NationStates Jolt Archive

To "preserve" your kind means to exclude their kind. Understand the "kind" talk?

We are the same species. You might be able to argue subspecies but we are the same species.



Actually they have been interbreeding long before the European colonialism. Even in China, the Caucasoid mummies that were found.



Which in turn can be traced to the migration from the Asian continent across the Bering sea land bridge.



?

Where is there an unmixed group of people?

1. I know we are the same species. But does that mean that people should be legally or even morally mary people outside their group? Should it not be a personal choice?
"To preserve your kind means to exclude their kind". Did I get it correct?
How does it mean to exlude their kind? Are we keeping resources from them? Are we kicking them out of their homes or banning their presence? Are we blocking or discouraging them from continuing to have babies of their own if they so want?

2. You are talking about the Eurasions. Mixing between the Europeans, Africans, Native Americans, Pacificans, and even the Australian aboriginals did not occur until the age of colonialism.
Plus I think you would be hardpressed to find a kid who was half asian half european walking around Europe during the dark ages.

3. Actually I've been researching this and it turns out that not all Native American groups are descended from that Bering Strait group.
The Gabrielinos for example, migrated to southern california from one of the Pacific Islands. I'm guessing pssibly from the area around Tonga because their name for themselves is Tvongan. Tvonga looks similar to Tonga,though Tonga just might be the European name for the island. If true, the Tvongans are actually descended from South Pacific Islanders.
This is lent support by their canoes being similar to those of the South Pacific and the fact they were able to travel across large distances of water.

You have not heard about the 100% native Americans? I'm sure there are also 100% aboriginals too. There must be a few Europeans left that are 100% European. Most Africans in Africa are 100% African.

It's only when your country becomes technologically advanced that you start seeing a large number of mixed race peoples within your borders claiiming your citizenship. The reason there is so many mixed people in America is because we are among the most advanced (technologlically and economically nations on the earth, the others being the European states, China, Korea, and Japan.)
I have to digress. Japan is advanced but they are still mostly a homogenous nation. They have not opened up as much Europe or America have. I do not know how long that Homogeneity of Japanese society will last in this age however.

The Romans maintained colonies of different sorts - trade colonies, military colonies... even 'personal' colonies until that 'right' was revoked by Caesar.

The Greek city states expanded, traded, and gained access to resources and other cultures, through establishment of colonies from about 800 BC onwards.

'Carthage' was originally founded as a Phoenician colony, as was the settlement now known as Cadiz.

The Egyptians had colonies as far back as the First Dynasty - that's 5000 years, or more, ago.

Colonisation isn't a new invention. The earliest cultures for which we have recorded evidence, had colonisation - in other words - all the evidence suggests that humanity has been intermixing, intra-assimilating, conquering and colonising one another for about 100% of it's history.

Where were the Roman and Greek and Phoenician colonies located? Were they not all in the mediterrenean?
None of them colonized outside the Mediterreanean. There were no Roman, Greek or Phoenician colonies in the south pacific or in the Americas for example.

There were Indian merchants who established colonies on Sumatra. But even that was just before the age European gllobal colonialism.

I'm talking global coloniailism and global intermiixing of populations. that is only recent. Making a colony in the next house is one thing but setting one up in China when you are in Europe is something else entirely.

Trade between China and Rome/Parthia doesn't count, huh? And what about the silk routes?

The last sentence was meant to cover the trade between Rome and China. But I am presently looking up the silk road just to make sure.

I'm talking global coloniailism and global intermiixing of populations. that is only recent. Making a colony in the next house is one thing but setting one up in China when you are in Europe is something else entirely.So, where are we again? Are we West/East cultural interaction, or are we "American West/European-Asian east" cultural interaction? Because, for most of recorded history, America was not "the West".

This will be a long post. I've tried to break it down.

http://www.ess.uci.edu/~oliver/silk.html A good resource for information about the history of the Silk Road.

" The region separating China from Europe and Western Asia is not the most hospitable in the world. Much of it is taken up by the Taklimakan desert, one of the most hostile environments on our planet. There is very little vegetation, and almost no rainfall; sandstorms are very common, and have claimed the lives of countless people.

Sand storms here are very common, and particularly dangerous due to the strength of the winds and the nature of the surface. Unlike the Gobi desert, where there there are a relatively large number of oases, and water can be found not too far below the surface, the Taklimakan has much sparser resources.

The land surrounding the Taklimakan is equally hostile. To the northeast lies the Gobi desert, almost as harsh in climate as the Taklimakan itself; on the remaining three sides lie some of the highest mountains in the world. To the South are the Himalaya, Karakorum and Kunlun ranges, which provide an effective barrier separating Central Asia from the Indian sub-continent.

Only a few icy passes cross these ranges, and they are some of the most difficult in the world; they are mostly over 5000 metres in altitude, and are dangerously narrow, with precipitous drops into deep ravines.

To the north and west lie the Tianshan and Pamir ranges; though greener and less high, the passes crossing these have still provided more than enough problems for the travellers of the past. Approaching the area from the east, the least difficult entry is along the `Gansu Corridor', a relatively fertile strip running along the base of the Qilian mountains, separating the great Mongolian plateau and the Gobi from the Tibetan High Plateau. Coming from the west or south, the only way in is over the passes."

That would have been enough to keep the Chinese isolated from the west for most of history.

"The Iranian empire of Persia was in control of a large area of the Middle East, extending as far as the Indian Kingdoms to the east. Trade between these two neighbours was already starting to influence the cultures of these regions."

The writer here is referring to trade affecting the culture of Iran and India. There was no trade yet with China hence China remained untouched.

India became a crossroads of civlizations by the 3rd century BC. Note this still excluded China which was still isolated. Also, it was isolated to the middle east area. When speaking of Indian Kingdoms they are speaking of the area around Pakistan and the area just below Kashmir. They are not talking about the whole of the Indian subcontinent.

This was not a mixing of every single group in Eurasia. Europe itself did not engage in this trade and the chinese remained isolated. This was how it was in the third century BC.

Then the Greeks got involved but China and western Europe still remained outside the loop.


" The eastern end of the route developed rather more slowly. In China, the Warring States period was brought to an end by the Qin state, which unified China to form the Qin Dynasty, under Qin Shi Huangdi. The harsh reforms introduced to bring the individual states together seem brutal now, but the unification of the language, and standardisation of the system, had long lasting effects. "

"The Xiongnu tribe had been periodically invading the northern borders during the Warring States period with increasing frequency. The northern-most states had been trying to counteract this by building defensive walls to hinder the invaders, and warn of their approach. Under the Qin Dynasty, in an attempt to subdue the Xiongnu, a campaign to join these sections of wall was initiated, and the `Great Wall' was born. When the Qin collapsed in 206 B.C., after only 15 years, the unity of China was preserved by the Western Han Dynasty, which continued to construct the Wall.

During one of their campaigns against the Xiongnu, in the reign of Emperor Wudi, the Han learnt from some of their prisoners that the Yuezhi had been driven further to the west. It was decided to try to link up with these peoples in order to form an alliance against the Xiongnu.

The first intelligence operation in this direction was in 138 B.C. under the leadership of Zhang Qian, brought back much of interest to the court, with information about hitherto unknown states to the west, "

The Parthians/Westerners and the Chinese did not know about each other until 138 BC.

"The trip was certainly eventful, as the Xiongnu captured them, and kept them hostage for ten years; after escaping and continuing the journey, Zhang Qian eventually found the Yuezhi in Northern India."

"The emperor was much interested by what they found, however, and more expeditions were sent out towards the West over the following years. After a few failures, a large expedition managed to obtain some of the so-called `heavenly horses',"

This indicates the first official delegation sent to the west had the mission of acquiring horses for use in the Chinese miilitary. This was around 125BC


"Spurred on by their discoveries, the Han missions pushed further westwards, and may have got as far as Persia. They brought back many objects from these regions, in particular some of the religious artwork from the Gandharan culture, and other objects of beauty for the emperor."

The speculation is they went as far as Persian but evidence is that the furthest they went was northern India.

Before Zhang Qian, there was very little trade between the west and China.
"before the time of Zhang Qian, small quantities of Chinese goods, including silk, were reaching the west. This is likely to have arrived with individual traders,"
That was not mass trade.

Also note there was no intermarriage during this time period between the Chinese and the others.

"It is often thought that the Romans had first encountered silk in one of their campaigns against the Parthians in 53 B.C, and realised that it could not have been produced by this relatively unsophisticated people. They reputedly learnt from Parthian prisoners that it came from a mysterious tribe in the east, who they came to refer to as the silk people, `Seres'. "

The first time the Romans became interested in direct trade with China was 53BC. "he Parthians quickly realised that there was money to be made from trading the material, and sent trade missions towards the east. The Romans also sent their own agents out to explore the route, and to try to obtain silk at a lower price than that set by the Parthians. For this reason, the trade route to the East was seen by the Romans as a route for silk rather than the other goods that were traded."

However the Romans and the Chinese never visited each other's nations.
" There are no records of Roman traders being seen in Changan, nor Chinese merchants in Rome, "

"Very few merchants traversed the full length of the road; most simply covered part of the journey, selling their wares a little further from home, and then returning with the proceeds. Goods therefore tended to moved slowly across Asia, changing hands many times."

Even with the establishment of the silk road, trade between Europe and China was rare and there were was no mixing of Chinese/European genes or cutlural ideas.

Christianty, a western religion, did not arrive in China until 638 AD at the earliest.

" From the point of view of those in the far west, China was still an unknown territory"

"Since the days of Alexander the Great, there had been some knowledge of India, but there was no real knowledge of, or contact with, the `Seres' until about the 7th century, when information started to filter along the Road."

"t was at this time that the rise of Islam started to affect Asia, and a curtain came down between the east and west"
During the Islamic wars, China and Parthia were once again seperated.

It was not until the Mongols that real intermixing of the local eurasian populaces began. "" The partial unification of so many states under the Mongol Empire allowed a significant interaction between cultures of different regions. The route of the Silk Road became important as a path for communication between different parts of the Empire, and trading was continued. Although less `civilised' than people in the west, the Mongols were more open to ideas. This religious liberalism was extended to all; Christianity first made headway in China in this period, with the first Roman Catholic arch-bishopric set up in Beijing in 1307. The Nestorian church was quite widespread in China; Jews and Moslems also populated several of the major cities, though they do not seem to have made many converts."

" It was at this time that Europeans first ventured towards the lands of the `Seres'. The earliest were probably Fransiscan friars who are reported to have visited the Mongolian city of Karakorum. The first Europeans to arrive at Kubilai's court were Northern European traders, who arrived in 1261."

1261 is the date of the first direct trade between Europe and China.

"With the disintegration of the Mongol empire, the revival of Islam and the isolationist policies of the Ming dynasty, the barriers rose again on the land route between East and West."

" In the early fifteenth century, the Chinese seafarer Zhang He commanded seven major maritime expeditions to Southeast Asia and India, and as far as Arabia and the east coast of Africa. Diplomatic relations were built up with several countries along the route,"

" The attitude of the later Chinese dynasties was the final blow to the trade route. The isolationist policies of the Ming dynasties did nothing to encourage trade between China and the rapidly developing West. This attitude was maintained throughout the Ming and Qing dynasties, and only started to change after the Western powers began making inroads into China in the nineteenth century."

Direct Europe to China trade halted until the 19th century.

"as trade with the West subsided, so did the traffic along the Road,"

" Renewed interest in the Silk Road only emerged among western scholars towards the end of the nineteenth century. A trade delegation was sent to Kashgar in 1890, and the British were eventually to set up a consulate in 1908."

Thus for almost 400 years there was no mixing of Chinese and Western ideas.

Also for the entire history of the route, up until the 20th century there was no mixing of Europeans with Chinse nor is it likely that the Chinese mixed with the Indians or the Persians. Though they traded goods and religions, they did not intermarry and have mixed race children as we have today.

I'm actually looking for proof of the last part of my statement. Though I am certain that intermarriage between the various groups was not common.

Another long post.

Summary of post:

Animals and microbes can tell difference between ethnic groups even genetics often cannot.

The history of the word "ethnic" and how people tend to interchange it with race. That's not cool.

The fact that distinct and seperate ethnic groups do exist.

The global history of racial mixing. The modern form of which does not extend back very far.

http://notexactlyrocketscience.wordpress.com/2007/10/18/elephants-smell-the-difference-between-human-ethnic-groups/

"Lucy Bates and colleagues from the University of St Andrews have found that African elephants (Loxodonta africana) can tell the difference between different human ethnic groups by smell alone."

" Bates found that elephants reacted more fearfully to clothes previously worn by a Massai man than to clean ones or those worn by a Kamba man. She placed the three types of cloth near 18 family groups and watched what happened.

When the first individual caught whiff of a new scent, it raised its head and curled its trunk towards the source of the smell. If they smelled Massai clothes, they moved away particularly fast, travelled about five times further and took more than twice as long to relax. They could clearly tell the difference between the two groups based on smell and reacted more defensively to the dangerous one. "

"In all cases, the elephants never approached within 10m of the clothes and wouldn’t have seen them. They reacted on smell alone. It’s possible that the Massai and Kamba exude different pheromones, but their distinctive scents possibly stem from their vastly contrasting cultures.

The Kamba eat meat, vegetables and maize meal. The Massai, on the other hand, subsist mainly on milk and cattle meat and their villages are suffused by the smells of their herds. They also use ochre and sheep fat for decorations. To an elephant’s sensitive trunks, the resulting smells must be as different as red and green beacons are to our eyes. "

Hmm. What you eat does impact how you smell and the type of pheromones you produce. In men it also affects the quality of their sperm.

the elephant’s ability to split members of a single species into further sub-groups is a unique one.

The following link is a pdf file.

http://www.pnas.org/content/101/14/4746.full.pdf

this link shows that different ethnic groups have different stomach cultures.

The prevalence of H Pylori is a better marker of how mixed people have become than classical human genetics.

There are differences between ethnic groups that go beyond race or skin color.

But I think I can understand why the term ethnic is equated with xenophobia.

http://folk.uio.no/geirthe/Ethnicity.html

The wod ethnic "{is derived from the Greek ethnos (which in turn derived from the word ethnikos), which originally meant heathen or pagan}"

"It was used in this sense in English from the mid-14th century until the mid-19th century, when it gradually began to refer to "racial" characteristics. In the United States, "ethnics" came to be used around the Second World War as a polite term referring to Jews, Italians, Irish and other people considered inferior to the dominant group of largely British descent."

" In everyday language, the word ethnicity still has a ring of "minority issues" and "race relations", but in social anthropology, it refers to aspects of relationships between groups which consider themselves, and are regarded by others, as being culturally distinctive. Although it is true that "the discourse concerning ethnicity tends to concern itself with subnational units, or minorities of some kind or another" (Chapman et al., 1989: 17), majorities and dominant peoples are no less "ethnic" than minoritie"

" A few words must be said initially about the relationship between ethnicity and "race". The term race has deliberately been placed within inverted commas in order to stress that it has dubious descriptive value. Whereas it was for some time common to divide humanity into four main races, modern genetics tends not to speak of races, and this has two main reasons. First, there has always been so much interbreeding between human populations that it would be meaningless to talk of fixed boundaries between races. Secondly, the distribution of hereditary physical traits does not follow clear boundaries. In other words, there is often greater variation within a "racial" group than there is systematic variation between two groups."

"Racism, obviously, builds on the assumption that personality is somehow linked with hereditary characteristics which differ systematically between "races", and in this way race may assume sociological importance even if it has no "objective" existence. Social scientists who study race relations in Great Britain and the United States need not themselves believe in the existence of race, since their object of study is the social and cultural relevance of the notion that race exists. In societies where they are important, ideas of race may therefore be studied as part of local discourses on ethnicity."

"Michael Banton (1967), have argued the need to distinguish between race and ethnicity. In Banton's view, race refers to the categorisation of people, while ethnicity has to do with group identification. He argues that "ethnicity is generally more concerned with the identification of 'us', while racism is more oriented to the categorisation of 'them'"

"However, ethnicity can assume many forms, and since ethnic ideologies tend to stress common descent among their members, the distinction between race and ethnicity is a problematic one, even if Banton's distinction between groups and categories can be useful. it is doubtless true that groups who look different from majorities or dominating groups may be less liable to become assimilated into the majority than others, and that it can be difficult for them to escape from their ethnic identity if they wish to. However, this may also hold good for minority groups with, say, an inadequate command of the dominant language. In both cases, their ethnic identity becomes an imperative status, an ascribed aspect of their personhood from which they cannot escape entirely. Race or skin colour as such is not the decisive variable in every society. "

"Notably, the use of the term "ethnic group" suggests contact and interrelationship. To speak of an ethnic group in total isolation is as absurd as to speak of the sound from one hand clapping (cf. Bateson, 1979: 78). By definition, ethnic groups remain more or less discrete from each other, but they are aware of - and in contact with - members of other ethnic groups."

Hence they are not one and the same but seperate and distinct.

" Ethnicity is an aspect of social relationship between agents who consider themselves as being culturally distinctive from members of other groups with whom they have a minimum of regular interaction. Ethnic groups tend to have myths of common origin, and they nearly always have ideologies encouraging endogamy"


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscegenation

"te global process of racial admixture that has taken place since the Age of Discoveries, particularly through the European colonization of the Americas and the Atlantic slave trade. "

"The Indian subcontinent has a long history of interracial marriage dating back to ancient history. Various groups of people have been intermarrying for millennia in the South Asian subcontinent, including the Dravidian, Indo-Aryan, Iranian, Austro-Asiatic and Tibeto-Burman peoples."

South Asia is only one region of the world. It is not the whole world nor is the America's or Europe.

"During the British East India Company's rule in India in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, it was initially fairly common for British officers and soldiers to take local Indian wives, and their descendants are today known as Anglo-Indians. Intermarriage was also common in Britain during the 17th to 19th centuries, when the British East India Company brought over thousands of Indian scholars, lascars and workers (mostly Bengali and/or Muslim) who settled down in Britain and took local British wives.["

The 17th century sees the first case of mixed race people in Europe.

"Interracial marriage in Southeast Asia dates back to the spread of Indian culture, including Hinduism and Buddhism, to the region. From the 1st century onwards, mostly male traders and merchants from the Indian subcontinent frequently intermarried with the local female populations in Cambodia, Burma, Champa, central Siam, the Malay Peninsula, and Malay Archipelago."

Again a local, not a global phenomenon.

"There have been various periods in the history of China where large numbers of Arabs, Persians and Turks from the "Western Regions" (Central Asia and West Asia) migrated to China, beginning with the arrival of Islam during the Tang Dynasty in the 7th century. Due to the majority of these immigrants being male, they often intermarried with local Chinese females. While intermarriage was initially discouraged by the Tang Dynasty. the Ming administration instituted a policy where all West and Central Asian males were required to intermarry with native Chinese females, hence assimilating them into the local population."

The whole point of intermarriage and genetic mixing was assimiliation into the majority ethnic group.

"nterracial marriage in Korea dates back to the arrival of Muslims in Korea during the Middle Ages,"

"Interracial sexual slavery was common in the Arab slave trade throughout the Middle Ages and early modern period, when women and girls captured from non-Arab lands often ended up as sexual slave"


"fter the Umayyad conquest of Hispania in the 8th century, the Islamic state of Al-Andalus was established in the Iberian Peninsula. Due to Islamic marital law allowing a Muslim male to marry Christian and Jewish females, it became common for Arab and Berber males from North Africa to intermarry with the local Visigothic, Suebi, Roman and Iberian females of Hispania"


"it was acceptable in Islamic marital law for a Muslim male to marry Christian and Jewish females in southern Italy when under Islamic rule between the 8th and 11th centuries"

"Their Ottoman Turkish descendants went on to annex the Balkans and much of Eastern Europe in the 15th and 16th centuries. Due to Islamic marital law allowing a Muslim male to marry Christian and Jewish females, it was common in the Ottoman Empire for Turkish males to intermarry with European females."

"Following the dispersal of Humans from Africa 50,000 - 70,000 years ago South America was the last continent to be occupied by humans. Thus the largest geographic distance between continents is between Africa and South America. Since genetic distance increases with geographic distance the two most genetically divergent groups are Africans and Native Americans based on distance"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiethnic

" few nations that today are considered ethnically homogeneous (eg Japan, North Korea, South Korea, and Poland) blend the meaning of a society, a nation, a people, and a state."

Homogenous states do exist.

"An apparent precondition for the success of a multiethnic society is the availability of a common language, as was the case in the Roman Empire, and still is the case in the U.S."

This clearly supports the argument for assimilation or at least adaptation of the majority language.

"even in the European Union, English is the lingua franca for business and scientific exchange."

As it is for most of the world.

The global history of racial mixing. The modern form of which does not extend back very far.

There are not different human races so how can 'racial ' mixing occur?





"Lucy Bates and colleagues from the University of St Andrews have found that African elephants (Loxodonta africana) can tell the difference between different human ethnic groups by smell alone."

" Bates found that elephants reacted more fearfully to clothes previously worn by a Massai man than to clean ones or those worn by a Kamba man. She placed the three types of cloth near 18 family groups and watched what happened.

When the first individual caught whiff of a new scent, it raised its head and curled its trunk towards the source of the smell. If they smelled Massai clothes, they moved away particularly fast, travelled about five times further and took more than twice as long to relax. They could clearly tell the difference between the two groups based on smell and reacted more defensively to the dangerous one. "

"In all cases, the elephants never approached within 10m of the clothes and wouldn’t have seen them. They reacted on smell alone. It’s possible that the Massai and Kamba exude different pheromones, but their distinctive scents possibly stem from their vastly contrasting cultures.

The Kamba eat meat, vegetables and maize meal. The Massai, on the other hand, subsist mainly on milk and cattle meat and their villages are suffused by the smells of their herds. They also use ochre and sheep fat for decorations. To an elephant’s sensitive trunks, the resulting smells must be as different as red and green beacons are to our eyes. "


So elephants are capable of smelling cattle shit on someone who lives closely with them - what exactly is the relevance of this startling conclusion?

So elephants are capable of smelling cattle shit on someone who lives closely with them - what exactly is the relevance of this startling conclusion?
Diet = race.

The 17th century sees the first case of mixed race people in Europe.


False.

Etruscans (mediterraneans) mixed with Italic populations, Greeks, Kelts (Indoeuropean). About 1000 years BC.
The Hunna (Huns: uraloaltaic) mixed with Italic, Kelts, Germans, Slavs (indoeuropean); around 300-400 AD.
Arabs (semitic) mixed with Italic/Greek populations of Sicily; around 1000 AD.
Vikings and Germanic populations (indoeuropean) mixed with Arab (semitic) /Italic/Greek (indoeuropean) populations of Sicily; around 1000-1200 AD.

Another long post.

Summary of post:

Animals and microbes can tell difference between ethnic groups even genetics often cannot.

*snipped*

The following link is a pdf file.

http://www.pnas.org/content/101/14/4746.full.pdf

this link shows that different ethnic groups have different stomach cultures.

The prevalence of H Pylori is a better marker of how mixed people have become than classical human genetics.

There are differences between ethnic groups that go beyond race or skin color.

*snipped*


Sorry, but you mix something up here.

Different Helicobacter pylori strains do not selectively infect different ethnic groups, but H. pylori is usually given from the mother ( and less often other family members) to the child in the first year after birth.
Thus the child carries the same strain as the mother does.
And usually the mother is of the same ethnic groups as the child.

H pylori itself infects indiscriminatingly.

How does that contradict my statement that they thought the plane was a bird???

You realize that I posted a grand total of six words, a link and a pic yeah? Seriously, responding to my question should not be a difficult challenge.

This will be a long post. I've tried to break it down.

http://www.ess.uci.edu/~oliver/silk.html A good resource for information about the history of the Silk Road.

" The region separating China from Europe and Western Asia is not the most hospitable in the world. Much of it is taken up by the Taklimakan desert, one of the most hostile environments on our planet. There is very little vegetation, and almost no rainfall; sandstorms are very common, and have claimed the lives of countless people.



The claims of the paper are no longer solid proof. The Caucasoid mummies found in the Takli Makan desert are causing re-evaluating many of the old claims. They date 1800BC.

The author probably didn't know about them as they weren't formally announced till a few years ago.

You won't listen to reality.

Oh the irony.

Because, being from Southern California, most of my friends are of Mexican heritiage and they happen to agree with me. Even Mexicans I meet on the street tend to agree with me.

I'm not racist, my friends are Mexican. I even talk to Mexicans on the street!

So you wish all the white ethnicities to die because they are all inherently evil.
What?

You object to people wanting to preserve any ethnic group, even if its not their own?

Where does it say that?

Was there a point to the rest of your post??????
It sounded like useless dribble.

Second irony burn of the post.

they get no points for that because they not only created smallpox

Epic fail.

The more I read through this thread, the more confused and amused I get.:tongue:

The global history of racial mixing. The modern form of which does not extend back very far.


What a redundant statement.

Of COURSE the 'modern' form doesn't extend back very far. That's practically the definition.


the elephant’s ability to split members of a single species into further sub-groups is a unique one.


The evidence you presented suggests that elephants can smell human DIETS, nothing to do with sub-groups or splitting species.


The 17th century sees the first case of mixed race people in Europe.


In progressively large amounts, perhaps...


Again a local, not a global phenomenon.


Actually - if the Europeans engage in the same activity globally... lots of little local phenomena becomes a global phenomenon.


Homogenous states do exist.


And the evidence you presented mentioned Japan - which has two distinct resident peoples. What exactly do you mean by homogenous, I wonder, if being homogenous isn't required for it.


This clearly supports the argument for assimilation or at least adaptation of the majority language.


Not at all. That's a false conclusion to draw from the data. It's ONE possible answer, but just as acceptable is the model a LOT of people adopt every day in this world, which is to learn how to communicate in multiple languages and dialects.

My views on Russia's reproductive program has changed in light of new data.
I found this checking Google News, my main source of world news.

From the
Internataion Herald Tribune:

" For migrants in Russia, fear swells after a killing"

"the killing was not unprecedented. It was a grim reminder of the vicious daily attacks against ethnic minorities that have become a part of daily life for the millions of migrants from the former Soviet Union who work in Russia.

Russians have turned their bitterness on the migrants

"They hate us," said Nurali Bashirov, a friend of the Azizov family, who has worked in Russia. "If a week went by without an attack, we would celebrate."

Bashirov recalled how a group of young Russian men, out of meanness, tore down a wash basin that he had built for migrants

The Azizov family was still in shock last week, and had only recently received Salohiddin's body, after days wrangling with the Russian police in Moscow.

After years of ignoring the violence against migrants, the Russian authorities have given the problem some attention recently. The prosecutor's office in the city of Yekaterinburg ordered a local construction company to pay back wages to Tajik workers, Radio Free Liberty reported this month. And on Dec. 15, a court in Moscow convicted a group of teenagers for the murder of 20 migrants, Reuters reported."

After years of ignoring the violence against migrants, the Russian authorities have given the problem some attention recently. The prosecutor's office in the city of Yekaterinburg ordered a local construction company to pay back wages to Tajik workers, Radio Free Liberty reported this month. And on Dec. 15, a court in Moscow convicted a group of teenagers for the murder of 20 migrants, Reuters reported."

It is nice they are finally getting around to addressing. But is a bit late. The fact that violence against ethnic minorities is considered normal and happens routinely in Russia, often, at the connivance of Russian police, throws quite a nice blemish on their whole "we need to breed more Russians" to keep the ethnicity alive arguement.

In light of this, there is a huge question mark on the morality of government breeding programs whose primary goal is "the preservation of the founding ethnic group."

Can't we have ethnic preservation programs with racism or xeonphobia??????
What is wrong with people these days??????

I take back what I said about the Russian program as I did not know about this other stuff that was happening when I made those comments.

Can't we have ethnic preservation programs with racism or xeonphobia??????
Erm?

Because that's what such things are about?

Diet = race.

No. What is saying is that diet=unique pheromone markers.
Your diet tends, for the most part, to depend on your ethnic culture.

I did not mean to use the term "race". I meant ethnicity. There is only one race but there are many ethnicities.

The claims of the paper are no longer solid proof. The Caucasoid mummies found in the Takli Makan desert are causing re-evaluating many of the old claims. They date 1800BC.

The author probably didn't know about them as they weren't formally announced till a few years ago.

It has long been known that caucasions and most other races actually orgiinated in that area of the world. I don't see anything new about it.
They did genetic races and proved that just about all modern races, except for the Africans, orginated in this particular area of asia.

Humans may have orginated in Africa, but modern ethnicities actually orginiated in North Western China.

No. What is saying is that diet=unique pheromone markers.
Cow shit smells like cow shit if you're Maassai or Kamba.

Do they have to be though???

Cow shit smells like cow shit if you're Maassai or Kamba.

where does it say that all the elephants are smelling is cow shit????

Both groups are around cattle. I would think that if the only the elephants were smelling was cow shit, they would not be able to differentiate between the two.

The differences in the diets of the two groups is most likely what the elephants are smelling. Your diet does determine the composition of your pheromones. If you eat meat, your pheromones will be different from someone who is a vegetarian or who eats nothing but junk food.

It has long been known that caucasions and most other races actually orgiinated in that area of the world. I don't see anything new about it.
They did genetic races and proved that just about all modern races, except for the Africans, orginated in this particular area of asia.

Humans may have orginated in Africa, but modern ethnicities actually orginiated in North Western China.

:) No these people are not from the area as their burial artifacts are different as compared to the ancient people of the area. Their artifacts are similar to those found in Europe.

Even China has admitted that they may not have been as isolated as they thought.

To China's credit, they did not destroy these mummies over some xenophobic ideal and to preserve the image of the nation that developed and grew all by itself.

Migratory capabilities kind of make it hard for Western China to be the birth place of man. They don't have the fossil record to suggest they are the birth place.....

:) No these people are not from the area as their burial artifacts are different as compared to the ancient people of the area. Their artifacts are similar to those found in Europe.

Even China has admitted that they may not have been as isolated as they thought.

To China's credit, they did not destroy these mummies over some xenophobic ideal and to preserve the image of the nation that developed and grew all by itself.

Migratory capabilities kind of make it hard for Western China to be the birth place of man. They don't have the fossil record to suggest they are the birth place.....
For some reason, every time I try to go to older pages in this thread, my browser crashes. No other threads do this. Probably, my computer is just sick of displaying USoA's nonsense. Please someone tell me that he is not trying to argue that black people and white people did not evolve together. Please.

For some reason, every time I try to go to older pages in this thread, my browser crashes. No other threads do this. Probably, my computer is just sick of displaying USoA's nonsense. Please someone tell me that he is not trying to argue that black people and white people did not evolve together. Please.

I am not sure. But I think he may be implying that diet (blacks and whites seem to eat differently, according to USoA) influences on the way you will smell. I got tired after I read that.

Does anyone think that Mr. Suits is a crackpot?

Well, yes. I don't know how the future will be, but it will be rather different from Suits' magically disappearing nations scenario. There are a lot of things that he doesn't seem to take into account. But hey, if he and his fanboys have a jolly good time believing in these amusing theories, who are we to deny them their fun?

I am not sure. But I think he may be implying that diet (blacks and whites seem to eat differently, according to USoA) influences on the way you will smell. I got tired after I read that.I lol'd. Twice.

I am not sure. But I think he may be implying that diet (blacks and whites seem to eat differently, according to USoA) influences on the way you will smell. I got tired after I read that.
Ah, I see. So my computer was right. I shouldn't read his posts. :D

Ah, I see. So my computer was right. I shouldn't read his posts. :D

That only seems reasonable. Mind you, I actually took the time to read the whole opening post. It seems like USofA likes to quote. Now if he took the time to quote something that would actually make sense, he actually might get a halfway decent response from me.

Ah, I see. So my computer was right. I shouldn't read his posts. :D

Yes, Mura-chan. Heed your computer's gut feelings. It seldom is wrong.:tongue:

I lol'd. Twice.

Yes, it made me laugh in the end. I was going to post some heated retort to USoA's delusions, but I thought the better of it. I don't want to suffer from acid reflux for the rest of the night.

For some reason, every time I try to go to older pages in this thread, my browser crashes. No other threads do this. Probably, my computer is just sick of displaying USoA's nonsense. Please someone tell me that he is not trying to argue that black people and white people did not evolve together. Please.

Dump your browser cache.

I am not sure his stance is the white man is separate. Could be but I try to look past that if there is a semblance of an anthropological discussion. I tend to avoid supremacists as they will never learn.

There is a batch of people that have argued that man may have developed in a couple spots. The field argues all the time. For example, where does Neanderthal fall in the hominid scheme? Many argue he is our ancestor while many (myself included) argue that he was an offshoot. We romanticize the Neanderthal as we like the image of him fighting nature and running down Mammoths.

Even the mentioned "Hobbit" bones on Borneo offer and interesting question. They say they found seven skeletons so its not as if it was a freak of nature(ie only one). The only problem was that there was limited digging and some of the early tests suggest they are older then mans appearance on the island. As such there is a batch of people that argue they are an offshoot of the Orangutan.

You have to look at where the questions go. It's a question to argue that Africa was not the birth place especially if you can find unexplainable creatures like the Hobbits. But the onus does remain to build more evidence and offer lineages, etc.....

Now off of this tangent.... the argument of babies and saving "ethic" cultures can be argued as examples of supremacy.

As to the previous eating comments. There is some validity to eating having an effect(I must admit to not reading the previous thread posts about this.) Take a piece of meat and throw some sugar on it and it will darken. Makes you wonder what your insides will look like. :eek:

Dump your browser cache.
No. *stamps foot petulantly* Especially not so I can just go back and read his posts.

I am not sure his stance is the white man is separate. Could be but I try to look past that if there is a semblance of an anthropological discussion. I tend to avoid supremacists as they will never learn.
Then why bother discussing anthropology with them? You must know that they never say anything unless it's to grind their pet axe.

There is a batch of people that have argued that man may have developed in a couple spots. The field argues all the time. For example, where does Neanderthal fall in the hominid scheme? Many argue he is our ancestor while many (myself included) argue that he was an offshoot. We romanticize the Neanderthal as we like the image of him fighting nature and running down Mammoths.
I am aware of that. I'm also aware that it has nothing to do with anything in this conversation, though...

Even the mentioned "Hobbit" bones on Borneo offer and interesting question. They say they found seven skeletons so its not as if it was a freak of nature(ie only one). The only problem was that there was limited digging and some of the early tests suggest they are older then mans appearance on the island. As such there is a batch of people that argue they are an offshoot of the Orangutan.
Uh-huh... a small batch of odd-looking bones that some people are arguing over... and this adds what to the conversation?

You have to look at where the questions go. It's a question to argue that Africa was not the birth place especially if you can find unexplainable creatures like the Hobbits. But the onus does remain to build more evidence and offer lineages, etc.....
Right. So Hobbits are not from Africa. But where are the Ewoks from? What the hell are you talking about, and why are you talking about it?

EDIT: No, on second thought, don't answer that. That's a threadjack I don't want to enable.

Now off of this tangent.... the argument of babies and saving "ethic" cultures can be argued as examples of supremacy.
Yes, of course. That much is not only true in most cases, it is obviously true in the case of the poster in question.

As to the previous eating comments. There is some validity to eating having an effect(I must admit to not reading the previous thread posts about this.) Take a piece of meat and throw some sugar on it and it will darken. Makes you wonder what your insides will look like. :eek:
Another big "no shit, Sherlock." The only question I would have in regards to it is why the poster in question bothered to bring it up at all, but then I remember what else that poster has posted and I guess I can figure it out.

Americans are not producing more Americans.
Immigration keeps the numbers positive, and barley at that.

First, as modernity spreads to non-Western cultures, it is more than likely that world's population as a whole will go down, which may in fact be a good thing.

Second, if African-Americans can be obsessed with their culture, I am safe being in love with my culture. Honestly, does any other culture match Western Culture in its love for the individual and its dynamism.

Third, the problem with the modern world is not so much the decline of White populations. It is the tendency of dumb people to have more kids than smart people. Multiply this by millions, and you get a dumbing down of the human population at a time when we need smart people to maintain a large percentage of our populations, and I see problems.

Finally, out of sheer greed I want my genetic code to survive. Therefore, I hope to have at least four kids, despite abortionists. Anybody who scorns women having kids is going against millenia of respect for motherhood among Christians and Pagans alike. Personally, I think its sad that so many people don't care about having kids. I understand the population crisis, but I just wish it were the stupid people whose code were dying off and not the intelligent people.

First, as modernity spreads to non-Western cultures, it is more than likely that world's population as a whole will go down, which may in fact be a good thing.
This is likely true.

Second, if African-Americans can be obsessed with their culture, I am safe being in love with my culture. Honestly, does any other culture match Western Culture in its love for the individual and its dynamism.
Me too. Of course, MY culture is the one full of people who AREN'T self-absorbed, wannabe-elitist asshats who go on and on about ethnicity and culture and such shit and how good it is to be proud of it as if they are an example of its super-great-iosity, when in fact all they really mean is that their only claim to niftiness is either something they have no control over or something somebody else did.

Third, the problem with the modern world is not so much the decline of White populations. It is the tendency of dumb people to have more kids than smart people. Multiply this by millions, and you get a dumbing down of the human population at a time when we need smart people to maintain a large percentage of our populations, and I see problems.
Well, I hate to break it to you, but in fact, the dumb population has always outnumbered the smart population by several orders of magnitude, and nothing is going to change that. I sometimes think that stupid is to humans as rabies is to raccoons -- endemic in the population, and when our numbers get truly unsustainable, it triggers a big die-off. I'm just waiting for the dumb-bomb to go off again.

Finally, out of sheer greed I want my genetic code to survive. Therefore, I hope to have at least four kids, despite abortionists.
You mean those gangs of abortionists who follow you around in those black vans, "fixing" all the women you get drunk so they'll let you bang them without a condom? :rolleyes:

Also, start your own abortion thread if you want to spout BS about that.

Anybody who scorns women having kids is going against millenia of respect for motherhood among Christians and Pagans alike. Personally, I think its sad that so many people don't care about having kids. I understand the population crisis, but I just wish it were the stupid people whose code were dying off and not the intelligent people.
Complaint about dumb people reproducing...followed by bizarre abortion remarks...concluded with another dumb people lament. (EDIT: And don't forget the bitch against abortion in the same post with the prediction that populations will go down in developing nations as they modernize. Oh, yes.)

Such sweet, sweet irony. I can almost feel it rotting my teeth, it's so sweet.

No. *stamps foot petulantly* Especially not so I can just go back and read his posts.


Then why bother discussing anthropology with them? You must know that they never say anything unless it's to grind their pet axe.


People like that should be confronted all the time....


I am aware of that. I'm also aware that it has nothing to do with anything in this conversation, though...


Uh-huh... a small batch of odd-looking bones that some people are arguing over... and this adds what to the conversation?


Tidbits of knowledge and I like to hear myself talk. Besides. Somebody might be curious enough to look them up and learn something.

Right. So Hobbits are not from Africa. But where are the Ewoks from? What the hell are you talking about, and why are you talking about it?

EDIT: No, on second thought, don't answer that. That's a threadjack I don't want to enable.

Stating a fact. The out of Africa hypothesis not fully accepted. People arguing the other are not actually racists. Hard to believe isn't it?


Yes, of course. That much is not only true in most cases, it is obviously true in the case of the poster in question.


Another big "no shit, Sherlock." The only question I would have in regards to it is why the poster in question bothered to bring it up at all, but then I remember what else that poster has posted and I guess I can figure it out.

Only he can answer that....

First, *snip*
Meh.

Second, *snip*
Meh.

Third, the problem with the modern world is not so much the decline of White populations. It is the tendency of dumb people to have more kids than smart people. Multiply this by millions, and you get a dumbing down of the human population at a time when we need smart people to maintain a large percentage of our populations, and I see problems.
Hmmm. Maybe we should not allow the "dumb" people to breed!

Finally, out of sheer greed I want my genetic code to survive. Therefore, I hope to have at least four kids, despite abortionists.

Whoops if you want four kids, then ignore the previous comment.

Anybody who scorns women having kids is going against millenia of respect for motherhood among Christians and Pagans alike.

Ahh what?

Personally, I think its sad that so many people don't care about having kids. I understand the population crisis, but I just wish it were the stupid people whose code were dying off and not the intelligent people.

Yeaaaaaa. You might want to think about that a few dozen times.

Second, if African-Americans can be obsessed with their culture, I am safe being in love with my culture. Honestly, does any other culture match Western Culture in its love for the individual and its dynamism.


Which could also be described as a refusal to learn from mistakes, and a hatred for society...

This 'Western culture' you refer to is far from perfect. If it's your whore, that's well and good, but you only think it's a good fuck because you haven't had a good fuck.

Since Skynet sure takes its time to take things over, I'm putting my trust in the wonders of biotechnology. We can make humanity better! Why trust faulty organic wombs when the genetically perfect homo sapiens 2.0 could be efficiently grown and even upgraded in advanced biotech factories? Hail the new breed!

People like that should be confronted all the time....
Certainly. I was just mildly, temporarily curious why you said you avoid them on all other topics, but engage them on anthropology.

Tidbits of knowledge and I like to hear myself talk. Besides. Somebody might be curious enough to look them up and learn something.
Oh, okay.

Stating a fact. The out of Africa hypothesis not fully accepted. People arguing the other are not actually racists. Hard to believe isn't it?
Not, really, no. Actually, it's very easy to tell when someone is arguing a point from a racist perspective and when they're not.

Only he can answer that....
You think so?

They're makin Babies over there? :confused:

:) No these people are not from the area as their burial artifacts are different as compared to the ancient people of the area. Their artifacts are similar to those found in Europe.

Even China has admitted that they may not have been as isolated as they thought.

To China's credit, they did not destroy these mummies over some xenophobic ideal and to preserve the image of the nation that developed and grew all by itself.

Migratory capabilities kind of make it hard for Western China to be the birth place of man. They don't have the fossil record to suggest they are the birth place.....

In the last part of the post you qouted, I said the human race was born in Africa. It was the modern diversity of ethnic groups that originated in North West China. They figured this out when they did the genetic studies of the various ethnic migratory patterns for Caucasions, Europeans, Arabs, Jews, Polynesians, and Native Americans. The genetic patterns all go back to an area in North West China, implying that the Chinese may have been the first to diversify. They in turn evolved from the Africans.

Or so it seems.

For some reason, every time I try to go to older pages in this thread, my browser crashes. No other threads do this. Probably, my computer is just sick of displaying USoA's nonsense. Please someone tell me that he is not trying to argue that black people and white people did not evolve together. Please.

What do you mean by evolve together???? Evolve simultaneously???

We don't know that. In fact, we don't even know which group came first. What I said in the other post about Chinese coming from Africans was 100% speculation and likely to be wrong. It is possible that the Chinese were the first ethnic group. That they originated in Africa and then moved to the area of present China and that the Africans came later, evolvling from the Chinese who stayed behind. Just as the all the other ethnic groups appear to have evolved from Chinese living in North West China. Though I'm sure that modern chinese did not exist during that evolutionary stage but the precursors to them.

I am not sure. But I think he may be implying that diet (blacks and whites seem to eat differently, according to USoA) influences on the way you will smell. I got tired after I read that.

Not exactly. In the US blacks and whites tend to eat the same things depending on what of the country or state they live in.
Also, most Americans, for example, tend to shower twice to three times a day and that eliminates their natural scents.

Ironically when you do that you also wash away your pheromones, meaning you have to work harder to find a mate.

That might explain why Americans are obsessed with using cancer causing artificial scents like perfumes and colognes and the like.

No. *stamps foot petulantly* Especially not so I can just go back and read his posts.


Then why bother discussing anthropology with them? You must know that they never say anything unless it's to grind their pet axe.


I am aware of that. I'm also aware that it has nothing to do with anything in this conversation, though...


Uh-huh... a small batch of odd-looking bones that some people are arguing over... and this adds what to the conversation?


Right. So Hobbits are not from Africa. But where are the Ewoks from? What the hell are you talking about, and why are you talking about it?

EDIT: No, on second thought, don't answer that. That's a threadjack I don't want to enable.


Yes, of course. That much is not only true in most cases, it is obviously true in the case of the poster in question.


Another big "no shit, Sherlock." The only question I would have in regards to it is why the poster in question bothered to bring it up at all, but then I remember what else that poster has posted and I guess I can figure it out.

They are valid to the discussion because they rebut your bad assumption that all people are 100% the same.
People are not the same. In the same way, ethnic groups are not all the same.
I don't understand why you don't like diveristy. Why do you want everything to be the same?

Do you not understand that as humans mix more and more, the gene pool of the species stagnates. Do you know what that means?

Let me try to explain it this way:

At the dawn of civilization, the human race had 2 billion genes. With local mixing between peoples, that was reduced to say 1 billion. As the mixing continues, the genetic variety pool decreases.
With todays rate of intermixing, there are probably less than a million genetic differences still available. That means human evolution becomes stunted. Evolutionary anthropoligists are already saying that humans have stopped evolving.
What happens to a species that stops evolving???? Total Extinction.
Then again, I'm not convinced you care very much about the survival of the human race as a whole.

Even if we are unable to preserve ethnic groups, we must do something to preserve the genetic diversity. Otherwise we are all doomed as a species and going up into space will not help.

By race, I am referring to what scientist call our species. Ethnic groups are a subdivision of that species, just as you have different breeds of dogs. Just because one breed can have offspring with another breed does not mean that pure breeds are not valuable or that they are not needed as a part of the whole.
The blacks can't survive without the whites and the whites cannot survive without the blacks. You take away one domino from the house of dominos (or let it evaporate into the night) the whole house of dominoes collapses.

I hope that helps.

First, as modernity spreads to non-Western cultures, it is more than likely that world's population as a whole will go down, which may in fact be a good thing.

Second, if African-Americans can be obsessed with their culture, I am safe being in love with my culture. Honestly, does any other culture match Western Culture in its love for the individual and its dynamism.

Third, the problem with the modern world is not so much the decline of White populations. It is the tendency of dumb people to have more kids than smart people. Multiply this by millions, and you get a dumbing down of the human population at a time when we need smart people to maintain a large percentage of our populations, and I see problems.

Finally, out of sheer greed I want my genetic code to survive. Therefore, I hope to have at least four kids, despite abortionists. Anybody who scorns women having kids is going against millenia of respect for motherhood among Christians and Pagans alike. Personally, I think its sad that so many people don't care about having kids. I understand the population crisis, but I just wish it were the stupid people whose code were dying off and not the intelligent people.
I agree with all that. Too bad, most smart people see a stigma in bearing children. Also muslims and buddhists and jews also cherish child bearing.

I don't mean to stereotype but what I've seen is that it tends to be white americans and white west european intellectual elites who frown on child bearing as if it was a bad thing.
Look at the derision leveled at Britney Spears sister and Sarah Palins daughters for example. Just because they chose not have their babies, instead of aborting them, in their late teens, all of a sudden they're considered evil and the worst of role models. First of all, since when is it anyone's buinsess what any woman, teen or adult, does with the life that is in her body? If pro choice people really thought that women had a private choice to choose, they would not have gone after those two girls to demonize them. for not choosing abortion.

Ok, I think I'm done with my side rant.

Certainly. I was just mildly, temporarily curious why you said you avoid them on all other topics, but engage them on anthropology.


Oh, okay.


Not, really, no. Actually, it's very easy to tell when someone is arguing a point from a racist perspective and when they're not.


You think so?

Are you sure you can tell the difference between someone speaking from a cultural anthropology perspective and someone speaking out of pure racism? That ideology of race discussions equalling racism is not blinding you much????

Anthropologically, I've seen no evidence that one group is better than another. In fact, no where have I argued that. In fact, I have not only faulted particular groups but I have faulted all groups equally.
Do you mean to imply that mixed race persons are superior to nonmixed persons????
Because you seem obsessed with it.

You never were able to convince that breeding programs to preserve ethnic groups was necessarily a bad thing. It took Grave, Blackforest and my stumbling upon that International Tribune article to cause me to realize that in a lot of cases such a program can have dark reasons behind them.

I keep reading your posts to find useful valid information but I keep coming up empty.

In the last part of the post you qouted, I said the human race was born in Africa. It was the modern diversity of ethnic groups that originated in North West China. They figured this out when they did the genetic studies of the various ethnic migratory patterns for Caucasions, Europeans, Arabs, Jews, Polynesians, and Native Americans. The genetic patterns all go back to an area in North West China, implying that the Chinese may have been the first to diversify. They in turn evolved from the Africans.

Or so it seems.

Ahh but you have implied a unique isolated people in China and I have shown you that European interaction happened over a 1000 years then you mentioned on your dates with the silk road.

Even then with your premise that people migrated all the way to Western China, diversified and then migrated all the way back doesn't make sense.

You might want to post some links of these studies.

What do you mean by evolve together???? Evolve simultaneously???

We don't know that. In fact, we don't even know which group came first. What I said in the other post about Chinese coming from Africans was 100% speculation and likely to be wrong. It is possible that the Chinese were the first ethnic group. That they originated in Africa and then moved to the area of present China and that the Africans came later, evolvling from the Chinese who stayed behind.


Again the mummies of the desert kind toss that idea into the trash.

Just as the all the other ethnic groups appear to have evolved from Chinese living in North West China. Though I'm sure that modern chinese did not exist during that evolutionary stage but the precursors to them.

At most the Chinese were an offshoot just like everybody else.....

Not exactly. In the US blacks and whites tend to eat the same things depending on what of the country or state they live in.
Also, most Americans, for example, tend to shower twice to three times a day and that eliminates their natural scents.


Actually that depends on where you live the the time of year.


Ironically when you do that you also wash away your pheromones, meaning you have to work harder to find a mate.


Pheromones are only part of the equation. Our sense of smell declined long before modern plumbing.

Physical characteristics come into play. Body language, conversation, etc. Smells are a bonus.


That might explain why Americans are obsessed with using cancer causing artificial scents like perfumes and colognes and the like.

More programming then a subconscious need. It's a billion dollar industry guiding this. But women have been doing this for centuries....

What do you mean by evolve together???? Evolve simultaneously???

We don't know that. In fact, we don't even know which group came first. What I said in the other post about Chinese coming from Africans was 100% speculation and likely to be wrong. It is possible that the Chinese were the first ethnic group. That they originated in Africa and then moved to the area of present China and that the Africans came later, evolvling from the Chinese who stayed behind. Just as the all the other ethnic groups appear to have evolved from Chinese living in North West China. Though I'm sure that modern chinese did not exist during that evolutionary stage but the precursors to them.
If you notice a point to all this passing by, try to grab it, will you? I'm sure it will be interesting.

They are valid to the discussion because they rebut your bad assumption that all people are 100% the same.
A) Which color pills do you take -- the blue ones or the red ones -- that give you these bizarre notions of what you think I'm saying in this thread?

B) How many do you have to take to give yourself the idea that you can read my mind, and therefore know what assumptions I have in my mind in order to make the arguments that you imagine I've been posting?

C) How sleep deprived on top of all that do you have to be to get the impression that you're going to fool me into thinking that I ever said any of the shit you've been accusing me of saying?

D) And finally, how long are you going to keep this up before you figure out that I'm not going to dance to your little tune, nor try to defend arguments I never made?

:rolleyes:

People are not the same. In the same way, ethnic groups are not all the same.
I don't understand why you don't like diveristy. Why do you want everything to be the same?
See above.

Do you not understand that as humans mix more and more, the gene pool of the species stagnates. Do you know what that means?
That you need to get more sleep and maybe switch to decaf?

Also that I was wrong. It turns out you actually are a racist, not just a xenophobe.

Let me try to explain it this way:

At the dawn of civilization, <snip>

I hope that helps.
*sorry, I was laughing too hard. Could you repeat that, only in pig-latin this time?

Are you sure you can tell the difference between someone speaking from a cultural anthropology perspective and someone speaking out of pure racism?
Yes, I can.

That ideology of race discussions equalling racism is not blinding you much????
Yes, I'm sure of that because that is just something you dreamed up.

Anthropologically, I've seen no evidence that one group is better than another. In fact, no where have I argued that. In fact, I have not only faulted particular groups but I have faulted all groups equally.
Do you mean to imply that mixed race persons are superior to nonmixed persons????
Because you seem obsessed with it.
Only in your imagination. Your obsessively vivid fantasies about me are starting to become disturbing.

You never were able to convince that breeding programs to preserve ethnic groups was necessarily a bad thing.
I never tried to.

It took Grave, Blackforest and my stumbling upon that International Tribune article to cause me to realize that in a lot of cases such a program can have dark reasons behind them.
I see, so now you're criticizing me for not duplicating work that was already done in the thread?

I keep reading your posts to find useful valid information but I keep coming up empty.
Well, you know, there's no rule that says you have to read them. No need for you to bother trying, really, since apparently you aren't anyway. At least, you keep seeing things in them that are not there.

I agree with all that. Too bad, most smart people see a stigma in bearing children. Also muslims and buddhists and jews also cherish child bearing.


So muslims, buddists, and jews are dumb people?

I wish I could understand why conservatives have declared intelligence to be a bad thing these days.

There is no stigma to having children. The lifestyle and the advancements in medicine have lessened the needs for many children. Many children is not a good thing. The world has only so much resources.

I don't mean to stereotype but what I've seen is that it tends to be white americans and white west european intellectual elites who frown on child bearing as if it was a bad thing.

It is a sterotype and you lesson your intellectual standing by using the trite conservative phrase of "intellectual elite" Intelligence and education is a good thing.


Look at the derision leveled at Britney Spears sister

Teen pregnancy is a good thing?

and Sarah Palins daughters for example.

That was because mom was spouting of on morality and being superior to the big city "intellectual elites."

Bad examples you have there. Especially since the largest group in poverty are single unwed mothers.....

That Just because they chose not have their babies, instead of aborting them, in their late teens, all of a sudden they're considered evil and the worst of role models.


Yes they are bad examples because they have access to many many young girls.

Women should be having children.

First of all, since when is it anyone's buinsess what any woman, teen or adult, does with the life that is in her body?

Women. Absolutely. Teens arguable.

If pro choice people really thought that women had a private choice to choose, they would not have gone after those two girls to demonize them. for not choosing abortion.


I challenge your claim that pro-choice people screamed those children should have been aborted. Prove it.

<snip>

I challenge your claim that pro-choice people screamed those children should have been aborted. Prove it.
I would also like to see proof of this.

Also, I would point out that neither Britney Spears' sister nor Sarah Palin's daughter were the object of moral criticism.

Rather, Sarah Palin was the object of criticism for the hypocritical discrepancy between her position re her daughter's situation and her position re other people's lives. It was the mother being criticized, not the pregnant daughter.

And the story of Britney Spears' sister was treated as just an example of how screwed up the entire Spears family appears to be, and was treated as a ghoulish kind of entertainment, like an unstaged episode of the Jerry Springer show. The media's treatment of that story was prurient and distasteful, but it was hardly moralistic nor particularly critical of the girl.

Are you sure you can tell the difference between someone speaking from a cultural anthropology perspective and someone speaking out of pure racism? That ideology of race discussions equalling racism is not blinding you much????

Anthropologically, I've seen no evidence that one group is better than another. In fact, no where have I argued that. In fact, I have not only faulted particular groups but I have faulted all groups equally.
Do you mean to imply that mixed race persons are superior to nonmixed persons????
Because you seem obsessed with it.

You never were able to convince that breeding programs to preserve ethnic groups was necessarily a bad thing. It took Grave, Blackforest and my stumbling upon that International Tribune article to cause me to realize that in a lot of cases such a program can have dark reasons behind them.

I keep reading your posts to find useful valid information but I keep coming up empty.

Interesting, given that "anthropologically speaking," race exists only as a socio-political construct. See, e.g., American Anthropological Association Statement on "Race" (http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm)

Interesting, given that "anthropologically speaking," race exists only as a socio-political construct. See, e.g., American Anthropological Association Statement on "Race" (http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm)


Sorry the intellectual elite are not supposed to reply!