The Guardian's 'we hate white people' agenda backfires spectacularly today...

Wibbs · 09-05-2017 02:54PM

ScumLord wrote: »

How do you mean not direct? Neanderthals came out of Africa too

Nope they didn't. Yes their progenitors(likely Homo Erectus) originated in Africa but that was around a million years ago when they made it into Europe. They continued to evolve and they're a European/Eurasian species of humans. One could argue that way back when we all originally came from the sea, that doesn't make us fish.

and if the genes are showing up in modern humans then they breed with Africans to make the hybrid don't they?

Outside of Africa. Regardless this doesn't take away from my point. That is that one can see a suite of features both genetically and physically between the different populations that we define as "race".

Like you point out, the problem with the word "race" is that it comes with so much horrible history. It's been associated with culture a good few times by people that stained history with pure bigotry.

It does and it has. However hiding our head in the sand and claiming we're all identical and different populations don't exist, just to appease some guilt about previous ills is beyond daft too.

I don't see race as something very defined, if you stood me next to an African black man we'd look very different, but we're opposite ends of a spectrum (I'm too white, could do with some of that melanin stuff).

It's not very defined in areas of geographical overlap and areas of more recent colonisation like the New World, but populations can be pretty well defined.

Would it be fair to say that human race is the same thing as dog breeds?

Not really. Dogs are narrow in diversity though they differ more among each other, than they differ from their ancestor the Grey Wolf. And that difference is tiny. 0.3% IIRC. Humans seem more and more to differ than the previously held notion that we were extremely narrow in genetic diversity. On the surface it looked that way, because we suffered a few genetic bottlenecks along the way and many lines died off. However, since they've isolated the genetic info of our archaic cousins and found different levels of same among modern humans that's asking new questions. If I stand beside a lad from say Angola I have up to 4% non African DNA, DNA he doesn't have. This stuff is coding DNA too. Because of that ancestry I have immune system differences that he won't have and vice versa. If we both stand next to a Papuan lad he could have closer to 10% non African DNA going on. And African's themselves show strong indications of other archaic in the mix. And that's what we've found so far. It's very early days yet.

As I said I would bet that if we were any other mammal species we would be divided into broad subspecies of each other(and I would see it that way myself). There are happily defined subspecies out there among animals and plants that are far more alike genetically and physically than the amazing range found in modern Humans.

NinjaKirby wrote: »

The "new" definition of racism makes little sense outside of America but we seem to adopt so many American ways of thinking so here we are...

Pretty much this.

ScumLord · 09-05-2017 03:34PM

Wibbs wrote: »

Nope they didn't. Yes their progenitors(likely Homo Erectus) originated in Africa but that was around a million years ago when they made it into Europe. They continued to evolve and they're a European/Eurasian species of humans. One could argue that way back when we all originally came from the sea, that doesn't make us fish.

I would have seen it as hominids (is that the right term??) evolved in Africa due to environmental conditions there, forrest's turning into plans forcing our ancestors to change into upright walking apes and then they spread out from there. That was the crucial point in history that lead to all the upright walking apes. We would all be diversified versions of that tropical ape. I know you see the differences in different human populations as significant but I don't really, I still see them as minor adaptations the differences between a black human and a white human almost disappear when they interbreed. We still share a lot of basic behaviour to the point two humans separated by tens of thousands of years would be able to interact and understand each other with only different cultural memes creating communication obstacles.

That original adaptation was so good that it allowed those apes to spread like wildfire. No significant change happened since then that would mean two different subspecies of human couldn't interbreed and produce viable offspring which is why we have the likes of neanderthal showing up in our DNA to this day. Neanderthals didn't so much go extinct as get reabsorbed into the global human population.

I suppose we are in a new age of learning now thanks to DNA, what we thought we knew was sort of wrong.

If I translate my thinking into into car models, we're still a Ford mondeo, African Mondeos might have a different bodykit on them, Asian mondeos have a better sound system, European mondeos come with a bigger engine but it's still a mondeo and all the parts are still interchangeable.

Glenster · 09-05-2017 04:19PM

Wibbs wrote: »

I'd love to hear an explanation of how culture can influence both a phenotype and a genotype.

I think the point he was making and the generally accepted point across all of academia is that;

Yes there are differences between peoples that can allow populations to separated into 'races', but when you examine the differences that are used to make that distinction there is not a clear genetic divide.

Which makes sense on the basis that there wasn't knowledge of genetic makeup until the 20th century, though people before that identified themselves as being in specific 'races'.

Wibbs · 09-05-2017 04:38PM

Glenster wrote: »

I think the point he was making and the generally accepted point across all of academia is that;

Yes there are differences between peoples that can allow populations to separated into 'races', but when you examine the differences that are used to make that distinction there is not a clear genetic divide.

But there is a clear enough distinction. With some fuzzy edges in geographical/historical overlaps that I mentioned previously. If you take a DNA sample from a native of Asia, Europe, Africa, Oceania, Australia, you can pin them down geographically, sometimes to quite a local position. Even within these areas you can apply the same techniques to narrow things down. And that's before the very clear distinctions when we throw archaic admixture into things.

Which makes sense on the basis that there wasn't knowledge of genetic makeup until the 20th century, though people before that identified themselves as being in specific 'races'.

And the genetic knowledge turned out to follow the 19th century notion of "race" pretty well. In the broad strokes anyway.

By the way, I like that we are more diverse. If we weren't we wouldn't have gotten to where we are today and this diversity will likely prove useful in the future with it. Though some seem to think it something to aspire to I would hate to have a world of beige people all interrelated. It would reduce the human story immeasurably.

Glenster · 09-05-2017 04:41PM

Wibbs wrote: »

But there is a clear enough distinction.

I suppose it comes down to that.

I'm willing to believe the dude I quoted earlier on who says there isn't. He seems like he'd know what he's talking about.

pumpkin4life · 09-05-2017 05:01PM

Wibbs wrote: »

But there is a clear enough distinction. With some fuzzy edges in geographical/historical overlaps that I mentioned previously. If you take a DNA sample from a native of Asia, Europe, Africa, Oceania, Australia, you can pin them down geographically, sometimes to quite a local position. Even within these areas you can apply the same techniques to narrow things down. And that's before the very clear distinctions when we throw archaic admixture into things.

And the genetic knowledge turned out to follow the 19th century notion of "race" pretty well. In the broad strokes anyway.

By the way, I like that we are more diverse. If we weren't we wouldn't have gotten to where we are today and this diversity will likely prove useful in the future with it. Though some seem to think it something to aspire to I would hate to have a world of beige people all interrelated. It would reduce the human story immeasurably.

Race is a social construct is true in so far as the periodic table is a social construct: it is telling you something meaningful and observable about reality, people and how you differentiate people from each other.

In reality, genetic analysis can separate human populations into distinct groups. This works at the level of continental groups or even ethnic groups within a continent (or even groups within an ethnicity).

This genetic analysis feeds into diseases, environmental adaptions, IQ, medical treatment and so on.

09-05-2017 05:06PM

Biggest lickspittle on boardz wrote: »

virtue signalling

What?

topper75 · 09-05-2017 05:16PM

I'm a nice person cos I want to take in refugees.
And pay for them with other people's money.
Very virtuous. A saint.

Wibbs · 09-05-2017 09:14PM

Glenster wrote: »

I'm willing to believe the dude I quoted earlier on who says there isn't. He seems like he'd know what he's talking about.

It doesn't require much in the way of knowledge of the area. The genetics are pretty plain to even the most cursory glance of inquiry. This is also the guy who claimed that by looking at his DNA you couldn't tell if he was blue eyed. A complete nonsense and a worse nonsense for a geneticist to come out with. Blue eyes are a genetically inheritable characteristic, Gregor Mendel could have told you that back in the 19th century. So they have to be in the genes. Hell, we can dig up ancient bones, extract DNA and tell if the person had blue or brown eyes. We can tell that Neandertals likely had pale skin and some had red hair(though a different form of the gene to that in modern humans)*.

Going by some of his other quotes I googled it seems he's in the croup of "popular scientists" that come out with simplistic quotes that are aimed to gel with National Geographic audiences that don't like complex answers, or worse complex questions.

This goes double for US researchers in this kinda area. And for obvious reasons, given how people of colour have been and continue to be fcuked over in that culture. The "we're all Africans and we're all the same" is a nice, safe and indeed welcome idea to promote and it's mostly true and most certainly true in a mixed population environment like US demographics. However in the rest of the world it's far more nuanced and easy answers don't fit that well. I'd bet the farm that this guy's quote came hot on the heels of the initial all Out of Africa genetic results.

If I meet a lad from Zimbabwe, my DNA has 3.8% of code that came from a different subspecies of human, code he will not have(he in turn will have his own bits of code that I won't possess). A lad from Oceania could have up to 10% of genes from at least two different subspecies of humans compared to me and the Zimbabwean lad. If my DNA was scanned you can be sure it is almost certainly going to come back as European, probably pale, with some ginger, likely north western. A CT scan of my skull would confirm it and no way would you mistake me for a Polynesian. Certain populations, ones that have had more of a focus of study on them can show distinctive markers that tie them to a particular population, even ethnic group. Some Jewish populations for example are pretty easy to tag under such studies. Hell, only relatively recently in Ireland some have suggested that many Travelers have a suite of genes that mark them out as slightly different to the background population, suggesting a split and subsequent distance from that population a few centuries ago. Apparently that's somehow more "acceptable" than a Nigerian lad suggesting he's a different population to me.

Going forward I guarantee we'll be able to narrow an individuals population and ancestry history to an even finer degree. And I'll further bet that in populations with low enough back and forth admixture they'll be able to pop them into the general populations that we once defined as "race". I don't like "race" myself. It's too wooly a term and there's more nuance going on and more complexity. We're all the same Africans is just as wooly a notion. You don't replace one daftness for another, no matter how conveniently fashionable it seems at the time.

*it seems that because of their geographical range and over time they ranged from tanned to pale depending. Blue eyes seem less likely even though commonly added of late to reconstructions. Well since we realised we related to them, they've been got a PR makeover.

red ears · 09-05-2017 09:17PM

Wibbs wrote: »

. Though some seem to think it something to aspire to I would hate to have a world of beige people all interrelated. It would reduce the human story immeasurably.

I agree, not much diversity if we all end up looking the same in a 1000 years.

LordSutch · 09-05-2017 10:28PM

As somebody who has lived & worked in Britain I can identify with people who trip over themselves when it comes to ethnic distinction & sensitivities within " these islands " (notice I didn't say British Isles).

A small group of islands full of British people, 65 million of them, including many from this island ..... then you have Irish people who feel desperately offended if an 'uninformed' British journalist misses the distinction between being Irish & British or Irish without being British.

To many British people, Irish, British, Scottish, Welsh, and English people from all regions are all home grown & interchangeable as one homogenous group. Ireland is seen as culturally & geographically part of these islands and part of this group ... which it is.

Dare I suggest, some Irish people take great offence when none is intended.

Wibbs · 09-05-2017 11:04PM

LordSutch wrote: »

To many British people, Irish, British, Scottish, Welsh, and English people from all regions are all home grown & interchangeable as one homogenous group. Ireland is seen as culturally & geographically part of these islands and part of this group ... which it is.

I mostly take "offence" at ignorance itself, such as you seem wont to exhibit, oft painfully, as in this case, to make whatever point you're peddling around this subject(we get it, it's grand, carry on, God save the Hanovers, what what). I take far less offence, if any, at the ignorant as individuals. The best I can usually muster is a somewhat studied Meh.

LordSutch · 09-05-2017 11:18PM

As I said.....

"an 'uninformed' British journalist misses the distinction between being Irish & British or Irish without being British."

Many British people are not aware (or are ignorant) of the distinction. To many British people Ireland and the Irish are as close as the Scots, Geordie's or the Welsh!

steddyeddy · 09-05-2017 11:22PM

LordSutch wrote: »

As somebody who has lived & worked in Britain I can identify with people who trip over themselves when it comes to ethnic distinction & sensitivities within " these islands " (notice I didn't say British Isles).

A small group of islands full of British people, 65 million of them, including many from this island ..... then you have Irish people who feel desperately offended if an 'uninformed' British journalist misses the distinction between being Irish & British or Irish without being British.

To many British people, Irish, British, Scottish, Welsh, and English people from all regions are all home grown & interchangeable as one homogenous group. Ireland is seen as culturally & geographically part of these islands and part of this group ... which it is.

Dare I suggest, some Irish people take great offence when none is intended.

As I mentioned earlier try calling a unionist exclusively Irish. Try calling a Scot English Also as someone living in England I can safely say we're quite different in culture. Dare I suggest the Brexit vote suggests we're less isolationist than Britain.

steddyeddy · 09-05-2017 11:24PM

LordSutch wrote: »

As I said.....

"an 'uninformed' British journalist misses the distinction between being Irish & British or Irish without being British."

Many British people are not aware (or are ignorant) of the distinction. To many British people Ireland and the Irish are as close as the Scots, Geordie's or the Welsh!

English more than British mate. It's the education system and a culture of looking inward. See Brexit.

Sweetemotion · 09-05-2017 11:25PM

LordSutch wrote: »

As somebody who has lived & worked in Britain I can identify with people who trip over themselves when it comes to ethnic distinction & sensitivities within " these islands " (notice I didn't say British Isles).

A small group of islands full of British people, 65 million of them, including many from this island ..... then you have Irish people who feel desperately offended if an 'uninformed' British journalist misses the distinction between being Irish & British or Irish without being British.

To many British people, Irish, British, Scottish, Welsh, and English people from all regions are all home grown & interchangeable as one homogenous group. Ireland is seen as culturally & geographically part of these islands and part of this group ... which it is.

Dare I suggest, some Irish people take great offence when none is intended.

Meh.

You seem to take great offence, not being labeled British.

Works both ways.

Dyr · 09-05-2017 11:28PM

LordSutch wrote: »

Many British people are not aware (or are ignorant) of the distinction. To many British people Ireland and the Irish are as close as the Scots, Geordie's or the Welsh!

And lets be honest, you wish we were. Just like the good old days eh?

Sweetemotion · 09-05-2017 11:30PM

Bambi wrote: »

And lets be honest, you wish we were. Just like the good old days eh?

I wonder does Poland and Austria see themselves and German?

After all, they are beside each other.

LordSutch · 09-05-2017 11:33PM

As I have said above^ that's how some misinformed British people think, hence the lack of distinction between being British or Irish (or both).

I have worked with English people who had no idea that Ireland wasn't part of the UK.

Wibbs · 09-05-2017 11:34PM

LordSutch wrote: »

Many British people are not aware (or are ignorant) of the distinction. To many British people Ireland and the Irish are as close as the Scots, Geordie's or the Welsh!

Indeed.

Me. Earlier. wrote: »

I take far less offence, if any, at the ignorant as individuals. The best I can usually muster is a somewhat studied Meh.

steddyeddy · 09-05-2017 11:35PM

There's an intense insecurity in unionist identity that expresses itself as "we're all British really". I don't understand it. Living in Britain I don't go into conversation expressing the fact I'm Irish every five minutes.

steddyeddy · 09-05-2017 11:37PM

LordSutch wrote: »

As I have said above^ that's how some misinformed British people think, hence the lack of distinction between being British or Irish (or both).

I have worked with English people who had no idea that Ireland wasn't part of the UK.

As I said look at Brexit. Lack of education isn't something to be proud of. There are some misinformed people that think we're a homogenous group. Leave them too it.

LordSutch · 09-05-2017 11:42PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

There's an intense insecurity in unionist identity that expresses itself as "we're all British really". I don't understand it. Living in Britain I don't go into conversation expressing the fact I'm Irish every five minutes.

But do we know if the journalist is a Unionist?

The point I'm making is that generally speaking, many people in Britain are ignorant of the distinction of being Irish whilst not being British.

Dara would be the 1st to acknowledge this.

steddyeddy · 09-05-2017 11:47PM

LordSutch wrote: »

But do we know if the journalist is a Unionist?

The point I'm making is that generally speaking, many people in Britain are ignorant of the distinction of being Irish whilst not being British.

Dara would be the 1st to acknowledge this.

I'm talking about the unionist insecurity in general. If being British isn't brought up every five minutes the have a stroke.

The journalist is probrably ill informed. As you said ignorance is common among certain demographics.

AnGaelach · 09-05-2017 11:48PM

Is the show worth watching though?

LordSutch · 09-05-2017 11:49PM

Yes, I think it's great.

Biggest lickspittle on boardz · 11-05-2017 11:09AM

circadian wrote: »

What?

noun
the action or practice of publicly expressing opinions or sentiments intended to demonstrate one's good character or the moral correctness of one's position on a particular issue.
"it's noticeable how often virtue signalling consists of saying you hate things"

https://www.google.ie/#q=virtue+signalling+definition

Basically, adopting popular stances to score brownie points with your peers, even though you may not have particularly strong view on the matter. So in other words, adopting trendy causes without actually doing anything about it i.e. Palestine, inviting refugees into your house, Kony 2012 etc...

Will I Am Not · 11-05-2017 11:45AM

wes wrote: »

There either doing that or threatening to murder girl scouts:

Girl Scout threatened after confronting neo-Nazi protesters in striking photo

What in the absolute f*ck has that got to do with Dara O Brian, Ed Byrne or what you perceive to be the alt-right on boards.ie?

SnakePlissken · 11-05-2017 11:59AM

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Sham Squire wrote: »

You're right about that but wrong about everything else. I'm sorry you haven't bothered to educate yourself so I'm gonna be very generous despite your ignorance and point you in the right direction. The rest is up to you. Take the blindfold off, or don't.

"in order for racism to exist, it must be backed by systemic oppression. That means that in order for something to be racist against a white person, it would have to be said somewhere they represent an abused and unpopular minority."

You're welcome

Do you actually believe that bollox?

Of course he bloody doesn't, he's just one of these poor unfortnates who derive some semblance of joy from getting a rise out of people online, there's a couple such posters on here who make their sad agenda laughably obvious, best to ignore them.

SeanW · 11-05-2017 11:39PM

wes wrote: »

There either doing that or threatening to murder girl scouts:

Girl Scout threatened after confronting neo-Nazi protesters in striking photo

Well, this is from a "newspaper" that accused a Puerto Rican (Cassandra Fairbanks) of flashing white nationalist symbols, so you have to wonder if there is not some fitting of the story to a liberal narrative going on with this too.

Secondly, assuming this story is all true (which is slightly questionable) anyone who goes around threatening to kill girl scouts is acting only for themselves, or possibly others in their immediate group.

Most importantly, you are presenting a false narrative that "the right" which you may or may not assume to be a homogeneous block including conservatives, libertarians, US Republicans and Neo Nazis all as one group.

You are also excluding that virtually all of the political violence today comes from the Left. Like this: http://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/02/us/milo-yiannopoulos-berkeley-duplicate-2/And it isn't "just" Milo Yiannopolous or Ann Coulter that these terrorists are out to intimidate into silence, fascistic enough as that would be, much more mainstream conservatives such as Ben Shapiro routinely find themselves threatened with violence, speeches interrupted and so on as a matter of routine, for example on US college campuses. That is, when he isn't barred or having speeches canceled.

Perhaps you could be so kind as to explain why you left all of the Left's violence out your analysis?

The Guardian's 'we hate white people' agenda backfires spectacularly today...

Comments