NationStates Jolt Archive

I read a Piers Anthony book once (can't remember the name), but the point was, the 'races' (meaning 'colours') had been mixed to the point where everyone was brown (yay!), and no 'pure racial strains' existed outside of a few specimens that were bred and raised in captivity (in a fake town, with fake family and friends and so on).

Thinking about it last night, I though, wouldn't that be great? We couldn't divide ourselves and discriminate on the basis of skin colour!

But then I got to thinking...we'd find some other way to divide and discriminate.

So what do you think we'd discriminate based on, if we were all the same mixed race and colour?

Height, weight, gender, social status, job, income, wealth, religion, type of car driven, number of kids . . .

Anything you can think of as a difference between people, there will always be folks who will discriminate against it.

But I like having people of a different colour... it's not much, but it's variety...
But... I'd say we'd continue along the current lines really, and maybe bring back a few old ones.
gender/sexual orientation/gender identity/income (class)

of course, I actually think that there will be less discrimination in future times, not just of a different kind. But assuming idiots needed some discriminatory outlet, there's a load of perfectly functionable existing ones. I wouldn't give it to them to come up with their own. One needs 2 functioning braincells to be creative.

Height, weight, gender, social status, job, income, wealth, religion, type of car driven, number of kids . . .

Anything you can think of as a difference between people, there will always be folks who will discriminate against it.
I agree.

However, if skin colour was no longer the most noticeable difference between us...what do you think would take its place as the BIGGEST criteria for discrimination?

Sexual orientation (we already have that one).

Economic status.

Education.

The length of our second toes.

My Fiance' is an African American Woman, I'm a Italian/White Man, we plan on having kids.

So yeah, we are doing our part to eliminate the races. ;)

My Fiance' is an African American Woman, I'm a Italian/White Man, we plan on having kids.

So yeah, we are doing our part to eliminate the races. ;)

I bet your kids will look somewhat like some of my friends. Their father was black/Italian and their mother was white. The children that resulted are absolutely gorgeous! =)

I read a Piers Anthony book once (can't remember the name), but the point was, the 'races' (meaning 'colours') had been mixed to the point where everyone was brown (yay!), and no 'pure racial strains' existed outside of a few specimens that were bred and raised in captivity (in a fake town, with fake family and friends and so on).

Thinking about it last night, I though, wouldn't that be great? We couldn't divide ourselves and discriminate on the basis of skin colour!

But then I got to thinking...we'd find some other way to divide and discriminate.

So what do you think we'd discriminate based on, if we were all the same mixed race and colour?
Religion and nation of origin have always served us well as reasons to hate one another.

Religion and nation of origin have always served us well as reasons to hate one another.
Yup. I honestly think those two things would be the main criteria.

Although I'm not racist, and don't like those who are, I'll be sad to see different skin tones, hair and eye colors, etc. disappear. I like to see variety. If everyone looks the same it'll be a little more boring. The world will be a little worse off because of it.

Although I'm not racist, and don't like those who are, I'll be sad to see different skin tones, hair and eye colors, etc. disappear. I like to see variety. If everyone looks the same it'll be a little more boring. The world will be a little worse off because of it.
That is true...variety is the spice of life. I said 'yay' for purely selfish reasons...sorry, but blonde white guys don't turn my crank:(

Religion and nation of origin have always served us well as reasons to hate one another.

However they both require either that the person uses some distinctive indicator of religion or nationality, or that there is some interaction between the victim and the bigot. For these reasons, it is more likely to be apparent wealth than religion or nationality.

As an aside, in my family I am a white caucasian, my wife is Latin American and my son is a mixture of the two. Nevertheless, I have the darkest skin! Skin colour does not really make a good guide to race any more anyway.

Economic class, religion, politics and sexual orientation would jump in more than they already have to replace race as a form of discrimination and prejudice. They would just become stronger, and eventually something else would arise to fill the hole in bigotry that the demise of racism created.

Hmm... It would be a loss of diversity, which would be a shame. There's a lot of beauty in diversity. Ethnic mixing is great precisely because, in addition to combatting racism, it adds to diversity. On the other hand, it would eliminate racism, that's true. :)

I'm assuming nationality, sexual orientation and maybe religion would remain the main points of intolerance and discrimination.

I read a Piers Anthony book once (can't remember the name), but the point was, the 'races' (meaning 'colours') had been mixed to the point where everyone was brown (yay!), and no 'pure racial strains' existed outside of a few specimens that were bred and raised in captivity (in a fake town, with fake family and friends and so on).

Thinking about it last night, I though, wouldn't that be great? We couldn't divide ourselves and discriminate on the basis of skin colour!

But then I got to thinking...we'd find some other way to divide and discriminate.

So what do you think we'd discriminate based on, if we were all the same mixed race and colour?
i remember that book it made me sick, but you need to remember even the mixed people used make-up out side the faked upplaces to even thier skin tones

That is true...variety is the spice of life. I said 'yay' for purely selfish reasons...sorry, but blonde white guys don't turn my crank:(
Some people like that sort of thing. They'll be shit out of luck. I personally find blonde and red haired white women very attractive, luckily I find most women very attractive, so I'll be able to adapt.

I dont condone inter-racial marriages or kids, I think that everyone should stick to their own race.

I dont condone inter-racial marriages or kids, I think that everyone should stick to their own race.

How exactly do you define/determine "race"?

I dont condone inter-racial marriages or kids, I think that everyone should stick to their own race.
It's ok to think that way, but would you try to pass laws to enforce that behavior on others?

How exactly do you define/determine "race"?

I define race by region but mostly color i.e blacks,whites,brown(asian/Hispanic) etc.

It's ok to think that way, but would you try to pass laws to enforce that behavior on others?

I wouldn't try to pass those laws on other people, however, I think that people should have certain morals when dealing with those issues.

'Complete' ?? That would be so utterly boring.

I dont condone inter-racial marriages or kids, I think that everyone should stick to their own race.

There are no real races, your as likely to be as genetically similiar to someone who is black if your white then you are to another white person.

Races are a myth.

I define race by region but mostly color i.e blacks,whites,brown(asian/Hispanic) etc.

So you believe you should find someone with your exact same skin tone and level of exposure to sunlight before you date?

There are no real races, your as likely to be as genetically similiar to someone who is black if your white then you are to another white person.

Races are a myth.

That's your opinion, we are all differant, we may have the same genes but in the end there are a lot of differances between us.

I read a Piers Anthony book once (can't remember the name), but the point was, the 'races' (meaning 'colours') had been mixed to the point where everyone was brown (yay!), and no 'pure racial strains' existed outside of a few specimens that were bred and raised in captivity (in a fake town, with fake family and friends and so on).

That'd be Race Against Time
http://www.legendsmagazine.net/117/racetime.htm

Thinking about it last night, I though, wouldn't that be great? We couldn't divide ourselves and discriminate on the basis of skin colour!

But then I got to thinking...we'd find some other way to divide and discriminate.

So what do you think we'd discriminate based on, if we were all the same mixed race and colour?

Race is a political fiction with no basis in biology. Politics and economics divide HS more than anything else.

Right thinking whites: You're 100% definately of what you would call "mixed race", as are all members of the race H. sapien sapien. That is unless you can clarify that:
a) H. sapien neandethal is an agreed race of H. sapien
b) you are clearly a member of H. sapien neandethal or H. sapien
sapiens

Those two (still up in the air) are the only biologically distinct races of humans.

I wouldn't try to pass those laws on other people, however, I think that people should have certain morals when dealing with those issues.
It's not really a matter of morals though.

That's your opinion, we are all differant, we may have the same genes but in the end there are a lot of differances between us.

I think biologically mixing. I think it's fine. In fact some say that mix breeding, the kids are smarter.

Unless your meaning culturally...

However they both require either that the person uses some distinctive indicator of religion or nationality, or that there is some interaction between the victim and the bigot. For these reasons, it is more likely to be apparent wealth than religion or nationality.

I think it might be hardly to pick your 'victims' of discrimination without colour, as you've pointed out, unless there are some visual clues.

That's your opinion, we are all differant, we may have the same genes but in the end there are a lot of differances between us.

It's not an opinion, it's biological fact.

Why not call up any university biologist, if you want to find the truth?

It's not really a matter of morals though.

It is if you let religion run your life b/c "god" seperated everyone into differant regions for that purpose...everyone was meant to be differant. This is problably going to get drawn out so just leave my views alone.

How exactly do you define/determine "race"?
Apparently just by skin colour, which as Alien Born has pointed out, doesn't really work that well.

Apparently just by skin colour, which as Alien Born has pointed out, doesn't really work that well.

You guys can say and think what you want, when it comes down to it my views are going to be shared by me and me only so it doesnt matter what you all try to do and change me because I am how I am, ok?

I once met a really messed up couple living in the South, near Virginia. They were INSANELY opposed to inter-racial dating, they would even go on protests with a certain klan. Anyway... they had a pedagree and everything..


Then they found out they had the same great great great grandmother.


Haha.

You guys can say and think what you want, when it comes down to it my views are going to be shared by me and me only so it doesnt matter what you all try to do and change me because I am how I am, ok?
Well, actually, I have no doubt that your views are shared by others. But you're right. I'll stop with the snarkiness.

You guys can say and think what you want, when it comes down to it my views are going to be shared by me and me only so it doesnt matter what you all try to do and change me because I am how I am, ok?

Hmm. But isn't that the point of NationStates? Or thats the part I love about Nationstates anyway.. To debate, argue and challenge your own beliefs and evaluating them.

Well. Maybe it's just me. :p

Well, actually, I have no doubt that your views are shared by others. But you're right. I'll stop with the snarkiness.

Thanks, I do have my own views, also because I was born in Oklahoma and alot of people here think like I do, execept I'm not as nuts about it like they are, I'm mosty rasict towards blacks and nothing else.

Thanks, I do have my own views, also because I was born in Oklahoma and alot of people here think like I do, execept I'm not as nuts about it like they are, I'm mosty rasict towards blacks and nothing else.

And what exactly is it about "blacks" that you don't like?

Hmm. But isn't that the point of NationStates? Or thats the part I love about Nationstates anyway.. To debate, argue and challenge your own beliefs and evaluating them.

Well. Maybe it's just me. :p
I thought the point was to violate the rules as much as possible without getting banned.

And what exactly is it about "blacks" that you don't like?


I really don't feel like elaborating on that right now, I'm in class with five minutes left. Also, that isnt important to you as of this moment. I gotta go to lunch now.

I thought the point was to violate the rules as much as possible without getting banned.

No thats just you.

Thats why I've never been banned. :D

Thanks, I do have my own views, also because I was born in Oklahoma and alot of people here think like I do, execept I'm not as nuts about it like they are, I'm mosty rasict towards blacks and nothing else.
Have you actually gotten to know any blacks, or do you just go by the stereotypes most people get exposed to?

I really don't feel like elaborating on that right now, I'm in class with five minutes left. Also, that isnt important to you as of this moment. I gotta go to lunch now.

Aww. Shucks.. well. I'm going off to bed. :( No contreversial topics on.

And I'm too sleepy to try and be the Devils Advocate.

I really don't feel like elaborating on that right now, I'm in class with five minutes left. Also, that isnt important to you as of this moment. I gotta go to lunch now.

You make a comment like that and say it isn't important eh? Perhaps you should concentrate in your class rather than using the Internet. Wouldn't want you to be uneducated.

Have you actually gotten to know any blacks, or do you just go by the stereotypes most people get exposed to?

Oh I'm sure he'll either make up some friendship with a black when most of his exposure is really just listening to two wanna-be gangsters talking to eachother.

I think it might be hardly to pick your 'victims' of discrimination without colour, as you've pointed out, unless there are some visual clues.
Racism still existed for the Hutus and Tutsis in Rwanda, and the Japanese and Chinese during WWII, even though the victims and perpetrators of racism looked pretty much the same.

Something on the falsehood of the existance of race: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,8122-1331319,00.html
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=1&articleID=00055DC8-3BAA-1FA8-BBAA83414B7F0000

And for those who wish to attempt to define race biologically, a challenge:

If you really want to define race please do so. What exactly are the dividing lines? Please be precise and exact. No "dark" and "light" will be permitted. If you wish to divide clearly the races, please provide the exact distinct measurements along the cline (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=cline) that distinguish clearly, and without possible dispute, the differentiation of biological races.

I have yet to see any poster here do so. I do not expect it to be done. Howerver, scientific valid precise measurment, that cannot be attributed to any other simpler explanation (Occam sucks, sometimes) will be listened to.

I don't think it will be possible to mix the genes so much as to make skin color dissapear. You see that a lot in Mexico, Colombia and other American countries where people are very very mixed. In one family one of the kids can be very fair while other very dark and some in different shades in between. Same mother and father, of course (and yes, really same father, for all the cynics out there).

Anyway, we would still find something to separate us and make us feel better than the others.

Racism still existed for the Hutus and Tutsis in Rwanda, and the Japanese and Chinese during WWII, even though the victims and perpetrators of racism looked pretty much the same.
To you. Not to each other. It's a common misconception that all asians and blacks (or natives) look the same. It's like saying all whites look the same, and you couldn't possibly guess at their nationality.

I can tell a Chinese person from a Japanese or Korean one. But that was after a lot of exposure. Within their groups, they can further differentiate. For example, Chinese friends of mine can tell roughly what province certain people are from based purely on their facial characteristics and build of body. I can tell the difference between a Dene, Cree, Iriquois, Swampy, Salish and so on quite easily.

You guys can say and think what you want, when it comes down to it my views are going to be shared by me and me only so it doesnt matter what you all try to do and change me because I am how I am, ok?
How can you share something with you only?

How can you share something with you only?

Me, myself and I ;)

I don't think it will be possible to mix the genes so much as to make skin color dissapear. You see that a lot in Mexico, Colombia and other American countries where people are very very mixed. In one family one of the kids can be very fair while other very dark and some in different shades in between. Same mother and father, of course (and yes, really same father, for all the cynics out there).

No, you wouldn't expect all the differences to disappear. If the human species ever became truly panmictic (randomly interbreeding, for the non-geneticists out there), skin color would follow a normal distribution with the mean and variance determined by the proportion of each of the various skin color genes in the population. You would expect pretty much what you describe. There will be extreme values in the population and even within families.

Really no intelligent person can defend racist views.

Neither can they defend the seperate but equal concept.

Nor can they speak against racial mixing, when indeed there is no such thing as races.

But then I got to thinking...we'd find some other way to divide and discriminate.

So what do you think we'd discriminate based on, if we were all the same mixed race and colour?
Genetic engineering, of course. We'll discriminate based upon how well-designed your DNA is. :D

Okay, seriously: It sounds a little far-fetched. However, if the technology progresses far enough, then it may become possible to design babies with certain genetic predispositions. Some applications are obvious and beneficial such as preventing a wide variety of hereditary medical conditions (heart problems come to mind). Other applications, however, are more controversial and are the subject matter of science fiction/fantasy such as designing babies to grow up to be smarter, stronger, more agile... in a word: superior.

Some people are ambitious. Very ambitious. They will seize upon any opportunity to make themselves or their offspring superior to the competition in any way they can and they regard most of the rest of the human race as said competition. In the past, such advantages have taken the forms of caste (ancient Indian social caste structure), class/money (the merchant lord of Venice, if I remember correctly, and the American monopolies of the 19th and 20th centuries), politics (from the American elections to the corrupted elections of third-world countries to the corrupt 13th-14th-century papacies of the Holy Church), physical might (from the hordes of Genghis Khan to ancient Rome), race, and sex (many societies have been, and still are, patriarchal in nature; conversely, many men have been undone by seductive women).

Some people will always try to establish themselves as superior for their own personal gain or comfort and, as you say, Sinuhue, "we'd find some other way to divide and discriminate". As technology advances and social structures evolve, new means of discrimination will appear.

Although I'm not racist, and don't like those who are, I'll be sad to see different skin tones, hair and eye colors, etc. disappear. I like to see variety. If everyone looks the same it'll be a little more boring. The world will be a little worse off because of it.
It would be a sad thing to see the wonderful variety of heritages and cultures lose their unique identities and merge, but this is an unfortunate consequence of people becoming more able to freely travel and associate. Nevertheless, some people will prefer to mate within their own heritage and their own culture and some children may choose to identify more with one of their ancestral cultures than another, so the time it would take for such merging to occur will be at least several generations and, indeed, I doubt if such a merging would ever be complete. So, in any event, it would be a gradual transition (however that transition goes), one which all societies would slowly adapt to.

--The Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."

Really no intelligent person can defend racist views.
Of course an intelligent person could try to defend racist views. It wouldn't make their defense any better though.

Neither can they defend the seperate but equal concept.

Nor can they speak against racial mixing, when indeed there is no such thing as races.
Again...unfortunately, quite intelligent, but bigoted people, spend a lot of their time and energy in trying to so just that. Being bigoted does not make you of less intelligence. Otherwise we could just round up all the idiots and sterilize them:).

To you. Not to each other. It's a common misconception that all asians and blacks (or natives) look the same. It's like saying all whites look the same, and you couldn't possibly guess at their nationality.
Scholars and biologists agree that Hutus and Tutsis are the same ethnic stock by all definitions of ethnicity - culture, biology, whatever. Meaningful physical differences are non existent due to recently shared ancestry and continuing intermarriage up til the 20th century. these two groups have the same religion, speak the same language, and have the same culture. In pre-colonial times the Tutsis were landowners and the Hutus were tenant farmers and poor farmers. European colonialists created an artificial caste distinction of Tutsis and Hutus based on these economic differences, and eventually socioeconomic class became the basis for Hutu-Tutsi racism. Hutu poverty was now blamed on inborn inferiority and a problem with bloodlines.

In the case of China and Japan, racism arose from Japan's overwhelming military and economic dominance of Asia. Prior to Japan's surpassing of China, there was no evidence of Japanese self-importance or racial arrogance toward Chinese, and the pre-industrial Japanese could only justify feelings of racial superiority over even less powerful nations, such as Korea. In East Asia one's place in the hierarchy of cultural and racism arrogance depended on the relative power that one's nation possessed.

All this shows that racism can arise from any type of prejudice, not just prejudice about physical appearance.

I can tell a Chinese person from a Japanese or Korean one. But that was after a lot of exposure. Within their groups, they can further differentiate. For example, Chinese friends of mine can tell roughly what province certain people are from based purely on their facial characteristics and build of body. I can tell the difference between a Dene, Cree, Iriquois, Swampy, Salish and so on quite easily.
I am Chinese myself, and I hang around with a LOT of various east Asians. Telling one group apart from another based on solely physical characteristics is a hit-and-miss thing. I have a good feel for an Asian's national origin based on body gestures, clothing, and hairstyle, and I believe these are the main factors people look for in telling a Japanese or Chinese or Korean apart. Cues taken purely from facial structure and build are very unreliable in my experience. Even within a huge country like China, it is difficult to tell the origin of any particular Han individual. Of course, it's easy to pick out the minorities (such as Tibetans and Turkmen) but I'd guarantee that almost nobody can just look at a lineup of Han Chinese people and tell what province or even what region they are from. You might be able to identify whether a Chinese is from the north or south because southerners are generally darker, but even this rule is riddled with exceptions. The traditional political unity of China ensures that Chinese have always safely moved around the country for thousands of years, so no one group is reproductively isolated from another, and no tremendous physical differences have arisen.

Even if skin colour isn't an issue, I think people will continue to discriminate on the basis of appearance.

Studies have shown that people who are more attractive generally get paid better than those who aren't. They are more likely to be employed and more likely to advance in their jobs. I think it's pretty obvious that physically attractive people are also more likely to attract possible mates. And they certainly get picked on less at school.

Even if people can't agree on what is most attractive, they can generally agree on what is most unattractive.

Scholars and biologists agree that Hutus and Tutsis are the same ethnic stock by all definitions of ethnicity - culture, biology, whatever...... European colonialists created an artificial caste distinction of Tutsis and Hutus based on these economic differences, and eventually socioeconomic class became the basis for Hutu-Tutsi racism. Hutu poverty was now blamed on inborn inferiority and a problem with bloodlines.


All this shows that racism can arise from any type of prejudice, not just prejudice about physical appearance.
You misunderstood me. I am quite aware, especially in the Rwandan case of the artificial division between Hutu and Tutsi. I don't dispute that. However, whether it is physicality, clothing, or a big sign saying, "I'm Hutu", people will still use visual clues to discriminate BASED on their underlying beliefs about their 'differences'. You might not be able to pick out a Hutu from a Tutsi...but I can guarantee you that they can.


I am Chinese myself, and I hang around with a LOT of various east Asians. Telling one group apart from another based on solely physical characteristics is a hit-and-miss thing. Of course it is. Which is why my husband gets mistaken for Lebanese, Greek, or whatever people see him as that day. It doesn't stop people from doing it though. Do I think it's a good way to categorize people? No. But what bothers me is people who pretend (not that you are) that they 'don't see' the differences. You NOTICE when someone is not the same colour as you. How you react to that is the issue, not the noticing itself.

My Fiance' is an African American Woman, I'm a Italian/White Man, we plan on having kids.

So yeah, we are doing our part to eliminate the races. ;)

promoting racial harmony one orgasm at a time

i hope you are very happy together and have many beautiful children!

promoting racial harmony one orgasm at a time

i hope you are very happy together and have many beautiful children!
We yeah...because even if their kids think they have to 'stay in within their race' that still gives them a bunch of options...

Everyone should stay within their own race. Mixing is dirty.[/SARCASM] :rolleyes:

Everyone should stay within their own race. Mixing is dirty.[/SARCASM] :rolleyes:
all sarcasm aside, i will NOT date outside the human race.

i don't care what captain kirk does!

I read a Piers Anthony book once (can't remember the name), but the point was, the 'races' (meaning 'colours') had been mixed to the point where everyone was brown (yay!), and no 'pure racial strains' existed outside of a few specimens that were bred and raised in captivity (in a fake town, with fake family and friends and so on).

Thinking about it last night, I though, wouldn't that be great? We couldn't divide ourselves and discriminate on the basis of skin colour!

But then I got to thinking...we'd find some other way to divide and discriminate.

So what do you think we'd discriminate based on, if we were all the same mixed race and colour?
Hope that never happens, don't get me wrong I am not a racist but I would like to think that my people after me would look like me. Like the old fellas before me.
Now,if that would ever happen I think land, money, borders, titles, etc. would all have an effect on how those people opperate. Just like today.

You misunderstood me. I am quite aware, especially in the Rwandan case of the artificial division between Hutu and Tutsi. I don't dispute that. However, whether it is physicality, clothing, or a big sign saying, "I'm Hutu", people will still use visual clues to discriminate BASED on their underlying beliefs about their 'differences'. You might not be able to pick out a Hutu from a Tutsi...but I can guarantee you that they can.


Actually, I know a few people from there, and they can't. They go by last name or plainly have to ask.

people will pretty much always discriminate on basis of gender....especially if someone is an 'alternative' gender

which is really quite disheartening.... :(

I agree.

However, if skin colour was no longer the most noticeable difference between us...what do you think would take its place as the BIGGEST criteria for discrimination?

IQ/Education.

Scholars and biologists agree that Hutus and Tutsis are the same ethnic stock by all definitions of ethnicity - culture, biology, whatever. Meaningful physical differences are non existent due to recently shared ancestry and continuing intermarriage up til the 20th century. these two groups have the same religion, speak the same language, and have the same culture. In pre-colonial times the Tutsis were landowners and the Hutus were tenant farmers and poor farmers. European colonialists created an artificial caste distinction of Tutsis and Hutus based on these economic differences, and eventually socioeconomic class became the basis for Hutu-Tutsi racism. Hutu poverty was now blamed on inborn inferiority and a problem with bloodlines.

And that's essentially the real basis for all race theories.

In the case of China and Japan, racism arose from Japan's overwhelming military and economic dominance of Asia. Prior to Japan's surpassing of China, there was no evidence of Japanese self-importance or racial arrogance toward Chinese, and the pre-industrial Japanese could only justify feelings of racial superiority over even less powerful nations, such as Korea. In East Asia one's place in the hierarchy of cultural and racism arrogance depended on the relative power that one's nation possessed.

All this shows that racism can arise from any type of prejudice, not just prejudice about physical appearance.


I am Chinese myself, and I hang around with a LOT of various east Asians. Telling one group apart from another based on solely physical characteristics is a hit-and-miss thing. I have a good feel for an Asian's national origin based on body gestures, clothing, and hairstyle, and I believe these are the main factors people look for in telling a Japanese or Chinese or Korean apart. Cues taken purely from facial structure and build are very unreliable in my experience. Even within a huge country like China, it is difficult to tell the origin of any particular Han individual. Of course, it's easy to pick out the minorities (such as Tibetans and Turkmen) but I'd guarantee that almost nobody can just look at a lineup of Han Chinese people and tell what province or even what region they are from. You might be able to identify whether a Chinese is from the north or south because southerners are generally darker, but even this rule is riddled with exceptions. The traditional political unity of China ensures that Chinese have always safely moved around the country for thousands of years, so no one group is reproductively isolated from another, and no tremendous physical differences have arisen.

:)

Bingo.

A friend of mine from East Osaka (the Korean ghetto) had a funny story about his high school graduation. It's a custom for girls to wear traditional dress (Japanese kimono with hakama or Korean chima jeogori) for their graduation ceremony. At his school about half the girls did so. The large number who showed up in chima jeogori was a surprise because he hadn't known they were ethnic Koreans til that day.

I used to date a girl from Shanghai who spoke fluent Japanese. She was mistaken for Japanese soooo often it was a running joke.

Differences between the races are shown to be real by growing
scientific evidence.

By J. Philippe Rushton

For the last 20 years my research has focused on differences between
the three major races, commonly termed Orientals (East
Asians/Mongoloids), whites (Europeans/Caucasoids) and blacks
(Africans/Negroids). Roughly speaking, Orientals are those who have
most of their ancestors from East Asia. Whites have most of their
ancestors from Europe. And blacks have most of their ancestors from
sub-Saharan Africa. In the main, I have not addressed the many other
groups and subgroups.

What I've found is that in brain size, intelligence, temperament,
sexual behavior, fertility, growth rate, life span, crime and family
stability, Orientals fall at one end of the spectrum, blacks fall at
the other end and whites fall in between. On average, Orientals are
slower to mature, less fertile and less sexually active, and have
larger brains and higher IQ scores. Blacks are at the opposite end
in each of these areas. Whites fall in the middle, often close to
Orientals.

Of course, these three-way racial differences are averages.
Individuals are individuals. However, I've found that this three-way
pattern is true over time and across nations. That the same three-
way racial pattern occurs repeatedly on some 60 different biological
and behavioral variables is profoundly interesting and shows that
race is more than "just skin deep." The international data come from
the World Health Organization, the United Nations and Interpol.
Recently, I even traveled to South Africa to collect new IQ data.

Full article:

http://www.amren.com/rushton.htm

http://www.insightmag.com/main.cfm?include=detail&storyid=210980


Ethnic Genetic interests: The scientific basis for racial activism:

http://www.amren.com/0302issue/0302issue.html


Race is a Myth?:

http://www.amren.com/0012issue/0012issue.html#cover


Biological Reality of Race:

http://www.commonsenseclub.com/page.../9910issue.html


Racial Library:

http://www.davidduke.com/library/index.html


Routing the Race Deniers:

http://www.vdare.com/sailer/sarich_miele.htm

Answering Cavalli-Sforza on Race:

http://www.vdare.com/sailer/may_24.htm

http://www.vdare.com/sailer/cavalli-sforza_ii.htm


Race: The Power of a Lie?

http://www.vdare.com/francis/pbs.htm


It's Official: Races Differ Genetically.

I generally don't credit anything written by what appears to be KKK members (and other "racially-conscious" groups) to be "official" anything.

I once read a Sci-Fi short story, either by A.E. Van Vogt or Frederik Pohl about an apparent plague of hairiness that besets humanity. Turned out some hitherto-unknown genetic 'switch' for hairlessness had been triggered hundreds of thousands of years in our past, and for some reason that 'switch' was shutting off throughout the entire population simultaneously.

After some fruitless attempts to reverse or stymie the process, people eventually just gave up and grew pelts, like any other self-respecting primate on the planet.

And within ten years, the lustre, consistency, colour, and texture of pelts became the new standards for beauty. Razor and depilatory companies perished; shampoo and hairbrush concerns skyrocketed in the same period.

There'll always be something to separate people. Even pelts.

I generally don't credit anything written by what appears to be KKK members (and other "racially-conscious" groups) to be "official" anything.

Exactly how they view anything written by Jews

Differences between the races are shown to be real by growing scientific evidence.

Almost all of this comes from the same three white supremicist sources -- none of whom have any creditials in biology, anthropology, or genetics.

In contrast, here are some facts and real science -- which you will undoubtedly ignore. And there is much more, this just the tip of the iceberg.

It is rather well established that there is no such thing as race biologically or genetically.

Race is a socio-political construct. As such, it is very real.

There is a great deal of scientific evidence -- particularly from the Human Genome Project and Human Genome Diversity Project-- that proves that there are no genetically distinguishable races. The scientific community is in general agreement that "race" does not exist as a biological concept.

There are some indications that it may sometimes be possible to roughly group people by certain genetic characteristics for medical purposes, but that such groupings to not correlate well with conventional concepts of race.

Here are the first 2 paragraphs of the American Anthropological Association Statement on "Race" (http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm)

In the United States both scholars and the general public have been conditioned to viewing human races as natural and separate divisions within the human species based on visible physical differences. With the vast expansion of scientific knowledge in this century, however, it has become clear that human populations are not unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups. Evidence from the analysis of genetics (e.g., DNA) indicates that most physical variation, about 94%, lies within so-called racial groups. Conventional geographic "racial" groupings differ from one another only in about 6% of their genes. This means that there is greater variation within "racial" groups than between them. In neighboring populations there is much overlapping of genes and their phenotypic (physical) expressions. Throughout history whenever different groups have come into contact, they have interbred. The continued sharing of genetic materials has maintained all of humankind as a single species.

Physical variations in any given trait tend to occur gradually rather than abruptly over geographic areas. And because physical traits are inherited independently of one another, knowing the range of one trait does not predict the presence of others. For example, skin color varies largely from light in the temperate areas in the north to dark in the tropical areas in the south; its intensity is not related to nose shape or hair texture. Dark skin may be associated with frizzy or kinky hair or curly or wavy or straight hair, all of which are found among different indigenous peoples in tropical regions. These facts render any attempt to establish lines of division among biological populations both arbitrary and subjective.
Here is another summary of facts (and I recognize the last is not necessarily a scientific "fact"):

THINGS EVERYONE SHOULD KNOW ABOUT RACE (http://www.pbs.org/race/000_About/002_04-background-01-x.htm)

Our eyes tell us that people look different. No one has trouble distinguishing a Czech from a Chinese. But what do those differences mean? Are they biological? Has race always been with us? How does race affect people today?

There's less - and more - to race than meets the eye:

1. Race is a modern idea. Ancient societies, like the Greeks, did not divide people according to physical distinctions, but according to religion, status, class, even language. The English language didn't even have the word 'race' until it turns up in 1508 in a poem by William Dunbar referring to a line of kings.

2. Race has no genetic basis. Not one characteristic, trait or even gene distinguishes all the members of one so-called race from all the members of another so-called race.

3. Human subspecies don't exist. Unlike many animals, modern humans simply haven't been around long enough or isolated enough to evolve into separate subspecies or races. Despite surface appearances, we are one of the most similar of all species.

4. Skin color really is only skin deep. Most traits are inherited independently from one another. The genes influencing skin color have nothing to do with the genes influencing hair form, eye shape, blood type, musical talent, athletic ability or forms of intelligence. Knowing someone's skin color doesn't necessarily tell you anything else about him or her.

5. Most variation is within, not between, "races." Of the small amount of total human variation, 85% exists within any local population, be they Italians, Kurds, Koreans or Cherokees. About 94% can be found within any continent. That means two random Koreans may be as genetically different as a Korean and an Italian.

6. Slavery predates race. Throughout much of human history, societies have enslaved others, often as a result of conquest or war, even debt, but not because of physical characteristics or a belief in natural inferiority. Due to a unique set of historical circumstances, ours was the first slave system where all the slaves shared similar physical characteristics.

7. Race and freedom evolved together. The U.S. was founded on the radical new principle that "All men are created equal." But our early economy was based largely on slavery. How could this anomaly be rationalized? The new idea of race helped explain why some people could be denied the rights and freedoms that others took for granted.

8. Race justified social inequalities as natural. As the race idea evolved, white superiority became "common sense" in America. It justified not only slavery but also the extermination of Indians, exclusion of Asian immigrants, and the taking of Mexican lands by a nation that professed a belief in democracy. Racial practices were institutionalized within American government, laws, and society.

9. Race isn't biological, but racism is still real. Race is a powerful social idea that gives people different access to opportunities and resources. Our government and social institutions have created advantages that disproportionately channel wealth, power, and resources to white people. This affects everyone, whether we are aware of it or not.

Here are a few more sources of information:


Scientific and Folk Ideas About Heredity (http://personal.uncc.edu/jmarks/interests/Baltimore.html)
Race is inherited, but in a different fashion from biological heredity. Race is inherited according to no scientific laws, rather, by a commonsense or folk cultural system. Like the way we name our relatives, it’s not determined by biology, and doesn’t map very well onto genetic relationships. In fact that’s precisely what races are -- named groups, nothing more. ...

The key thing is to appreciate that race and genetics aren’t from the same worlds. So it’s not that one is good and the other is bad. It’s that one is scientific, and the other provides a means of localizing yourself and others in a very subjective world of social relations. The difficulty comes when we confuse them for one another. It’s not that race doesn’t exist, as I occasionally see it in the newspaper; it’s that race doesn’t exist as a biological entity. It certainly exists as a symbolic, social category; and that makes it more real and more important than if it were biological.Basically, we are all the same (http://www.pulitzer.org/year/1998/explanatory-reporting/works/2.html)
After analyzing thousands of DNA samples collected in smaller studies, experts are amazed at the genetic unity that binds our diverse, polyglot species. Any two people, regardless of geography or ethnicity, share at least 99.99 percent of their genetic makeups--a deep sameness that makes a mockery of racist ideologies such as Nazism.

Paradoxically, the minuscule .01 percent of our genome that does make people different doesn't shake out along visible racial lines. Instead, some 85 percent of human genetic diversity occurs within ethnic groups, not between them. The traits that so polarize our culture--the shade of our skin, the shape of an eye, hair texture--actually hide a dazzling and unexpected molecular tapestry that reflects our true origins. The European gene pool, for example, carries the story of where its members came from--and where they later migrated. It is a swirl of 35 percent African genes and 65 percent Asian genes.
Using Anthropology to Make Sense of Human Diversity (http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/k0305muk.htm)
Race and Ethnicity (http://cas-courses.buffalo.edu/classes/apy/anab/apy106/handouts/Race_and_Ethnicity.htm)
In the US the general public has been conditioned to view human races as natural and separate divisions within the human species based on visible physical differences (phenotype). It has now become clear to anthropologists that human populations are not unambiguous clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups. Evidence from genetics (e.g. DNA) indicates that there is greater variation within "racial groups" (94%) than between racial groups (6%). The attempt to establish lines of division among biological populations is arbitrary and subjective.
What are the differences between races? (http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/faq/race.htm)
Attempts to create categories of biological races have centered on phenotypic differences. A phenotype is the entirety of traits that an individual possesses, including external characteristics such as eye color and shape, body size and shape, hair color and texture, and skin color. In recent years attempts have also been made to evaluate genotypic differences to justify biological races. Genotype refers to a person's genetic makeup. These attempts have tried to define clusters of characteristics in one population that are not found in other populations. These clusters supposedly would enable different populations to be divided into distinct races. Such attempts have failed, however, and what researchers have found is that biological variations exist on a cline rather than in delimited geographic clusters with gaps in between. A cline refers to a gradual change of a trait and its frequency from one place to another within a species or population. The change usually corresponds to some change in the environment across the geographic range of a species. Any boundary line drawn at a point along the continuum is therefore arbitrary. So, the idea of distinct races defined by hard-and-fast differences has fallen apart as anthropologists have studied the genetic and physical characteristics of human populations.
The Biology of Race (http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/Sciences/LifeScience/HumanRaces/BiologyRace/BiologyRace.htm)
Race is a concept of society that insists there is a genetic significance behind human variations in skin color that transcends out ward appearance. However, race has no scientific merit outside of sociological classification. There are no significant genetic variations within the human species to justify the division of “ races.”
The Human Genome and Our View of Ourselves (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/291/5507/1219?ijkey=z/aJLHX5GkJnA&key)
We're All Related to Kevin Bacon (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A21167-2002Dec6&notFound=true)
HUMAN DIVERSITY AND "RACE" (http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/dl/free/0072500506/23746/CHAPTER5.doc)
The Geometer of Race (http://www.greeninformation.com/The%20Geometer%20of%20Race.htm)

I read a Piers Anthony book once (can't remember the name), but the point was, the 'races' (meaning 'colours') had been mixed to the point where everyone was brown (yay!), and no 'pure racial strains' existed outside of a few specimens that were bred and raised in captivity (in a fake town, with fake family and friends and so on).

Thinking about it last night, I though, wouldn't that be great? We couldn't divide ourselves and discriminate on the basis of skin colour!

But then I got to thinking...we'd find some other way to divide and discriminate.

So what do you think we'd discriminate based on, if we were all the same mixed race and colour?

I personally think that class discrimination is the most prevelant kind even now. It's openly acceptable for people discriminate against the rich, the poor, whatever. How much more likely that you could be walking with what appears to be a perfectly upstanding businessman who would walk by a beggar and tell him to "get a fucking job, ya bum". How likely is it that he would openly call him a ni**er or any such thing?

There's a movie currently out about bringing home a different race as your fiance but I think it's far more likely that someone would be upset if the person their daughter brought home didn't make a "good" living, a fact that is mentioned openly several times in the movie. My brother is an artist and works an average of about fourteen hours a day and he's dating a wealthy girl. Her friends find it perfectly acceptable to tell him he's wasting his life (read: not making money). Several of her friends are living on inheritances and have never had a full-time job.

Also, look at the differences in penalties between crack (poor drug of choice) and cocaine (rich drug of choice). Look at how a person who steals two hundred bucks from a cash register is treated and someone who steals millions by embezzlement. Look at how Kobe Bryant and Michael Jackson are treated and imagine how they would be treated if they were just two people from your neighborhood accused of such crimes, guilty or not.

Unless economic classes go away, it's likely that type of discrimination ever will, in my humble opinion.

That is true...variety is the spice of life. I said 'yay' for purely selfish reasons...sorry, but blonde white guys don't turn my crank:(

FINE

I read a Piers Anthony book once (can't remember the name), but the point was, the 'races' (meaning 'colours') had been mixed to the point where everyone was brown (yay!), and no 'pure racial strains' existed.


The same idea turns up in the early Philip K.Dick book Dr. Futurity.