PDA

View Full Version : Race colour and chaos


Martin Kuklinski
10-30-2005, 11:39 AM
Races

It cannot be denied by even the most casual observer that the race issue is America’s most serious domestic problem. Will the doctrine of racial equality and a national program of civil rights, now impressed by Federal statute upon the people of this country. tend to solve this problem? Does race consciousness, and color ‘prejudice’ persist where a mongrelization of race has been effected? For some answers to these most momentous questions let us examine the history of Haiti.



HAITI

Situated some six hundred miles southeast of the United States is the island of Haiti. It the only Negro republic in the Western Hemisphere Approximately the size of the state of Maryland it was discovered by the Spanish in the year 1492. The Spaniards soon virtually exterminated the Indian aborigines and were forced to import African Negro slaves to labor on the growing sugar cane plantations.

In 1697 Spain ceded the western one-third of the island to France which they then called St.Dominique, now the black Republic of Haiti, while the Spanish retained the easternmost two-thirds of the island under the name of Santo Domingo the present day Dominican Republic.

By 1789 St. Dominique was the finest gem in the colonial empire of France. The French colonists supplied the home country and much of Europe with an ever increasing sugar, coffee and cotton export, the basic economic wealth of the island. At this time, according to the estimate of Moreau de Saint-Méry in, his “Description de la Partie Francaise de l’Ile Saint Dominique”, the total population of the colony was 518,500, divided into three parts: 39,000 white, 27,500 free colored, and 452,000 slaves.



THE WHITES

The white population, almost entirely foreign-born Frenchmen, although in complete control of the island, were themselves disunited by virtue of a class stratification, which formed among them a three-layer society. The planters and nobility constituted the upper strata, the merchants and shopkeepers the middle class, and a lower class living mainly in the sea-coast towns. There was no native white laboring class as this was not possible of de because of the huge slave population.

Originally, if was the intention of the French Government to make an entirely white colony of St.Dominique by the establishment of a small landowning class of Frenchmen, and by the creation of a white labor force of indentured men from Europe. Unfortunately, no sooner had this plan been put into action than it began to languish and finally completely fail under the impact of a fast growing slave society in this hemisphere. From this time onward the f of St. Dominique as an outpost of Caucasian civilization was sealed.



THE MULATTOES

The mulatto population of the island gradually developed out of this mounting presence of the Negro slave in a community where there was a pronounced scarcity of white women. The following figures show the upward climb of the mulatto numbers beginning with only 240 counted by the census of 1681 to 3,000 by 1745 and then 27,000 in 1789.

Intermarriage of the races, although never prohibited by law, was not responsible for this condition as it was considered beyond the pale of white conduct in the colony. While tragically undermining their racial integrity the whites attempted to maintain a rigid color line in this respect. They had neither the perception nor the restraint to understand that their miscegenous practices would one day bring about their utter destruction.

It is interesting to note that in addition to their strong social ban against interracial marriage that they also practiced racial segregation in almost every contact between the white and colored people. The mulattoes were set apart by assigned sections in churches, public houses, theatres and public conveyances. This separation of the races became increasingly strict as the mulatto population became larger.

These were the measures used by the white French colonists to maintain absolute control of the colony. In this resolve they were supported by the home government without deviation. It was a valiant effort to guard against the obliteration of their stock amidst a growing intermixture of the races.



THE NEGROES

It has been seen that the African slaves constituted the vast bulk of the population of the island. These slaves were obtained from the same African sources as were those imported into Brazil and the United States. They came from the entire west coast of Africa, from the Senegal River to the Cape of Good Hope and around it as far eastward as Mozambique.

Significantly, it may be observed that while far the largest number of these slaves were used as field labor on the white plantations, yet in many instances they were utilized by the thousands on the plantations of mulatto landowners. Segregated and restricted in almost every other way, as has been stated, the mulattoes were never restrained by law or custom from the ownership of land. It has been estimated by Gouy d’Arcy, one of the colony’s deputies to the States-General, that in 1789 the mulattoes of St. Dominique owned one tenth of the land and fifty thousand slaves.

There was no spirit of unity between the Negroes and the mulattoes and when finally white authority in the colony ended, the mulattoes formed a solid front against Black domination.



THE FRENCH REVOLUTION

The cry of “Liberty, Equality and Fraternity” raised by the Revolutionists in their overthrow of the French monarchy was in effect a declaration of war by the mother country against the colony. When the National Assembly promulgated the Rights of Man in 1791 it necessarily embodied the political freedom of the mulattoes and the emancipation of the slaves in St. Dominique.

The white colonists soon realized that a calamity had befallen them, for they were now abandoned to their fate by their white brethren in the homeland and were left to deal with their race problem as best they could.

The mulattoes seized the opportunity to rise against white rule and strike for full freedom. The Negro slaves revolted and attacked both the whites and the mulattoes.

For fifteen years a sanguinary struggle raged, ending with the loss of the island as a French possession and with the establishment of the Black Republic of Haiti.



A NEGRO NATION

Since 1804 Haiti bas been a completely free country peopled entirely by Negroes and mulattoes. The passing of the white man from the Haitian scene produced neither peace, harmony nor national unity. A struggle for power between the mulattoes and the Negroes continued unremittingly. Revolution after revolution placed one side and then the other in temporary ascendancy.

Conditions finally became so bad America was forced to intervene, landing United States Marines at Port-au- Prince in 1915. In describing the conditions prevailing in Haiti at that time the “Encyclopedia Britannica” says:



“Irrigation projects fell into decay; production and foreign trade dwindled. Political mismanagement increased the public debt. The courts were corrupt. Education practically ceased. There was little protection of property and no industrial encouragement. Poverty and disease added to the general distress. The interior swarmed with bandits”


With the return of the white man Haiti began to recover. Millions of American dollars went into the rehabilitation of the island Republic.

When the Marines departed in 1934 they left behind them a rejuvenated country. The public debt had been reduced. Foreign trade was revived. Bridges and public buildings had been constructed. Harbors were improved. Old roads had been repaired and new ones built. Sanitation and health services were restored and greatly expanded along with many other improvements.

Haiti had been given a fresh start, but it was not long before the country was again in trouble with a return to dictatorships and revolutions, putting one faction or the other in brief control of the government. These conditions persist up to the, present day, as is evidenced by the civil war, which has been raging on and off since May 26, 1957. Those who have observed existing conditions believe that the country may be in even worse shape than it was in 1915.



THE BAR OF COLOR

What is the reason for this continued chaos in Haiti extending over a period of one hundred and fifty years? With the white man gone why have the Haitians in a century and a half been unable to progress and achieve national unity?

According to most sociologists and ethnologists this perpetual disunion and even retrogression is principally caused by the racial differences in the population. To even the uninformed traveler it becomes quickly apparent that racial background is the most determinative factor in the lives of the people. To a large extent it fixes the role each person plays throughout his life. In brief, there is a race problem in Haiti and a definite color consciousness which pervades their whole political, economic and social existence.

The Haitian society of today is entirely made up of two mighty distinct classes, the mulattoes and the blacks. Just as in the period of French ownership the blacks far outnumber the mulattoes, the former numbering ninety percent of the total population by the census of 1950, and the latter the remaining ten percent. Thus, the mulattoes are a mere fraction of the nearly 400,000 inhabitants of the Island.

In spite of their numerical inferiority, the mulattoes represent almost the entire upper strata of Haitian society sheerly, on the basis of their physical difference from the pure Negro and more definitely Negroid elements forming the black population. John Lobb, writing in the “American Journal of Sociology” for July 1940, emphasizes the importance of skin color and other white physical features in the life of the people of Haiti stating as followed:



“In each class to be sure, there are individuals of contradictory physical characteristics, but the two classes are on the whole differentiated according to physical stigmata both recognizable and restrictive.”



These ineradicable racial dissimilarities have in truth raised and maintained a color bar in a Negro nation, in some respects more rigid and uncompromising than the color barriers existing in some Caucasian countries. Interestingly this color awareness is nonetheless sharp, despite the absence of any segregation laws in a land where there are no true whites involved in the racial equation.

In addition to and growing out of these fundamental background racial distinctions, arises yet another important source of friction, expressing itself in wide spread cultural differences between the mulattoes and the Negroes. The former follow a pattern of living which is predominantly European, whereas the latter remain very largely steeped in West African customs.

Nowhere has the color line in Haiti been more noticeable than in politics. The “Encyclopedia Americana” states that the revolutions and usurpations which have shaken Haiti were, “often mere contests between representatives of the mulatto and black elements,”

These conditions persist right up to the present time. An Associated Press release of June 10, 1957 emphasizes the all-importance of racial differences in the political affairs of the Island under the following column heading: ‘COLOR BIG ISSUE IN ELECTION OF PRESIDENT’. The article in explanation of this headline declared:



“Whether a Haitian is a full blooded Negro or a mulatto can have an important bearing on his future in polities. A fierce color consciousness will help determine who becomes Haiti ‘s president for a six year term.”



The release then states further in discussing Provisional President Daniel Fignole, and former Senator Louis Dejoie, the two principal candidates for the presidency: “No black skinned Haitian wants a mulatto such as Dejoie for president. No mulatto wants “black” Fignole.”



Could anything more clearly answer the question as to whether or not the theory of racial equality and civil rights tend to solve the race problem? Does anything more emphatically demonstrate that a color question and a problem of race cannot be eliminated, even in a mongrelized country?

In Haiti the doctrine of the equality of races is an accepted fact by everyone, and yet they cleave unwaveringly to the color line. In Haiti, everyone has long since had his civil rights, and yet the fear of color is raised on all sides. In Haiti mongrelization has been effected, and the problem of race remains.

Clearly it is to be seen that the race issue cannot be solved by either equalitarian propaganda or by any law, court decree, executive order or by mongrelization itself. SOURCE (http://www.bbet.org/leesvoer/haiti_as_proof.htm)

''Haiti, New Orleans, Watts, Toledo.''

These cities/islands are Proof that Racial Equality, Civil Rights and Mongrelization are not Solutions to the Race Problem.

Charles_Rigaud
11-06-2005, 05:02 PM
Races



''Haiti, New Orleans, Watts, Toledo.''

These cities/islands are Proof that Racial Equality, Civil Rights and Mongrelization are not Solutions to the Race Problem.

Racist propaganda and nonsense. Take Bermuda for example, it is a mostly black Island nation with low crime and high standards of living. In contrast, look at Yugoslavia and some of the Eastern European countries that are white, they're poor, dirt poor with high crime, explain the discrepancy and how does race truly play a factor.

jcs
11-06-2005, 05:10 PM
Racist propaganda and nonsense. Take Bermuda for example, it is a mostly black Island nation with low crime and high standards of living. In contrast, look at Yugoslavia and some of the Eastern European countries that are white, they're poor, dirt poor with high crime, explain the discrepancy and how does race truly play a factor.
Implicitly absolutist nonsense. A few instances that prove exceptions to the rule do not demonstrate that the rule is false, just that it is not absolute. I don't think anyone (but you, trying to misrepresent racialism) thinks that it is.

Charles_Rigaud
11-06-2005, 05:15 PM
Implicitly absolutist nonsense. A few instances that prove exceptions to the rule do not demonstrate that the rule is false, just that it is not absolute. I don't think anyone (but you, trying to misrepresent racialism) thinks that it is.

What I said wasn't absolutist, it debunks the nonsense that race somehow plays a factor. Factors other than race is the reason Haiti is the way it is and Bermuda is the way that it is. Jumping on the few examples like Haiti does not provide rationalization for racist nonsense and propaganda.

jcs
11-06-2005, 05:19 PM
What I said wasn't absolutist, it debunks the nonsense that race somehow plays a factor.
It only debunks 'racist nonsense' if you assume that racialists have an absolutist position which says that other races universally fail and whites universally succeed. As I said, this is implicit absolutism. There was no 'debunk-ing,' fucktard.

Charles_Rigaud
11-06-2005, 05:27 PM
It only debunks 'racist nonsense' if you assume that racialists have an absolutist position which says that other races universally fail and whites universally succeed. As I said, this is implicit absolutism. There was no 'debunk-ing,' fucktard.

Idiot, listen, I will repeat, race plays no factor as to what goes on in Haiti, or Watts and most white nationalist idiots are absolutist in what they say except for when whites are the ones that screw up. This statement:

''Haiti, New Orleans, Watts, Toledo.''

These cities/islands are Proof that Racial Equality, Civil Rights and Mongrelization are not Solutions to the Race Problem.

was fundamentally retarded to say the least as if those four areas represent black people universally.

jcs
11-06-2005, 05:40 PM
race plays no factor as to what goes on in Haiti, or Watts
it debunks the nonsense that race somehow plays a factor. Factors other than race is the reason Haiti is the way it is and Bermuda is the way that it is. Jumping on the few examples like Haiti does not provide rationalization for racist nonsense and propaganda.
You are making the claim that race plays no role in Haiti, etc. whatsoever, which is unsubstantiated nonsense. The intelligence, hormone levels, etc. of a population play a huge role in that population's social situation, and these factors are largely genetic and therefore racial, as races are basically groups with similar genetics. Race is not the sole factor--I'm not sure anyone has suggested that it is, though you have suggested that your opponents do so--but is certainly a factor. Race-relations, too, factor in to these societies; it's just that the majority/minority roles are reversed.

Now, I think Martin's ending commentary is at least partially flawed, but the article itself is mostly solid.

Charles_Rigaud
11-06-2005, 05:46 PM
You are making the claim that race plays no role in Haiti, etc. whatsoever, which is unsubstantiated nonsense. The intelligence, hormone levels, etc. of a population play a huge role in that population's social situation, and these factors are largely genetic and therefore racial, as races are basically groups with similar genetics.

Incorrect, what studies do you have that state that hormone levels and intelligence play a part in what goes on in Haiti? That utters white supremacist gargbage. Not all people who belong to the same "racial group" have similar genetics, a white American doesn't have the same genetic profile of a white Russian for example.

jcs
11-06-2005, 06:05 PM
what studies do you have that state that hormone levels and intelligence play a part in what goes on in Haiti?
Hormone levels and intelligence play a huge role in all human interaction, and thus in all societies (socializing and human interaction are the same thing). Haiti being a society, human interaction occuring in Haiti and defining the society, it follows that hormone levels and intelligence play some role in Haiti's situation.
Your question amounts to: what studies do you have that human interaction plays a part in what goes on in Haiti? lol.

That utters white supremacist gargbage. Not all people who belong to the same "racial group" have similar genetics, a white American doesn't have the same genetic profile of a white Russian for example.
A 'racial group' is defined as a group with common heritage and genetics. Russians and White Americans (what about Russian-Americans, by the way? 'White American' is quite broad, you know...) evolved in similar climates, from similar populations who migrated to these climates, etc. They are both Caucasian peoples, and consequently have similar genetics.

Your posts utter of ignorant garbage. Please die.

Charles_Rigaud
11-06-2005, 06:23 PM
Hormone levels and intelligence play a huge role in all human interaction, and thus in all societies (socializing and human interaction are the same thing). Haiti being a society, human interaction occuring in Haiti and defining the society, it follows that hormone levels and intelligence play some role in Haiti's situation.
Your question amounts to: what studies do you have that human interaction plays a part in what goes on in Haiti? lol.

Cut the crap numbskull, what proof do you have that anything other than social factors play a role in why Haiti is the way it is? Do you have actually studies? Look at Haiti's history with corrupt dictators, poverty and elitism between the mulatto Upper class are you so stupid to ignore that?


A 'racial group' is defined as a group with common heritage and genetics. Russians and White Americans (what about Russian-Americans, by the way? 'White American' is quite broad, you know...) evolved in similar climates, from similar populations who migrated to these climates, etc. They are both Caucasian peoples, and consequently have similar genetics.

Your posts utter of ignorant garbage. Please die.

This is stupidity par excellence. A white American has ancestry mostly from western Europe which is predominately R1b and eastern Europeans are mostly R1a, that is a genetic difference. Southern Europeans have higher levels of haplogroup E and J lineages so broadly speaking if one defines race as something genetic we would have tons of races. If one breaks down DNA they would be able to tell the difference between a white American of western European descent and a Russian. Please die and shut your lying trap.

Jimbo Gomez
11-06-2005, 06:50 PM
Idiot, listen, I will repeat, race plays no factor as to what goes on in Haiti, or Watts and most white nationalist idiots are absolutist in what they say except for when whites are the ones that screw up. This statement:

''Haiti, New Orleans, Watts, Toledo.''

These cities/islands are Proof that Racial Equality, Civil Rights and Mongrelization are not Solutions to the Race Problem.

was fundamentally retarded to say the least as if those four areas represent black people universally.

Keep your manners please. No use for insults.

Welcome aboard.

Jimbo Gomez
11-06-2005, 06:51 PM
Not all people who belong to the same "racial group" have similar genetics, a white American doesn't have the same genetic profile of a white Russian for example.

What does that have to do with anything, and how does that prove that white supremacy is a flawed idea?

Charles_Rigaud
11-06-2005, 06:59 PM
What does that have to do with anything, and how does that prove that white supremacy is a flawed idea?

My point is that all of those called "white" are not all genetically similar. White supremacy is flawed because its based upon nonsense that has no biologicaly basis to substantiate it.

Starr
11-06-2005, 07:17 PM
Please die and shut your lying trap.

I am detecting some hostility here. Can't we all just get along?:(

Jimbo Gomez
11-06-2005, 07:18 PM
My point is that all of those called "white" are not all genetically similar. White supremacy is flawed because its based upon nonsense that has no biologicaly basis to substantiate it.

What exactly is your criterium for how much variation is allowed for 2 different populations to be genetically similar?

Charles_Rigaud
11-06-2005, 07:18 PM
I am detecting some hostility here. Can't we all just get along?:(

I was told to die first

Sinclair
11-06-2005, 07:25 PM
It's really, really hard to differentiate between differences due to a group's genetics, differences due to that group's culture, differences due to how other groups treat that group, differences due to history in various different forms, etc.

It probably can't be done scientifically, since the scientific method really can't be applied.

Ace Rimmer
11-06-2005, 07:31 PM
This is stupidity par excellence. A white American has ancestry mostly from western Europe which is predominately R1b and eastern Europeans are mostly R1a, that is a genetic difference.

No , that's Y-chromosome and it does not represent genetic difference,
get your facts straight.

Southern Europeans have higher levels of haplogroup E and J lineages so broadly speaking if one defines race as something genetic we would have tons of races. If one breaks down DNA they would be able to tell the difference between a white American of western European descent and a Russian. Please die and shut your lying trap.

You can not define race using Y-chromosome and thus you failed with your
loud moth agenda at the very beginning.

Charles_Rigaud
11-06-2005, 07:36 PM
No , that's Y-chromosome and it does not represent genetic difference,
get your facts straight.

How isn't it a difference?



You can not define race using Y-chromosome and thus you failed with your
loud moth agenda at the very beginning.


I never said race is defined by any set of loci, race isn't genetic its largely social.

Jimbo Gomez
11-06-2005, 07:37 PM
No , that's Y-chromosome and it does not represent genetic difference,
get your facts straight.



You can not define race using Y-chromosome and thus you failed with your
loud moth agenda at the very beginning.

Oh hush, next thing we'll see will probably be you being so mean as to ask him to explain genetic differences in women...

Charles_Rigaud
11-06-2005, 07:41 PM
What exactly is your criterium for how much variation is allowed for 2 different populations to be genetically similar?

This is irrelevant, the point is that people called white, black and any other colors are not all genetically similar and in some cases there is more genetic similarity between groups of people who look totally different physically. If one is going to say intelligence is racial and has alot to do with genetics you have to break down people into total genetic groups based on similarity and not lump people altogether as one.

Jimbo Gomez
11-06-2005, 07:50 PM
This is irrelevant, the point is that people called white, black and any other colors are not all genetically similar and in some cases there is more genetic similarity between groups of people who look totally different physically. If one is going to say intelligence is racial and has alot to do with genetics you have to break down people into total genetic groups based on similarity and not lump people altogether as one.

That's not irrelevant at all. You claim Russians and American whites aren't genetically similar. Similarity isn't an absolute concept, there are degrees in it. It is very relevant for you to define your own terminology. So tell us, what is your criterium for similarity?

Surely you studied the matter in great detail and didn't just copy/paste your argument from some wbsite you googled for without being able to recognize a genetic scientist if he snuck up on you and bit you in the ass...

Ace Rimmer
11-06-2005, 07:55 PM
How isn't it a difference?

Learn what is Y-chromosome and what is it there for.
Until then, good bye.

Charles_Rigaud
11-06-2005, 08:08 PM
That's not irrelevant at all. You claim Russians and American whites aren't genetically similar. Similarity isn't an absolute concept, there are degrees in it. It is very relevant for you to define your own terminology. So tell us, what is your criterium for similarity?

Surely you studied the matter in great detail and didn't just copy/paste your argument from some wbsite you googled for without being able to recognize a genetic scientist if he snuck up on you and bit you in the ass...

Ok wise guy, American whites and Russians are slightly similar if we put it in degress. Russians have loads of ancestry from Mongols as well as R1a paternally. R1a and R1b have two distinct histories. You are *NOT* a genetic scientist. I am a black American with training in anthropology and a little understanding of genetics and what i do know is that Russians and white Americans have different genetic profiles just as black Americans and West Africans have different genetic profiles though the former is largely derived from the latter.

*BOTTOM LINE*, if we define race by genetic profiles there is no one big white race!

Jimbo Gomez
11-06-2005, 08:21 PM
Who ever claimed I'm a genetic scientist?

You still didn't answer my question by the way.

Ace Rimmer
11-06-2005, 08:31 PM
R1a and R1b have two distinct histories.

So? They also have common ancestor R , connected to Aurignacian culture.

and what i do know is that Russians and white Americans have different genetic profiles just as black Americans and West Africans have different genetic profiles though the former is largely derived from the latter.

Again, we are dealing here with Y-chromosome and thus you don't know what are you talking about.
Are you aware that great numbers of American Blacks are also R1b?

*BOTTOM LINE*, if we define race by genetic profiles there is no one big white race!

I am not much fond to term "white race" neither, but your definition
of Y-chromosome as genetic profile is false.

jcs
11-06-2005, 08:32 PM
*BOTTOM LINE*, if we define race by genetic profiles there is no one big white race!
Caucasoids are a group of 'subraces,' these more distinct genetic types, who share a number of similarities. Look at it this way: your immediate family is your 'subrace'; your extended family is your 'race.' We see a greater degree of similarity between you and your sibling than you and your cousin, but there's still a similarity there, no?

Cut the crap numbskull, what proof do you have that anything other than social factors play a role in why Haiti is the way it is? Do you have actually studies? Look at Haiti's history with corrupt dictators, poverty and elitism between the mulatto Upper class are you so stupid to ignore that?
I didn't say I'm ignoring that, dumbfuck. In fact, I explicitly stated that race is not the sole factor. BUT IT IS A FACTOR.
And, as explained, studies that tell us that Haiti is like every other society ever are quite unneccessary, because traits determined by genetics play a huge role in every society. Go back to academia, where it is permitted to dismiss common sense due to lack of a study.

This is stupidity par excellence. A white American has ancestry mostly from western Europe which is predominately R1b and eastern Europeans are mostly R1a, that is a genetic difference.
Well, there are a lot of 'white americans' of Russian descent; it's not as if we're all Western European.
Also note that I didn't say that there is no difference whatsoever between different Caucasoid types. Just as, as told by the oft-repeated PC statement, there's more similarity between races than difference, there's more similarity than difference between subraces within a race.
I think there's a lot of confusion with this word, 'similar.' Grab a dictionary.

broadly speaking if one defines race as something genetic we would have tons of races. If one breaks down DNA they would be able to tell the difference between a white American of western European descent and a Russian.
Completely true. Before the earlier of the last two hacks, I argued this position with someone.
But, for classification purposes, we generally divide man into large racial groups that share in traits and heritage, and further divide these races into subraces. Familiar with comparative linguistics and language trees? Same principle, but applied to races.

I was told to die first
Not an excuse, asshole.

I never said race is defined by any set of loci, race isn't genetic its largely social.
By and large, race as thought of by most is a 'social construct,' though looking at race in terms of heritage approximates the correct view from a biological standpoint. But, basically, what we call race is a method of self-identification. That doesn't debunk racialism in the least.
In fact, from a Darwinistic (or Dawkins-istic; selfish-gene) standpoint, we should probably view this 'socially constructed' race, this self-identification, as the ('altruistic'?) means through which individuals belonging to a genetic group preserve and further speciation and compete with other races.
Therefore, this 'social construct' is quite valid, even from a genetic view.

Charles_Rigaud
11-06-2005, 09:19 PM
So? They also have common ancestor R , connected to Aurignacian culture.

Are you aware that haplogroup Q and R both share a common ancestor (M45)? So what would that say about race?





Again, we are dealing here with Y-chromosome and thus you don't know what are you talking about.Are you aware that great numbers of American Blacks are also R1b?

No stuff Mcfly, thats why I said black Americans have different genetic profiles from West Africans who almost completely lack R1b.

Charles_Rigaud
11-06-2005, 09:23 PM
I didn't say I'm ignoring that, dumbfuck. In fact, I explicitly stated that race is not the sole factor. BUT IT IS A FACTOR.
And, as explained, studies that tell us that Haiti is like every other society ever are quite unneccessary, because traits determined by genetics play a huge role in every society.

Please post some proof that genes and hormones played a factor otherwise quit trying to hit me in the head with the BS bat. There's no poof that genetics play a factor in whether societies or countries struggle or succeed.

jcs
11-06-2005, 09:57 PM
Please post some proof that genes and hormones played a factor otherwise quit trying to hit me in the head with the BS bat. There's no poof that genetics play a factor in whether societies or countries struggle or succeed.
Let's use some semi-formal logic:
P1: Genetics play a large role in human behavior, because:
a: Genetics play a large role in intelligence and hormone levels.
b: Intelligence and hormone levels play a large role in human behavior.
P2: Human behavior plays a large role in determining the state of human societies
.: Genetics (via their influence on intelligence and hormone levels) play a large role in determining the state of human societies.

Take a course on biology if you don't think there's a genetic basis for intelligence and hormone levels. Take a course on psychology if you doubt that hormone levels and intelligence (cognitive ability) play a role in human interaction. Look into sociology if you question that human psychology plays a role in social affairs.
Quit being stupid for the sake of being stupid.

Professor John Frink
11-07-2005, 12:08 AM
I never said race is defined by any set of loci, race isn't genetic its largely social.

http://img203.imageshack.us/img203/5064/genetikklusterz0eg.jpg

Source: Tang H, Quetermous T, Rodriguez B, Kardia SL, Zhu X, Brown A Pankow JS, Privince MA, Hunt SC, Boewinkle E, Schork NJ, Risch NJ. Genetic structure, self-identifiied race/ethnicity, and confounding in case-control association studies. Am J Hum Genet. 2005;76:268-275.

http://shrn.stanford.edu/workshops/revisitingrace/Risch_confound.pdf

Charles_Rigaud
11-07-2005, 04:24 AM
Let's use some semi-formal logic:
P1: Genetics play a large role in human behavior, because:
a: Genetics play a large role in intelligence and hormone levels.
b: Intelligence and hormone levels play a large role in human behavior.
P2: Human behavior plays a large role in determining the state of human societies
.: Genetics (via their influence on intelligence and hormone levels) play a large role in determining the state of human societies.

Take a course on biology if you don't think there's a genetic basis for intelligence and hormone levels. Take a course on psychology if you doubt that hormone levels and intelligence (cognitive ability) play a role in human interaction. Look into sociology if you question that human psychology plays a role in social affairs.
Quit being stupid for the sake of being stupid.

That genetics play a role in human intelligence is hotly debated and there is *NO* definitive proof for that position as there have been no genes identified that specifically influence intelligence, there have been genes that have been codified that influence the state of human societies, please post evidence and quit spewing white supremacist BS.

Charles_Rigaud
11-07-2005, 04:28 AM
Am Psychol. 2005 Jan;60(1):46-59.


Intelligence, race, and genetics.

Sternberg RJ, Grigorenko EL, Kidd KK.

PACE Center, Yale University, New Haven, CT 208358, USA. robert.sternberg@yale.edu

In this article, the authors argue that the overwhelming portion of the literature on intelligence, race, and genetics is based on folk taxonomies rather than scientific analysis. They suggest that because theorists of intelligence disagree as to what it is, any consideration of its relationships to other constructs must be tentative at best. They further argue that race is a social construction with no scientific definition. Thus, studies of the relationship between race and other constructs may serve social ends but cannot serve scientific ends. No gene has yet been conclusively linked to intelligence, so attempts to provide a compelling genetic link of race to intelligence are not feasible at this time. The authors also show that heritability, a behavior-genetic concept, is inadequate in regard to providing such a link. (c) 2005 APA

jcs
11-07-2005, 04:39 AM
That genetics play a role in human intelligence is hotly debated and there is *NO* definitive proof for that position as there have been no genes identified that specifically influence intelligence
Look, I can provide links to studies by Jensen and Rushton, books by Murray and Hernsteinn, and so forth, but if you're not already aware of such things, your just a child trolling a forum. And if you are aware of such things, your just ignoring such studies and still trolling a forum.
It's really not hotly debated at all save by those who find the prospect offensive. Questioning is usually good in science, but when motivated by politically correct mental-inertia, it's not.
Genetics do determine a lot of things. There may not be an 'IQ gene,' but it's pretty obvious--based upon IQ testing, the correlation of IQ scores with brain size (based on external measurements and more accurate scanning), and the close relation of such data between members within a given family--that brain size and the corrolative IQ scores are genetic.

quit spewing white supremacist BS
More absolutism! So, if I think, contrary to your 'anti-white-supremacist' opinion, that there is a genetic basis for intelligence, I'm a white supremacist? You know, I haven't even said, "And this proves that whites are supreme!" You just assume that, because I disagree with you, I'm a white supremacist.

Charles_Rigaud
11-07-2005, 04:58 AM
Look, I can provide links to studies by Jensen and Rushton, books by Murray and Hernsteinn, and so forth, but if you're not already aware of such things, your just a child trolling a forum.

And I can provide links of counter viewpoints against the Bell Curve and Rushton, so what the point?




It's really not hotly debated at all save by those who find the prospect offensive. Questioning is usually good in science, but when motivated by politically correct mental-inertia, it's not.


This is BS and a cop-out and normally is used when no definitive proof has been found to prove anything. Those who publish studies stating IQ is genetic are never politically motivated, is that the BS you want me to believe while simultaneoulsy stating that those who argue against are politically correct whiners? What kind of dope are you smoking? Thats not a valid argument against IQ not being genetic.


Genetics do determine a lot of things. There may not be an 'IQ gene,' but it's pretty obvious--based upon IQ testing, the correlation of IQ scores with brain size (based on external measurements and more accurate scanning), and the close relation of such data between members within a given family--that brain size and the corrolative IQ scores are genetic.

My God what a dumb argument, you say that there is no IQ genes then state that based on IQ scores and brain size[another fallacious argument] that IQ is genetic, way to go. Even if we were to accept that brain size and IQ correlate that would not make IQ genetic.


More absolutism! So, if I think, contrary to your 'anti-white-supremacist' opinion, that there is a genetic basis for intelligence, I'm a white supremacist? You know, I haven't even said, "And this proves that whites are supreme!" You just assume that, because I disagree with you, I'm a white supremacist.[/QUOTE]

jcs
11-07-2005, 05:46 AM
And I can provide links of counter viewpoints against the Bell Curve and Rushton, so what the point?
And I could, of course, provide counter-counter viewpoints. You're the one asking for studies, so I ask you your own question: what's the point?

Those who publish studies stating IQ is genetic are never politically motivated, is that the BS you want me to believe while simultaneoulsy stating that those who argue against are politically correct whiners?
There is some legitimate questioning, of course, but most of it is certainly politically motivated.

My God what a dumb argument, you say that there is no IQ genes then state that based on IQ scores and brain size[another fallacious argument] that IQ is genetic, way to go. Even if we were to accept that brain size and IQ correlate that would not make IQ genetic.
There is no series of loci within us that directly determines IQ, and thus there are no 'IQ genes.' Intelligence depends upon the number of synapses firing around in our brains, especially the more important cognitive parts. This correlates with brain size, though brain size is of course not the optimal form of measurement (but the best we have, and it correlates with our IQ measuring ability pretty well). Brain size is not something that can be conditioned or socialized or educated--it's something that's determined by our genes.
Brain size is determined by genes.
Intelligence is determined by brain size.
Therefore, intelligence is determined by genes.
(one could substitute 'activity in the brain' for 'brain size')

Gorilla
11-07-2005, 06:21 AM
It's a bit more complex than that, but brain size does play a significant role. Dendrite number varies, as does transmission speed, and the corpus collusum is also important.

Charles_Rigaud
11-07-2005, 07:31 AM
Interesting read here

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~nisbett/racegen.pdf

Professor John Frink
11-07-2005, 10:31 PM
Am Psychol. 2005 Jan;60(1):46-59.


Intelligence, race, and genetics.

Sternberg RJ, Grigorenko EL, Kidd KK.

PACE Center, Yale University, New Haven, CT 208358, USA. robert.sternberg@yale.edu

In this article, the authors argue that the overwhelming portion of the literature on intelligence, race, and genetics is based on folk taxonomies rather than scientific analysis. They suggest that because theorists of intelligence disagree as to what it is, any consideration of its relationships to other constructs must be tentative at best. They further argue that race is a social construction with no scientific definition.

Is Sternberg a geneticist? The cobbler should stick to his last:

"But Dr. Troy Duster, a sociologist at New York University and chairman of the committee that wrote the sociologists' statement on race, said it was meant to talk about the sociological implications of classifying people by race and was not intended to discuss the genetics.

"Sociologists don't have the competence to go there," he said."
http://www.sciforums.com/archive/index.php/t-14731.html


Couriously, in the study I linked, 99.9% of all people belonged to the genetic cluster of the race they were perceived (i.e. socially) to belong to:



"Of 3,636 subjects of varying race/ethnicity, only 5 (0.14%) showed genetic cluster membership different from their self-identified race/ethnicity. On the other hand, we detected only modest genetic differentiation between different current geographic locales within each race/ethnicity group. Thus, ancient geographic ancestry, which is highly correlated with self-identified race/ethnicity--as opposed to current residence--is the major determinant of genetic structure in the U.S. population. Implications of this genetic structure for case-control association studies are discussed."

More in: RACIAL GROUPINGS MATCH GENETIC PROFILES, STANFORD STUDY FINDS (http://mednews.stanford.edu/releases/2005/january/racial-data.htm)


Thus, studies of the relationship between race and other constructs may serve social ends but cannot serve scientific ends.

Pharmacogenetics anyone? An article originally published in Science:

Although it is not their goal, the Perlegen scientists have found differences that suggest "race" has biological significance.
http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/003618.html

No gene has yet been conclusively linked to intelligence, so attempts to provide a compelling genetic link of race to intelligence are not feasible at this time.[/b]

He does say not feasible at this time, which is a qualifier he's well-advised to use. In fact, there are genes that control for brain size which are dissimilar in geographic groups which happen to correspond to the construct commonly called races. The exact role of these genes is not known yet, though.

Bruce Lahn himself:


“Microcephalin,” the authors wrote in one of the papers, “has continued its trend of adaptive evolution beyond the emergence of anatomically modern humans. If selection indeed acted on a brain-related phenotype, there could be several possibilities, including brain size, cognition, personality, motor control or susceptibility to neurological/psychiatric diseases.”

Lahn said, “The next step is to find out what biological difference imparted by this genetic difference causes selection to favor that variation over the others.”
http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/050922/brainevolution.shtml

"Whatever advantage these genes give, some groups have it and some don't. This has to be the worst nightmare for people who believe strongly there are no differences in brain function between groups," says anthropologist John Hawks of the University of Wisconsin in Madison, US.

Brain size

There are two new genetic studies that suggest the brain may still be evolving. Geneticist Bruce Lahn of the University of Chicago in Illinois, US, and colleagues analysed the sequences of two genes active in the brain – Microcephalin and ASPM. Both regulate brain size - people carrying a non-functioning mutant copy of these genes suffer microcephaly, where they have a normally structured brain that is much smaller than usual.
This distinctive mutation is now in the brains of about 70% of humans, and half of this group carry completely identical versions of the gene. The data suggests the mutation arose recently and spread quickly through the human species due to a selection pressure, rather than accumulating random changes through neutral genetic drift.

Analysing variation in the gene suggests the new Microcephalin variant arose between 60,000 and 14,000 years ago, with 37,000 years ago being the team's best estimate. The new mutation is also much more common among people from Europe, the Middle East, and the Americas than those from sub-Saharan Africa.
“Compelling evidence”

The team also sequenced the ASPM gene from the same original sample and again, among dozens of variants, found a defining mutation that alters the protein the gene codes for. Estimates are that the new variant of ASPM first appeared in humans somewhere between 14,000 and 500 years ago, with the best guess that it first arose 5800 years ago. It is already present in about a quarter of people alive today, and is more common in Europe and the Middle East than the rest of the world.

"The evidence for selection is compelling," says population geneticist Rasmus Nielsen of the University of Copenhagen in Denmark. Yet it remains unclear yet how these genes work in healthy people. Many researchers doubt there is any mechanism by which nature could be selecting for greater intelligence today, because they believe culture has effectively blocked the action that natural selection might have on our brains.

Lahn and his colleagues are now testing whether the new gene variants provide any cognitive advantage. Natural selection could have favoured bigger brains, faster thinking, different personalities, or lower susceptibility to neurological diseases, Lahn says. Or the effects might be counter-intuitive. "It could be advantageous to be dumber," Lahn says. "I highly doubt it, but it's possible."

Journal reference: Science (vol 309, p 1717 and p 1720)

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7974