Evolution deceives our eyes. We are a species that relies heavily on our vision, and we use what we see to observe and make assumptions about other people. The crudeness of racial categorization relies almost entirely on skin color, and perhaps a handful of other physical characteristics, such as hair texture.
But our eyes provide an extremely limited view of reality. There is sense to the phrase "skin deep" when we speak of race. It is metaphorically correct in the sense that there is only one human species remaining (of at least five that existed alongside us in the last 100,000 years) and that we are all desperately closely related — we need only to go back to the 14th century BCE to arrive at an era when all humans alive were the ancestors of all humans alive today.
"Skin deep" is also a useful phrase when thinking about the genetics that underly human variation. Only a handful of genes out of 20,000 influence all the skin tones available to human beings. The most comprehensive study of the genes involved in pigmentation was published last week, led by Sarah Tishkoff from the University of Pennsylvania. Modern techniques in genomics have made it easier and easier to sample huge proportions of our genetic code in thousands of people. Tishkoff and her team did exactly that on the hunt for genes that influence skin pigmentation. They looked at the DNA of more than 1500 living people from 10 different ethnic groups in Botswana, Tanzania and Ethiopia. They found eight genes that account for 29 percent of the variation they observed in skin tones (if that doesn’t seem like much, in these sorts of studies, 29 percent is in fact huge; much of the rest of the variation will be accounted for in many far less common — and therefore more difficult to detect — genes).
How genetics undermines “scientific” arguments for racism
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
youtube.com
28brotherhood.com
dienekes.awardspace.com
rbcp.org.br
twitter.com
The genes themselves are mostly unsurprising. We’ve known about those elements of DNA involved in skin color for a few years now, but primarily in relation to lighter skin and Europeans. The variation in the African samples is definitely surprising. Studies from only a couple of years ago showed that hunter gatherer populations in Europe had dark skin 8000 years ago, but that light skinned (and blue-eyed) variants of several genes were found in the remains of 7700 year-old bodies found in Sweden. Pale skin is associated with living in cooler, less sunny climates, where the body’s efficiency in producing vitamin D is impeded – the closer your evolution occurred to the equator, the more likely you are to have darker skin. Tishkoff’s survey of African genomes revealed a much more complex story. They saw genetic variants for lighter colored skin in both Europeans and in the San hunter-gatherers in Botswana. The origin of that DNA appears to be a very ancient 900,000 years ago, meaning that it predates even the oldest inception of Homo sapiens – us – by more than half a million years. They saw versions of both in the Neanderthals, from whom we split some 600,000 years ago (but rekindled our sexual relationships in Europe around 40,000 years ago). They suggest that Neanderthals probably also had a mix of different skin color genes and that some were dark skinned and some were pale.
The new paper also suggests that some genetic variants in South Asia may have been inherited from African people, and similarly, some pale skinned genes also may well have originated in Africa.
This story is perfectly emblematic of the new story of our own evolution that was once simple and straightforward, but is becoming increasingly, beautifully complicated. It shows that skin color is a fascinating area of science, about which we are only scratching the surface. As is becoming ever more clear today, it reveals that human variation is complex, non-linear, messy, and that we have a long way still to go to understand even the most superficial of human traits.
What it also implies is that skin color and a scientific idea of race are not easy bedfellows. Sarah Tishkoff told The New York Times that this "dispels a biological concept of race." When we speak of race, we talk about "black," roughly meaning dark skinned people of relatively recent African ancestry. What genetics says is that this is meaningless in scientific terms of categorizing people, and the new skin study reinforces that robustly. The variation in genes for pigmentation, even within Africa, yet again reveals a picture of genetic diversity within Africa that is wide, varied, rich and deep.
We’ve known for many years that genetics has profoundly undermined the concept of race. At least, there is very little correlation between variation between people’s DNA, and variation in the traits that are traditionally associated with how we talk about race. We casually talk about black people, or East Asians, or South Asians without any acknowledgement that these categories are crude to the point of being scientifically absurd. While it is true that the further you go east from Europe, the more likely people will have thicker straighter hair, a lower density of sweat glands, dryer, flakier earwax, and darker skin. There is also the epicanthic fold – the veil of skin that results in a distinctive eye shape that is largely absent in the rest of the world. But it is present in many other populations of non-East Asian descent including Berbers, Inuit, Scandinavians, Poles and many indigenous American populations. Furthermore, there are visible differences in epicanthic fold shape between the different people of Southeast Asia, to the extent that many people can distinguish between Koreans, Chinese, Japanese, and so on, solely on this basis.
The point is that humans are continuous in their variation. This is not to deny visible physical differences — that would be absurd and intellectually dishonest. It is merely pointing out that the physical traits we broadly use to colloquially talk of race are imprecise, clunky and not representative of overall diversity in humans by any measure.
Africa is not a huge homogenous continent populated by one people. That is obviously physically true, and overwhelmingly so when we look at DNA. There is more genetic variation within Africa than in the rest of the world put together. What this means is that if you were to take two Africans, say, a San tribe member and someone from the Ethiopian highlands, they will on average be more different from each other than either one is to anyone else on earth outside of Africa. Tishkoff found enormous variation, not just in the genes, but simply in the skin tones of the people she studied, even groups that are geographically close to one another. The true variation we see in humans within and outside Africa is largely to do with two things at which humans excel: sex and migration.
A few humans did migrate out of Africa some 100,000 years ago, and from that pool the rest of the world was largely founded. But this is not migration as we think of today. It happened over tens of thousands of years, and not in one straight line, as the maps sometimes suggest: we started here and ended up there. In truth, we followed seasons and food and hunts and climates, inching our way over thousands of years.
Humans are very bad at thinking in the long term. We have a great tendency to identify with our immediate kin in both time and space. We have nationalities and passports. Within that, we have towns and cities and roots and origin stories. My father is from the northeast of England, and I am firmly British. My mother is Indian, though Guyanese Indian, meaning that she has never set foot in India. But I have no real Indian identity beyond a love of curry and cricket. In fact, I identify much more closely with the Catholic culture of my stepmother who raised me (though, it has turned out that her grandfather was not the Joseph Adams we had thought, but was in fact naturalized as British from the Russian Orthodox Jewish name Josef Abrahams; how causally heritage is lost). In only three generations of my own trivial family history, migration, cultural identity is muddled like old wires in a drawer.
Times are changing when it comes to cultural identify and its relationship to DNA. Our genomes have become easily available to us via consumer genetic testing, with companies such as 23andMe and AncestryDNA. Millions of people have spat in a tube, paid a hundred bucks or so, and received a breakdown of where their DNA is most commonly found on Earth today. In my opinion it’s fun, but of trivial scientific value, and mine is entirely predictable: half is most commonly found in India, the other half in northern Europe. Genealogy is now the number one hobby in the U.S., as befits a nation whose population mostly immigrated to the Americas fewer than five centuries ago.
Yet the idea that DNA can reinforce a cultural identity is profoundly misplaced. For most people, the interest is sincere and recognizes the triviality of discovering you have Viking ancestry (save yourself your hard earned dough: everyone in Europe does). But more and more these days, racists and neo-Nazis are turning to consumer genetics to attempt to prove their racial purity and superiority. They fail, and will always fail, because no one is pure anything. Humans move, and humans reproduce. Anyone who claims a lineage back through history that entitles them to assert superiority has misunderstood how genealogy and genetic works. In these dark times, we look to shards of light, and sometimes I haunt neo-Nazi websites to see conversations play out when people discover that they have recent non-European DNA in their genomes.
We have come full circle in the short life of this science. Scientific racism is at the very base of the study of human variation, and indeed the root of human genetics. The whole field was founded by Francis Galton, a London gentleman of wealth and privilege, and, in my opinion, a brilliant inspired scientist nestling in on that all-too-overused category of ‘genius.’ Galton was a polymath, who invented statistical techniques we still use today; he helped found the use of fingerprints in forensics, published the first weather map, laid the groundwork for studying synesthesia, invented a vented hat to cool the brain whilst thinking hard, and designed a new system for cutting round cakes. Crucially though, he coveted data and created new methods to measure humans in many different ways. He effectively invented biometrics. He gave us the phrases ‘nature versus nurture’ to describe the interaction between our biological imperatives and the influence of our environment (though nowadays, ‘nature via nurture’ might be a better phrase, as these two things are not in conflict but in concert).
Galton was also a grotesque racist. He returned from travels as a young man in the heart of Africa convinced that there was a natural hierarchy to human races, with white British men at the very top. The Chinese followed, though he noted that while they were of superior intellect, they were prone to deceitfulness, unoriginality and an acquiescence to authority. The “Negro,” as was his contemporary parlance, was at the bottom of the pile and deserve to be colonized in Africa by the Chinese, as
“. . . average negroes possess too little intellect, self-reliance, and self-control to make it possible for them to sustain the burden of any respectable form of civilization without a large measure of external guidance and support.”
In the annals of Galton, there are plenty of similarly breathtaking thoughts. It is important not to judge people from history by contemporary mores, but even by the standards of Victorian England, Galton was strikingly racist, and arguably not typically so. Galton’s (half-)cousin was Charles Darwin, the greatest of all scientific minds, whose work he greatly admired. Darwin was demonstrably not a racist, though some of the language he used is still discomforting to our 21st century ears (his wife Emma’s affectionate nickname for him was “Nigger”). He was friends with and influenced by the freed black slave John Edmonstone during his undergraduate days in Edinburgh and was an abolitionist. Nevertheless, Galton was keen to establish a science that would demonstrate the natural order of men. (He wrote little about women, apart from an infamous study of female beauty across the British Isles in which he adjudged the most attractive women to reside in southwest London and the least in Aberdeen in Scotland; the data recording was done in secret, with a special contraption of his own design whereby he could mark observed women without detection; it was kept in his pocket and he called it a “pricker.”)
I digress. Galton birthed a science that encompasses all humankind. He founded a lab at University College London, which was retitled the “The Francis Galton Laboratory for National Eugenics.” That word, eugenics, was also of Galton’s coinage, but did not carry the toxic meaning that it does today. After the horrors of World War II, eugenics and racism were forever linked, and the lab’s name was changed to simply, “The Galton.” By the time I studied there in the 1990s, his legacy was beginning to reach its ironic conclusion, which is carried in Sarah Tishkoff’s latest study: the science that Galton founded in order to demonstrate racial hierarchies had done precisely the opposite.
Holy shit. Some user has finally dispelled/pol/s bullshit. I can scarcely believe it.
I haven't gone through all of it yet OP but this is good shit. Have a bump.
tl;dr
Fuck
>The crudeness of racial categorization relies almost entirely on skin color
Wrong bitch. Nobody hates niggers for how they look, it has always been how they act
qr?
.....and you still get more white people if you breed them that way. BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!
Do your children a favor. Make them white. (Anti whites and race mixers on suicide watch.)
Good job OP. This is the best quality thread we've had in a while. Good read.
>We are a species that relies heavily on our vision but anything more than movement is an illusion heavily open to interpretation biased by our own preconceived notions of how it be like it do
en.wikipedia.org
fuck off retard
This kills the Sup Forumstard.
>Galton was also a grotesque racist. He returned from travels as a young man in the heart of Africa convinced that there was a natural hierarchy to human races, with white British men at the very top. The Chinese followed, though he noted that while they were of superior intellect, they were prone to deceitfulness, unoriginality and an acquiescence to authority. The “Negro,” as was his contemporary parlance, was at the bottom of the pile and deserve to be colonized in Africa by the Chinese, as
>“. . . average negroes possess too little intellect, self-reliance, and self-control to make it possible for them to sustain the burden of any respectable form of civilization without a large measure of external guidance and support.”
A smart guy desu
>we need only to go back to the 14th century BCE to arrive at an era when all humans alive were the ancestors of all humans alive today.
>we need only to go back to the 14th century BCE to arrive at an era when all humans alive were the ancestors of all humans alive today.
> They saw versions of both in the Neanderthals, from whom we split some 600,000 years ago (but rekindled our sexual relationships in Europe around 40,000 years ago)
How can this be if Africans don't have any Neanderthal DNA?
OP's wordsalad is intentionally incomprehensible designed to attack white identity and convince you that subhuman savage niggers are just as worthy of their resources as your white children are.
He is an anti-white genocidalist.
It's Out of Africa bullshit predicated on the idea that niggers are "pure" humans.
Sophistry at it's finest.
Physical traits differ between population to such a degree that you would never mistake a Finn for an African.
In a smilar way personality traits also differ between populations, but you can find more overlap. A non-European foreigner might act like Swede, though that person would be the exception that proves the rule.
Race is only a meaningless category when WHITE people define themselves. You don't tell black lives matter activists that race is meaningless. You *ONLY* do it to whites because you have been programmed into regarding us as your eternal civilizationial enemies. You will deconstruct any concept which you believe could lead to the survival of whites. This is what you have been trained to do from birth.
>The Five Hypostases of Anti-Racism
H1. Race does not exist.
H2. Race exists, but it does not matter.
H3. It matters, but not a lot.
H4. It matters a lot, but I don’t care.
H5. I care, but I’m still not a racist.
All the hypostases are to be taken on the understanding of race as a biological category.
H1 is an insanity that constitutes the highest and most sublime hypostasis of anti-racism, avoiding socially risky or uncomfortable sanity.
The insanity of H2 avoids both the higher insanity of H1 and the riskier concessions of H3-H5, and may also appeal by sounding a little edgy to the jelly-witted and the cowardly. For these reasons, it is common.
With H2-H4, each coming at increasing risk, one may acknowledge immediately obvious reality, scientific findings, etc, thus to pay lip-service to rational obligation or to salve rational conscience, whilst eschewing any further thought on the matter. (H4 is relatively uncommon.)
H5 is the socially riskiest and least sublime form of anti-racism. It is unstable, and is likely either to sublimate into another hypostasis, thus to prove adherence to anti-racism, or else to spill over into racism.
From the standpoint of a higher hypostasis, all lower hypostases belong more or less to racism. A degree of risk-mitigation is provided throughout by giving ostentatious praise to other races even whilst denying their existence or significance. Naturally denying the existence, the significance, or the personal importance of race may be reformulated in a positive manner, namely, in affirming race as a social-ideological category only. Thus a reformulation of H1 might go as follows: race exists but only as a social-ideological construct of oppression.
>wordsalad
Going to take a fucking guess that this is a total fucking wrong interpretation of data designed to push a universalist agenda.
The ramblings don't even follow their own internal logic.
MMk read it
Your data is not a debunk of race theory but a deconstruction of what "race" means via use of social science in your observance of the hunt for skin pigmentation genes. TL;DR you know you're wrong and are just wasting other peoples' time, suck a fucking shotgun op.
>we're all the same so you need to get blacked
get fucked, retard.
Dog breeds are only skin deep too and show all the same genetic variation as races.
Still not going to leave my kids unattended around pit bulls.
TL;DR
all women want black cock.
bullshit. genes are responsible for not only the general instructions of making cells and the overall layout of different cells but the production of proteins. each gene produces a different protein. variants of a gene produce different proteins
the protein composition of your body affects biochemistry. brain chemistry is complex as is the electrical potential of neurons affecting cognitive abilities. sodium is a component of a neurotransmitter
having a sodium sensitivity is retarded. you know what else is retarded ? black people. and women but unless its a black woman the reason why women are retarded is their second x chromosome is rigged to make them retarded. they focus on some of the most trivial shit in the world and give into little slogans like "its our time" which were thought up by men. the idea was dumb bitches would spend more than men if they were the ones making more money but dumb bitches cant into basic logic and ruin companies and countries
sorry ladies your second class citizens vecause your fucking dumb. look at megyn kelly that bitch a flat our autist of the highest order and she opted to ruin her career for a lower paying job in a time slot she has no chance of holding. sorry bitch eye candy only works late night because women are asleep and men want soft core pron. morning the woman might be up and its going to be the weather channel. you lose to dopler radar with mega man ost's playing in the back ground
youtube.com
+2$ for this copypasta
>"Skin deep" is also a useful phrase when thinking about the genetics
biggest difference is neuro-pattering of brain regions.
skin and melanin differneces are way smaller percentage.
This
Checked
Digits confirm
/thread
>races arent real, guys!
>argues entirely about genetic history of skin pigmentation
>no mention of iq, genetic inheretance of iq, skeletal structure and cranial capacity, cultural genetic inheretance and human domestication, or any actual legitimate arguments concerning real racial differences
>says galton is wrong for calling chinks intelligent but deceitful and niggers both deceitful and dumb, argues that daltons theories are disproved
>quotes dalton saying that whites will give up african colonies, chinks will eventually colonize africa, which is literrally what is happening right now
I love a giant block text of strawmen. Yeah no thanks OP.
"Skin deep" is not a sensible phrase, because skin color is a predictive indicator of behavior and intelligence.
Haven't seen a thread brigaded this hard in a while. "Race is skin deep" is the most retarded shit in the world. Kys
sage
Bump
Hm... I wonder why there's special medical treatment based on the race of the patient necessary in some cases and why every forensic student can tell the race only by seeing the skull.
None of this undermines scientific concepts of race; if anything it proves them.
How does the observation that there's continuous variation between populations dispel the fact that there are typical ethnicities and races (and mixed zones in between them)?
How does the observation that there is more than one subsaharan black race (San, Pygmies, Bantus, etc.) prove that there are no races? The opposite is true if long-known and obvious physical differences can even be demonstrated on a genetic level (as genetic distance)?
And race was never about variations of single genes which might also appear elsewear; it's about typical bundles of variations which tend to come together, in geografical clusters. That's why there are people who can even tell Chinese eye shapes from Japanese ones.
And was Galton said about the Chinese and negroes is timeless. If it is as true almost 2 centuries later, maybe it's not "grotesquely racist", but simply true. If it's supposed to discredit the science he laid the basis for, it doesn't, simply because the author doesn't like it.
>post virtue signaling race is all just muh skin tone meme
Are they even trying anymore?
>Sarah Tishkoff
>Sarah
believing a wammins
ishydgdtfs
Nah, that bitch can say what she wants, but i was galician and portuguese for and shiet
>what is time-preference
>what is in-group preference
>what is aggression
>what is impulsivity
>what is empathy
>what is power distance
>what is uncertainty avoidance
>what is competitiveness
>what is cooperativeness
>what is intelligence
>muh skin color
checked btw
Thanks user.
Bump
Holy fuck nice wordsalad. I tried to look for some actual data there but it seems to be missing.
Humans are built to catagorize. Its automatic. Without catagories, we would not have words, language. You may call a stick, what i call a branch. Where is the distinction made? We may invent the most complicated scientific theory taking into account the species of plant, its maturity, and count the bifurcations on the object. But this is all a heuristic. As you say with the genes, there is too much continuity to possibly make a "correct" distinction between a stick and a branch, a black and a white. But consider a graduated example, distinction-wise. We name a stick a stick, a fruit a fruit. You say, bring me some fruit - i am hungry. So i bring you a stick. Since it is impossible to distinguish the two: both are made of organic matter, they both sprout forth from the earth. Some fruit are tube like, some branches are bulbous. So i do not distinguish. This is my heuristic. As we said there is a continuity among the objects and any system of measure to make it discrete is arbitrary. But we cannot live like this.
...
...
Near groups tend toward similar heuristics, similar classification strategies, similar language comprehension. In trying times communication is necessary for survival - not only for humans but animals and plants. There is little time for debating semantics when your tribe is at war. In these times an arbitrary heuristic is chosen and disseminated, possibly decided by a central leader, and everyone knows how to distinguish friend from foe. Even in peace times standards are needed so that words have meaning. When crafting you need a stick, when eating you need the fruit, and it is expedient to agree on common terms. Measuring a foot to be the length of the kings foot, for example. Now we have the meter which is officially defined to a precision which makes it effectively useless for almost any practical purpose, but we do not despair and say "it is impossible to measure, let us so away with measurement". We use approximations that are standard. Just like genetics, we have so much information that the domain is effectively continuous. This inquiry can be used to inform standards in common practice, but in the end the standards submit to practicality. Builders use measuring tape, engineers use approximated relative values, and scientists use values as precise as technology allows. They have different heuristics, and are in the same society. But they themselves are catagorized by society. It is the same with gender, with age, citizenship, health, wealth, sexuality, religion, politic, height, weight, and yes, with race.
...
...
Government is the materialization of standards, and does almost exclusively exist to establish standard classifications - packaged heuristics, memes if you will. Those who are for nanny state require more uniform classification. Those who are for small govt want less uniform classification. But the fundament of a nation-state is its history and culture: its standards and heuristics yes but also the individual people who cascade themselves into the next generation to become and remain the nation. Critically: at what point do you distinguish one person from two people? When a woman gives birth the person becomes two people. Considering genetics, two people become three. The new person is an unknown combination of the two, since we do not fully understand biology. Even if we did, we couldnt measure it fully. Assuming we make the distinction that there is a third person, Is this person a citizen? What rights do they have? Oh, it goes by age, so we must classify again. Still supposing the third person exists separately at some point, are abortions murder? This issue, despite all our science, still seems to be arbitrary and subject to change. If anything the science makes it seem even more arbitrary by raising tge question which was previously an assumed "common sense" subject. After this happens, the law can not throw up arms and relinquish jurisdiction in the matter. It makes a decicion one way or another. Making no law regarding a new issue raised by increased understanding of scientific matters, is itself a decision. Back to race, whereas race was previously a simple determination: white or colored. If mixed they were colored. Now with gene sequencing people now feel they can extract more information. And indeed they can.
...
TL:DR
>Fig. 1.—The Skull and head of a young orang-utan, and of a negro, showing
the lines including the facial angle (MGND) devised by Pieter Camper.
...
If the govt decides to classify by haplotype, that is possible. But i believe it will not be, since there is more to an individual than genes. It is not proven that given a genetic sequence, a clone can be made. They would need to synthesize dna from code, and then somehow fully synthesize the cell to put it in to - using only the genetic data. Not a donor cell! And THEN we would need to prove that the one individual is in some sense, "equal to" the clone. But they are different people, physically, and people will generally regard the two as having distinct souls. They may or may not act as separate but identical agents in the community, so how can we say they should be governed as the same or separate people? With equal or nonequal rights? So, reducing an individual, or class of individuals, down to genes is for the foreseeable future, logically unfeasible. But it is practical. There is no perfect tool. Genes can be used as a measurement as one of several tools to classify people for logistical purposes. The others still exist, as implemented in apartheid, and would be used in addition to genetic messurements. Rather than seeing only endless confusion in the extant genetic data that we have, we can choose to use what data we have to the extent that we feel comfortable.
shits too long and has a very indirect point you nigger
what are you trying to convey to us
op is retarded. genetics that determine skin color have less variation than genetics that determine intelligence.
Anthropometric Calculator
dienekes.awardspace.com
...
Wow, all this meaningless rambling just to deny the obvious
Anyone who believes in evolution should see that niggers arent human
OP is absolutely beyond help and should be put out of his fucking misery
...
Shut the fuck up, kike.
Did you just pull these from memory? Impressive.
"Evolution deceives our eyes. We are a species that relies heavily on our vision, and we use what we see to observe and make assumptions about other people."
Its true. If I hadn't seen niggers behaving like niggers dozens of times I probably would not be as racist.
the out of africa bullshit got btfo, this is shill thread filled with other shills say omg poll btfo as a counter argument based info that is officially obsolete.
>"equal to" the clone. But they are different people, physically, and people will generally regard the two as having distinct souls.
holy mother of god the absolute level of mental gymnastics you people do
fucking disgusting, "u cant be racist cuz ever1 haz a different soul"
you people are fucking morons, you type lengthy incoherent paragraphs then make these completely disingenuous intellectually bankrupt arguments
just kill yourselves already
Spectrum fallacy and lewontin's fallacy. Get rekt faggot.
>muh genetic variation
>oops teehee let's ignore gene expression and phenotypes, one race the human race!
Just because I share a paticular set of instructions for a protein in my skin with Africans doesn't mean I'm part nigger
The author (clearly not OP) is right - race is much deeper than skin, it's about genetic potential for learning, muscle growth, behavior, etc, and when you put it all together, you can still distinguish yt from niggy
WE WUZ HUMANS N' SHIEEET
>and deserve to be colonized in Africa by the Chinese
If only they had the gravel to do it.
Lmao
outercanthal distance (OCD), interpupillary distance (IPD), intercanthal distance (ICD)
That picture made me wonder if some niggers actually ever sit down and reflect on their actions, even if only for a few moments. What research has been allowed has mostly shown niggers to be extremely impulsive and having no concept of the past/future/long-game, but I still wonder if maybe every now and then they stop and think about why civilized people don't like them.
...
>give niggers full human rights
>give them welfare
>give them affirmative action
>their condition only becomes extremely worse
>"its still white peoples fault, we just owe them even more"
western society is fucking disgusting and a disgrace, it deserves to burn to the fucking ground as long as affirmative action continues to exist, and it definately will if it does
This post best post. Couldn't put it better myself.
I love how people have no problem identifying different personality traits of their different dog breeds yet it's so insane when it turns out many but not all of the human breed stereotypes are based on reality as well.
some are smart enough to know their race is inferior, but they get called uncle toms and are shunned
ive met some
...
...
Nasal morphology - harmony and proportion applied to rhinoplasty
rbcp.org.br
I put both, so if you dont agree with the soul argument (many would), you cannot dispute that there are two physically separate lumps of matter, if you choose to see it that way.
Aside from that, i am clearly arguing that you can be systematically racist. You would see that if you read to completion instead of spewing vitriol at some cherry picked fragment.
...
...
Negroid male
They also look stupid
Mongoloid male
What did he mean by this?
...
Caucasoid male- american variant
A woman trying to scientifically explain that racism is wrong and that races exist but dont exist but it doesnt matter because whitey is inferior, did i get the gist of it?
The only correct thing i read ( and i didnt read the whole thing, naturally ) is the part where we are dependent on our vision and that we cannot see underneath the skin.
However if we could, i assure you the world would be much more "racist" and hateful than it is now.
Also recent studies and findings suggest that the origin of life wasnt from africa either
Serbia gets it. OP's word salad is a load of shit, it didn't prove anything.
>He is an anti-white genocidalist.
This. The whole LARP is written like a trying-to-hard academic. Sorry dude, D- for actual scientifically valid content.