'Black Lives Matter' Organizer Outed as White?

[erowe1]

I admitted, there's no perfect number to draw the line, which is why we assign percentages and relative proportions.

We do?

How do we ever identify any single individual as belonging to any race if all we ever do is assign percentages?

That doesn't change the fact that 99% of Kenya's native population has a different skin color than 99% of Japan's native population.

Now you're talking about people native to some country. You keep changing things. So is this what race is? Being native to some country?

 

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Race is constructed by society. It is not constructed by biology (biologists themselves don't believe it is). But to say that race is constructed by society is not to deny any biological differences.

If you and society choose to make certain biological differences the basis for your racial categories, then obviously, because of that choice, those racial categories will align with those biological differences. But that will happen because you and society chose to categorize people that way.

Again, notice the comparison with dog breeds.

Dog breeds are very analogous to race, yes. What we consider to be a pomeranian vis a vis a doberman is socially delineated, but there are biological differences between them, just as there are biological differences between the races. Race is a socially delineated, biological construct. I don't think you understand your own argument here.

 

[PRB]

Bullshit.
Perhaps some Pseudoscience. Not any real science.

All humans trace their ancestry to one single individual,, and to his three sons.
any real science will only confirm this.

Again, so that means you're equally black as Barack Obama and Osama bin Laden is equally Japanese as Yao Ming, right?

 

[PRB]

Now you're talking about people native to some country. You keep changing things. So is this what race is? Being native to some country?

Race does not mean you're native to a country, but being native to a country highly increases your chances of being a different ancestry than somebody native to another country.

I prefer the words "population" and "ancestry" as they are scientific and biological, race can mean as broad as all humans, and as narrow as ethnicity, so I try to avoid those words when making a point.

 

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

You have 3 pics, A, B, C.

Can you tell me where the "wall" is which will make a skull A and not B? How do we know these are not extreme cases?

There is no "wall", it's all a continuum. The differences between the races in skull morphology is thoroughly documented. Stephen Jay Gould had to lie to attempt to refute the data.

 

[PRB]

We do?
How do we ever identify any single individual as belonging to any race if all we ever do is assign percentages?

That's the freaking point! We don't and don't need to place everybody in a perfect cookie cutter, we can say a person X% one population and Y% another. If populations cannot interbreed, we could simply say one population is a distinct race, but because they CAN, we no longer can contain people in populations, we can assign percentages to what a person is and isn't.

 

[tod evans]

Can "Hillbilly" be a race?

How about subspecies? Ozark, Blue Ridge, Appalachian, etc.....

I want a pedigree!

What about stud service? Will I get kicked out of the Hillbilly registry if I breed city mongrels?

It's all so damn confusing trying to be special..........

 

[PRB]

There is no "wall", it's all a continuum. The differences between the races in skull morphology is thoroughly documented. Stephen Jay Gould had to lie to attempt to refute the data.

So do you admit the lacking of walls makes races social constructs?

Or, at least, walls are imagined, continua are scientific?

Furthermore, people don't fit into perfect boxes or walls, instead, everybody has a different percentage of where his ancestry came from?

 

[erowe1]

You have 3 pics, A, B, C.

Can you tell me where the "wall" is which will make a skull A and not B? How do we know these are not extreme cases?

It's not just a matter of telling where to draw the line between one and the other, it's also the more general issue of saying that these differences are races.

But this issue of skull shape is a great illustration of why the belief that races are social constructs does not entail the belief that the biological differences that people use in dividing one another up into races themselves don't exist.

Here's an article from a forensic anthropologist that illustrates my point.
http://anthropology.msu.edu/anp202-...1992-Forensic-Anthropology-Race-Concept-1.pdf

 

[erowe1]

That's the freaking point! We don't and don't need to place everybody in a perfect cookie cutter, we can say a person X% one population and Y% another. If populations cannot interbreed, we could simply say one population is a distinct race, but because they CAN, we no longer can contain people in populations, we can assign percentages to what a person is and isn't.

Ergo, when the person in the OP claims to be black, we can't say that he's lying.

 

[PRB]

It's not just a matter of telling where to draw the line between one and the other, it's also the more general issue of saying that these differences are races.

Why can't they be races if they're an objective criteria?

But this issue of skull shape is a great illustration of why the belief that races are social constructs does not entail the belief that the biological differences that people use in dividing one another up into races themselves don't exist.

Fair enough

Here's an article from a forensic anthropologist that illustrates my point.
http://anthropology.msu.edu/anp202-...1992-Forensic-Anthropology-Race-Concept-1.pdf

Will read later.

 

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

So do you admit the lacking of walls makes races social constructs?

Or, at least, walls are imagined, continua are scientific?

Furthermore, people don't fit into perfect boxes or walls, instead, everybody has a different percentage of where his ancestry came from?

The lack of walls make race socially delineated in the same way all things are inevitably socially defined. That's not what people mean when they say "race is a social construct". In The Mismeasure of Man, Gould explicitly argues that there are no significant biological differences between the races, and that book is a seminal work from an egalitarian perspective. Of course, there are no "pure" races. There probably never was.

 

[PRB]

Ergo, when the person in the OP claims to be black, we can't say that he's lying.

Depends on what he claimed. If he claimed his father and grandparents came from where they did not, he's lying.

Oh, and we CAN say he's lying if DNA shows he's 0% black. Even if he's not 100% Japanese.

 

[erowe1]

Depends on what he claimed. If he claimed his father and grandparents came from where they did not, he's lying.

Oh, and we CAN say he's lying if DNA shows he's 0% black. Even if he's not 100% Japanese.

How can DNA possibly show that someone is 0% black? What would that even mean?

You're right about how he could lie about where some person came from. But, as you said before, where a person comes from and what race they are are two different things.

 

[PRB]

The lack of walls make race socially delineated in the same way all things are inevitably socially defined. That's not what people mean when they say "race is a social construct". In The Mismeasure of Man, Gould explicitly argues that there are no significant biological differences between the races, and that book is a seminal work from an egalitarian perspective. Of course, there are no "pure" races. There probably never was.

I am well aware that liberals want us to believe, like pcosmar is suggesting, that all humans are equal, and Shaun King is equally black as Barack Obama, and Barack Obama is equally Oriental as Yao Ming.

 

[PRB]

How can DNA possibly show that someone is 0% black?

When your ancestry is everything but African.

 

[pcosmar]

There was intelligent thought behind Vlad Dracula's cruelty.
But lets assume he was a savage.
What does singling out one person from millions really tell us?

Vlad was one of many. Just one that became famous and is still celebrated as a "hero".
Viking/Norse Barbarism is documented as well. Savages. as were the Britons at one time. Tribal savages..

I still think tribalism is preferable to the horrors that "civilization" and various authoritarian ISMs that have inflicted on humanity.

and there was stability in Africa,, before the Europeans invaded and raped it. Before artificial borders were established.

The Queen of Ethiopia was seeking counsel from Solomon long before the Vikings were pillaging the Brits, and before Caesar got those barbarians under control.

Your elitist superiority complex has no basis in reality.

 

[erowe1]

When your ancestry is everything but African.

How could DNA possibly show that anyone's ancestry is ever everything but African?

Africa is a continent. Not something in DNA.

I'm not sure what that picture is supposed to tell me.

Take those three skulls in the picture above. A person with a skull matching the shape of any one of those three could be born anywhere on the planet and have ancestors who were born anywhere on the planet. There may be a greater likelihood that they or some of their ancestors were born in one place versus another. But the possibility will always remain that that likelihood will not match reality.

 

[JK/SEA]

I am well aware that liberals want us to believe, like pcosmar is suggesting, that all humans are equal, and Shaun King is equally black as Barack Obama, and Barack Obama is equally Oriental as Yao Ming.

you either drink too much flouride, or you have mad cow disease, or both...

whoever you are, you are an embarassment to the human race....

geez...what a freaking moron.

 

[PRB]

How could DNA possibly show that anyone's ancestry is ever everything but African?

It just did.

It shows that a person's ancestry has either absolute zero, or practically and negligibly zero common ancestry with people living in Africa today. If any, it'd be dozens of generations that the traits are no longer identifiable.

Africa is a continent. Not something in DNA.

People who live on the continent have DNA

I'm not sure what that picture is supposed to tell me.

it tells you a person's ancestry comes from different parts of Europe, but not Asia or Africa or the new World