Posted on 07/05/2018 5:33:00 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
Takeaway 2 makes no sense. If there is no “white” race is there a “black” race or “Asian” race?
////////////////////////
True. There is no white black or asian “race”. Anthropologically, scientists tacitly accept three broad “groupings of human racial characteristics. They are: Caucasian, Negroid, and Mongoloid. Increasingly the lines between theses groupings are becoming blurred as is well known. The reason the marxists and race baiters promote the “white race” is to emphasize the “color” issue not the actual physiology of the caucasian classification. The reason for this is twofold. First you set up the marxist dialectic. There are only two sides, black or white everyone is forced into one of the two groups. The “white group is pure evil and all group members have a racial bias, hatred, fear, of the “black race”. All “blacks are victims, all “whites” are oppressors. Secondly, they then isolate the “white” group and everyone else becomes a “person of color”. All persons of color (every non European person on earth) become victims who need to destroy the white oppressor.
DNA results totally destroy this tactic.The DNA test, if you notice, does not include race groupings but instead uses ethnicity defined as: the fact or state of belonging to a social group that has a common national or cultural tradition.
I would suggest Ashley Montague”s “The fallacy of Race” as a resource to provide you a fresh viewpoint on this very misunderstood and misused construct.
If he lost, would he have a choice?
“I would suggest Ashley Montague”s “The fallacy of Race” as a resource to provide you a fresh viewpoint on this very misunderstood and misused construct.”
I read some of Montague’s book (which is over 75 years old) and his argument seems to be based around arguments of whether the 4 racial groups of humans diverged from a common ancestral stock or from different ones. His conclusion was that since there was such a mixture of common traits between the main groups of humans that racial distinctions were meaningless. Correct me if I am wrong.
Montague was correct in that there are virtually no “pure” examples of Whites, blacks, or mongoloids, that everyone has some mix of the others. That doesn’t mean that race is irrelevant. The visual differences are often highly correlated with other characteristics. Certain diseases like sickle cell anemia, cystic fibrosis, thalassemia, tay-sachs, and others are highly correlated to race. The most controversial race related characteristic is IQ, which is perhaps the most consistently repeatable and validated finding in any of the social sciences. While individual IQ varies greatly in all races, differences in avergage IQ is statistically significant between races. That of course doesnt mean that members of one race can be assumed to be more intelligent than another.
Recent studies have also shown that not all races have the same complement of genes. European and Asians contain genes obtained by interbreeding with Neanderthals whereas sub-saharan africans do not. So the argument that race is a social construct and irrelevant does not appear to be correct.
Currently, in the US most white people whose ancestors have been here for 150 year are likely not to be pure Caucasian. Even late arrivals from Europe may not be. For example, I am second generation on 3 sides. My maternal grandmother was Prussian landed petite aristocracy. Since the mongols and tartars conquered that far west, the ruling classes are likely to have some Asian blood. My husband had pure pale blue eyes, which is typically most recessive. I have hazel eyes. Both sons were born with dark brown eyes. My conclusion is that I had recessive Asian brown eyes which came out stronger than my husbands pure blue eyes. A few years before she died my mother-in-law admitted she was 1/8th Cree Indian. One son has dark hair and some of the Cree look. The other son has high cheekbones and slightly almond eyes. He married a woman from Puerto Rico with Spanish and some Taino Indian heritage. One grandchild looks typically Latino. The other is fairer with the high cheekbones and almond eyes.
So far as being purely Caucasian, recent studies indicate that 10,000 years ago British islanders had dark skin, and the Dravidians of south India are also very dark, which has advantages in that extremely sunny climate. See the very detailed analysis of types and utility of genetic testing below.
https://dna-explained.com/2012/12/18/proving-native-american-ancestry-using-dna/
Yeah... Trump ain’t no dummy....he already knows.. :)
“Offer her another $25 if she can do a passable rain dance.”
LOLOLOLOL
IMHO
Warren won't take the DNA test anyway, she's lying, and she's been lying, and she knows she's been lying. If she had precolumbian heritage, it would show up in her DNA, and has absolutely nothing to do with Dravidians, or 10K old Britons. I've got a Semitic complexion. My Jewish roots are quite far back, but even they lit up the machine.
The experience most people have with DNA testing is DISconfirmation that they have so-called Native American descent; either there's no surprises compared with their paper trail, or they find out the woodpile genes came from Africa and the family lore of tribal descent were invented to muddy the waters. Most of my lines have been in North America since the Great Migration, and my DNA shows zero Precolumbian.
My comment about dark skinned Britons and south Indians (Dravidians) had nothing to do with Amerindian identification. I was directed towards other comments regarding “white” races and darker races and pointed out that Caucasians can have “dark” skin and still be “white.”
Incidentally, one thing I did not comment on was (I think) something I saw in a DNA article. It seems that some full blooded Cherokees turn out to have a bit of DNA that does not track as Asian. I suspect that a thousand or more years ago there may have been some Europeans that landed and mixed with the Cherokee ancestors. Remember all of Gloria Farley’s research on strange writing and picture remnants, especially in the south US.
I decided to Google Gloria Farley and found the link below which refers to the Melungeons, a mixed race group in our south which seems to have some pre-columbian DNA related to Europe.
Has she proved her Indian heritage yet or she still claiming gender and racial bias, etc? /s
When doing genealogy, I love the woodpile, it’s where the surprises happen. I was expecting the paper trail to disappear after five-six hundred years of yeoman farmers and peasantry, and a younger family member got the DNA done, got serious about the research, joined Ancestry (which not be cheap), and in the past few months has turned up rulers from at least five different countries (or former countries) in Europe, some of the data going back to at least the 12th c, along with the many expected commoners. Wild, wild, wild.
https://www.freerepublic.com/tag/melungeons/index
I think the Cherokee origins was also discussed by Barry Fell, it's also in the Cherokee lore itself.
I guess you didn’t watch the video...
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.