1491, or, Was Pre-European "White Man" America Really

[lictor616]

Be it resolved that marxist, communist and nazi scholars (sic) be omitted from this discussion.

No more nonsence like this please....See above

I'm not sure I understand M.Dancer...

that Jews are a "race" is a nazi ideology...

I'm telling you that Jews AREN'T a race (as is clear that Judaism is a religion and not necessarily a indicator of ethnicity).

So which is it?

[M.Dancer]

I'm not sure I understand M.Dancer...

that Jews are a "race" is a nazi ideology...

I'm telling you that Jews AREN'T a race (as is clear that Judaism is a religion and not necessarily a indicator of ethnicity).

So which is it?

Neither....let me aid your degenerate thinking...

Ashkenazim are distinct from Sephardic Jews, and jews are a hybrid PEOPLE with much "diversity" ... actually to call Jews a PEOPLE is somewhat erroneous.

I am not quibbling about race....just the bullshit in green

[lictor616]

Neither....let me aid your degenerate thinking...

I am not quibbling about race....just the bullshit in green

Are Jews a single race or aren't they?

If you don't want to "quibble" ... then don't make pronouncements on it... why comment on something YOU DON'T WANT TO COMMENT ON!?!?

[M.Dancer]

Are Jews a single race or aren't they?

If you don't want to "quibble" ... then don't make pronouncements on it... why comment on something YOU DON'T WANT TO COMMENT ON!?!?

It's aready been stated correctly that race as a scientific concept is invalid. The nonsense you are putting forth for what ever reason is that ashkenezi jews are different from shephardic jews. The differences are minute and trivial. They are in fact the same people originating from the same people from exactljy the same place.

[lictor616]

It's aready been stated correctly that race as a scientific concept is invalid. The nonsense you are putting forth for what ever reason is that ashkenezi jews are different from shephardic jews. The differences are minute and trivial. They are in fact the same people originating from the same people from exactljy the same place.

No stated INCORRECTLY. Race is a biological fact. Ernst Mayr, "perhaps the greatest evolutionary scientist of the twentieth century", might be called the Linnaeus of the Modern Synthesis {neo-Darwinism}, his Systematics and the Origin of Species set forth the biological species concept still in use today, with large utility for explaining speciation.

allow me to fairly state the agreed consensus in the majority of biologists and even cultural anthropologists

"Let me begin with race. There is a widespread feeling that the word "race" indicates something undesirable and that it should be left out of all discussions. This leads to such statements as "there are no human races."

Those who subscribe to this opinion are obviously ignorant of modern biology. Races are not something specifically human; races occur in a large percentage of species of animals. You can read in every textbook on evolution that geographic races of animals, when isolated from other races of their species, may in due time become new species."

http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/001951.html

and btw: Jews can be Ethiopian... and as black as tar. Or they can be "Ashkenazim" and have such non-oriental charateristics as Blonde and red hair.. blue eyes... etc No one but a madman would call such a people a single broadly definable "race".

Edited April 27, 2009 by lictor616

[lictor616]

It's aready been stated correctly that race as a scientific concept is invalid. The nonsense you are putting forth for what ever reason is that ashkenezi jews are different from shephardic jews. The differences are minute and trivial. They are in fact the same people originating from the same people from exactljy the same place.

what a ridiculous citation... the New York Times? is that where you get scientific facts? What about the article they ran on scientific creationism being supported by "science"... haha

and the author of the article is no biologist at all!!! Natalie Angier studied physics and English at Barnard College... which has no relationship with the topic she professes to write authoritatively on... Ernst Mayr on the other hand is probably the single greatest and most respected biologist since Gregor Mandel and Darwin himself!

quote: ""We may believe that most differences between races are superficial, but differences are there." Dr. Alan Rogers Population geneticist and professor of anthropology, University of Utah

DIFFERENCES ARE THERE... even given the stigma and potential for accusations of racism... biologists are wont to admit that we're all precisely the same...

and they quote Rushton too hahaha your own source essentially agrees with me.. well done old chap!

Edited April 27, 2009 by lictor616

[M.Dancer]

and btw: Jews can be Ethiopian... and as black as tar. Or they can be "Ashkenazim" and have such non-oriental charateristics as Blonde and red hair.. blue eyes... etc No one but a madman would call such a people a single broadly definable "race".

Race is an unscientific concept. I do not call jews a race, they are a people. And like all peoples, they have superficial differences.

I'm sure in your library of hate you can trot out all kinds of contrarians....never the less, the vast majority of scientists do not ascribe to the notion of race.

[benny]

what a ridiculous citation... the New York Times? is that where you get scientific facts? What about the article they ran on scientific creationism being supported by "science"... haha

and the author of the article is no biologist at all!!! Natalie Angier studied physics and English at Barnard College... which has no relationship with the topic she professes to write authoritatively on... Ernst Mayr on the other hand is probably the single greatest and most respected biologist since Gregor Mandel and Darwin himself!

Beside facts there are values.

[lictor616]

Race is an unscientific concept. I do not call jews a race, they are a people. And like all peoples, they have superficial differences.

I'm sure in your library of hate you can trot out all kinds of contrarians....never the less, the vast majority of scientists do not ascribe to the notion of race.

you use an op-ed article form an english graduate to determine where "the concept of race ends"... ridiculous..

even if the New York Times similarly ran an article (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/14/opinion/14leroi.html?ex=1268542800&en=bd4affa4aea0f85c&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland) where they concede that "race" is a group of people who

"have a set of genetic variants in common that are collectively rare in everyone else."

again this is firmly confirming my previous assertions.

and as I pointed out to earlier: a study on the very subject of the prevalence of RACE as a valid scientific concept found that "we know that the grand majority of biologists agree that there are human races

lieberman et al 1992:

A survey, (Lieberman et al. 1992), asked 1,200 American anthropologists how many disagree with the following proposition: "There are biological races in the species Homo sapiens." The responses were:

* physical anthropologists 41%

* cultural anthropologists 53%

out of these 29% more cultural anthropologists agreed in a concept of "cline" "which is the same type of racial taxonomy as race and is just as much a subdivision of human ethnicities" ("Lieberman DE, McBratney BM, Krovitz G (2002) The evolution and development of cranial form in Homo sapiens. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99:1134–1139).

When 2400 anthropologists were asked how many believed in a "cline" type of racial taxonomy and subdivision in a similar study 2002 (liberman et al 2002):

71% of cultural anthropologists AGREED that a cline type of taxonomy existed vs 20% who believed in the old concept of races

45% of physical anthropologists of agreed in a cline type of taxonomy 30% in the concept of races

I quoted this from: Bindon, Jim. University of Alabama. "Post World War II". 2005. August 28, 2006.

So no, the vast majority of anthropologists believe in "races" or "clines" and subdivisions or taxonomy of humans. For biologists the number is far greater (as ernt mayr will attest)

I don't blame you for your misconception M.Dancer, because there is a huge taboo in the very discussion of this subject as it runs firmly against religious and political party line: the notion that "we're really all the same inside" and "equal" ... but regardless of the witch hunt in the academic world... most biologists agree that races and cline sand other subdivisions of humans is a fact and is very appropriate.

[M.Dancer]

If we are prepared to re-exam whether race is a useful concept

Study enough genes in enough people and one could sort the world's population into 10, 100, perhaps 1,000 groups, each located somewhere on the map.

Then we should be prepared for 1000 races....

[lictor616]

If we are prepared to re-exam whether race is a useful concept

Then we should be prepared for 1000 races....

certainly... such is the real diversity of human races.

I used the broadly defined races here to make my meaning understood by people here (who are for the most part, not very knowledgeable about clines or subdivisions of human races).

Sub sahran africa has doubtless 500 or more sub races... (closer genetically to each other then say northern Asiatics) but yes it would be quite correct to divide human races as precisely and distinctly as possible.

But to claim that there IS NO SUCH THING AS RACE... because there are hundred or thousands of them is a little extreme would'nt you say...

And if you are prepared to speak of a complete equality of species, then likewise: it logically follows that you should feel the same about some species of animals...

Breeds of Dogs for instance... "there are LESS mtdna variations between the various races of dogs then there are in human races".

to quote James Serpell’s "The Domestic Dog":

”Recently using genetic and biochemical methods researchers have shown domestic dogs to be virtually identical . . . to other members of the genus . . . Results using mtDNA (mitochondrial DNA) data . . . reveal startling similarities among canids . . . Greater mtDNA differences appeared within the single breeds of Doberman Pinscher or poodle than between dogs and wolves . . . to keep things in perspective, it should be pointed out that there is less mtDNA difference between dogs, wolves, and coyotes, than there is between ethnic groups of human beings.” (pp. 32-33)

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0521425379/

so if its correct and useful to classify dogs (as other parallel species in animalia) according to broad "races" or clines... why should it be criminal or a no-no or "unscientific" to do so with humans? When we know that there is MORE reason to do so...

[benny]

so if its correct and useful to classify dogs (as other parallel species in animalia) according to broad "races" or clines... why should it be criminal or a no-no or "unscientific" to do so with humans? When we know that there is MORE reason to do so...

Because from sub-race one slips too easily to sub-humanity I guess.

[lictor616]

Because from sub-race one slips too easily to sub-humanity I guess.

you guess eh?

so we ignore biology all together ?

I'm not sure I follow...

So should we also stop distinguishing dog races as well... since that could lead to an accusation that some dogs are less of a dog then others? sub-canine?

[benny]

you guess eh?

so we ignore biology all together ?

I'm not sure I follow...

So should we also stop distinguishing dog races as well... since that could lead to an accusation that some dogs are less of a dog then others? sub-canine?

Skin-heads usually prefer pit bulls than immigrants.

[lictor616]

Skin-heads usually prefer pit bulls than immigrants.

communists like you tend to prefer bees and ants then humans... its true that insects are better suited to communist rule..

Edited April 27, 2009 by lictor616

[benny]

communists like you tend to prefer bees and ants then humans... its true that insects are better suited to communist rule..

Revolutionaries give their lives to save humanity.

[lictor616]

Revolutionaries give their lives to save humanity.

like they did in the Ukraine, China and Russia I suppose... 100 million dead... whoops! i mean "saved"

I never thought I'd actually speak with a devout communist... I shudder as I write this...

Its ridiculous you despise so called "nazis" because they may kill people... yet you embrace an ideology responsible for the worst genocides and democides in recorded human history...

Decent men's stomachs must turn at the hypocrite who thinks like you...

[benny]

like they did in the Ukraine, China and Russia I suppose... 100 million dead... whoops! i mean "saved"

I never thought I'd actually speak with a devout communist... I shudder as I write this...

Its ridiculous you despise so called "nazis" because they may kill people... yet you embrace an ideology responsible for the worst genocides and democides in recorded human history...

Decent men's stomachs must turn at the hypocrite who thinks like you...

I (BennyXVII) am only a catholic who can repeat without any hesitation what Jesus said: "I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword" (Matthew 10:34).

[lictor616]

I (BennyXVII) am only a catholic who can repeat without any hesitation what Jesus said: "I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword" (Matthew 10:34).

on top of it all your mind is pickled in Jesus juice... how unfortunate...

Its your problem if you permit yourself to be narcotized by the endless drivel about "one race the human race" "a proletarian revolution" "world peace," "one world," and the rest of the gabble to which weak minds are addicted as to opium or crack. If we are to have a future, we must deal with our own tares and dregs who believe in opiate fantasies about the great sky pie and the "equality and brotherhood of all men".

You prefer pleasant hallucinations with Christian and Marxist opium... that like suicide is your privilege... but please retain sufficient decency to not impose your hallucinations on sober people. And if you are capable of pity, refrain from engendering progeny whom your drugs will not save from the coming consequences of your moral cowardice.

Our situation today is desperate indeed, and we can afford no fanciful Marxist figments of the imagination or similar illusions, no retreat into a land of make beleive. Now, more than ever, optimism is cowardice.

[benny]

Our situation today is desperate indeed, and we can afford no fanciful Marxist figments of the imagination or similar illusions, no retreat into a land of make beleive. Now, more than ever, optimism is cowardice.

There is no value-free science out there to save you.

[CANADIEN]

I've already told you what gene contributes to the mental faculties typically found in blacks...

And I've already told you that I know this is not true.

I've also showed you reports explaining the different growth and brain formation patterns in broadly defined races

You've provided titles, and non-working links. Nothing more.

... The evidence has ALREADY been laid out...

But you keep denying it.

Ashkenazim are distinct from Sephardic Jews, and jews are a hybrid race with much "diversity" ... actually to call Jews a race is somewhat erroneous.

Actually, I would not call them a race, and did not call them a race. With a few exceptions, Jews are part of the Caucasian race. Now, DNA proves that there is virtually no genetic differences between most Jewish groups. If there was a causal link between genes and iq, you would expect little difference in tests result from one group to another. Yet, the difference can be fairly significant. One of many reasons why your ideas make no sense.

[CANADIEN]

certainly... such is the real diversity of human races.

I used the broadly defined races here to make my meaning understood by people here (who are for the most part, not very knowledgeable about clines or subdivisions of human races).

Sub sahran africa has doubtless 500 or more sub races... (closer genetically to each other then say northern Asiatics) but yes it would be quite correct to divide human races as precisely and distinctly as possible.

But to claim that there IS NO SUCH THING AS RACE... because there are hundred or thousands of them is a little extreme would'nt you say...

And if you are prepared to speak of a complete equality of species, then likewise: it logically follows that you should feel the same about some species of animals...

Breeds of Dogs for instance... "there are LESS mtdna variations between the various races of dogs then there are in human races".

to quote James Serpell’s "The Domestic Dog":

”Recently using genetic and biochemical methods researchers have shown domestic dogs to be virtually identical . . . to other members of the genus . . . Results using mtDNA (mitochondrial DNA) data . . . reveal startling similarities among canids . . . Greater mtDNA differences appeared within the single breeds of Doberman Pinscher or poodle than between dogs and wolves . . . to keep things in perspective, it should be pointed out that there is less mtDNA difference between dogs, wolves, and coyotes, than there is between ethnic groups of human beings.” (pp. 32-33)

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0521425379/

so if its correct and useful to classify dogs (as other parallel species in animalia) according to broad "races" or clines... why should it be criminal or a no-no or "unscientific" to do so with humans? When we know that there is MORE reason to do so...

Interesting, isn't it, that accepted categorisations of human into races mention only 5 of them?

But not to worry... I fully expect you to divide and multiply and add and substract as you often as needed for your idea to make sense... to you, and you alone.

Edited April 27, 2009 by CANADIEN

[CANADIEN]

Our situation today is desperate indeed,

Indeed, things sure look pretty bad. Rise of fundamentalisms, economic crisis, decline of democracy, global warning.

But something tells me you're talking about something else. Care to tell us what it is, and what your solution is?

Edited April 27, 2009 by CANADIEN

[benny]

In biology, a cline is a gradual change of phenotype (trait, character or feature) in a species over a geographical area, often as a result of environmental heterogeneity.

Typically, a well-marked cline does not allow for a delineation of subspecies, as it is then impossible, by definition, to draw any further clear dividing lines between populations.

In the scientific study of human genetic variation, a gene cline can be rigorously defined, being readily submissible to straightforward, quantitative metrics; this has apparently not been so of the evidently more subjective concept of "race."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cline_(population_genetics)

[M.Dancer]

and btw: Jews can be Ethiopian... and as black as tar. Or they can be "Ashkenazim" and have such non-oriental charateristics as Blonde and red hair.. blue eyes... etc No one but a madman would call such a people a single broadly definable "race".

So can arabs...they can quite dark skinned, fair skinned, have blond hair, red hair and even blue eyes.....so basically Jews and Arabs share the same superficial diversity.

Your turn, madman.