies of infant and early childhood learning and behavior attest to the reality of our cultures in forming who we are.
It is a basic tenet of anthropological knowledge that all normal human beings have the capacity to learn any cultural behavior. The American experience with immigrants from hundreds of different language and cultural backgrounds who have acquired some version of American culture traits and behavior is the clearest evidence of this fact. Moreover, people of all physical variations have learned different cultural behaviors and continue to do so as modern transportation moves millions of immigrants around the world.
But scientific knowledge is never complete or final. So if you have scientifically valid classifications of human subspecies, I'd be happy to review them with an open mind.
Quote:
I'd like to know which groups these are supposed to be.
http://www.velesova-sloboda.org/antrop/ ... gence.html
Quote:
You can't really expect all thread participants to read an entire book first.
Really justify why I can't. If you don't read the entire book then you have no credibility in justifying that your correct about your interpretation of the book without evidence to support this interpretation ( or in other words: I didn't read the book thus I don't have much knowledge about the other parts but I'm sure my interpretation is right about these other parts ).
Quote:
If you propose that different human races exist, it is up to you to provide us with evidence for this idea, or at least with more information.
Cavalli-Sforza's an italian population geneticist has views that have morphed over time:
“(1977) The differences that exist between the major racial groups are such that races could be called subspecies if we adopted for man a criterion suggested by Mayr (1963) for systematic zoology.[6] ”
“ (1994) The classification into races has proved to be a futile exercise for reasons that were already clear to Darwin.[7] ”
“The History and Geography of Human Genes” (1994) is the culmination of Cavalli-Sforza’s five-decade career up to that final view.
In this photo we see Cavalli-Sforza's genetic map of the Americas, from HGHG.
"One particularly silly objection by Cavalli-Sforza is that “[h]uman races are still extremely unstable entities in the hands of modern taxonomists, who define from 3 to 60 or more races… [T]he level at which we stop our classification is completely arbitrary.” (HGHG, p. 19). This philosophical fallacy also “proves” that height, weight, motion, and food do not exist, since there is no non-arbitrary dividing line between short and tall or thin and fat; nor is there a consensus on what the highway speed limit should be or what kinds of food taste good". - Unamused
Cavalli-Sforza's genetic map of Africa, from HGHG.
"Despite the alleged arbitrariness of races, Cavalli-Sforza’s six genetic color maps (the world, Africa, Asia, Europe, the Americas, and Oceania) clearly depict black Africans, Khoisans (Bushmen and Hottentots), East Asians, south-west Asians, white Europeans similar to north Africans, native North Americans, native South Americans, and native Australians (HGHG, color section, Figures 1–6). To be precise, they clearly depict these races according to Cavalli-Sforza’s own captions. In fact, the only races from Richard Lynn’s “Race Differences in Intelligence” which are not clearly depicted are
Arctic Peoples (or Eskimos) as clearly distinct from American Indians — Cavalli-Sforza’s caption to Figure 5 suggests this is “probably because [Eskimos] inhabit a very thin area on the coast,”
South-East Asians as clearly distinct from East Asians” — his caption to Figure 3 notes the “extremely dark color that makes Southeast Asia almost invisible,” and
Pacific Islanders, who occupy an even tinier area, as clearly distinct from native Australians — the map of Australia shows four major regions, one of which is present in Australia but not New Guinea". - Unamused
--
According to the article: http://www.sjsu.edu/edleadership/course ... pology.pdf
Quote:
Contemporary humans are not divisible into biological races. When anthropologists say races aren't biologically real, they also reject the idea that modern humans can be divided into scientifically valid, biologically distinct groupings or races. For races to be real as biological categories, the classification must be based on objective, consistent, and reliable biological criteria. The classification system must also have predictive value that will make it useful in research.
Predictive value? Sure, we can do that. Go out and randomly select 100 whites (group A) and 100 blacks (group B). From each group create a basketball team and a swim team. We can predict with almost complete certainty that group A would win the swimming match and that group B would win the basketball game.
Everybody knows this.
Look at the Olympic games. Blacks at sports that involve sprinting and jumping while whites excel at swimming. Whites on average have a lower bone density than blacks while blacks on average have bodies better suited for sprinting and jumping. Interestingly, blacks from west Africa tend to be better at sprinting while blacks from east Africa tend to be better at marathons. There are physiological differences between the races. And if you don't want to call them "races," fine. There are physiological differences between people whose ancestors came from Europe and people whose ancestors came from Africa.
Other predictive value useful for research include such facts that backs and whites
- metabolize sodium and calcium differently: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/24155.php
- Blacks have a higher suscesptibility to sickle cell anemia than whites. In fact, sickle cell anemia is rarely seen in descendants of people from northern Europe: http://old.post-gazette.com/healthscien ... 0507p3.asp
- Blacks have a higher rate of prostate cancer than whites, and blacks and whites react to drugs differently: http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/fact ... isparities
- blacks have shorter gestation periods: http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/33/1/107.full
- Black children walk and talk sooner than white children: http://human-stupidity.com/stupid-dogma ... ed-my-mind
- Blacks reach puberty earlier than whites: http://www.thegrio.com/health/study-sho ... panics.php
- Blacks have shorter life spans than whites: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/242252.php
- On average, whites have larger cranial capacity than blacks, and with this we start to get into territory that makes so many people uncomfortable: http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/Rushton1992.pdf
A lot of people want to pretend that millions of years of evolution produced only skin-deep difference. The science just does not support the wishful thinking of Lewontin ( see The “variation within populations” line which is Lewontin’s fallacy ), Kamin, Gould ( rejects the IQ ), Diamond, et al.
One of the problems of Racial Realist criticizers is this:
"Sad to say, you simply cannot trust Rushton’s ( racial realist )opponents, in general. Many of them, such as David Suzuki, have demonstrated — even admitted — that when it comes to race, they are activists, not scientists. They make no attempt to discover the truth, and they have no interest in the facts. What they do is appeal to the public’s emotions and its willful ignorance on the issues, shriek insults and spurious accusations of hatred, and attempt to silence dissenting viewpoints and shut down research that contradicts their political beliefs.
These are the sorts of people who said that believing in the IQ gap was “racist,” right up until the accumulated evidence for the gap was so ridiculously overwhelming that they were forced to concede that yes, there are obviously race differences in IQ. So now, according to them, the gap exists, but if you believe it’s not 100% environmental (i.e., caused by evil racist White people) or that IQ has something to do with intelligence, then you’re (still) a big ol’ “racist.” So it goes.
I don’t know who Valencia or her “experts in life history” are, but I would assign no weight whatsoever to their opinions until I was certain they weren’t just more egalitarian activists who happen to work in science when they’re not out “defeating fascism.” Such people have given us every reason not to trust them". - Unamused
Quote:
Did you read the information next to the article?
ABOUT THIS ARTICLE
“The concept of race” originally appeared in American Anthropologist October, 1962
1962... that's a bit dated, don't you think? Anthropological research didn't stop back then. If you want to read the current scientific consensus on the topic of human races, here is a link to a more recent article of the American Anthropological Association:
http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm
ABOUT THIS ARTICLE
“The concept of race” originally appeared in American Anthropologist October, 1962
1962... that's a bit dated, don't you think? Anthropological research didn't stop back then. If you want to read the current scientific consensus on the topic of human races, here is a link to a more recent article of the American Anthropological Association:
http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm
Scientists discouraged from using 'race'
http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/conten ... /155/2/119
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 263.x/full
Last edited by DuneyBlues on 14 Apr 2012, 3:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
DuneyBlues
Deinonychus
Joined: 23 Nov 2011
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 306
Location: Enjoying Solitary Confinement
14 Apr 2012, 3:22 pm
AspieOtaku wrote:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjBlZl8RON8[/youtube] This pretty much makes racism rather pointless and stupid. Probably because the same racists caucasians are descendants of the same ethic groups they hate only thousands of years removed. A variant of the albino gene that over time has mutated from Indians and arabs long ago. The Arabs and Indians are descendants from the Africans. It is possible that the Asians broke off the same way. So basicly we are the same.
STRAWMAN!
14 Apr 2012, 3:27 pm
DuneyBlues
Deinonychus
Joined: 23 Nov 2011
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 306
Location: Enjoying Solitary Confinement
14 Apr 2012, 3:27 pm
DuneyBlues
Deinonychus
Joined: 23 Nov 2011
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 306
Location: Enjoying Solitary Confinement
14 Apr 2012, 3:29 pm
DuneyBlues
Deinonychus
Joined: 23 Nov 2011
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 306
Location: Enjoying Solitary Confinement
14 Apr 2012, 3:38 pm
14 Apr 2012, 3:40 pm
14 Apr 2012, 3:42 pm
DuneyBlues wrote:
Quote:
CrazyCatLord wrote:
DuneyBlues wrote:
CrazyCatLord wrote:
DuneyBlues wrote:
Race is still a valued taxonomy: http://books.google.ca/books/about/The_ ... edir_esc=y
I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say with this. Race can't be a taxonomy. Taxonomy is the science of identifying and classifying living organisms. Race could be a taxon or a taxonomic rank within the biological taxonomy, but that is not the case. The term has been used in plant taxonomy in the past, but botany has also long replaced it with the species / subspecies taxa.
As for your link, as far as I can tell it has nothing whatsoever to do with your statement. It leads to a review of a book written by Richard Dawkins. I don't think that he is a big supporter of the idea of different human races, but I'm open to being convinced otherwise. Could you please quote the relevant part of the book? Without a quote, it makes little sense to use it as a reference, don't you think?
PS: I'm still waiting for your reply to my post. Do you have a list of human races, preferably one that was published in this century or the second half of the last century and has some scientific validity? Alternatively, you could post your own hypothesis. I still have no idea what exactly you mean when you talk about races. How many are there? What are they called? What are the classification criteria? We need to know this if we are meant to have a meaningful discussion about this subject, and I can't find any racial classification system for humans in the scientific literature for some weird reason.
( Para 2 ) I'm sorry for shifting the burden of proof on you but the whole book is based on this idea that there are different human races.
If the book is about early human evolution, as the description says, it is probably even about different human species. Until approx. 28,000 years ago, there used to be more than one species of humans. But since Neanderthals and other archaic members of the genus Homo are extinct, only one human species remains, which is Homo sapiens.
This thread is about your attempt to divide H. sapiens, the only human species on this planet, into categorical groups. I'd like to know which groups these are supposed to be. You can't really expect all thread participants to read an entire book first. If you propose that different human races exist, it is up to you to provide us with evidence for this idea, or at least with more information.
Quote:
( PS ) Critics of the concept of "race" in humans usually argue that race is a folk taxonomy rather than a scientific classification , typical.
http://www.americanethnography.com/article.php?id=36
^ This argues for my statement.
http://www.americanethnography.com/article.php?id=36
^ This argues for my statement.
Did you read the information next to the article?
ABOUT THIS ARTICLE
“The concept of race” originally appeared in American Anthropologist October, 1962
1962... that's a bit dated, don't you think? Anthropological research didn't stop back then. If you want to read the current scientific consensus on the topic of human races, here is a link to a more recent article of the American Anthropological Association:
http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm
This is the important part:
Quote:
"Race" thus evolved as a worldview, a body of prejudgments that distorts our ideas about human differences and group behavior. Racial beliefs constitute myths about the diversity in the human species and about the abilities and behavior of people homogenized into "racial" categories. The myths fused behavior and physical features together in the public mind, impeding our comprehension of both biological variations and cultural behavior, implying that both are genetically determined. Racial myths bear no relationship to the reality of human capabilities or behavior. Scientists today find that reliance on such folk beliefs about human differences in research has led to countless errors.
At the end of the 20th century, we now understand that human cultural behavior is learned, conditioned into infants beginning at birth, and always subject to modification. No human is born with a built-in culture or language. Our temperaments, dispositions, and personalities, regardless of genetic propensities, are developed within sets of meanings and values that we call "culture." Studies of infant and early childhood learning and behavior attest to the reality of our cultures in forming who we are.
It is a basic tenet of anthropological knowledge that all normal human beings have the capacity to learn any cultural behavior. The American experience with immigrants from hundreds of different language and cultural backgrounds who have acquired some version of American culture traits and behavior is the clearest evidence of this fact. Moreover, people of all physical variations have learned different cultural behaviors and continue to do so as modern transportation moves millions of immigrants around the world.
At the end of the 20th century, we now understand that human cultural behavior is learned, conditioned into infants beginning at birth, and always subject to modification. No human is born with a built-in culture or language. Our temperaments, dispositions, and personalities, regardless of genetic propensities, are developed within sets of meanings and values that we call "culture." Studies of infant and early childhood learning and behavior attest to the reality of our cultures in forming who we are.
It is a basic tenet of anthropological knowledge that all normal human beings have the capacity to learn any cultural behavior. The American experience with immigrants from hundreds of different language and cultural backgrounds who have acquired some version of American culture traits and behavior is the clearest evidence of this fact. Moreover, people of all physical variations have learned different cultural behaviors and continue to do so as modern transportation moves millions of immigrants around the world.
But scientific knowledge is never complete or final. So if you have scientifically valid classifications of human subspecies, I'd be happy to review them with an open mind.
Response 1:
Quote:
I'd like to know which groups these are supposed to be.
http://www.velesova-sloboda.org/antrop/ ... gence.html
Quote:
You can't really expect all thread participants to read an entire book first.
Really justify why I can't. If you don't read the entire book then you have no credibility in justifying that your correct about your interpretation of the book without evidence to support this interpretation ( or in other words: I didn't read the book thus I don't have much knowledge about the other parts but I'm sure my interpretation is right about these other parts ).
Quote:
If you propose that different human races exist, it is up to you to provide us with evidence for this idea, or at least with more information.
Cavalli-Sforza's an italian population geneticist has views that have morphed over time:
“(1977) The differences that exist between the major racial groups are such that races could be called subspecies if we adopted for man a criterion suggested by Mayr (1963) for systematic zoology.[6] ”
“ (1994) The classification into races has proved to be a futile exercise for reasons that were already clear to Darwin.[7] ”
“The History and Geography of Human Genes” (1994) is the culmination of Cavalli-Sforza’s five-decade career up to that final view.
In this photo we see Cavalli-Sforza's genetic map of the Americas, from HGHG.
"One particularly silly objection by Cavalli-Sforza is that “[h]uman races are still extremely unstable entities in the hands of modern taxonomists, who define from 3 to 60 or more races… [T]he level at which we stop our classification is completely arbitrary.” (HGHG, p. 19). This philosophical fallacy also “proves” that height, weight, motion, and food do not exist, since there is no non-arbitrary dividing line between short and tall or thin and fat; nor is there a consensus on what the highway speed limit should be or what kinds of food taste good". - Unamused
Cavalli-Sforza's genetic map of Africa, from HGHG.
"Despite the alleged arbitrariness of races, Cavalli-Sforza’s six genetic color maps (the world, Africa, Asia, Europe, the Americas, and Oceania) clearly depict black Africans, Khoisans (Bushmen and Hottentots), East Asians, south-west Asians, white Europeans similar to north Africans, native North Americans, native South Americans, and native Australians (HGHG, color section, Figures 1–6). To be precise, they clearly depict these races according to Cavalli-Sforza’s own captions. In fact, the only races from Richard Lynn’s “Race Differences in Intelligence” which are not clearly depicted are
Arctic Peoples (or Eskimos) as clearly distinct from American Indians — Cavalli-Sforza’s caption to Figure 5 suggests this is “probably because [Eskimos] inhabit a very thin area on the coast,”
South-East Asians as clearly distinct from East Asians” — his caption to Figure 3 notes the “extremely dark color that makes Southeast Asia almost invisible,” and
Pacific Islanders, who occupy an even tinier area, as clearly distinct from native Australians — the map of Australia shows four major regions, one of which is present in Australia but not New Guinea". - Unamused
--
According to the article: http://www.sjsu.edu/edleadership/course ... pology.pdf
Quote:
Contemporary humans are not divisible into biological races. When anthropologists say races aren't biologically real, they also reject the idea that modern humans can be divided into scientifically valid, biologically distinct groupings or races. For races to be real as biological categories, the classification must be based on objective, consistent, and reliable biological criteria. The classification system must also have predictive value that will make it useful in research.
Predictive value? Sure, we can do that. Go out and randomly select 100 whites (group A) and 100 blacks (group B). From each group create a basketball team and a swim team. We can predict with almost complete certainty that group A would win the swimming match and that group B would win the basketball game.
Everybody knows this.
Look at the Olympic games. Blacks at sports that involve sprinting and jumping while whites excel at swimming. Whites on average have a lower bone density than blacks while blacks on average have bodies better suited for sprinting and jumping. Interestingly, blacks from west Africa tend to be better at sprinting while blacks from east Africa tend to be better at marathons. There are physiological differences between the races. And if you don't want to call them "races," fine. There are physiological differences between people whose ancestors came from Europe and people whose ancestors came from Africa.
Other predictive value useful for research include such facts that backs and whites
- metabolize sodium and calcium differently: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/24155.php
- Blacks have a higher suscesptibility to sickle cell anemia than whites. In fact, sickle cell anemia is rarely seen in descendants of people from northern Europe: http://old.post-gazette.com/healthscien ... 0507p3.asp
- Blacks have a higher rate of prostate cancer than whites, and blacks and whites react to drugs differently: http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/fact ... isparities
- blacks have shorter gestation periods: http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/33/1/107.full
- Black children walk and talk sooner than white children: http://human-stupidity.com/stupid-dogma ... ed-my-mind
- Blacks reach puberty earlier than whites: http://www.thegrio.com/health/study-sho ... panics.php
- Blacks have shorter life spans than whites: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/242252.php
- On average, whites have larger cranial capacity than blacks, and with this we start to get into territory that makes so many people uncomfortable: http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/Rushton1992.pdf
A lot of people want to pretend that millions of years of evolution produced only skin-deep difference. The science just does not support the wishful thinking of Lewontin ( see The “variation within populations” line which is Lewontin’s fallacy ), Kamin, Gould ( rejects the IQ ), Diamond, et al.
One of the problems of Racial Realist criticizers is this:
"Sad to say, you simply cannot trust Rushton’s ( racial realist )opponents, in general. Many of them, such as David Suzuki, have demonstrated — even admitted — that when it comes to race, they are activists, not scientists. They make no attempt to discover the truth, and they have no interest in the facts. What they do is appeal to the public’s emotions and its willful ignorance on the issues, shriek insults and spurious accusations of hatred, and attempt to silence dissenting viewpoints and shut down research that contradicts their political beliefs.
These are the sorts of people who said that believing in the IQ gap was “racist,” right up until the accumulated evidence for the gap was so ridiculously overwhelming that they were forced to concede that yes, there are obviously race differences in IQ. So now, according to them, the gap exists, but if you believe it’s not 100% environmental (i.e., caused by evil racist White people) or that IQ has something to do with intelligence, then you’re (still) a big ol’ “racist.” So it goes.
I don’t know who Valencia or her “experts in life history” are, but I would assign no weight whatsoever to their opinions until I was certain they weren’t just more egalitarian activists who happen to work in science when they’re not out “defeating fascism.” Such people have given us every reason not to trust them". - Unamused
Why do you not call yourself a racial activist when as Vigilans pointed out it's the m.o. of "racial realists" as you apparently call yourselves to cheery-pick information that supports inherent differences between races (and specifically "greater intelligence" of white people than black people)? May I ask where the hell anyone gets an idea to measure "innate intelligence" of races?" A desire to claim natural superiority perhaps?
Here's information on biological differences of light-skinned red-haired people as found in some populations of Europe.
http://qjmed.oxfordjournals.org/content/92/3/125.full
Why do people not call people with this eumelanin variant a distinct race? Oh, I don't know, maybe because race is a social construct that is used to validate existing inequalities of privilege.
14 Apr 2012, 3:45 pm
DuneyBlues
Deinonychus
Joined: 23 Nov 2011
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 306
Location: Enjoying Solitary Confinement
14 Apr 2012, 3:49 pm
14 Apr 2012, 3:52 pm
DuneyBlues wrote:
http://www.velesova-sloboda.org/antrop/lynn-race-differences-in-intelligence.html
My senses go up whenever I see the word "sloboda."
I had to look up what "velesova" was, and it was even funnier when I found out before I got to that website. The website was exactly what I thought it was.
There are some things there you probably should have known before you cited this.
Last edited by HerrGrimm on 14 Apr 2012, 4:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
