Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Race only skin deep - S.J. STUDENTS DISCOVER GENETIC LINK
Mercury News ^ | Mon, Feb. 09, 2004 | Katherine Corcoran

Posted on 02/09/2004 1:09:47 PM PST by CobaltBlue

Edited on 04/13/2004 2:49:37 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

More than half of the class at San Jose's Piedmont Hills High School, students from numerous racial and ethnic backgrounds, are linked in their DNA to the same ancestor, born more than 100,000 years ago in central China or Taiwan.


(Excerpt) Read more at mercurynews.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News
KEYWORDS: biotechnology; dna; genetics; godsgravesglyphs; helixmakemineadouble; parsimoniousness; race
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 321-335 next last
To: CobaltBlue
No discussion of IQ should be started without acknowledging that Jews and Asians score higher on IQ tests than whites

Those Jews and indians are Caucasians too. there's no racial difference between them and say, English.
181 posted on 02/10/2004 3:57:52 AM PST by Cronos (W2004!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
Agnes falls for the mistake of using the term Asian. That's a bogey word. There were only 2 continents in the old world -- Eurasia and Africa. When Agnes said Asian, she means Mongoloid groups. Arabs, Persians, indians, Mediterraneans etc. live in warmer climes than say Mongols, but are Caucasian.

Yes, that is absolutely right. Mongoloid, Caucasoid and Negroid tend to confuse people who don't understand the distinction, so I tend to say Asian, African and European.

Incidentally, there is so much racial overlap nowadays that within a hundred years or so I'm guessing you might not be able to make a clear distinction concerning who is what.

182 posted on 02/10/2004 5:16:29 AM PST by Agnes Heep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
Arabs, Persians, Indians. All Caucasians. All live in hot or tropical regions and have been doing so for millenia.

Notice, too, how the physical characteristics of these Caucasians have altered over time. Given the proper circumstances, they will doubtless evolve into the racial type that best suits the environment in which they live. This has to be qualified, though, by marking the extreme mobility of human beings in the modern age; intermarriage; and the ability of technology to transcend the pressures posed by environment.

183 posted on 02/10/2004 5:20:44 AM PST by Agnes Heep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: Agnes Heep
Yes, that is absolutely right. Mongoloid, Caucasoid and Negroid tend to confuse people who don't understand the distinction, so I tend to say Asian, African and European. Incidentally, there is so much racial overlap nowadays that within a hundred years or so I'm guessing you might not be able to make a clear distinction concerning who is what.

Yes, but again, those terms aren't completely correct for the reasons I've stated above -- are present in significant numbers on all three continents, with the greatest percentage of Caucasians in Asia.

The point about racial distinctions getting overlapped is quite valid. in the year 900, in what is now present day Englad, there were numerous Kingdoms and Danish, Saxons, Celts all mixed together, but they were separate peoples. By 1400 those differences had faded and they all became English. By 1900, Scottish, Welsh, English -- there aren't that many external differences any more. Humanity has moved in closer and closer over the centuries.
184 posted on 02/10/2004 5:29:01 AM PST by Cronos (W2004!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: GrandEagle
...and thence to Adam, and thence to God, and the truth shall make you free.
185 posted on 02/10/2004 5:29:12 AM PST by wita (truthspeaks@freerepublic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Agnes Heep
Good post #183. I guess that with intermarriage, in the next 100 years, races will NOT be distinguished by external features, but rather by IQ -- by intelligence. Smart people tend to marry smart people and ditto for idiots. Soon, we'll have very smart and very dumb people, or rather not soon, but maybe in 200 odd years. We're already seeing some examples of this -- in an above post Cobalt said that Asians and Jews are smarter than whites -- tha'ts because in those communities education and intelligence are highly prized, unlike in the black community. There are very intelligent blacks, but they tend to be ridiculed by their brothers -- you just have to look at 'The Fresh Prince of Bel Air', where being stupid, doing badly at school and beign good at dating and sports and rapping is considered the hallmarks of 'blackness'. What type of an example did this send out to black kids. Ditto for the rappers. I think Dr. Dre and Snoop D have done more harm to Afroid groups in the US than any KKK meet.
186 posted on 02/10/2004 5:34:19 AM PST by Cronos (W2004!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: Modernman
These are genetic disorders that have nothing to do with race. Sickle cell anemia is almost exclusively a disease suffered by black people. However, if whites and blacks inter-marry, eventually you'll see white people with SSA..

Huh? Is there a logic in this statement that eludes me? Other than your conclusion, your argument validates the propositon that some genetic disorders are "race" linked. (Actually, I prefer the term "breed" of mankind.}

187 posted on 02/10/2004 5:47:08 AM PST by Thommas ("Beam me up Scottie, there are no intelligent anarchists here...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Dan Evans
Even on the most liberal university campuses you see blacks socializing almost exclusively with each other.

Again, this is not the result of some natural, genetic desire to associate solely with one's own race. Rather, it is a result of liberal approaches to education and race that encourage the balkanization of college campuses.

188 posted on 02/10/2004 6:33:09 AM PST by Modernman ("When you want to fool the world, tell the truth." -Otto von Bismarck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: OldEagle
Halle Berry is not a good example. As I understand it, she is the child of one black and one white parent. So, is she black OR white or black AND white?

That's a good question. Our thinking on race is essentially binary: black or white (or whatever other combination). Up until recently, there was no box on the census for "Mixed-race" (though, again, why is the half white/half black person "mixed?" How is their racial make-up any less distinct than anyone else's?)

I would say, people in our society still have a subconscious belief that when a white person has a child with a black person, the resulting offspring is somehow a diluted white person (why don't we consider them to be a diluted black person?), less "pure" than a white child.

Why isn't she considered a white actress?

Because, on the one hand, most people in our society probably believe that having any black blood automatically makes a person black. On the other hand, race-hustlers and members of the diversity industry have an interest in emphasizing race in America.

I think a more important question is: Why isn't she simply labelled an "actress?"

189 posted on 02/10/2004 6:46:25 AM PST by Modernman ("When you want to fool the world, tell the truth." -Otto von Bismarck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: OldEagle
More significant (to your point) than skin color is the distinct variation of physical build among the races.

Not really, as this is also essentially a minor cosmetic difference. There is as much difference in builds within members of the same race as there is between races.

Going back to my cat example- I have two cats, one is a tan/brown, 20lb Maine Coone, the other is an 8lb, white/grey domestic short hair. These cats have completely different builds and looks about them, but they recognize each other as cats and make no distinction based on minor cosmetic differences. The animal world is full of examples like this where members of the same species look different from one another, but make no distinction based on this fact. To me, that suggests that our concept of race is a pure cultural creation.

190 posted on 02/10/2004 6:51:20 AM PST by Modernman ("When you want to fool the world, tell the truth." -Otto von Bismarck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: Thommas
Huh? Is there a logic in this statement that eludes me? Other than your conclusion, your argument validates the propositon that some genetic disorders are "race" linked.

I think my post goes back to a previous post that said that certain diseases afflicted only certain races, which implied that only those races coud get those diseases. I'm trying to point out that there is no "racial" aspect to these diseases(i.e. not only black people can get sickle cell anemia, while whites are genetically immune to it), just that they have historically been found only in certain races due to the fact that, up until recently, inter-racial mating was pretty rare.

191 posted on 02/10/2004 6:59:19 AM PST by Modernman ("When you want to fool the world, tell the truth." -Otto von Bismarck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
I really wish you hadn't done that. Those stupid pictures are going to be on my Comments page for a very long time.
192 posted on 02/10/2004 7:01:16 AM PST by CobaltBlue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
And you saying that it should still be outlawed??

No. Just pointing out how the decision was received in my neck of the woods. By others, not by me. "Impeach Earl Warren" signs everywhere.

193 posted on 02/10/2004 7:05:23 AM PST by CobaltBlue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
Now it should be open to all who have hte skills we need, regardless of where they come from.

No, now we are out of room.

If we cannot survive of our own, then there is something seriously wrong.

194 posted on 02/10/2004 7:41:10 AM PST by Age of Reason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
I haven't time right now to read your entire post, but one thing: Why bother developing technology unless absolutely necessary?

I see no value in a culture developing technology for the fun or mere pleasure of it--in fact, it would be counter-productive.

It might be better for a culture to accept more death and disease, and let natural selection do the rest, rather than forestall natural selection by developing technologies, which technologies will almost certainly visit more grief on a people than benefit.

195 posted on 02/10/2004 7:50:04 AM PST by Age of Reason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
Third, don't words such as "civilization", and phrases such as "rise of civilization," convey the false impression that civilization is good, tribal hunter-gatherers are miserable, and history for the past 13,000 years has involved progress toward greater human happiness? In fact, I do not assume that industrialized states are "better" than hunter-gatherer tribes, or that the abandonment of the hunter-gatherer lifestyle for iron-based statehood represents "progress," or that it has led to an increase in human happiness. My own impression, from having divided my life between United States cities and New Guinea villages, is that the so-called blessings of civilization are mixed. For example, compared with hunter-gatherers, citizens of modern industrialized states enjoy better medical care, lower risk of death by homicide, and a longer life span, but receive much less social support from friendships and extended families. My motive for investigating these geographic differences in human societies is not to celebrate one type of society over another but simply to understand what happened in history.

LOL.

I read a little more of your post--I think I like this guy.

Still, he's missing something if he thinks he must rationalize-away what might be inferior intelligence by Western standards among aboriginal peoples--I would not be surprised to learn that some groups of people would be genetically incapable of coping with the mental tasks of living and working and learning in a technological society.

But I would not view such a group as mentally inferior, rather I view them as mentally different.

196 posted on 02/10/2004 7:56:31 AM PST by Age of Reason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

some South Indians, all of whom are caucasians are dark in skin tones and may be darker than some negroids.

In other words, we have other ways of identifying races than skin color. Facial characteristics are just as distinguishing. Michael Jackson knows that.

And that's the point. Like the other guy said, there is a "constellation of features" that identify race even if no single gene or identifier. Even though I may have 99% of my genes in common with an Asian man, the small handful of genes that make up identifiable characteristics are what we perceive as race.

197 posted on 02/10/2004 8:05:40 AM PST by Dan Evans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
The first genetic observation is that there is no "caucasian gene", no "negro gene", no "asian gene", etc. Our notions of "race" are not based on a fundamental genetic divide.

The next genetic observation is that the things we *do* consider to be significant racial differences are actually just constellations of noticeable physical features which we have come to mentally lump into different "categories" and label as "race".

So, the "age old" understanding of race that has been overthrown is that there is a single gene for various races, and that races are marked by a single, observable, superficial characteristic.

Gee whiz, you mean science has shown that view to be false? Wow. That is fascinating. Thanks so much for coming in above the fray and clearing that up.

Of course, I don't know that you'd find anyone with a college education who ever thought there was a "negro" gene or a "white" gene, or anything similar to the view that you think has been "exploded" by modern genetic science.

As far as the cluster-of-properties view goes, that too would likely already have been accepted by someone who thinks that there is obviously something to racial categories. Why wouldn't someone just recognize the obvious and rather than saying that there is some one characteristic that is both necessary and sufficient for a particular race characterize a race by some cluster of properties? Then a person could point to the obvious fact that particular clusters arose in relatively isolated areas, and the components of the clusters are inherited traits.

And, anyway, even if someone insisted on a single-property view of race, one certainly wouldn't need genetics to show the view was false. One could simply observe the range of people that would fall within the ordinary understanding of some racial group. One could have done that in the 18th century. So showing the single-property view is wrong is hardly an achievement of modern science.

Why not just educate children in the notion of moral equality, or equal consideration of people's rights, rather than trying to force on them muddled and deceptive claims that science has "discovered" that there are no races? There's an idea.

198 posted on 02/10/2004 8:13:51 AM PST by Timm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Modernman

Again, this is not the result of some natural, genetic desire to associate solely with one's own race. Rather, it is a result of liberal approaches to education and race that encourage the balkanization of college campuses.

I think I know what you mean. You are talking about all the minority "pride" organizations. But I think the liberals are pandering to an innate tendencies in this case.

There are other examples. Inner city gangs tend to associate by race -- in Los Angeles, there are Hispanic, African-American and Asian gangs, and it isn't because the mayor encourages it.

Sub-Saharan Africa is 99% black, not because few white people have happened to wander there and were not comfortable in the African climate but rather because they have not been successful in competing with the native population. Events in Zimbabwe and South Africa are a good illustration.

199 posted on 02/10/2004 8:23:36 AM PST by Dan Evans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: Modernman
The concept of racial purity is irrelevant, however there are still physical features that indicate a particular heritage.
200 posted on 02/10/2004 9:00:06 AM PST by ffusco (Maecilius Fuscus,Governor of Longovicium , Manchester, England. 238-244 AD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 321-335 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson