NationStates Jolt Archive

Me being the nice person I am I would like to give you all to take shots at me and have a nice debate about my hateful ways if you so desire... if you do want this chance i/m me on aim (MickyKnox88) so we dont have to follow the rules of the forums :).

I will be joining, of course, in aid to my wonderful companion Aryan Pride 1488. The debate can go on from anything about homos, races, religion, why National Socialism is better than any other form of government, etc. :D

Are you unable to defend your "hateful ways" in a civil manner?

Why can you not defend yourself within the rules of the Forums?

Are you unable to defend your "hateful ways" in a civil manner?

Why can you not defend yourself within the rules of the Forums?

Because it's just so much fun to go at it with blood shed.

Are you unable to defend your "hateful ways" in a civil manner?

Why can you not defend yourself within the rules of the Forums?


Because we will not spread our vile ways to ppl who do not want to hear them... this way I dont get banned for 3 weeks again and ppl who do want to debate us can. Everyone wins

Methinks some lack the courage to back their convictions.

If you need name-calling to debate, you know not the meaning of debate.

I will be joining, of course, in aid to my wonderful companion Aryan Pride 1488. The debate can go on from anything about homos, races, religion, why National Socialism is better than any other form of government, etc. :D
For a racist you seemed to be quite charming on introduction, but I am certian we disagree on almost every issue.

Because we will not spread our vile ways to ppl who do not want to hear them... this way I dont get banned for 3 weeks again and ppl who do want to debate us can. Everyone wins
If you don't spew blatantly off base and hateful (ie I want/will kill all of the jews) you're welcome to stay here and talk about it.

Methinks some lack the courage to back their convictions.

If you need namecalling to debate, you know not the meaning of debate.

Who said anything about namecalling? It's just easier to repond quickly on messenger services, and plus, we value our nations, why have people come in here and bitch a fit only to have us face possible deletion?

Messenger is a better solution. And if we did, in fact, lack courage, why would we put up our aim names to have people talk to us? o_O??

Me being the nice person I am I would like to give you all to take shots at me and have a nice debate about my hateful ways if you so desire...

Any chance of telling us what your 'hateful ways' are or do we have to guess ... killing kittens? making orphans cry? playing Skrewdriver at grannies? ... or is the clue meant to be in your nation name?

Me being the nice person I am I would like to give you all to take shots at me and have a nice debate about my hateful ways if you so desire... if you do want this chance i/m me on aim (MickyKnox88) so we dont have to follow the rules of the forums :).

So you're into the "FUCK YOU! NO FUCK YOU!" thing?

For a racist you seemed to be quite charming on introduction, but I am certian we disagree on almost every issue.

Why thank you.

Who said anything about namecalling? It's just easier to repond quickly on messenger services, and plus, we value our nations, why have people come in here and bitch a fit only to have us face possible deletion?

In my experience it is the anti-Nazis/anti-WPs/anti-WNs that seem more likely to lose the rag and end up getting deleted.

Me being the nice person I am I would like to give you all to take shots at me and have a nice debate about my hateful ways if you so desire... if you do want this chance i/m me on aim (MickyKnox88) so we dont have to follow the rules of the forums :).
Oddly enough I am writing a story about ideology, most likely yours. I haven't aim but could you explain what you believe? Not issues but what your ideology boils down to? If you wish you may Telegram it to me.

In my experience it is the anti-Nazis/anti-WPs/anti-WNs that seem more likely to lose the rag and end up getting deleted.

We are just being cautious.

We are just being cautious.

Okay: I'll ask a question then: does the 1488 that WNs use so often refer to the year that Rabbi Yosef Karo was born?

As it seems AP1488 will most likely not reply, TWN could you explain it to me?

No I dont do the name calling or constant swears... When I do debate with people it is usually with my girlfriend who posted a while back myself and then another friend of mine Joe who enjoys mature debates. I did not post this to upset anyone I posted it for people who were serious about what they belive and wanted to confront someone who does not belive the same.

Hah, Aryan Pride 1488 - you don't fool anybody (we all know you're Aryan Volk 1488). Sry, just had to state the obvious there

Who said anything about namecalling? It's just easier to repond quickly on messenger services, and plus, we value our nations, why have people come in here and bitch a fit only to have us face possible deletion?

Messenger is a better solution. And if we did, in fact, lack courage, why would we put up our aim names to have people talk to us? o_O??

You lack the courage to have your viewpoints stand the test of public scrutiny. You are much more content to engage people in private conversations where no one is the wiser if you are thoroughly trashed in debate.

Okay: I'll ask a question then: does the 1488 that WNs use so often refer to the year that Rabbi Yosef Karo was born?

14 stands for "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children." The 14 words by David Lane.

88 = hh = heil Hitler.

As it seems AP1488 will most likely not reply, TWN could you explain it to me?

Yes I will TG you our beliefs. :)

Hah, Aryan Pride 1488 - you don't fool anybody (we all know you're Aryan Volk 1488). Sry, just had to state the obvious there

LOL nice one... Who would have guessed that? I even said I was banned 3 weeks in one of my post... God what a thinker you are... You sir win the cigar.

You lack the courage to have your viewpoints stand the test of public scrutiny. You are much more content to engage people in private conversations where no one is the wiser if you are thoroughly trashed in debate.
Unless we post the IM convo!

Hah, Aryan Pride 1488 - you don't fool anybody (we all know you're Aryan Volk 1488). Sry, just had to state the obvious there

o_O why would he have to hide that ... ?

You lack the courage to have your viewpoints stand the test of public scrutiny. You are much more content to engage people in private conversations where no one is the wiser if you are thoroughly trashed in debate.

Exactly. They fear the light.

No I dont do the name calling or constant swears... When I do debate with people it is usually with my girlfriend who posted a while back myself and then another friend of mine Joe who enjoys mature debates. I did not post this to upset anyone I posted it for people who were serious about what they belive and wanted to confront someone who does not belive the same.

So why not debate here in front of everyone?

14 stands for "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children." The 14 words by David Lane.

88 = hh - heil Hitler.

Ah, so you are a moderate compared to the people from where I'm from then? Here the prefered slogan is -

We must secure the existence of our people and a future for Protestant children.

Exactly. They fear the light.
Yet we can still mock them behind their backs if we just post the convo - it's so simple!

Me being the nice person I am I would like to give you all to take shots at me and have a nice debate about my hateful ways if you so desire... if you do want this chance i/m me on aim (MickyKnox88) so we dont have to follow the rules of the forums :).

Okay, then I present you with this: racism is a practice in futility, as humans have only a .00009 percent difference from one and other. Thus...preserving the "white race" is moot.

Thanx much!

This will be the last post I make on the matter... Its open to debate still and im trying to be very mature and not sink to the level some of you sink to. If you want to debate fine if not I will not be checking this forum again. and yes Kervoskia I will be happy to tg you what I belive.

14 stands for "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children." The 14 words by David Lane.

88 = hh = heil Hitler.
Peace, freedom, and justice will not be defeated by racists ever while I live. :)

Peace, freedom, and justice will not be defeated by racists ever while I live. :)
*stands by CSW's statement*

14 stands for "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children." The 14 words by David Lane.

88 = hh = heil Hitler.

Ah, yes. Words of wisdom from the great David Lane.

David Lane the murderer. Serving 190 years in prison for his crimes.

David Lane who describes his own Aryan views as stemming from his childhood crush on "a little Catholic angel with blond hair, blue eyes and charms beyond description” in the first grade.

The Richard Butler wannabe that couldn't handle leadership. His organization, The Order, lasted only a few years before falling apart due to its crime sprees. Not even good criminals.

David Lane who has a high school education and believes in just about every conspiracy theory out there.

David Lane who rants againsts Jews, Christians, minorities, and the police.

David Lane who calls the United States a “Red, White and Blue traveling mass murder machine” intent on exterminating the white race.

It is hard to imagine a bigger loser.

No wonder you quote him.

David Lane who describes his own Aryan views as stemming from his childhood crush on "a little Catholic angel with blond hair, blue eyes and charms beyond description” in the first grade.

That ain't going to go down too well with the snouts that painted the 'Protestant children' graffiti down the road from me.

the white race? there is no white race. there is caucasoid, mongoloid, and negroid. indians (from india), for example are not white. but guess what, they are caucasoid.

the white race? there is no white race. there is caucasoid, mongoloid, and negroid. indians (from india), for example are not white. but guess what, they are caucasoid.

Actually, those racial characterizations are outdated.

Biologically and genetically, there is no such thing as race.

Actually, those racial characterizations are outdated.

Biologically and genetically, there is no such thing as race.
Thank. You.

Why some people are so conscious of race baffles me. Who gives a shit? We're all human. And science has disproven any racial superiority theories, so why bother?

The actions of National Socialists in Germany during the nineteen thirties and forties resulted in a wrecked continent, and a world stuck on the precipice of nuclear war between the victorious powers. Don't such results reflect negatively on certain political ideologies?

Thank. You.

Why some people are so conscious of race baffles me. Who gives a shit? We're all human. And science has disproven any racial superiority theories, so why bother?

You are welcome.

Too bad the lil' Nazis ran away.

Thank. You.

Why some people are so conscious of race baffles me. Who gives a shit? We're all human. And science has disproven any racial superiority theories, so why bother?

Why does anyone persist in ignorance?

Actually, those racial characterizations are outdated.

Biologically and genetically, there is no such thing as race.
are you sure? i just learned that in school a few weeks ago.... oh well...

are you sure? i just learned that in school a few weeks ago.... oh well...

Quite sure.

I am happy to share some information I have posted several times. There is much more information like it available from authoritative sources on the internet.

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)

(Ya beat me to it Cat)

Some more good info:

http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm
http://www.bioethics.umn.edu/afrgen/html/Themythofrace.html

Because it's just so much fun to go at it with blood shed.

Last time I talked to a white nationalist in realtime he wanted to know where I lived so he could come kill me. I'm not a big fan of bloodshed, particularly when dealing with the prospect of mine.

Surely you'll forgive me for wanting to keep you guys at a safe distance...

(Ya beat me to it Cat)

Some more good info:

http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm
http://www.bioethics.umn.edu/afrgen/html/Themythofrace.html

:D

But I'm stealing your excellent links for next time!

This will be the last post I make on the matter... Its open to debate still and im trying to be very mature and not sink to the level some of you sink to. If you want to debate fine if not I will not be checking this forum again. and yes Kervoskia I will be happy to tg you what I belive.

Just where is this level you think the others in this forum have sunken to? Did someone in the thread insult your mother or something? Tell me who it was and I'll give him a piece of my mind! :)

:D

But I'm stealing your excellent links for next time!

Be my guest. :D

For a racist you seemed to be quite charming on introduction, but I am certian we disagree on almost every issue.
I am pretty sure that both of you think that the moon orbits the earth, and the earth orbits the sun.

To clear this up: I am not a racist. At all. But I do believe that race exists.

It is rather well established that there is no such thing as race biologically or genetically.
WRONG! Ask any doctor, especially cancer specialist, and he'll tell you that cancer risks are different for various races


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.
Back then, there were no expeditions to Africa, and almost noone knew of people on the African continent.

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.
Then how come black parents ALWAYS have a black child?

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.
Blacks and whites are VERY similar in genetics, but yet still slightly different.

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.
Well, if they are black you know they have a lower chance of skin cancer. But higher chance of other cancers (I forgot which)

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.
Again, asians have "squinty" eyes, and yellow skin, which is passed down to their kids. which makes them quite different. But yes, it is possible for two Italians to be very different.


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. Definately. No argument here.

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.
There was black-only slavery even before the US revolution. And Indians were enslaved too.

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. No, racism justified that. Race didn't justify anything at all.

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.
If race is not biological, then why do black parents have black children? And yes, racism is real.

here is my question. Why do you believe that ALL people of a certain group (race, religion, etc) have to have certain character traits? What if, for example, a Jew was raised in a Gentile family (adoption, for example)? Would you still hate that Jew?

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.
Take an african woman and a man. Assume they fall in love/get married. Now take them to the north pole. Now get them to have a child. It will be black. Now take an outsider, who doesn't know the parents, and show the child to him. The outsider will know that the child is of African descent.

*snip*

To clear this up: I am not a racist. At all. But I do believe that race exists.

You may not be racist. You are ignorant.

You might try reading more of the authoritative informative provided before spouting off.


WRONG! Ask any doctor, especially cancer specialist, and he'll tell you that cancer risks are different for various races

Race as a medical concept is not purely biological or genetic. Nor are the risk factors.

Back then, there were no expeditions to Africa, and almost noone knew of people on the African continent.

Um. Wrong. Just very, very wrong.

Then how come black parents ALWAYS have a black child?

Try to define "black." A wide variety of skin tones, hair types, and other phenotypes are called "black." Historically light-skinned "blacks" "passed" as whites.

My sister is a relatively light-skinned black. Her husband is very dark skinned.
Our parents are white. One of their grandkids has relatively dark skin. One has light skin. One has relatively "white" skin.

Blacks and whites are VERY similar in genetics, but yet still slightly different.

Nope. Not true. Try reading the data.


Well, if they are black you know they have a lower chance of skin cancer. But higher chance of other cancers (I forgot which)

Read above. Or the articles.

You know not of what you speak.

Again, asians have "squinty" eyes, and yellow skin, which is passed down to their kids. which makes them quite different. But yes, it is possible for two Italians to be very different.

Pure ignorance.

No, racism justified that. Race didn't justify anything at all.

The concept of race was used to justify it. It is an artificial concept.

Really. You have much to learn on this subject.

Take an african woman and a man. Assume they fall in love/get married. Now take them to the north pole. Now get them to have a child. It will be black. Now take an outsider, who doesn't know the parents, and show the child to him. The outsider will know that the child is of African descent.

1. Do you realize that you are arguing with a Professor of Anthropology from Yale University?

2. Do you realize you just illustrated his point about folk ideas?

3. Do you realize you are wrong?

4. My nieces have black parents and white grandparents. They live in a overwhelming white community. Each of my three nieces has a different skin tone. For the one with the lightest skin tone, people often comment on the family resemblence between her and her grandparents. There is no family resemblence. Her mother was adopted. Your little theory is bunk.

5. Stop before you embarass yourself further.

Race as a medical concept is not purely biological or genetic. Nor are the risk factors.But if it is a medical factor, doesn't that mean that there are biological differences between the two?


Try to define "black." A wide variety of skin tones, hair types, and other phenotypes are called "black." Historically light-skinned "blacks" "passed" as whites.

My sister is a relatively light-skinned black. Her husband is very dark skinned.
Our parents are white. One of their grandkids has relatively dark skin. One has light skin. One has relatively "white" skin
Most blacks in America are mixed. But you can cleary know a black guy when you see one, not just by skin color, but hair, and a few other factors. You can't confuse a tanned white guy with a black guy.


the other replys contain no substance, except accusations of ignorance.

But if it is a medical factor, doesn't that mean that there are biological differences between the two?

No.


Most blacks in America are mixed. But you can cleary know a black guy when you see one, not just by skin color, but hair, and a few other factors. You can't confuse a tanned white guy with a black guy.

"You can clearly know a black guy when you see one"

Well, that settles it.

The anthropologists are wrong.

The biologists are wrong.

The geneticists are wrong.

All we have to do is look around and spot the darkies.

TRY. READING. THE. ARTICLES.

the other replys contain no substance, except accusations of ignorance.

If the shoe fits ...

1. Do you realize that you are arguing with a Professor of Anthropology from Yale University?

2. Do you realize you just illustrated his point about folk ideas?

3. Do you realize you are wrong?

4. My nieces have black parents and white grandparents. They live in a overwhelming white community. Each of my three nieces has a different skin tone. For the one with the lightest skin tone, people often comment on the family resemblence between her and her grandparents. There is no family resemblence. Her mother was adopted. Your little theory is bunk.

5. Stop before you embarass yourself further.
1) Cool, I can beat a proffesor from Ivy league!
2-3) Ignore
4) Let met rephrase it: your niece has black parents, that is your sister/brother and their husband/wife are black. However, your parents, and your brother in law's parents are white, just as you are.

That is simply impossible. Your sister/brother must be white. They may be dark skinned, or tanned, but not black. Since she/he is not black, the niece is part white part blakc, so the skin color can be anything in between.

1. Do you realize that you are arguing with a Professor of Anthropology from Yale University?

Appeal to authority and utterly unverifiable on an online forum. I'm Steven Hawking.


Moving to the topic at hand, Professor, how do you explain the following two diseases:

1) Sickle Cell Anemia
2) Color blindness

One is vastly more common in 'black' people, the other is vastly more common in 'white' people (especially males). There are genetic differences, to argue otherwise is to be blinded to reality.

People who are of non-European descent are far more likely to be lactose intolerant. These are traits that are passed from parents to children, thus meaning it is encoded in their genetic material. Sickle Cell Anemia (or Trait) is not a cultural or learned condition. It is a genetic disease.

You've rather nicely managed to draw a bright line here, essentially stating that if anyone believes there is any difference between races, they are either a knuckle-dragging racist or a drooling moron.

Even your own sources disagree with your assertation:

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.If all humans are the same, how can Europeans be made up of African and Asian genes? We're all the same, remember?

WRONG! Ask any doctor, especially cancer specialist, and he'll tell you that cancer risks are different for various races


Both my parents are doctors at Duke Medical, and I do not trust their objectivity. Only a fool would, because doctors aren't scientists and are not trained to make scientifically objective decisions. And yes a great deal of my parents' friends are researchers, including the head of the Human Genome Project, and no none of them believe that anything but skin cancer rates vary by race. Science magazine also begs to differ with your beliefs, as does Scientific American.


how come black parents ALWAYS have a black child?

I have a simple answer for you, but you won't like it. The children of black people are not black. My father is white and my mother black. Check out my pic on the pic thread. I do not look like a black person, nor am I considered a black person by North Carolina law. And if my fellow Carolinians don't consider me black, what are the chances that any one else would?

Blacks and whites are VERY similar in genetics, but yet still slightly different.

No kidding. I never would have guessed.


Again, asians have "squinty" eyes, and yellow skin, which is passed down to their kids. which makes them quite different.

My best friend is an Indian. He doesn't have squnity eyes and he doesn't have yellow skin. Another of my friends is Cambodian. He doesn't have squinty eyes either, nor does he have yellow skin. A third friend of mine is Siberian. You know what I'm going to say...


Definately. No argument here.

...good. You were starting to make me wonder there.



If race is not biological, then why do black parents have black children? And yes, racism is real.

Didn't you just mention both of those points earlier? There is such a term as multiracial.


Personally, I think you are no more racist than the average person I know. I do however think you are a bit confused regarding race. Either that or you are having some trouble articulating your beliefs.

But if it is a medical factor, doesn't that mean that there are biological differences between the two?



No.
So then HOW ELSE do you accounter for a medical factor if there is no biological factor? What, everyone says that you are black, and suddenly your skin cancer chance goes down? That's cool, can everyone say I am black? I'll get less chance of cancer.

"You can clearly know a black guy when you see one"

Well, that settles it.

The anthropologists are wrong.

The biologists are wrong.

The geneticists are wrong.

All we have to do is look around and spot the darkies.

TRY. READING. THE. ARTICLES.

So far, all the geneticists and biolosts, and all athropologists that I read, have agreed that race exist. You claim that there is no counterpart to race in the DNA.

So far, all the geneticists and biolosts, and all athropologists that I read, have agreed that race exist. You claim that there is no counterpart to race in the DNA.
So you're saying that you haven't read anything from geneticists, biologists, and anthropologists on the subject of race? Because they're in nigh unanimous agreement that race does not exist among humans.

Appeal to authority and utterly unverifiable on an online forum. I'm Steven Hawking.

<sigh>

I am not a Professor of Anthropology at Yale University, but the author of the article from which the quote Doom777 was disagreeing with came from is (and I had linked the article).

Perhaps you'll pay attention before being condescending next time.


Moving to the topic at hand, Professor, how do you explain the following two diseases:

1) Sickle Cell Anemia
2) Color blindness

One is vastly more common in 'black' people, the other is vastly more common in 'white' people (especially males). There are genetic differences, to argue otherwise is to be blinded to reality.

People who are of non-European descent are far more likely to be lactose intolerant. These are traits that are passed from parents to children, thus meaning it is encoded in their genetic material. Sickle Cell Anemia (or Trait) is not a cultural or learned condition. It is a genetic disease.

Actually, sickle cell is pointed to as one of the great mistakes in racial profiling in medicine.

Sickle cell is not limited to blacks, but you are correct it is far more prevalent. But it is not related to race, but to cline. The sickle-cell allele evolved in Africa, southern Asia, and around the Mediterranean (where many white Caucasions carry it) because those zones are plagued with malaria. The gene is related to population history and is a poor indicator of phenotype.

But I will admit I am ignorant about the details of the differences you suggest.

You've rather nicely managed to draw a bright line here, essentially stating that if anyone believes there is any difference between races, they are either a knuckle-dragging racist or a drooling moron.

Nope. I have not called anyone here a racist -- except perhaps the Aryans.

Nor have I called anyone a moron. I have stated that Doom777 was ignorant.

Do you wish to defend Doom777's statements?

Even your own sources disagree with your assertation:

If all humans are the same, how can Europeans be made up of African and Asian genes? We're all the same, remember?

Actually, I believe that talks about genes pools as related to continents. Not as divided by race. Genes do show some variations due to clines.

There is no direct correlation between any racial group and anything in the human genome.

I can provide more hard science about the lack of biological or genetic basis for racial classifications, but I am not a scientist.

But reading the material I presented or exploring the subject wasn't the point, was it? Trying to put me "in my place" was.

All the existence of things like sickle cell anaemia proves is that natural selection occurs. Whoopee...

People living in the tropics who had the sickle gene didn't get malaria, and hence survuved to pass on their genes. Nothing to do with race.

I found a good article (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/1998-10/WUiS-GSRD-071098.php) here.

People seem to confuse race with genetics. (not that there are population based genetic differences between "races" anyway...)

*snip*
4) Let met rephrase it: your niece has black parents, that is your sister/brother and their husband/wife are black. However, your parents, and your brother in law's parents are white, just as you are.

That is simply impossible. Your sister/brother must be white. They may be dark skinned, or tanned, but not black. Since she/he is not black, the niece is part white part blakc, so the skin color can be anything in between.

All the facts were stated in my post -- and in my prior post. But let me clarify.

My parents are "white." So am I.

My sister is adopted. She is black.

Her husband -- and his parents -- are black.

My sister's children -- my nieces -- are "black." All three have different skin tones. But people generally assume one is white when she is with my parents. Because she is light-skinned.

Got it?

All the existence of things like sickle cell anaemia proves is that natural selection occurs. Whoopee...

People living in the tropics who had the sickle gene didn't get malaria, and hence survuved to pass on their genes. Nothing to do with race.

I found a good article (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/1998-10/WUiS-GSRD-071098.php) here.

People seem to confuse race with genetics. (not that there are population based genetic differences between "races" anyway...)

Interesting. It would be nice if more people read about this.

So you're saying that you haven't read anything from geneticists, biologists, and anthropologists on the subject of race? Because they're in nigh unanimous agreement that race does not exist among humans.

Unless they are looking for jewish high preists, and trying to prove that the Lemba of southern africa are one of the lost tribes. Then they start inventing terms like 'Cohen Modal Haplotype'.

So there are a 'race' of Cohanim - at least according to some of these science boffins.

I could probably point out something about mitochondrial DNA, but because I don't care, I won't. Except to say, I think everyone has 'species' and race confused. Of course, 'race' is a 'socio-political' construct. So is 'doberman-pinscher'. Doesn't mean that 'doberman-pinschers' don't exist. Or that 'doberman-pinschers' don't all share a common heredity exclusive to the breed, which is not shared by the vast majority of canis familiaris.

Perhaps you'll pay attention before being condescending next time. Still an appeal to authority, but hey... I can do that too:

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20050409/bob9.asp
In the past 65 years, defining race hasn't become less ambiguous. While it's abundantly clear that race exists from a sociological standpoint—racism wouldn't take place without it—does that categorization also exist biologically?

Current genetic research hasn't yet come up with a black-and-white answer. Nevertheless, understanding the biology underlying perceptions of race could have dramatic implications. Later in the same article:Scientists often use a rule called Wright's F statistic to judge whether separate groups are actually subspecies. If 25 percent or more of one group's alleles are different from another's, then by F-statistic standards, the two groups are considered subspecies. [...] the groups of people considered to be of different races have allelic differences of at most 15 percent, too little to constitute subspecies.Later still:Using microsatellite information from another study that had looked for a genetic link with hypertension in several U.S. populations, Risch's team ran data from 3,636 people through a computer program similar to Rosenberg's. However, instead of searching for clusters based on geography, Risch and colleagues compared clusters from the genetic data with self-described race/ethnicity categories.

The genetic data sorted into four categories—white, African American, east Asian, and Hispanic—which neatly matched what each person had checked on a form at the beginning of the study. Only five people had results inconsistent with their self-described race/ethnicity, giving an error rate of 0.14 percent, the team reports in the February American Journal of Human Genetics.

"This shows that people's self-identified race/ethnicity is a nearly perfect indicator of their genetic background," says Risch.
My point? It's inconclusive. Geneticists are still trying to figure out if there is genetic encoding by race. Claiming that it's all bunk is... premature.

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20050416/bob8.asp
a controversial new drug for heart failure may soon be approved specifically for African American patients. The drug, developed under the trade name BiDil and now being reviewed by the Food and Drug Administration, is likely to become the first therapy that the agency approves specifically for treatment of an ethnic or racial group.Same article:Race-based medicine could be a steppingstone to the higher goal of "targeted treatment," says Lawrence Lesko of FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation Research in Rockville, Md. Lesko and other advocates of this approach envision treatment tailored to people according to the results of genetic tests. They say that race-based medicine is just a first step toward discerning people's genetic makeup for the sake of better individual treatments.

And, finally, from here (subscription required) an article from '03 that's very similar to BiDil above: http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20030301/fob5.aspIn the study released this week, researchers found little difference in infection rates of 3,330 people who received the AIDSVAX vaccine and 1,679 people who received inert shots. Over a 3-year period, about 5.7 percent of people in each group developed an HIV infection.

More than 90 percent of the volunteers were homosexual or bisexual men. Participants were from North America, the Netherlands, Puerto Rico, and Australia. More than four-fifths were white.

The study did turn up one provocative result: The vaccine seemed to protect some African Americans. Among the 314 blacks in the study, the infection rate was 8.1 percent in those getting a placebo and only 2 percent among those vaccinated, VaxGen reports. Specifically, 9 of 111 black volunteers who got placebo injections contracted HIV, whereas 4 of 203 blacks receiving the vaccine became infected. Most of the black volunteers were women.

According to statistical standards, this apparent protection probably wasn't due to chance, says Michael F. Para of Ohio State University, one of the study investigators.

And on and on and on. I think it's pretty safe to say that there's something differentiating people, especially when it comes to medicine.

Actually, I believe that talks about genes pools as related to continents. Not as divided by race. Genes do show some variations due to clines.

Except that race is commonly defined along geographical boundries. Just look at the currently accepted phrase: African-American. That's drawing a line base on geographical status. Furthermore, the 'races' were originally formed by these groups being segregated.

I can provide more hard science about the lack of biological or genetic basis for racial classifications, but I am not a scientist.

And I can provide just as many counter arguements. You might note that the second article was published just 4 days ago. Perhaps your sources are outdated?

But reading the material I presented or exploring the subject wasn't the point, was it? Trying to put me "in my place" was.

Cute. No, "the point" was to show you that you're being almost as silly as the Nazis are. Oddly enough, staking a position on an extreme (any extreme) is a risky proposition.

People seem to confuse race with genetics. (not that there are population based genetic differences between "races" anyway...)

Except for in mitochondrial DNA.

hey guys, stop arguing, this is what the krauts want us to do. we gotta be unified.

Except for in mitochondrial DNA.
Read the article I posted. I'm pretty sure it stated that differences in mitochondrial DNA were not statistically significant.

Read the article I posted. I'm pretty sure it stated that differences in mitochondrial DNA were not statistically significant.

Well, I don't read internet articles. I do recall mitochondrial DNA being used to analyze early migration patterns and demark consanguinity between the various phenotypes we call 'races' however.

There was quite a big flap about it a few years ago. Not that it means anything.

Edit: I read the article. Okay, all it says is that: insofar as mitochondrial DNA is concerned there is a closer degree of genetic similarity between europeans and sub-sahran africans* than there is between sub-saharan africans and melanasians, but because sub-saharan africans and melanesian share more physical characteristics with regards skin color etc. our traditional notions about race should be disregarded.

Well, as to disregarding traditional notions about race, duh, I don't think you need a biology degree to figure that out, however, I find it interesting that he is still able to broadly 'group' phenotypes by geographic area and then make conclusions about their degree of relatedness based upon their mitochodrial DNA. I mean, that rather implies that isolated populations over time develop unique characteristics in their mitochondrial DNA, and to a certian extent allows a genetic classification of race - albeit arbitrary.

It's silly anyway. To say there is no such thing as race denies the very fact of everyday experience. (You can argue that we *shouldn't* have these classifications, that they are meaningless in practical terms, or immoral, but the fact is we do). Further to say that there is no biological basis for race is again silly, because it is related to the phenotype of the particular individual in question - which obviously is biological in basis. It's like saying blond people are a socio-political construct. Just in the case of blond people they don't get treated particularly different. Unless they are women.

*Curiously, the sub-saharan african population has the widest variation in mitochondrial DNA to begin with. Everywhere else in the world can trace it's lineage back to a couple of short migrations from africa. This is why I don't go by anything from the internet.

hey guys, stop arguing, this is what the krauts want us to do. we gotta be unified.

and what exactly is that supposed to mean?

All the facts were stated in my post -- and in my prior post. But let me clarify.

My parents are "white." So am I.

My sister is adopted. She is black.

Her husband -- and his parents -- are black.

My sister's children -- my nieces -- are "black." All three have different skin tones. But people generally assume one is white when she is with my parents. Because she is light-skinned.

Got it?

Last I heard, Cat, there wasn't a legal definition for "black".

And if some people are "black" and some are "white", then there isn't a simple explanation for what I am. I suppose that under Nazi race laws, I would be simply a mongrel.

Here's something for debate, whilst searching for stuff about Israel for a friend, I came upon this site. www.yadvashem.org the official memorial to the Holocaust victims. Now tell me, how have Yad Vashem managed to gather three million names if only a hundred thousand were killed? Or nonoe at all, depending on what you believe. I've found my grandads entire family here. Four brothers, two parents, all killed. Try and defend that position, how come only a hundred thousand died, if Yad Vashem managed to find three million?

Moving to the topic at hand, Professor, how do you explain the following two diseases:

1) Sickle Cell Anemia
2) Color blindness

One is vastly more common in 'black' people, the other is vastly more common in 'white' people (especially males). There are genetic differences, to argue otherwise is to be blinded to reality.


Sickle Cell Anemia is caused by only 1 base-pair. 1. The reality you are so desperately seeking is that Sickle Cell Anemia represents a single-base pair and thus single amino acid change to the structure of the Hemoglobin molecule, selected for not by race, but by environmental proximity to malaria-infested regions of the world, i.e. people living near rainforests.

Thus you won't find a single Ethiopian or Kenyan with the disease. People in that part of Africa don't have serious malaria problems, so why would a genetic defense against malaria ever be selected for?? Simple answer: it wouldn't.

There are no Europeaners with SCA. There are also no Mongolians, Chinese, Japanese, Indians, North/East/South Africans, Siberians, Eskimos(no there aren't rainforests in Greenland), Middle Easterners, Canadians, etc with SCA. Nobody has it except for populations in which malaria threatened to wipe everyone out.

And no, SCA isn't a racial disease, unless you consider West Africans, South Americans, Southeast Asians and Micronesians to be of the same race. I certainly don't.

Here's something for debate, whilst searching for stuff about Israel for a friend, I came upon this site. www.yadvashem.org the official memorial to the Holocaust victims. Now tell me, how have Yad Vashem managed to gather three million names if only a hundred thousand were killed? Or nonoe at all, depending on what you believe. I've found my grandads entire family here. Four brothers, two parents, all killed. Try and defend that position, how come only a hundred thousand died, if Yad Vashem managed to find three million?
If you get an answer to that, I'm betting it will be "You can't trust the Jews!" or something of the sort.

Last time I talked to a white nationalist in realtime he wanted to know where I lived so he could come kill me. I'm not a big fan of bloodshed, particularly when dealing with the prospect of mine.

Surely you'll forgive me for wanting to keep you guys at a safe distance...


They tend to be very angry people. Chances are good that he would not have killed you. More likely would have vandalized your property.

Last I heard, Cat, there wasn't a legal definition for "black".

And if some people are "black" and some are "white", then there isn't a simple explanation for what I am. I suppose that under Nazi race laws, I would be simply a mongrel.

You know full well that I was responding to someone who thinks those are valid terms.

As he uses the, my sister, my brother-in-law, and my nieces are all "black." And my parents and I are "white."

I was rather forcefully making the point that those categories have little validity except as socio-political constructs.

My sister's children -- my nieces -- are "black." All three have different skin tones. But people generally assume one is white when she is with my parents. Because she is light-skinned.
Got it?


its sounds like your one niece is actually "cafe au lait". this is a whole new catagory.

its sounds like your one niece is actually "cafe au lait". this is a whole new catagory.

Again, the "categor[ies]" are generally invalid.

If every skin tone is a different race, then there are many, many, many races -- just among African-Americans and Caucasians alone.

Here's something for debate, whilst searching for stuff about Israel for a friend, I came upon this site. www.yadvashem.org the official memorial to the Holocaust victims. Now tell me, how have Yad Vashem managed to gather three million names if only a hundred thousand were killed? Or nonoe at all, depending on what you believe. I've found my grandads entire family here. Four brothers, two parents, all killed. Try and defend that position, how come only a hundred thousand died, if Yad Vashem managed to find three million?
Well? Anybody home to answer this?

Last I heard, Cat, there wasn't a legal definition for "black".

The "one drop rule" holds up in the courts in the US....
(I must say that I love that one. Take it to it's logical extreme and we all are black, seeing as we can be traced back to African ancestry! :D)