What makes a person black?

What makes a person black?

Is it the color of their skin? I've never seen anyone colored #000000. The way I see it (and my eyesight is alright), skin comes in varying shades of brown. In any case, there isn't an absolute color boundary for race that I can point to.

If not color, what is it that defines a race? Whatever it is, shouldn't we call different races by a word that conveys their meaning? Are there any races at all?

Please tell me why race is a useful concept.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=3KQKZqd9q_A
youtube.com/watch?v=JVrw-IiGgLY
thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/the-existence-of-race/
thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2017/01/07/race-and-iq-the-case-for-genes/
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

being a nigger makes you black and race
Is a useful concept for determining who is a nigger and who is a superior Japanese

Mostly niggers act like niggers...

"black" is a term for sub-saharan genetic ancestry. They're not really black, but usually dark brown

In the same way, "whites" aren't really white, but a tan color. White means northern Europeans, particularly anglos and germanics.

Race is a useful concept because people behave in accordance with racial traits. Further, many of us believe God intended the races to be separate under a system called "kin-rule" according to Acts 17:26

...

Skin color is invariably tied to skull shape and brain function. It's as fundamental to nature as gravity.

...

In order to comply with God's will as you've described it, I need to understand the concept of race more fully. I have some questions.

You mentioned two qualities: sub-Saharan genetic ancestry and defining behaviors. Do you believe one of these qualities is sufficient or are they both necessary, in your view?

For instance, if my son's skin is Wonderbread-white but he behaves more like the black kids down the block than like his cousins, is my child black or white?

Alternatively, what if a man has some genes of sub-Saharan origin, but they're not visibly apparent? Moreover, what if he never knew about them? Can one be black without knowing it?

>Falling for the skin deep only meme

This is part of what I'm getting at. These people are very light-skinned but their morphological traits are more typical of people with darker skin. Would you call them black or white, or something else? And why does it even matter?

Genetics.

Race is a shared genetic ancestry, the behaviors are a result of race and do not categorize one in a race. A black child adopted into a white family is still black, even though he will most behave like his adopted family.

Race is completely biological

My buddy's niece has frontal lobe damage. Should I go tell him she's black?

You have two pictures with no evidence that they are representative examples, and your argument that black people have frontal lobe damage is totally unsubstantiated. Find something worthwhile for us to look at so we can discuss it.

settle down nigger

Could you tell me which biological traits define a race? Since life on Earth shares a common origin, every person shares genetic ancestry with bananas, so that doesn't mean much in itself.

Up yours, anta baka.

You could classify them as "black" (although they are not pigmented black) but a more accurate term would be African. Why it matters is because of how humans naturally associate things (like facial features or behaviours) with other things (like race and ethnic groups) to make sense of the world. No matter how you classify a person whom is of a certain race when you see them (good/bad, weak/strong, violent/civilized) everyone stores such adjectives as good or bad and/or weak or strong about the RACE that person is rather than the person. No matter how non-racist many people will claim to be, you can still see people let things like this slip unconciously from their mind (pic related). Race matters becomes humans are races AND racist.

>Please tell me why race is a useful concept.
In group preferences and natural biases are hardwired into us by evolution. Whites tend to congregate with whites and blacks tend to congregate with blacks which is why mixed race couples make up only 10% of the population even in countries like America.
Ironically, this strong in group preference both proves racism is ok and also proves no race is in danger of being bred out of existence by another unless you're autistic and go by the one drop rule, but if you do, odds are you're not pure enough for your own standards.

>Please tell me why race is a useful concept.
Heuristic for behavioral traits such as aggression, intelligence and social competency.

>every person shares genetic ancestry with bananas
Okay so you might actually be stupid nevermind. We share GENES with bananas not ancestry. We have genes that are identical to genes in a banana (about 65% of our genes are similar to those also found in a banan) but we are not actually related to or ancestors of the banana

Great question
The Bible teaches just what you say about the unity of humanity "God hath made of one blood all the nations of the earth"

But also affirms the ancestral difference between Jew and Gentile. Consider how the Samaritans were also considered outcasts even though they were half Jew

I would say if two people groups developed in separate geographical areas, they are distinct races.

You should really check out faithandheritage.com for the most comprehensive statement on christian race realism

I agree that humans make associations, but how do you know that the races you recognize are natural? You'd need to convince me that the they are not a matter of individual perception. As it is, findings from social psychology suggests that the groups one identifies with are easily manipulated, including race. It's probably not that hard to get people to change how much people care about race, given the right conditions.

Oh, so you think our common genes came into existence independently? Come on, you have to admit it's pretty likely that we share a common ancestor.

Maybe it's my fault for picking an extreme example. All I'm saying is that all humans seem to share genetic ancestry, and that there aren't (to my knowledge) any obvious genetic racial boundaries.

Thank you for your recommendation. I'll take a look at that website.

I think your observation about geography is insightful, as many people associate race with places. However, drawing geographical boundaries for race seems arbitrary, or at least disputable. People don't seem to believe white Americans and white Canadians are different races - and we live in different countries!

So, stereotypes?

There's usually some basis in truth for stereotypes, but I worry that they limit the potential of our society. If we assume the worst in an individual, we give them permission to behave as such. I'd rather take a chance and hope to be proven right.

What makes OP a fag?
Is it his shitty slide threads or the sage I bring?

Beats me, dude.

The US census bureau defines "black" for the entire world. In the US I'm black, but when I've traveled to other parts of the world was thought to be Arab or something. It's weird.

What about those with african and European genes as is the case with most black Americans.

lol

They probably have a mixed ancestry, don't you think?

those are albino black people.

aka stinky powder niggers

Who doesn't?

Got it. Thanks, buddy.

shes definitely of the porchmonkey samba nigger phenotype.

>what is race?

This place is trash.

Answer the question or GTFO.

If red and yellow are separate colors, then why does orange exist? Everyone knows red and yellow are the same color. checkmate racists

Good analogy. Color exists but it's usually not something you care about. A car drives just as well whether it's red, orange or yellow.

What makes a beard?

Is it the facial hair? I've never seen anyone whose face is 100% hair. The way I see it (and my eyesight is alright), facial hair comes in varying lengths. In any case, there isn't an absolute length boundary for beards that I can point to.

If not length, what is it that defines a beard? Whatever it is, shouldn't we call different states of facial hair by a word that conveys its meaning? Are there any beards at all?

Please tell me why beards are a useful concept.

yeah but in this case the black car will refuse to work

Usually being a nigger makes you black

Hawkins looks like "damn, we he doin us like that?"

Race is a spectrum, but that does not mean it dosent exist.

See this video for beginners(quick before youtube removes it aswell):

youtube.com/watch?v=3KQKZqd9q_A

Watch this video OP:

youtube.com/watch?v=JVrw-IiGgLY

For me, black people dont exist, Id rater prefer to view them as over developed animals.

>treat this old meme as novel

This place is trash.

see youtube.com/watch?v=JVrw-IiGgLY

Yes but this is a board for racists, not beardists.

Please answer the question, how can beards be real?

Good video.

What does being a "racist" even mean at this point?

Lebron better than MJ

hahha fugh. i wish we had more nippon posters.

I'm listening. For now, I can agree that color and race are both commonly perceived if you can agree that their recognition varies with culture. For instance, Russians have different words for light and dark blue and are much more likely to recognize their different shades differently. Likewise, race can be flexible.

Thanks. I will.

pretty sure they're called black not because they're black but because they ARE black.. as in dark, underbelly.

Haha

I guess you can't answer the question. No wonder this place is trash. You're in it.

Answer the question or GTFO.

I beliebe it means 'a person who believes in distinct human racial groups, especially with relation to their ostensible hierarchy,' though I recognize that this kind of definition is disputed.

If you really care about this question, start your own thread, link me to it and I'll answer there.

Blasphemy!

OP is arguing in bad faith like the greased Hebrew he is. Feel free to troll him but don’t take anything he posts seriously, because I can guarantee you that he himself does not.

I guess you can't answer the question. No wonder this place is trash. You're in it.

Please tell my why you think so. I'm trying to argue in good faith.

My lines must be pretty good if they're worth repeating.

000000 is impossible

See Vanta Black

I've been watching your video and I can see that significant racial clusters might exist, although it fails to explain why anyone should care if that's the case. It only tries to explain race based on physical characteristics, which is insignificant in a meritocracy.

We're closely related sub-species that developed in separate regions that prioritized different traits for survival, isolated from one another for millennia. There's nothing wrong acknowledging the differences between human ethnicities, so long as one recognizes that the group isn't the individual.

To use an example in the animal kingdom, the average Rottweiler is more aggressive and less intelligent than the average Golden Retriever, as they were bred for their separate attributes over hundreds of generations. Though that is not necessarily always the case, it is the case more often than not, and if one is not acquainted with either dog, for the sake of one's safety, the norm should be assumed to apply.

You make a good point. My contention would be that these possible differences haven't been properly demonstrated in humans. It is much easier to raise dogs in controlled environments than it is to raise humans in that way, logistically and for ethical reasons.

Wrong.
thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/the-existence-of-race/

"This website is not an academic journal."

Doesn't look like a very trustworthy source, but I'll give it a chance.

You must consider, dogs have been selectively bred for only a few century's time, whereas humans have been selectively evolving to suit their environments for at minimum forty millennia. It's a fairly controversial subject, so little unbiased research has been done, but an example of verifiable differences between he.an ethnicities can be found in the global Olympics' athlete to trophy spread between the sports. I know how you feel, I was skeptical as well, but personal experience and many hours of logical puzzling have lead me to the beliefs I now hold.

He's extremely transparent with his sources, don't be silly. The bible doesn't turn into a shitpost if you print it on toiler paper.

It reassures me that you've willingly subjected your beliefs to serious examination. Could you tell me more about the athletic argument?

You're right. It's not about the medium so much as the messenger. I don't think these guys are experts, since they're not expected to hold up to any standards, and therefore I suspect their arguments to be less based on the literature as a whole. But again, this is a preconception. I do plan to read it.

Race is not about skin color you complete retard.

Enlighten me.

He lists his sources.

Do you think that "family" is a useful concept? The boundaries of family are also arbitrary and imprecise, but in standard usage, people know what it means, and only someone with brain damage would ask "are there any families at all?" just because all people are related in some distant sense.

You don't need to be enlightened to know that skin color is but one of many manifestations of your genetic makeup, which cluster in similar ways within a race. Nobody--not even little kids--look exclusively at the color of a person's skin to determine their race.

Do you not consider genetic measurements a demonstration? If races didn't differ in statistically predictable then it would be impossible for forensic analysis or services like 23andme to identify your ethnic origin.

I do think it's a useful concept, and I think it's a good analogy for this discussion because they both have political implications. Families are a politically useful concept because they are emotionally important to a great many people and they are where new generations come from.

Your turn. Why is race a useful concept?

...

Sorry, I didn't see your other responses before my last post. You've basically argued that genes and biology are useful concepts, and imply that race is a byproduct, but you also say that race goes beyond skin color. What other characteristics make up race?

If my beliefs can't withstand logical scrutiny, they aren't beliefs worth having. It's simple to observe the Olympic games, those of African descent invariably outmatch their European peers in the 100-yard sprint, but the opposite can be said for snow sports and swimming. Something else interesting, it's been widely documented that those of African descent have a higher density of fast-twitch muscle fibers as opposed t slow-twitch muscle fibers, whereas the opposite has been documented in those of European descent.

If it's obvious differences in skin tone evolved due to the sun's differentiation in intensity between regions, it should likewise be clear that differences in behavior evolved due to differing circumstances. Look at the European forest, as opposed to the African jungle, the European forest, while lacking in large predators and severe diseases, possesses very little food, and has an annual winter, prioritizing the evolution of intelligence, as those who lacked it were by and large, unable to survive the winter. The African jungle, meanwhile, has the opposite circumstance, easily obtained food is abundant and the continent is warm year-round, yet it's fraught with aggressive mega-fauna and potentially lethal diseases, hence, aggression was prioritized, as those who lacked it were less likely to pass on their genes given the high death toll of the aforementioned difficulties.

There's plenty of evidence to suggest physical adaptations to geographic environment, skin pigmentation being a prime example, and I can imagine that the importance of sprinting would vary (although I can't say the same for snow sports - what would be the evolutionary advantage?).

Your argument for a divergence of intelligence and aggression is noticeably weaker. First, because unlike with the Olympic argument, there is not compelling evidence to believe that a disparity exists to begin with; second, because the rationales are unsound. For one thing, many other mammals live in cold European climates yet, to my knowledge, the average intelligence of non-human mammals in Europe is not higher than that of non-human African mammals.

it's all on althyp, cognitive profile, IQ(by A LOT), temperament, values(voting), deferred gratification and pretty much anything else you can think of varies by race.

So has a child who says "My mommy told me so." Expertise is needed to know which sources are valuable.

You seem to think very highly of that site. I'm going to read it carefully tomorrow. Good night, Swedish friend.

What don't you understand you stupid son of a bitch?
He lists them. You have access to them. He gives you direct fucking links. You know which figures come from where and can check them for yourself. Whether it's from a government agency or a peer-reviewed study.
That autist is just extremely thorough. It's a pretty damn complete compilation on race, second best thing I've seen on it since the bell curve.

The reason for this is that non-human mammals have little need of sophisticated intelligence, given that they aren't organized into any form of society beyond the basic maternal unit, which is documented in nearly every mammal. They have instinctive adaptions to the cold that render intelligence moot, and a waste of valuable nutrients.

Your refutation is irrelevent, as animals are not human, and are thus subject to different evolutionary pressures, you'd just as well argue that the hunting habits of birds has a correlation with that of base primates.

I'm not stupid and neither are you.

Look, even if I checked all his sources, I'm not educated enough to make sense of it all, just as I suspect he isn't. If you're really interested in this, I recommend reading an academic journal on race to see how it compares. They list their sources, too.

If you can't trust yourself to evaluate someone's arguments when he plainly lays down his reasoning and the sources for his data I don't see why you're even asking around. You've already given up on forming your own opinion, just find some intellectual pimp to ape in that case. I have no respect for that attitude and it's pathetic you would flaunt it.

I do, it's not that hard to follow. Except for the stuff on genetic distance, the statistics on that is pretty damn complicated.

My refutation included an assertion that there is no good reason to believe in cognitive differences between races, at least insofar as general intelligence and aggression are concerned. I see you have not denied this claim.

I'll question your rationale on some other grounds. Maybe these will be more acceptable to you.

Wouldn't you agree that intelligence is advantageous to humans regardless of their environment?

How do you explain the lack of a technologically comparable Inuit/Eskimo civilization in America, while the two great empires that emerged in that continent (Aztec and Inca) were from warmer, abundant climates?

Couldn't aggression in principle also help people survive the winter by giving them more drive to hunt and get food despite cold climates?

I'm asking to learn about it. I want to hear from someone who knows what they're talking about. I never give up on forming my own opinion, but neither am I arrogant enough to assume that I'm necessarily a good judge. My hope is to find a source I can trust and learn from it.

>no good reason to believe in cognitive differences between races, at least insofar as general intelligence
You're taking an indefensible position. Nobody denies the race gap. It is an undisputed scientific fact. Nobody denies its magnitude(~1sd). It is an undisputed scientific fact. People dispute the cause, or rather the magnitude of the share that's down to genetics(~ 0.5-0.8), and mainly just because traditional twin studies don't work very well since twins don't come in different races. Twin studies still show a heritability of ~0.8 for adult age IQ withing races. There is no controversy or dispute over the high heritability within races, IQ is by far the single most extensively studied psychological trait.

It's explained in the fucking prelude. "Introduction and overview". Page fucking 1.
thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2017/01/07/race-and-iq-the-case-for-genes/
>Wouldn't you agree that intelligence is advantageous to humans regardless of their environment?
Brains come at a cost. It sucks up energy like a motherfucker, it makes you produce more heat, it forces you to get wider hips giving less effective locomotion and making you more prone to injury. It's not a clear-cut positive, and no, not all environments reward intelligence the same. Some provide a much stronger evolutionary pressure. If it wasn't about tradeoffs we'd all running 100m in under 10 seconds, lifting 1000lbs and doing quantum physics at the same time.

I should have clarified - there is no good reason to believe that this difference is based on genetic potential. More importantly, if you reflect on people's attitudes, you'll see that it's not a genetic issue. Compare how many people are trying to find a racial basis for intelligence and how many are doing it outside of a racist framework. It's just about wanting to feel smarter than the out-group.

Point taken about tradeoffs. Still doesn't show why it would be a more important tradeoff in Europe than in Africa.

>genetic
Still prelude, still page #1. Check the expert opinion survey linked in the article. No genetic basis is an extremely fringe view. And frankly moronic given the evidence.

Stop arguing and read up on the subject first if you want anyone to take you seriously.

Indians are black. They are niggers who don't poo in loo.