'Black Lives Matter' Organizer Outed as White?

[PRB]

Japan is a nation-state with official citizenship, like the USA is.

But "black" isn't. In order to be able to say that somebody isn't black, we need to have objective criteria, other than self-identification, that can be used to disqualify them.

There's an objective way to measure ancestry, especially if you're only asking if a person is over 0% or practically indistinguishable from 0%. The cut off point of whether you need 5% or 55% is subjective.

 

[erowe1]

That is not the definition of race.

As you admitted before, that was the definition of race that was used in studies you had seen that showed that race had predictive value as a taxonomic category.

But if you disagree with that definition, then what do you think the definition of race is?

 

[erowe1]

There's an objective way to measure ancestry

Sure there is, genealogies.

But race is not defined by genealogies.

And in any case, this doesn't help us in telling when a person counts as black, or when they're lying if they claim to be black.

 

[PRB]

Your two sentences here don't logically belong together. No, it is not the case that I must believe that all humans are equally black and equally Japanese in order to believe that there do not exist genetic tests that can ever show that a person is 0% African (I'm still not even sure what 0% African even means).

You don't know what it means and you already know it's not possible?

I'm not sure why you think your first sentence goes along with your second, but there's no logical connection between those ideas.

If you believe a person can be 50% African or 100% African, it logically follows you believe a person can be 0% African. Either you do believe a person can be 0-100% African, or you believe nobody is and everybody is equally African, with no percentage or appreciable measure.

If you do believe that there exist such tests, why do you believe that? Can you find any sources that support the idea? The one you provided before never made any such claim.

The test example I provided made very specific claims that a person's genetic make up tells a lot about where his ancestors came from.

 

[PRB]

Sure there is, genealogies.

But race is not defined by genealogies.

Race is defined by phenotypes, such as skin color, which is closely caused by genealogy.

And in any case, this doesn't help us in telling when a person counts as black, or when they're lying if they claim to be black.

Yes, it does. Because a person who has no evidence of skin color being black and also no evidence of recent ancestors being from Africa, cannot be black by any scientific of biological measure, he's free to act black and think he's black though.

 

[erowe1]

Get 2 parents together and predict the child's skin color.

OK? I don't see how that fits with this conversation. Is that what you think Paleolibertarian meant by the predictive value of race?

By the way, while of course it's true that you can usually predict a baby's skin color from its parents' skin colors, in India, where skin colors range from pretty much the same as what we would consider white to pretty much the same as what we would consider black, it's not uncommon for two parents who are both at one end of that spectrum to have a baby at the other. This is because of the same reason that what Paleolibertarian earlier called "European genetics" really predate the European people that they characterize. All those supposedly European traits were already in the gene pool, and still are in out there in the collective gene pool of non-Europeans.

 

[erowe1]

Race is defined by phenotypes, such as skin color, which is closely caused by genealogy.

I there a list of these criteria anywhere that we can use to categorize someone as black objectively, like what the kennel club can use to categorize dogs in a breed?

Incidentally, if race is phenotype, then it can be caused by a person being born into a race by having parents of that same race. But, if it's really phenotype, it can also be caused by a person being bred to be one race out of an ancestry of people who were not of that race, just like dog breeds, which are also phenotypes. According to your definition of race, would the latter person qualify as the race they match according to phenotype, or would only the former qualify?

Yes, it does. Because a person who has no evidence of skin color being black and also no evidence of recent ancestors being from Africa, cannot be black by any scientific of biological measure, he's free to act black and think he's black though.

You say "scientific and biological" but scientists and biologists don't agree with you. "Black" is not a scientifically measurable quality like height or weight, unless you literally are just talking about skin color. Are you? Because earlier we weren't talking about skin color, but race.

 

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

As you admitted before, that was the definition of race that was used in studies you had seen that showed that race had predictive value as a taxonomic category.

But if you disagree with that definition, then what do you think the definition of race is?

You're conflating the definition of race with the studies which must use self-identification as the criteria. If there was a study that could give genetic tests to vast numbers of people, then predict behavior, the predictions would likely be better, but such a study would cost far too much for most grants.

Race is phenotypic difference caused by genetic variation, allele frequency and DNA admixture.

 

[PRB]

I there a list of these criteria anywhere that we can use to categorize someone as black objectively, like what the kennel club can use to categorize dogs in a breed?

The better way to ask and answer is : is there a list of criteria which we can attribute to a population such that we can distinguish them from one population and another? The answer is yes. Skin color, skull size, eye color, height, muscle fat ratio...etc. But you wouldn't use the word "black", instead, it'd be an ancestry determination.

Incidentally, if race is phenotype, then it can be caused by a person being born into a race by having parents of that same race.

No shit Sherlock

But, if it's really phenotype, it can also be caused by a person being bred to be one race out of an ancestry of people who were not of that race

If it were one phenotype, yes, not if it's a collection of many, or at least it's unlikely.

, just like dog breeds, which are also phenotypes.

As an example, Africans with light skin color can keep breeding and have offspring with light skin color, but since ancestry and race are not only skin deep, they continue to carry other markers of being African, such as curly hair, skull shape, athletic build...etc.

You say "scientific and biological" but scientists and biologists don't agree with you. "Black" is not a scientifically measurable quality like height or weight, unless you literally are just talking about skin color. Are you? Because earlier we weren't talking about skin color, but race.

you're right, i'm not talking about skin color. what are we even debating? I'm talking about ancestry.

 

[erowe1]

If you believe a person can be 50% African or 100% African, it logically follows you believe a person can be 0% African. Either you do believe a person can be 0-100% African, or you believe nobody is and everybody is equally African, with no percentage or appreciable measure.

What do those things even mean? What is 50% African or 100% African? If both of my parents were born in Africa, would that make me 100% African?

The test example I provided made very specific claims that a person's genetic make up tells a lot about where his ancestors came from.

First of all, no it didn't make those claims. I'd love for you to find the quote in the article that says that.
Second of all, whatever those genetic tests indicate about where anyone's ancestors come from can only be at some level of probability. They can't tell with certainty. If you were to look into how those test results were meant to be interpreted, every claim, such as that a person has 12% ancestry from the Middle East, will be qualified with some margin of error. This includes anything saying that a person has 0% ancestry from Africa. A result of 0% ancestry from Africa would really just mean something like, a 70% chance that a somewhere between 0% and 4% of a person's ancestors were from Africa.
Third, this still doesn't say anything about what race anybody is.

 

[erowe1]

If it were one phenotype, yes, not if it's a collection of many, or at least it's unlikely.

It's more than likely. It's already happened. That's how the races that now exist with the phenotypes you use to define them had to come about. And animal breeders do it all the time. It would be difficult to do with people because of the nature of the experiment. But the question remains, would a person whose ancestors are not black (according to your phenotype definition), but who themselves were bred from those ancestors to be black (according to that same phenotype definition), qualify as belonging to the black race? Conspicuously, you never answered that question.

 

[erowe1]

The better way to ask and answer is : is there a list of criteria which we can attribute to a population such that we can distinguish them from one population and another? The answer is yes. Skin color, skull size, eye color, height, muscle fat ratio...etc. But you wouldn't use the word "black", instead, it'd be an ancestry determination.

Let's stick with the question I asked. We're talking about race, such as the race "black."

Is there such a list? If so, can you please find it for me?

That said, while I do want your answer to that, I'll take your bait and address this answer. You switch between two different things. First you say that you're talking about criteria for belonging to a population. Then you say you're talking about ancestry. Which do you mean? Those are two different things.

 

[PRB]

It's more than likely. It's already happened. That's how the races that now exist with the phenotypes you use to define them had to come about. And animal breeders do it all the time. It would be difficult to do with people because of the nature of the experiment. But the question remains, would a person whose ancestors are not black (according to your phenotype definition), but who themselves were bred from those ancestors to be black (according to that same phenotype definition), qualify as belonging to the black race? Conspicuously, you never answered that question.

if you can breed a person to the point where he's scientifically indistinguishable from a person with supposed ancestry, science would determine he's that ancestry, much like if you can forge evidence that something happened historically, historians would consider it true. science and history have lots of standards of how to determine if something is true, but neither are fool proof. because after all "we were not there".

if a person can be found through genetic testing that he has appreciable recent African ancestry, he can be considered "black" or "African", but I'd be curious how you do that without having people from Africa. That would assume traits like skin color and hair curliness can be found elsewhere, while other markers are either not conflicting or mistakably African.

 

[PRB]

What do those things even mean? What is 50% African or 100% African? If both of my parents were born in Africa, would that make me 100% African?

Oh, I get it now, you DON'T believe there's such a thing as 50% or 100% African, you don't even know what that means.

So I guess everybody is equally African and equally Japanese, since the numbers make no sense to you.

 

[PRB]

Second of all, whatever those genetic tests indicate about where anyone's ancestors come from can only be at some level of probability.

Which is better than having no indication or information at all.

 

[PRB]

They can't tell with certainty.

When does anybody tell anything with certainty, short of not being there?
What's the certainty of paternity tests?

 

[PRB]

Let's stick with the question I asked. We're talking about race, such as the race "black."

Is there such a list? If so, can you please find it for me?

That said, while I do want your answer to that, I'll take your bait and address this answer. You switch between two different things. First you say that you're talking about criteria for belonging to a population. Then you say you're talking about ancestry. Which do you mean? Those are two different things.

Populations (genetic term) and ancestry are essentially the same thing scientifically.

Here's a list of 128 ancestry informative markers (AIM) or ancestry informative single-nucleotide polymorphisms http://alfred.med.yale.edu/alfred/selectedSnpSet.asp?setId=101

 

[timosman]

When does anybody tell anything with certainty, short of not being there?
What's the certainty of paternity tests?

It sure isn't 100%. The birth certificates can also be unreliable as witnessed in the current case(why nobody did use this angle to bring forward the obvious case of fraud?). It seems we have been living with a certain degree of uncertainty for a very long time and now, out of sudden, we demand 100% reliability when determining the race of a phenotype.

I also would like to propose a ban on marketing. Marketing people profile large segments of the population frequently based on race and other unreliable data (age, gender, income levels, religion, previous interaction, etc.) in order to better target audiences while peddling their offerings. This is clearly misguided and discriminatory. It should not be allowed. Everybody deserves the same level of attentions from marketing folks. Race based marketing should be banned.

 

[PRB]

It sure isn't 100%. The birth certificates can also be unreliable as witnessed in the current case(why nobody did use this angle to bring forward the obvious case of fraud?). It seems we have been living with a certain degree of uncertainty for a very long time and now, out of sudden, we demand 100% reliability when determining the race of a phenotype.

I also would like to propose a ban on marketing. Marketing people profile large segments of the population frequently based on race and other unreliable data (age, gender, income levels, religion, previous interaction, etc.) in order to better target audiences while peddling their offerings. This is clearly misguided and discriminatory. It should not be allowed. Everybody deserves the same level of attentions from marketing folks. Race based marketing should be banned.

this is exactly what I mean, creationists requiring 100% certainty in order to accept evolution, Republicans demanding 100% certainty to believe global warming.

 

[timosman]

this is exactly what I mean, creationists requiring 100% certainty in order to accept evolution, Republicans demanding 100% certainty to believe global warming.

I think you are going too far here, lumping bunch of unrelated issues together.