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

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

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

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'.

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

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

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.

[Deleted User]

Biggest lickspittle on boardz wrote: »

virtue signalling

What?

topper75

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Is the show worth watching though?