Philosophy Now Forum

The Urban Myth, DNA, Race.
A little honesty in this is to be recommended.
There can be little or no doubt that if all countries in this world today were entirely 'open' it would have, and even as matters stand, will have, drastic consequences in purely DNA terms Those countries that are most populated, and those with least population control, will dominate the world's DNA. Small national groups, unless they behave like the Hebrew-Jews over ages, and are not 'open' will be lost in the mix. In the short term, there will be great racial diversity in Europe, Americas, and elsewhere. This will be a passing froth. In the longer term, across the world, there will be a varied hybrid human race of Sino-Afro-Eurasians.
The urban myth talks of Britain as being racially mixed. In fact there was remarkable and localised stability from the Saxon incursion until the 20th century. Anglo-Saxon-Celtic and some other European components predominating. Most global races were unheard of.
In the towns and particularly a metropolis like London, there was no doubt more of a mixture and input. But the plain fact is that the towns had a high death rate, at times catastrophic, and it was the more DNA stable countryside that had an almost continuous surplus to repopulate these towns and add to them.

RWStanding wrote:The Urban Myth, DNA, Race.
A little honesty in this is to be recommended.
There can be little or no doubt that if all countries in this world today were entirely 'open' it would have, and even as matters stand, will have, drastic consequences in purely DNA terms Those countries that are most populated, and those with least population control, will dominate the world's DNA. Small national groups, unless they behave like the Hebrew-Jews over ages, and are not 'open' will be lost in the mix. In the short term, there will be great racial diversity in Europe, Americas, and elsewhere. This will be a passing froth. In the longer term, across the world, there will be a varied hybrid human race of Sino-Afro-Eurasians.
The urban myth talks of Britain as being racially mixed. In fact there was remarkable and localised stability from the Saxon incursion until the 20th century. Anglo-Saxon-Celtic and some other European components predominating. Most global races were unheard of.
In the towns and particularly a metropolis like London, there was no doubt more of a mixture and input. But the plain fact is that the towns had a high death rate, at times catastrophic, and it was the more DNA stable countryside that had an almost continuous surplus to repopulate these towns and add to them.

DNA analysis is not based on the genome but on mDNA. that apparent localised stability is irrelevant to the question of race, since "Race" is not a valid category of genetic inheritance.

As for "Hebrew-Jews" whatever the fuck you think they are, can you answer why it is that a White skinned group pretends to have emerged from the Middle East?

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

RWStanding wrote:The Urban Myth, DNA, Race.
A little honesty in this is to be recommended.
There can be little or no doubt that if all countries in this world today were entirely 'open' it would have, and even as matters stand, will have, drastic consequences in purely DNA terms Those countries that are most populated, and those with least population control, will dominate the world's DNA. Small national groups, unless they behave like the Hebrew-Jews over ages, and are not 'open' will be lost in the mix. In the short term, there will be great racial diversity in Europe, Americas, and elsewhere. This will be a passing froth. In the longer term, across the world, there will be a varied hybrid human race of Sino-Afro-Eurasians.
The urban myth talks of Britain as being racially mixed. In fact there was remarkable and localised stability from the Saxon incursion until the 20th century. Anglo-Saxon-Celtic and some other European components predominating. Most global races were unheard of.
In the towns and particularly a metropolis like London, there was no doubt more of a mixture and input. But the plain fact is that the towns had a high death rate, at times catastrophic, and it was the more DNA stable countryside that had an almost continuous surplus to repopulate these towns and add to them.

DNA analysis is not based on the genome but on mDNA. that apparent localised stability is irrelevant to the question of race, since "Race" is not a valid category of genetic inheritance.

As for "Hebrew-Jews" whatever the fuck you think they are, can you answer why it is that a White skinned group pretends to have emerged from the Middle East?

How did white-skinned blondes come from black Arficans? I thought you were in favour of open immigration. I mean, we are all human aren't we? Jews emigrated to Israel en masse after WW11. How is that any different from any other immigration? Why do SJWs call anyone who complains about mass immigration 'racist', unless it applies to Israel?

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

RWStanding wrote:The Urban Myth, DNA, Race.
A little honesty in this is to be recommended.
There can be little or no doubt that if all countries in this world today were entirely 'open' it would have, and even as matters stand, will have, drastic consequences in purely DNA terms Those countries that are most populated, and those with least population control, will dominate the world's DNA. Small national groups, unless they behave like the Hebrew-Jews over ages, and are not 'open' will be lost in the mix. In the short term, there will be great racial diversity in Europe, Americas, and elsewhere. This will be a passing froth. In the longer term, across the world, there will be a varied hybrid human race of Sino-Afro-Eurasians.
The urban myth talks of Britain as being racially mixed. In fact there was remarkable and localised stability from the Saxon incursion until the 20th century. Anglo-Saxon-Celtic and some other European components predominating. Most global races were unheard of.
In the towns and particularly a metropolis like London, there was no doubt more of a mixture and input. But the plain fact is that the towns had a high death rate, at times catastrophic, and it was the more DNA stable countryside that had an almost continuous surplus to repopulate these towns and add to them.

DNA analysis is not based on the genome but on mDNA. that apparent localised stability is irrelevant to the question of race, since "Race" is not a valid category of genetic inheritance.

As for "Hebrew-Jews" whatever the fuck you think they are, can you answer why it is that a White skinned group pretends to have emerged from the Middle East?

How did white-skinned blondes come from black Arficans? I thought you were in favour of open immigration. I mean, we are all human aren't we? Jews emigrated to Israel en masse after WW11. How is that any different from any other immigration? Why do SJWs call anyone who complains about mass immigration 'racist', unless it applies to Israel?

Your missing the ironic point of my question I think.

DNA and Race the same or not is hardly the question
My comment is that mixing will have a result such that we are all Sino-Afro-urasian.
Some may think this a good thing.
I prefer diversity.

Jews have in fact become rather varied in type.

Hobbes' Choice wrote: since "Race" is not a valid category of genetic inheritance.

If the difference between a black man and a white man isn't race, then what is it? There is a difference and that difference must have a name, be it race or something else.

Harbal wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote: since "Race" is not a valid category of genetic inheritance.

If the difference between a black man and a white man isn't race, then what is it? There is a difference and that difference must have a name, be it race or something else.

The point is that I can show you a black guy who is more genetically similar to yourself, than another white guy. There are no "race" genes. We are all unique. Race is a social category.

Hobbes' Choice wrote: The point is that I can show you a black guy who is more genetically similar to yourself, than another white guy. There are no "race" genes. We are all unique. Race is a social category.

Obviously, black people have a different skin colour to me. There are also different types of black people, some of which seem to have a different body shape to the white people I am familiar with. And, observed from my own personal experience, there is a psychological difference that is outside the normal variation between white people who, again, I am familiar with. If you don't want to call these differences race, okay, but they are differences so what do you suggest we do call them?

Harbal wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote: The point is that I can show you a black guy who is more genetically similar to yourself, than another white guy. There are no "race" genes. We are all unique. Race is a social category.

Obviously, black people have a different skin colour to me. There are also different types of black people, some of which seem to have a different body shape to the white people I am familiar with. And, observed from my own personal experience, there is a psychological difference that is outside the normal variation between white people who, again, I am familiar with. If you don't want to call these differences race, okay, but they are differences so what do you suggest we do call them?

You can call them people, and treat them as you would any other human.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Harbal wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote: The point is that I can show you a black guy who is more genetically similar to yourself, than another white guy. There are no "race" genes. We are all unique. Race is a social category.

Obviously, black people have a different skin colour to me. There are also different types of black people, some of which seem to have a different body shape to the white people I am familiar with. And, observed from my own personal experience, there is a psychological difference that is outside the normal variation between white people who, again, I am familiar with. If you don't want to call these differences race, okay, but they are differences so what do you suggest we do call them?

You can call them people, and treat them as you would any other human.

Hmm. I can just see you as a witness after a crime: 'What race was the suspect'? 'Human'. 'Um, ok, what colour was the suspect?' 'I don't know. I don't see colour when I look at a fellow human being.' 'Riight. Was the suspect male or female?' 'I don't acknowledge gender. We are all hupersons, but I will say this much, that the huperson was about 6'5, extremely muscular, had a beard, and when the huperson stepped into the darkness I couldn't see the huperson, apart from the very white teeth.'

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Harbal wrote: Obviously, black people have a different skin colour to me. There are also different types of black people, some of which seem to have a different body shape to the white people I am familiar with. And, observed from my own personal experience, there is a psychological difference that is outside the normal variation between white people who, again, I am familiar with. If you don't want to call these differences race, okay, but they are differences so what do you suggest we do call them?

You can call them people, and treat them as you would any other human.

Hmm. I can just see you as a witness after a crime: 'What race was the suspect'? 'Human'. 'Um, ok, what colour was the suspect?' 'I don't know. I don't see colour when I look at a fellow human being.' 'Riight. Was the suspect male or female?' 'I don't acknowledge gender. We are all hupersons, but I will say this much, that the huperson was about 6'5, extremely muscular, had a beard, and when the huperson stepped into the darkness I couldn't see the huperson, apart from the very white teeth.'

Well done, you managed to describe someone without mentioning the myth of race.

What race are all those tall people from??
And what about the ginger race? What are they like?

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote: You can call them people, and treat them as you would any other human.

Hmm. I can just see you as a witness after a crime: 'What race was the suspect'? 'Human'. 'Um, ok, what colour was the suspect?' 'I don't know. I don't see colour when I look at a fellow human being.' 'Riight. Was the suspect male or female?' 'I don't acknowledge gender. We are all hupersons, but I will say this much, that the huperson was about 6'5, extremely muscular, had a beard, and when the huperson stepped into the darkness I couldn't see the huperson, apart from the very white teeth.'

Well done, you managed to describe someone without mentioning the myth of race.

What race are all those tall people from??
And what about the ginger race? What are they like?

FFS. 'Race' never had a 'meaning' anyway. It means whatever we want to ascribe to it. Nor does 'species'. We are all just atoms whirling around the universe.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Hmm. I can just see you as a witness after a crime: 'What race was the suspect'? 'Human'. 'Um, ok, what colour was the suspect?' 'I don't know. I don't see colour when I look at a fellow human being.' 'Riight. Was the suspect male or female?' 'I don't acknowledge gender. We are all hupersons, but I will say this much, that the huperson was about 6'5, extremely muscular, had a beard, and when the huperson stepped into the darkness I couldn't see the huperson, apart from the very white teeth.'

Well done, you managed to describe someone without mentioning the myth of race.

What race are all those tall people from??
And what about the ginger race? What are they like?

FFS. 'Race' never had a 'meaning' anyway. It means whatever we want to ascribe to it. Nor does 'species'. We are all just atoms whirling around the universe.

"Race" does have meaning. Words are important. choice and application structure thinking. Race is a really good example of how damaging an agenda can be.

As for species - that does have a very specific meaning. Members of species are capable in propitious circumstances of interbreeding. When a species evolves separately they can "speciate", in other words no longer be compatible by giving viable progeny.
A horse and a donkey, for example is a case where, though similar enough to breed, the progeny are sterile; meaning they are separate species.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Well done, you managed to describe someone without mentioning the myth of race.

What race are all those tall people from??
And what about the ginger race? What are they like?

FFS. 'Race' never had a 'meaning' anyway. It means whatever we want to ascribe to it. Nor does 'species'. We are all just atoms whirling around the universe.

"Race" does have meaning. Words are important. choice and application structure thinking. Race is a really good example of how damaging an agenda can be.

I thought you just said 'race' doesn't have meaning.

Hobbes' Choice wrote: You can call them people, and treat them as you would any other human.

I was asking what name we should give to the difference. "Race" seems like a more human term than "subspecies".