"Race" = Bullshyt, According to Science
- Thread starter Dafunkdoc_Unlimited
- Start date
-
- Tags
- anthropology genetics race science
010101
C L O N E*0690//////
most likely humanity will be bickering over some sort of foolishness until earths end ha*
NO SHIIT
RACE IS A MADE UP SOCIAL CONSTRUCT
IN THE BIBLE IT WAS ALL ABOUT NATIONALITY, RACE WASNT EVEN CONSIDERED
RACE IS A MADE UP SOCIAL CONSTRUCT
IN THE BIBLE IT WAS ALL ABOUT NATIONALITY, RACE WASNT EVEN CONSIDERED
Wear My Dawg's Hat
Superstar
We used to be taught the case Plessy v. Ferguson back in grade school as evidence that racial categorization was arbitrary, unscientific, nonsensical and evil.
Even though Homer Plessy was almost 90 percent white European, his 10 percent African heritage legally consigned him to "colored" or "Negro" status in 19th Century Louisiana and the United States Supreme Court.
Plessy versus Ferguson
Background
The case originated in 1892 as a challenge to Louisiana’s Separate Car Act (1890). The law required that all railroads operating in the state provide “equal but separate accommodations” for white and African American passengers and prohibited passengers from entering accommodations other than those to which they had been assigned on the basis of their race. In 1891 a group of Creole professionals in New Orleans formed the Citizens’ Committee to Test the Constitutionality of the Separate Car Law. They hired Albion Tourgée, a Reconstruction-era judge and social reformer, as their legal counsel. As plaintiff in the test case the committee chose a person of mixed race in order to support its contention that the law could not be consistently applied, because it failed to define the white and “coloured” races. Homer Plessy, who was seven-eighths white and one-eighth African American, purchased a rail ticket for travel within Louisiana and took a seat in a car reserved for white passengers. (The state Supreme Court had ruled earlier that the law could not be applied to interstate travel.) After refusing to move to a car for African Americans, he was arrested and charged with violating the Separate Car Act. At Plessy’s trial in U.S. District Court, Judge John H. Ferguson dismissed his contention that the act was unconstitutional. After the state Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari, and oral arguments were heard on April 13, 1896. The court rendered its decision one month later, on May 18.
Plessy v. Ferguson | Summary, Facts, & Significance
Even though Homer Plessy was almost 90 percent white European, his 10 percent African heritage legally consigned him to "colored" or "Negro" status in 19th Century Louisiana and the United States Supreme Court.
Plessy versus Ferguson
Background
The case originated in 1892 as a challenge to Louisiana’s Separate Car Act (1890). The law required that all railroads operating in the state provide “equal but separate accommodations” for white and African American passengers and prohibited passengers from entering accommodations other than those to which they had been assigned on the basis of their race. In 1891 a group of Creole professionals in New Orleans formed the Citizens’ Committee to Test the Constitutionality of the Separate Car Law. They hired Albion Tourgée, a Reconstruction-era judge and social reformer, as their legal counsel. As plaintiff in the test case the committee chose a person of mixed race in order to support its contention that the law could not be consistently applied, because it failed to define the white and “coloured” races. Homer Plessy, who was seven-eighths white and one-eighth African American, purchased a rail ticket for travel within Louisiana and took a seat in a car reserved for white passengers. (The state Supreme Court had ruled earlier that the law could not be applied to interstate travel.) After refusing to move to a car for African Americans, he was arrested and charged with violating the Separate Car Act. At Plessy’s trial in U.S. District Court, Judge John H. Ferguson dismissed his contention that the act was unconstitutional. After the state Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari, and oral arguments were heard on April 13, 1896. The court rendered its decision one month later, on May 18.
Plessy v. Ferguson | Summary, Facts, & Significance
Race being a social construct doesn't mean it doesn't have social implications. The fact that race is a social construct doesn't change anything about the negative impact of racism or the need to address racism in America, it just further proves how idiotic the arguments of the racists are. A social construct that has existed for 500+ years is still a real thing socially and can still be the basis of affirmative action, reparations, etc., it's just not a real thing biologically.
Subspecies are real and based on measurable genetic and phenotypic differences between populations.
Race is not real because there's no actual genetic differences that align best with race. If you want a scientific article on the subject, this is the best one I've seen. Genetically if we were to divide humans into genetic ancestry, then the most mathematically supported model would be 21 separate groups (though the differences are so vague there isn't that much difference in the modeling if you use as few as 12 groups or as many as 40) and over 97% of humans are mixed between two or more of those 21 groups. Plus none of the 21 groups would be different enough from each other to rise to the level of subspecies.
Human ancestry correlates with language and reveals that race is not an objective genomic classifier | Scientific Reports
Each of the colors represents a different genetic lineage. Notice how each of the different geographic areas are made up of people of completely different genetic backgrounds, and even individual groups are made up of different colors themselves meaning they have mixed genetic background, plus some of the genetic backgrounds are shared across different continents. There's no way to look at that chart and decide that 4-5 races is the most sensible way to divide people.
That's another way of showing the data. Notice that there is less genetic difference between the east african and west asian lineages than there is between east african and south african. Notice that native americans are closer genetically to many asian groups than some of those asian groups are to each other. Notice that southern european and northern african lineages are closer to each other than southern europeans are to northern europeans. Notice that the south indian and south asian (north indian) lineages are so different from each other that they're in two entire different sections.
Don't forget that those genetic groupings don't even represent actual human populations today either. For example, the average person in Iran today is some mix of the south asian, west asian, north asian, and arabian ancestries, with every person in Iran being a different mix. Whereas someone from Libya is a different mix of arabian, west asian, north african, southern european, east african, and other ancestries.
There's no way to look at that data and decide that our modern racial categories make biological/genetic sense.
OneManGang
Veteran
Excellent post.Race being a social construct doesn't mean it doesn't have social implications. The fact that race is a social construct doesn't change anything about the negative impact of racism or the need to address racism in America, it just further proves how idiotic the arguments of the racists are. A social construct that has existed for 500+ years is still a real thing socially and can still be the basis of affirmative action, reparations, etc., it's just not a real thing biologically.
Subspecies are real and based on measurable genetic and phenotypic differences between populations.
Race is not real because there's no actual genetic differences that align best with race. If you want a scientific article on the subject, this is the best one I've seen. Genetically if we were to divide humans into genetic ancestry, then the most mathematically supported model would be 21 separate groups (though the differences are so vague there isn't that much difference in the modeling if you use as few as 12 groups or as many as 40) and over 97% of humans are mixed between two or more of those 21 groups. Plus none of the 21 groups would be different enough from each other to rise to the level of subspecies.
Human ancestry correlates with language and reveals that race is not an objective genomic classifier | Scientific Reports
Each of the colors represents a different genetic lineage. Notice how each of the different geographic areas are made up of people of completely different genetic backgrounds, and even individual groups are made up of different colors themselves meaning they have mixed genetic background, plus some of the genetic backgrounds are shared across different continents. There's no way to look at that chart and decide that 4-5 races is the most sensible way to divide people.
That's another way of showing the data. Notice that there is less genetic difference between the east african and west asian lineages than there is between east african and south african. Notice that native americans are closer genetically to many asian groups than some of those asian groups are to each other. Notice that southern european and northern african lineages are closer to each other than southern europeans are to northern europeans. Notice that the south indian and south asian (north indian) lineages are so different from each other that they're in two entire different sections.
Don't forget that those genetic groupings don't even represent actual human populations today either. For example, the average person in Iran today is some mix of the south asian, west asian, north asian, and arabian ancestries, with every person in Iran being a different mix. Whereas someone from Libya is a different mix of arabian, west asian, north african, southern european, east african, and other ancestries.
There's no way to look at that data and decide that our modern racial categories make biological/genetic sense.
old news
People have and will always classify themselves, just until Eurocentrism it wasn't based on the color of your skin. For example barbarian just mean anyone who wasn't a native roman born person within the confines of their empire, not a savage.
Dafunkdoc_Unlimited
Theological Noncognitivist Since Birth
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2012
- Messages
- 45,062
- Reputation
- 8,165
- Daps
- 122,339
- Reppin
- The Wrong Side of the Tracks
Alvin said:
Were that truly the case, there'd be no one arguing against it. They can't take all the blame, however.....
An Open Letter to Our Community in Response to Police Brutality Against African-Americans and a Call to Antiracist Action
AAPA also recognizes that the discipline of biological (physical) anthropology played a central role in establishing these racist and discriminatory systems. Some of the founding and prominent leaders of physical anthropology used their research to justify policies that led to the inequity, oppression, and violence that continues to occur against Black, Indigenous, and other People of Color in the United States today. One of our missions as an organization, which is important to restate here, is to counter the impact of harmful work done by our professional predecessors and to call out scientific racism today. An Open Letter to Our Community in Response to Police Brutality Against African-Americans and a Call to Antiracist Action
Swahili P'Bitek
Absorbingpovertywithoutlimitations
Race is very much real, regardless of the genetic diversity within it, because it's determined by what people see. When you look at someone, you can't tell see their dna, you see what they are as a result of their dna which was shaped by environmental factors over a course of 1000s, possibly millions of years. Our environment dictated our culture too, hence ethnic groups and nationalities, does that mean that there are no nationalities, ethnic groups etc.
Everythingg
King-Over-Kingz
Cap thread made by a cap poster 
Cacs already admitted to having Neanderthal blood that nikkas don’t have. Now that their reign is closing it’s “no we’re all the same, see!?!”
Too late. Keep that same energy that you once had because that’s what you’ll be held to...
Cacs already admitted to having Neanderthal blood that nikkas don’t have. Now that their reign is closing it’s “no we’re all the same, see!?!”
Too late. Keep that same energy that you once had because that’s what you’ll be held to...
Race is the game whether we decide to play it or not, it's played