Re: Modern Anthropology and its Political Agendas
jerr...@gmail.com
live on the Indian sub-continent are considered to be caucasoid. Does
that mean that they are "white"? A hundred years ago the Irish weren't
considered to be "white", nor were Italians. Are they "white" now?
How did you travel in time from the 1860's to the present?
>Just as modern anthropology frequently denies or downplays racial
>differences, it often denies or downplays sexual differences as well,
>especially in the cultural areas of anthropology, where it is easy to
>classify male and female behaviors as the result of environmental
>factors rather than physical ones.
By 'sex' you really mean gender. I'm not sure why you think that the
study of gender has been downplayed but as an Anthro student I am
inundated with the word, it's meaning and concepts, theories etc. Maybe
you guys should do a search on 'the interweb' for 'sex/gender'
sometime.
>"...the strange matter of how and why White women
>were geared towards marriage, child-rearing and family life for many
>centuries, but in the last 40 years have been encouraged by Western
>popular culture to not engage in those family pursuits but to instead
>pursue "careers."
I'm not positive but in the past I think that it may have had to do
with women being seen as property(though not being able to own any) and
baby-making machines. Oh, and they had to be taken care of because they
were seen as senseless, delicate creatures.
Try a search on 'womens studies'.
>This seems very unnatural from both an evolutionary
>and a historical standpoint.
How can something that has happened be 'unnatural'? It went against
Laws of physics?
Culture change...it happens. Try looking up 'culture lag."
Whats it like to be an anachronism?
John Brock
<jerr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>How do you define race? Are all caucasians one race? Many people who
>live on the Indian sub-continent are considered to be caucasoid. Does
>that mean that they are "white"? A hundred years ago the Irish weren't
>considered to be "white", nor were Italians. Are they "white" now?
>How did you travel in time from the 1860's to the present?
You know, I keep hearing this claim that "a hundred years ago the
Irish weren't considered to be 'white'", and I have to say it sets
off my bullshit detector. Race is about nothing if not physical
appearance, and in terms of physical appearance the Irish and the
English are pretty much indistinguishable. And are you telling me
that Leonardo Da Vinci and Michelangelo -- not to mention Cicero
or Aristotle -- were not considered white? By whom? I'm sorry,
but I don't believe it for a minute.
--
John Brock
jbr...@panix.com
Bob LeChevalier
>In article <1140639742....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, jerr...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>#5 Biology.
>1. An interbreeding, usually geographically isolated population of organisms
>differing from other populations of the same species in the frequency of
>hereditary traits. A race that has been given formal taxonomic recognition is
>known as a subspecies.
>2. A breed or strain, as of domestic animals.
>
>One wonders why a student of anthropology, particularly one that denies
>the very existence of race based on essentially semantic basis and
>silly social interludes, is not aware of the conventional definition
>of biological race. Sure, one can delve into intricate differences
>between subspecies, populations and genetic lineages, but none
>of it is truly required to grasp a simple concept that race does exist.
>The very existence of a biological species with such a geographical
>spread makes it impossible to NOT exist.
There is no geographical isolation nor genetic/reproductive isolation
in any known population of human beings. There may have been some
limited isolation in the past, but it is not so in the present. There
is known interbreeding between all so-called races and others.
>As an anthropologist, you must be aware that there are many more
>things that set apart populations in Sub-Saharan Africa and in
>Central America that the differences between, say, any of the 30
>formally recognized subspecies of Canis lupus.
False. There is greater genetic variation among the members of each
human "race", than there is difference between the "races".
In the case of canis lupus, there are multiple classification systems
for subspecies, so "formally recognized" is not a well-defined
situation. However the overall range is much larger than the range
for humans. For example, average weight in the wild and lupus
subspecies ranges from 16kg to 60kg
>>>"...the strange matter of how and why White women
>>>were geared towards marriage, child-rearing and family life for many
>>>centuries, but in the last 40 years have been encouraged by Western
>>>popular culture to not engage in those family pursuits but to instead
>>>pursue "careers."
>>
>>I'm not positive but in the past I think that it may have had to do
>>with women being seen as property(though not being able to own any) and
>>baby-making machines. Oh, and they had to be taken care of because they
>>were seen as senseless, delicate creatures.
>>Try a search on 'womens studies'.
>>
>>>This seems very unnatural from both an evolutionary
>>>and a historical standpoint.
>>
>>How can something that has happened be 'unnatural'?
>
>You can't be that stupid! The very same definition of
>"unnatural": "In violation of a natural law", "not in accordance with
>or determined by nature; contrary to nature".
There is nothing in nature that prevents women from seeking
non-familial careers
>In this case, the author's obvious but not explicitly stated law
>is clearly one of reproduction. E.g., for the survival of population,
>> 2 offsprings is per pair of parents is minimally required.
>'Cause your argument runs like: "Because rapes and subsequent
>murders of 3 year old girls *do* happen, therefore it is NATURAL.
>No, tell me you did not really means that!
Actually, "rape" is indeed a "natural" occurrence. It is not a
civilized occurrence.
>>It went against Laws of physics?
>>Culture change...it happens. Try looking up 'culture lag."
>>Whats it like to be an anachronism?
>
>The stupid PC that permeates our society everywhere is
>quickly becoming a severe roadblock on a way toward progress.
Define "progress". If it involves any sort of racial separation or
eugenics, then it is not progress.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier
There was no concept of a "white" race in the time of Leonardo and
Michelangelo. Skin-color based racial classification was primarily a
19th century phenomenon.
Prior to the 19th century there was some sense of "race" based on
tribal ancestry, hence Jewish and Irish and Greek could be distinct
"races". But these were cultural "races" and not genetic ones, and
children of an intermarriage (and intermarriages did occur) were
considered full members of the "race" in which they were brought up.
lojbab
spiznet
have sprouted from separate groups of H.e. split apart nearly 1-2 mya.
So, the caucasoid "race" sprung from Neanderthal, the "Mongoloid" race
sprung from Peking Man, etc. I still have the "Human Evolution" book
from Time/Life that has a chart that shows current human "races"
diverging at such a great age (in subsequent printings it was pulled
from the book).
Of course, now that all races are traced back to a 150-100 kya MtDNA
Eve, there is not even the possibility of "significant" sub-species
discussion.
Spiznet
spiznet
DK wrote:
> have common ancestor does not negate the very existence of
> the lineages.
> DK
The fact that the lineages are so recently related (less than 200kya
for a homo lineage we can trace back more than 2mya) in this case means
that in homo sapiens "race" is not very significant. Also note that
within 2 or 3 generations of admixture any "race" will disappear.
Spiznet
uraniumc...@yahoo.com
Agenda - plural
There is no such thing as 'agendas'
CW wrote:
> Anthropology is the study of man and how mankind evolved throughout
> history - although these days anthropology encompasses much more than
> that; indeed, today it covers nearly all areas of human life. In some
> ways, anthropology has overreached.
>
> Anthropology and Race
>
> In the past, anthropologists talked and wrote about the various
> differences between the human races. But after World War II that became
> much harder to do, since after that war descriptions of racial
> differences came to be viewed as "Nazi-like" in much of Western
> society.
>
> Sadly, in the Western countries today, the field of anthropology is
> filled with professors who either deny or downplay the significance of
> racial differences in humans. Those professors insist that race is
> either meaningless or nearly so, and that race is merely a social
> construct instead of a key physical feature. They insist that a
> person's environmental surroundings, not his race, is the central
> factor in whether or not he is successful in life [note: there is a lot
> of evidence suggesting that genetics play a vital role in human
> intelligence and therefore human success] [1].
>
> In other words, modern anthropology has become "politically correct,"
> and is therefore frequently driven by leftist political ideas and not
> by scientific facts.[2] Additionally, it has been noticed by more than
> a few experts in the field that the transformation of anthropology from
> science-based to politically-driven was engineered largely by
> genetically-Jewish people within the field, beginning with Franz Boas
> and continuing with Ashley Montagu and Stephen J. Gould. The writings
> and lectures of those popular figures played a key role in the
> transformation of the field to largely-egalitarian-driven [3][4].[read
> more about Jews below].
>
> Race-denying-or-downplaying anthropologists will, presumably, pass
> their views on to their students, and those students will also
> presumably pass on such ideas as well, and so on, which makes the
> race-denial matter more significant than it otherwise might be. In
> fact, we predict that, in the not-too-distant future, the field of
> anthropology will contain very few professors who hold "traditional"
> views about racial differences in humans, and therefore, anthropology
> will soon be nearly free of mentions of race and will adopt other, more
> benign terms in place of "race." That, we believe, will eventually
> result in the idea of race all but vanishing from Western society,
> since race-deniers within society will then be able to use race-free
> anthropology as "scientific proof" that race doesn't really exist. Such
> a society will then be more-or-less a Marxist society, because its
> framework will be right out of the Frankfurt School's lesson books
> [that infamous school sought to make all humans appear "equal" to the
> next one] [5].
>
> Therefore, we believe that it is very important that the field of
> anthropology encourage the practice of talking about and writing about
> racial differences freely and openly, without any limits on what can
> and cannot be discussed. Further, we feel that race should become a
> central subject in the field of anthropology.
>
> Continuing on the issue of anthropology and race, we also believe that,
> given the significant role played by the Jews in shaping modern Western
> culture, anthropologists should reclassify the Jews as being a race,
> i.e., a race via historical inbreeding. We suggest that Ashkenazic Jews
> - i.e., most of world Jewry - are so historically inbred that they are,
> in fact, a race, just like Blacks are [granted, such a race description
> would not apply to part-Jewish people or gentiles who converted to the
> religion of Judaism]. There are Jewish genetic traits and diseases that
> support our belief that the Ashkenazic Jews are a race and not simply
> an ethnic group. Such a reclassification of Jews as being a race could
> help gentiles to better understand Jewish behavior in the Western
> countries.
>
> Anthropology and Sexual Differences
>
> Just as modern anthropology frequently denies or downplays racial
> differences, it often denies or downplays sexual differences as well,
> especially in the cultural areas of anthropology, where it is easy to
> classify male and female behaviors as the result of environmental
> factors rather than physical ones.
>
> Regarding sex roles, we would like to see Western cultural
> anthropologists address the strange matter of how and why White women
> were geared towards marriage, child-rearing and family life for many
> centuries, but in the last 40 years have been encouraged by Western
> popular culture to not engage in those family pursuits but to instead
> pursue "careers." This seems very unnatural from both an evolutionary
> and a historical standpoint. We think that such a sudden and radical
> reversal of female roles in Western society warrants many dozens of
> books to be published on the subject. Women are not men, yet they have
> almost become men in a short period of time [socially, at least]. Isn't
> that an important anthropological feature? Do sex roles in a society
> usually change so quickly, historically speaking? Is such a change good
> for families? Is such a change good for children? Will such a change
> cause long-term problems in society? These are important questions to
> ponder.
>
> We hope that anthropologists and anthropology students carefully
> consider what we have said on this page and use the resources found on
> this website when they do so.
>
> http://wsi.matriots.com/anthropology.html
John Brock
DK <d...@no.email.thankstospam.net> wrote:
>In article <dtjftp$ehq$1...@reader2.panix.com>, jbr...@panix.com (John
>Brock) wrote:
>>In article <1140639742....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>> <jerr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>How do you define race? Are all caucasians one race? Many people who
>>>live on the Indian sub-continent are considered to be caucasoid. Does
>>>that mean that they are "white"? A hundred years ago the Irish weren't
>>>considered to be "white", nor were Italians. Are they "white" now?
>>>How did you travel in time from the 1860's to the present?
>>You know, I keep hearing this claim that "a hundred years ago the
>>Irish weren't considered to be 'white'", and I have to say it sets
>>off my bullshit detector. Race is about nothing if not physical
>>appearance,
>That can be tricky! To give just one example, Negritos of Adaman
>islands look very much like Africans. Their genetic make up
>revealed by cluster analysis, however, leaves no doubt that they
>are much more related to the Asian people (from whom they were
>isolated for a long time) than to Africans. In fact, it can be said they
>are closer even to Europeans than to Africans! So no, physical
>appearance is not sufficient at all.
You are right that physical appearance is an unreliable guide to
actual genetic clustering. But the issue is the perception of race
100 years ago, and at that time appearance was pretty much all.
There was certainly prejudice against the Irish back then, and also
all kinds of confused racial theorizing, so I'm sure if you go
quote mining you can find people saying things that could be
interpreted as "they aren't white". But the peoples of the British
Isles have been mixing with each other for centuries, and the idea
that fair-skinned Anglo-Saxon types ever typically looked upon
their equally fair-skinned Irish cousins as "colored" just doesn't
strike me as credible.
>>And are you telling me
>>that Leonardo Da Vinci and Michelangelo -- not to mention Cicero
>>or Aristotle -- were not considered white? By whom? I'm sorry,
>>but I don't believe it for a minute.
>In PC-infected imagination, anything is possible. Look
>at Afrocentrism as just one example.
For a long period of time much of the education of upper-crust
British and American schoolboys involved learning to read Classical
authors in the original Latin and Greek. Again, you can probably
find some idiot 100 years ago arguing that Mediterraneans weren't
really "white", but somehow I doubt that those schoolboys -- people
who later as men filled the top ranks of society -- believed that
they were putting in all that effort in order to read books written
by "colored" people. The whole idea just strikes me as a serious
anachronism, a modern idea projected backwards, serving modern
political purposes. And yes, very PC!
--
John Brock
jbr...@panix.com
uraniumc...@yahoo.com
jerr...@gmail.com wrote:
> How do you define race? Are all caucasians one race? Many people who
> live on the Indian sub-continent are considered to be caucasoid. Does
> that mean that they are "white"? A hundred years ago the Irish weren't
> considered to be "white", nor were Italians. Are they "white" now?
> How did you travel in time from the 1860's to the present?
>
> >Just as modern anthropology frequently denies or downplays racial
> >differences, it often denies or downplays sexual differences as well,
> >especially in the cultural areas of anthropology, where it is easy to
> >classify male and female behaviors as the result of environmental
> >factors rather than physical ones.
>
> By 'sex' you really mean gender. I'm not sure why you think that the
> study of gender has been downplayed but as an Anthro student I am
> inundated with the word, it's meaning and concepts, theories etc. Maybe
> you guys should do a search on 'the interweb' for 'sex/gender'
> sometime.
'Gender' refers to language only, as masculine or feminine nouns in
various European languages. 'Sex' is a biological term: it refers to
biological male or female, or the difference between biological male or
female. The difference netween men and women is their sex. The
difference between 'blonde' and 'blond' (the words) is one of gender.
'Das Weib' and 'der Mann' differ in gender. 'Das Weib' (the wife) by
the way, is neuter.
> >"...the strange matter of how and why White women
> >were geared towards marriage, child-rearing and family life for many
> >centuries, but in the last 40 years have been encouraged by Western
> >popular culture to not engage in those family pursuits but to instead
> >pursue "careers."
..."instead to..."
Philbert Desenex
"CW" <christopher...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1140633785....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Anthropology is the study of man and how mankind evolved throughout
> history - although these days anthropology encompasses much more than
> that; indeed, today it covers nearly all areas of human life. In some
> ways, anthropology has overreached.
>
> Anthropology and Race
>
>
> We hope that anthropologists and anthropology students carefully
> consider what we have said on this page and use the resources found on
> this website when they do so.
>
> http://wsi.matriots.com/anthropology.html
I'm wondering if anyone else has bothered to check out the
parent page of the above link...?
This is bigotry, folks, to be kind. To suggest that the authors
of this screed have any understanding of anything bordering
on anthropology, history, science, ethics, morality, good sense
etc, etc, ad nauseum, is to insult the intelligence of a flatworm.
They seek legitimacy, people. Don't give it to them.
--
Philbert Desenex, PhD., Stromatologist
University of Okoboji, Northern Iowa
Office hours: 2 -3, Thur-Fri
Bob LeChevalier
>>There is no geographical isolation nor genetic/reproductive isolation
>>in any known population of human beings.
>
Which means that there have been no races for 200 years, because there
is no isolation.
>Australoids were isolated for at least 50,000 years
No evidence of that. They were relatively isolated in that they
didn't interbreed with Europeans, but they weren't completely isolated
by any stretch of the imagination.
http://www.crystalinks.com/aboriginals.html
<The notion of pristine natives with a "pure" culture was an artificial
< one - many Aborigines had considerable contact with Melanesians and
< Indonesians long before the European colonists arrived in Australia.
Considering that the Pacific islands were settled during the last few
thousand years, during that few thousand years none of the Pacific
basin was completely isolated.
>and Amerindians for at least 20,000.
Again false. There seems to be evidence of two migrations from Asia,
and some evidence that there was interchange between West Africa and
Brazil long before the modern era, and some evidence that the
Phoenicians also made it to Brazil
http://phoenicia.org/brazil.html
>>In the case of canis lupus, there are multiple classification systems
>>for subspecies, so "formally recognized" is not a well-defined
>>situation.
>
>The fuzzines of borders of uncertainties of classification do not
>preclude classification itself.
The fuzziness means that the classification is arbitrary and
subjective. Since it is harmful, leading to the infection
nincompoopus racisti, it is to be avoided.
>>However the overall range is much larger than the range
>>for humans. For example, average weight in the wild and lupus
>>subspecies ranges from 16kg to 60kg
>
>So what? Nothing prevents the difference for other traits
>to be in the opposite direction, with humans having higher variation.
There are no significant traits for which such racial variation
exists.
>>>>>This seems very unnatural from both an evolutionary
>>>>>and a historical standpoint.
>>>>
>>>>How can something that has happened be 'unnatural'?
>>>
>>>You can't be that stupid! The very first definition of
>
>[edit: "first" instead of "same"]
>
>>>"unnatural": "In violation of a natural law", "not in accordance with
>>>or determined by nature; contrary to nature".
>>
>>There is nothing in nature that prevents women from seeking
>>non-familial careers
>>
>>>In this case, the author's obvious but not explicitly stated law
>>>is clearly one of reproduction. E.g., for the survival of population,
>>>> 2 offsprings is per pair of parents is minimally required.
>>>'Cause your argument runs like: "Because rapes and subsequent
>>>murders of 3 year old girls *do* happen, therefore it is NATURAL.
>>>No, tell me you did not really means that!
>>
>>Actually, "rape" is indeed a "natural" occurrence. It is not a
>>civilized occurrence.
>
>Same mistake again. The "law" in question is one of reproduction,
>not just a matter of occurrence.
Making a guess as to what you mean, human fertility is so far above
the rate of 2 offspring per pair, that we are drowning the planet.
Sublimating the reproductive urge to a more sustainable level is a
sound biological strategy.
>>>>It went against Laws of physics?
>>>>Culture change...it happens. Try looking up 'culture lag."
>>>>Whats it like to be an anachronism?
>>>
>>>The stupid PC that permeates our society everywhere is
>>>quickly becoming a severe roadblock on a way toward progress.
>>
>>Define "progress". If it involves any sort of racial separation or
>>eugenics, then it is not progress.
>
>For scientific progress, it would be accumulation of more knowledge.
"PC" is not a significant block on accumulating scientific knowledge.
It may steer the direction of acquisition of scientific knowledge away
from things that racists want to believe, to things that are actually
useful to society.
>If it turns out eugenics is an explanation
No. It is a policy, and an immoral one. But if we ever implement it,
I favor immediate sterilization of all racists as the first step.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier
>You are right that physical appearance is an unreliable guide to
>actual genetic clustering. But the issue is the perception of race
>100 years ago, and at that time appearance was pretty much all.
The perception of racial differences is entirely dependent on the
culture. 100 years ago, Asians and Africans were considered distinct,
and Hispanics were considered white. Jews were considered "white" by
most. By the 1920s, Southern Europeans were considered distinct and
different from northern Europeans. Of course, for some, Jews started
to be considered a separate "race" even though Ashkenazi Jews seem to
genetically be about 50/50 European and Semitic in their ancestry.
Nowadays, racists want to treat Hispanics as a non-'white' "race".
>There was certainly prejudice against the Irish back then, and also
>all kinds of confused racial theorizing,
Indeed, it can safely be said that whatever the largest group of
immigrants are, there will be some that will consider them to be a
different "race". In the US in the 1840s-1850s, they were Irish, 100
years ago they were eastern and southern Europeans. Nowadays they are
Hispanics.
In other countries, racial sensitivities were different. My
understanding is that being of Indian ancestry was especially
stigmatized for a period.
>so I'm sure if you go
>quote mining you can find people saying things that could be
>interpreted as "they aren't white". But the peoples of the British
>Isles have been mixing with each other for centuries, and the idea
>that fair-skinned Anglo-Saxon types ever typically looked upon
>their equally fair-skinned Irish cousins as "colored" just doesn't
>strike me as credible.
That's the point. Skin color wasn't the primary determination of
"race" most of the time. Distinctness of culture was the primary
determination.
>>In PC-infected imagination, anything is possible. Look
>>at Afrocentrism as just one example.
>
>For a long period of time much of the education of upper-crust
>British and American schoolboys involved learning to read Classical
>authors in the original Latin and Greek.
And people probably had a mental picture of Julius Caesar looking like
an Englishman. Look at medieval paintings of Jesus and Mary. They
would likely have been quite Semitic in appearance, but were drawn so
as to look like Europeans. Nowadays we have considerable reason to
think that the Egyptians were not "white", but probably some sort of
mixture between Semitic and African with possibly some other ancestral
strains that no longer exist. Many of the ancient "Greeks" weren't
Greek at all - there were Egyptians and people of unknown "race" who
lived in what is now Turkey, but had been Hellenized after the
conquests of Alexander the Great.
> Again, you can probably
>find some idiot 100 years ago arguing that Mediterraneans weren't
>really "white",
In modern anthropology, Mediterranean peoples are classed with Middle
Easterners who are "Semitic" and not with Northern Europeans. Using
language as a clue, Indians are Indo-European and hence "white", while
those of the Caucasus Mountains (real Caucasians) aren't Indo-European
but a different strain. Finns and Hungarians look "white" to most
people, as do Russians, but a significant strain of their ancestors
came from East Asia, around Mongolia.
>but somehow I doubt that those schoolboys -- people
>who later as men filled the top ranks of society -- believed that
>they were putting in all that effort in order to read books written
>by "colored" people.
That's because they weren't told. Just as they weren't told that it
makes no sense to analyze English as if it derived from Latin, but had
to memorize a whole bunch of Latinate cases for English that had no
bearing on reality.
lojbab
man_in_...@yahoo.com
> >and Amerindians for at least 20,000.
>
> Again false. There seems to be evidence of two migrations from Asia,
> and some evidence that there was interchange between West Africa and
> Brazil long before the modern era, and some evidence that the
> Phoenicians also made it to Brazil
> http://phoenicia.org/brazil.html
Um, I wouldn't cite anything like that again if I were you.
Hyperdiffusionism is a very old racist tactic.
In particular, that site has this evidence:
http://phoenicia.org/america.html
Yes, that is as insane as it sounds.
The DNA evidence with Indians is rather complicated,
but contrary to popular belief, modern Indians' DNA
doesn't fit in with East Asians at all. B's the only
mitochondrial type which does. Blood groups, it's
even worse.
(Naturally, no one argues that East Asians 'replaced'
modern Indians, if you get my drift. And if you don't,
a lot of pop anthropologists use 'replace' as a
euphemism for mass murder.)
Feature-wise, both ancient skeletons and modern
Indians tend to more fit a mixture of caucasoid and
negroid features.
> >>In the case of canis lupus, there are multiple classification systems
> >>for subspecies, so "formally recognized" is not a well-defined
> >>situation.
> >
> >The fuzzines of borders of uncertainties of classification do not
> >preclude classification itself.
>
> The fuzziness means that the classification is arbitrary and
> subjective. Since it is harmful, leading to the infection
> nincompoopus racisti, it is to be avoided.
Pretty much what we all agree on.
> >Same mistake again. The "law" in question is one of reproduction,
> >not just a matter of occurrence.
>
> Making a guess as to what you mean, human fertility is so far above
> the rate of 2 offspring per pair, that we are drowning the planet.
> Sublimating the reproductive urge to a more sustainable level is a
> sound biological strategy.
Don't try to explain overpopulation to neocons. Really, this
planet could sustain a larger population -- provided we all
lived like in India.
> >If it turns out eugenics is an explanation
>
> No. It is a policy, and an immoral one. But if we ever implement it,
> I favor immediate sterilization of all racists as the first step.
I don't think eugenics could be an 'explanation' for anything.
It's not a 'theory' per se. It's an application of theory.
Bob LeChevalier
>>The fact that the lineages are so recently related (less than 200kya
>>for a homo lineage we can trace back more than 2mya) in this case means
>>that in homo sapiens "race" is not very significant.
>
>Significant is a relative and uncertain term. Certainly, it is significant
>enough to be useful in medicine. Few quotes the recent review:
>
>Nature Genetics, 2004, 36(11 Suppl):S48-53. JL Mountain, N Risch.
>Assessing genetic contributions to phenotypic differences among ‘racial’
>and ‘ethnic’ groups.
Note that they consider racial groups along with ethnic groups. In
medicine it is useful to know that someone is a Mormon from Utah, and
they didn't even exist 200 years ago. There are some genetic diseases
that can be identified from any family of 5-6 generations having a
specific pattern, so for medicine, there might be a million "races".
Or none.
>"
>Recent analyses of multilocus genetic data have generated clusters
>that correspond closely with socially or geographically defined groups.
>
>[There is a bit of PC speak here. Data clearly show that "socially"
>is not anywhere near the "geographically"]
Actually, that is probably referring to Ashkenazi Jews, who are pretty
much socially defined.
>There is the potential, therefore, for genetic factors to contribute to
>phenotypic differences between groups.
>
>[Again, nothing besides social sensitivities justifies this level
>of caution: "potential to contribute top phenotypic difference".
>Jeez, show me a biologist that would not agree that genetic factors
>contribute to phenotypic differences]
The question is whether these genetic and phenotypic difference
correspond with any socially-defined "races". They don't.
>..our lack of understanding of the etiology of many complex
>traits means that racial and ethnic labels remain useful in epidemiological
>and clinical settings. Given the potential for furthering racism
>by discussing race and genetics together in a scientific context, we
>might seek to eliminate the use of racial categories in these contexts.
>
>[Again, an extra scientific argument. "It is real but we'd be better off
>not to mention it explicitely].
Actually it says that racial and ethnic groupings are "useful". It
would indeed likely be better to eschew using race, because then we
would look for other factors that are probably MORE useful.
>..assuming that our society values the goal of understanding the underlying
>basis of those disparities, the continued use of labels in epidemiological
>research and clinical practice seems justified. Racial and ethnic categories
>are proxies for a wide range of factors, potentially genetic and nongenetic.
So we should be looking for those unidentified factors, which means
eschewing the proxies that stand between us and those factors.
>>Also note that
>>within 2 or 3 generations of admixture any "race" will disappear.
>
>Maybe. Maybe not so fast. Jews have been relatively successful in
>keeping their gene pool from admixture.
False, as evidenced by the considerable discrepancy between Sephardic
and Ashkenazi Jews. The Ashkenazi had considerable admixture with
northern and Eastern Europeans. The Sephards had considerable
admixture with Spanish and Moorish Arabs. There was some admixture
between Ashkenazi and Sephardic after the expulsion of the latter from
Spain 500 years ago.
Up until around 50 years ago. Nowadays in the US, something like 50%
of all Jews intermarry.
>In any case, everything elvolves
>and the fact that homogenization may eventually lead to disappearence
>of distinct lineages does not mean that the lineages do not exist or never
>existed. (Which is a point of PC anthropology in the USA).
The claim is not that "lineages" do not exist. The claim is that the
"races" as defined by racists do not exist. The lineages of
mitochondrial DNA form a tree structure, and one can arbitrarily
define some branch of that tree as a "lineage", but none of those
lineages exactly correspond to race, and indeed, the lineages
apparently do not correspond all that well to Y-DNA lineages.
http://www.humanitas-international.org/perezites/news/jewish-dna-nytimes.htm
for the differences between Jewish mitochondrial DNA and Y-DNA.
A friend of mine, with the good British name "Burgess" found that a
significant percentage of those having that surname were of a Y-DNA
type reflecting a Middle Eastern ancestry some 2000-4000 years ago.
Maybe their ancestors were sailors in Roman or Phoenician days that
left their seed behind in British ports.
And of course the Y-DNA and the mitochondrial DNA only trace two of
one's lineages, the strictly paternal one and the strictly maternal
one. The problem with that is that as recently as 10 generations ago,
you had 1024 ancestors, and genetically you can only "prove" two of
them.
Meanwhile a significant portion of European nobility are known to have
some blacks in their ancestry. Russian writer Alexander Pushkin's
grandfather was black, and was elevated to the nobility by Peter the
Great, and his genes have spread all over Europe. There were blacks
among medieval Spanish nobility as well. In those days, being
"Moorish" was not necessarily stigmatized, especially since many of
the black Moors were wealthy traders.
Jenghis Khan spread his genes all over Asia, and thus through
migration into Europe. Attila the Hun and his men did likewise,
though we haven't identified genes that can be associated with him as
we can with Jenghis and his men, and many of Attila's men stayed in
Europe. Neither group was "white", but likely almost every European
has some of Attila in his genome (just as it is likely that almost
every European is descended from Charlemagne).
We are all mongrels.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier
>Agendum - singular
>
>Agenda - plural
>
>There is no such thing as 'agendas'
dictionary.com disagrees with you:
<a·gen·da ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-jnd)
<n. pl. a·gen·das
<
<1. A list or program of things to be done or considered: “They share with
< them an agenda beyond the immediate goal of democratization of the
< electoral process” (Daniel Sneider).
<2. A plural of agendum.
<
<
<--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<[Latin, pl. of agendum, agendum. See agendum.]
<
<Usage Note: It is true that Cicero would have used agendum to refer to
< a single item of business before the Roman Senate, with agenda as its
< plural. But in Modern English a phrase such as item on the agenda
< expresses the sense of agendum, and agenda is used as a singular noun
< to denote the set or list of such items, as in The agenda for the
< meeting has not yet been set. If a plural of agenda is required, the
< form should be agendas: The agendas of both meetings are
< exceptionally varied.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier
>>To suggest that the authors
>>of this screed have any understanding of anything bordering
>>on anthropology, history, science, ethics, morality, good sense
>>etc, etc, ad nauseum, is to insult the intelligence of a flatworm.
>>
>>They seek legitimacy, people. Don't give it to them.
>
>people must oppose the claim, so as not to give him a legitimacy?
No, all good people must reject the reference, and find a sound
reference if they wish to have an "authority" for 2+2=4. If they
cannot find a non-bigoted authority for 2+2=4, they should be
skeptical. (Of course, everyone knows that 2+2 = 22).
lojbab
Philbert Desenex
news:dtleje$ent$2...@news.doit.wisc.edu...
> In article <N6qLf.2568$ty4....@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com>, "Philbert Desenex"
> <nop...@all.com> wrote:
>>..
>>"CW" <christopher...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:1140633785....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>>> Anthropology is the study of man and how mankind evolved throughout
>>> history - although these days anthropology encompasses much more than
>>> that; indeed, today it covers nearly all areas of human life. In some
>>> ways, anthropology has overreached.
>>>
>>> Anthropology and Race
>>>
>>[...]
>>>
>>> We hope that anthropologists and anthropology students carefully
>>> consider what we have said on this page and use the resources found on
>>> this website when they do so.
>>>
>>> http://wsi.matriots.com/anthropology.html
>>
>>I'm wondering if anyone else has bothered to check out the
>>parent page of the above link...?
>>
>>http://wsi.matriots.com
>>
>>This is bigotry, folks, to be kind.
>
>
>>To suggest that the authors
>>of this screed have any understanding of anything bordering
>>on anthropology, history, science, ethics, morality, good sense
>>etc, etc, ad nauseum, is to insult the intelligence of a flatworm.
>>
>>They seek legitimacy, people. Don't give it to them.
>
> people must oppose the claim, so as not to give him a legitimacy?
I wasn't aware that these "people" had made the claim that
2 + 2 = 4. I thought instead that they were trying to breath
life into the concept of race for their own sordid ends. For a
review of their sordid ends, please take note of the thinly
veiled "racism" splashed all over their parent website. Do you
think the "Jews" are a "race"? What do you suppose they
regard as the "Western Safeguards Initiative"? What do you
suppose we might find under the link "jewish inbreeding"?
Take a look at the link "books to own" --right there at the
top it says "Books that we think every White Nationalist
should own". See any clues yet?
> I have not bothered reading their "anthropology" article carefully
> but there is absolutely no doubt that modern anthropology is
> it replete with politican agenda.
Sure. Let's hear all about it. (tick tock, tick tock)
> DK
Bob LeChevalier
>Blah-blah. In populational genetics, "isolation" does not mean
>an *absolute* isolation, but a restricted gene flow that
>rezsults in differentiation.
We are all mongrels.
For *any* population geneticists, it is
>100% obvious that the degree of isolation mentioned above is more
>than sufficient to bring about a perfectly distinct populations -
>which is CRYSTAL CLEAR from genetic clusters and is pretty
>much INDISPUTABLE:
>
>Tang et al., 2005, Am J Hum Genet, 76:268–275 :
>"Of 3,636 subjects of varying race/ethnicity, only 5 (0.14%)
>showed genetic cluster membership different from their
>self-identified race/ethnicity" (0.14% rate error!).
That just means that they self-identify "correctly".
>>The fuzziness means that the classification is arbitrary and
>>subjective. Since it is harmful, leading to the infection
>>nincompoopus racisti, it is to be avoided.
>
>Same mistake over and over. If your logic above is right then
>the distinction between colors is arbitrary,
it is.
>subjective and a concept of color should not be used. After all, it is impossible
>to say where blue ends and green starts!
Correct. Other language groups have different boundaries.
>Same with young and old,
Yep.
>night and day
There is an astronomical definition that is objective.
>>>So what? Nothing prevents the difference for other traits
>>>to be in the opposite direction, with humans having higher variation.
>>
>>There are no significant traits for which such racial variation
>>exists.
>
>No *known* trait. Yet. Since PC guys like you would do everything to
>shut down racial variation studies, it would be difficult to find
>one.
There are better ways to spend research money, ways that would not
harm society by promoting the insidiously evil racist agenda.
>>>>>"unnatural": "In violation of a natural law", "not in accordance with
>>>>>or determined by nature; contrary to nature".
>>>>
>>>>There is nothing in nature that prevents women from seeking
>>>>non-familial careers
>>>>
>>>>>In this case, the author's obvious but not explicitly stated law
>>>>>is clearly one of reproduction. E.g., for the survival of population,
>>>>>> 2 offsprings is per pair of parents is minimally required.
>>>>>'Cause your argument runs like: "Because rapes and subsequent
>>>>>murders of 3 year old girls *do* happen, therefore it is NATURAL.
>>>>>No, tell me you did not really means that!
>>>>
>>>>Actually, "rape" is indeed a "natural" occurrence. It is not a
>>>>civilized occurrence.
>>>
>>>Same mistake again. The "law" in question is one of reproduction,
>>>not just a matter of occurrence.
>>
>>Making a guess as to what you mean, human fertility is so far above
>>the rate of 2 offspring per pair, that we are drowning the planet.
>>Sublimating the reproductive urge to a more sustainable level is a
>>sound biological strategy.
>
>Yes, certainly. But you are now singing a *completely different*
>tune.
Because I answered what you meant, not what you said.
>The issue on hands was that when a woman decides to not
>have children and concentrate on career instead - this is
>quite obviously unnatural.
That's the point - it is QUITE natural for animals to change their
frequency of mating and reproduction in response to population
changes. And it cannot be proven whether or not a woman choosing a
career over motherhood is responding to a social cue or a biological
cue, or both.
The same may account for higher rates of practicing homosexuality (if
indeed rates are higher).
>>>For scientific progress, it would be accumulation of more knowledge.
>>
>>"PC" is not a significant block on accumulating scientific knowledge.
>>It may steer the direction of acquisition of scientific knowledge away
>>from things that racists want to believe, to things that are actually
>>useful to society.
>
>Nope. Already now, PC mentality that attempts to shut down any
>research that deals with racial differentiation, is a huge
>roadblock on a road of finding better ways of treating people.
There is no reason to believe that race would be particularly useful
in that endeavor.
>Simply getting funding for studies of these politically sensitive
>issues is becoming more and more problematic.
Good. Spend the money on research that does not support the
insidiously evil racist agenda.
We don't fund human cloning research for similar reasons.
[selective racist claptrap deleted]
lojbab
Gray Shockley
> http://wsi.matriots.com/anthropology.html
From homepage of matriots.com:
"We are now at a crucial time in this agenda's history. So many cards are
waiting to be played by the Illuminati in the next 12 months."
Is a "matriot" a female "patriot"?
Sort of the "ma" and "pa" of the Founding Parents?
Gray Shockley
------------------
"Stop throwing the Constitution
in my face," Bush screamed back.
"It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"
Bob LeChevalier
>In article <ueusv1lgcisis2p8t...@4ax.com>, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>>no.e...@thanks.to.spam.net (DK) wrote:
>>>Blah-blah. In populational genetics, "isolation" does not mean
>>>an *absolute* isolation, but a restricted gene flow that
>>>rezsults in differentiation.
>>
>>We are all mongrels.
>
Racism is not science.
>>For *any* population geneticists, it is
>>>100% obvious that the degree of isolation mentioned above is more
>>>than sufficient to bring about a perfectly distinct populations -
>>>which is CRYSTAL CLEAR from genetic clusters and is pretty
>>>much INDISPUTABLE:
>>>
>>>Tang et al., 2005, Am J Hum Genet, 76:268–275 :
>>>"Of 3,636 subjects of varying race/ethnicity, only 5 (0.14%)
>>>showed genetic cluster membership different from their
>>>self-identified race/ethnicity" (0.14% rate error!).
>>
>>That just means that they self-identify "correctly".
>
>No. What it means is that something that you claim does not exist
>has an amazingly high predictive power!
There is no prediction involved.
Most people know their ethnic background, and there is correlation
between ethnic background and some specific genetic traits. The vast
majority of traits are entirely unrelated to ethnic background,
especially those traits that represent the action of more than
individual genes.
>For a pure fantasy that
>is a figment of racist imagination, this is nothing but miraculous
>performance. Parsimony principle requires one to conclude
>that you are wrong and that races do exist.
There is no definition of any set of genetic traits that is specific
to members of a popularly-labeled "race", i.e found in all members of
that "race", and in no members of any other "race".
Since there is utterly no positive use to labeling people by
popular-labeled races, and considerable negative use, attempts to seek
such a set of traits is not something that should be awarded research
money. That is a moral question, and not a scientific one. We don't
allow some kinds of human experimentation for moral reasons too.
>>>subjective and a concept of color should not be used. After all, it is
>> impossible
>>>to say where blue ends and green starts!
>>
>>Correct. Other language groups have different boundaries.
>>
>>>Same with young and old,
>>
>>Yep.
>
>LOL. You defense techniques might work in the courtroom
>in front of a bunch of random people but in science such silly
>arguments don't work.
But they do.
>Go and try to tell painters that colors don't exist!
Color exists, but the number of different colors, and the dividing
line between them is arbitrary, and painters would agree.
>Tell me that RGB opsins do not exist!
>In effect, by doing so in your silly attempt to justify absurd
>claims, you are denying the very existence and usefulness
>of *every* abstract concept!
Nonsense.
>No "trees",
Actually, the boundary between "tree" and "bush" is ambiguous.
Biologists are quite careful in defining their terms, if they are
using them scientifically.
>no "snow" (after all, eskimo have something like 30 words for it)
myth
>and so on.
>Well, if you want to take this ridiculous stand, it's your right,
>but don't expect to be taken seriously.
My stand is inherently morally superior to any stand taken by a
subhuman racist slime.
>>There is no reason to believe that race would be particularly useful
>>in that endeavor.
>
>Sheesh. So after I cite you a review by leading experts in the field,
>after I quote extensively for from it, all you are capable of is
>to issue blanket statement that "there is no reason to believe that
>race would be particularly useful in that endeavor" (the whole
>fucking review deal with the fact that there *is*, and quite indisputably)?
Only for subhuman racist slime.
>>Good. Spend the money on research that does not support the
>>insidiously evil racist agenda.
>>
>>We don't fund human cloning research for similar reasons.
>
>Like I said before: you PC assholes are totally reactionary!
>What you idiots call "human cloning research" might one day
>save your sorry ass.
Some kinds of research are inherently immoral, even if it is possible
that some good might come out of it.
>>[selective racist claptrap deleted]
>
>Nice of you to call a review in the most prestigious medical
>journal by a group of highly respected experts a "racist claptrap".
>
>And you know what pisses me off most? - It's the fact that
>you DID NOT EVEN READ IT!
Absolutely correct. It was posted by a subhuman racist seeking to
justify an immoral position, and therefore is not worthy of
consideration.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier
>In article <tthsv1pt2co1notnt...@4ax.com>, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>>d...@no.email.thankstospam.net (DK) wrote:
>
>>>In any case, everything elvolves
>>>and the fact that homogenization may eventually lead to disappearence
>>>of distinct lineages does not mean that the lineages do not exist or never
>>>existed. (Which is a point of PC anthropology in the USA).
>>
>>The claim is not that "lineages" do not exist. The claim is that the
>>"races" as defined by racists do not exist.
>
>racists". Jeez. Some idiots claim that jews are a "race". Who
>cares???
>
>If lineages exist then *biological* races exists too! 'Cause
>that's the very definition of the biological race.
So it isn't, because the number of lineages to be distinguished is
arbitrary. My grandparents on one side had two kids who each had
offspring. That made two "lineages". My grandparents on the other
side had 12 kids, 10 of whom had offspring. That made ten "lineages".
If you go to the next generation, you get even more "lineages".
Whether these lineages have any significance is another story.
>I don't care how
>racist morons define races to arrive to their preconceived
>conclusions. Obviouisly, the term "race" is contaminated with a lot
>of social bullshit and misunderstanding. But lets not throw a
>baby with the water!
By all means, let's.
>There is such a thing as biological race.
Not for human beings.
>Human populations quite obviously fit every definition of it that is
>used for other species.
No.
>The problem is that anthropoloigy studies *biology* of humans.
Nonsense. Anthropology is a social science, not a biological one, and
as such is subject to the moral considerations of the social sciences,
which are considerable. It also tends to be as non-scientific as most
of the social "sciences".
Anthropology may on occasion make use of biological science in its
endeavors, but the two are distinct.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier
>Now, going back to the issue of PC in anthropology: There are quite
>a number of non-bigots (some famous geneticists among them and
>a fair number of physical anthropologists) who agree that modern
>anthropology is contaminated with PC mentality. With my opinion
>weighed in, can we now agree that this is actually true? :-))
Anthropology is a social science, and thus is inherently weighed down
by all of the non-scientific aspects of the social sciences. "PC" is
only one of several contaminations that exist, and probably is one of
the least interesting since it tends to be as fuzzily defined as the
concepts that are criticized supposedly because of it.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier
>>Now, going back to the issue of PC in anthropology: There are quite
>>a number of non-bigots (some famous geneticists among them and
>>a fair number of physical anthropologists) who agree that modern
>>anthropology is contaminated with PC mentality. With my opinion
>>weighed in, can we now agree that this is actually true? :-))
>
>
>Or, because of that bigot, this opinion still has no right to exist?
All opinions have the right to exist. Some opinions have no right to
respect.
>One recent example of the PC mentality. Larry Summers has been
>pushed out as a president of Harvard. His deadly sin was a
>suggestion (a mere suggestion!) that, perhaps, there is a biological
>explanation for why there are relatively few women in Harvard's
>math and science departments.
That was not his "deadly sin". His deadly sin was to be in a highly
political position, and having the political skills of a block of
wood. One commentator today compared being a university president to
herding cats. However bright Summers might be, he was a lousy cat
herder, and he got clawed to death as a result.
>That is, effectively, an anthropological question!
Not for the President of Harvard, it isn't. It is a political
question for him.
For that matter, Summers was trained as an economist, and not as an
anthropologist. He therefore had no academic credentials to make
anthropological claims. He also is a social scientist, and therefore
has no qualifications to make claims about real sciences like biology.
Since economics itself is one of the most political of the social
scientists, a truly academic person in that field has to be especially
aware of the political implications of supposedly scientific
statements. Summers, who had served in government in a political
office (secretary of the treasury) was inherently seen as a politician
to start with.
Politics and science don't go well together. Summers committed the
error of Lysenko, mixing politics and science, and got hammered for
it. That is good for science, if bad for Summers.
>And the one that,
>from all we know, has a perfectly reasonable chance to be explained
>by innate biological differences. But no. Fuck academic freedom,
>fuck the right to intellectual inquiry, fuck everyone who would ever
>dare to publicly mention the hereticl thought!
Yep. Especially when you hold a non-tenured position like President
of Harvard, and are already recognized to be a politician at least as
much as an academic.
"Intellectual activity" in arenas that are politicized is inherently
going to be biased. The skeptical scientist will reject any such
"intellectual activity" as being unrelated to science, and more likely
to be akin to philosophy or even ideology, which is the worst sort of
thing that can pass for "intellectual activity".
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier
>In article <9s7uv1p4dadg5cujv...@4ax.com>, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>>>LOL. You defense techniques might work in the courtroom
>>>in front of a bunch of random people but in science such silly
>>>arguments don't work.
>>
>>But they do.
>
>is consistently one of denial:
>>Absolutely correct. It was posted by a subhuman racist seeking to
>>justify an immoral position, and therefore is not worthy of
>>consideration.
>
It gives me infinite credibility except with racists, whose opinion
doesn't matter in the slightest.
>Discussing anything further with you or trying to educate you is entirely
>pointless.
Racists are incapable of "educating", but they still insist on posting
to the education groups, whereupon they WILL get a response from me.
I don't much care whether they choose to "discuss", since all they
have to offer is racist tripe.
>Good bye.
Good riddance. We won't miss you.
Bob LeChevalier
>In article <bt9uv1179vlkd254g...@4ax.com>, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>>no.e...@thanks.to.spam.net (DK) wrote:
>>>And the one that,
>>>from all we know, has a perfectly reasonable chance to be explained
>>>by innate biological differences. But no. Fuck academic freedom,
>>>fuck the right to intellectual inquiry, fuck everyone who would ever
>>>dare to publicly mention the hereticl thought!
>>
>>Yep.
>
>eloquently. QED. The PC idiots politicized science to the point
>of becoming an inquisition. You are reactionary and a danger
>to science.
Social sciences aren't really science (because they cannot control
variables, and because most human experimentation that might attempt
to control variables is utterly immoral), and are inherently
politicized.
When "research" covers topics that are controversial or associated
with particular ideology, the researcher has to bend over backwards to
prove that he is NOT ideologically biased. And this is true whether
the ideology is of the left or the right - all social science research
is garbage unless proven otherwise.
Social science is a danger to science, because it usually misuses the
word.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier
>In article <nj9uv1h77h9tfqub1...@4ax.com>, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>>no.e...@thanks.to.spam.net (DK) wrote:
>>>Now, going back to the issue of PC in anthropology: There are quite
>>>a number of non-bigots (some famous geneticists among them and
>>>a fair number of physical anthropologists) who agree that modern
>>>anthropology is contaminated with PC mentality. With my opinion
>>>weighed in, can we now agree that this is actually true? :-))
>>
>>Anthropology is a social science,
>
No.
>Everything else is called "social" and "cultural" anthropolgy -
That's the only kind that there is.
>to distinguish them from anthropology, a study of biology of a
>single biological species.
The biological science covering homo sapiens is called "human
physiology". All aspects of anthropology are classed in the social
sciences, because it is impossible to scientifically study most
aspects of human beings scientifically *except* for physiology.
>But, like I said, these day anthropology is highjacked by
>a bunch of political non-scientific hacks who pervert it
>into a non-scientific sociological field.
That's life.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier
>>> I have not bothered reading their "anthropology" article carefully
>>> but there is absolutely no doubt that modern anthropology is
>>> it replete with politican agenda.
>>
>>Sure. Let's hear all about it. (tick tock, tick tock)
>
>to impossible.
Because you have to start with the assumption that there ARE races in
order to justify such funding, and why should we spend the limited
money for scientific research on a perniciously evil concept.
>Researchers are forced to use all kind of euphemisms
>when dealing with the "R" word, papers are rejected not based on
>how rigorous the science is but because their conclusions are deemed
>"racist".
That's life.
>Echos of all this can be found in several threads here
>where I am repeatedly accused of being a racist merely because
>I believe, based on a numerous modern studies of human population
>genetics, that biological races do exist and that concept of
>biological race is a valid and useful one.
In other words, you are a racist, by definition.
lojbab
John Brock
Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>d...@no.email.thankstospam.net (DK) wrote:
>>In article <ueusv1lgcisis2p8t...@4ax.com>, Bob
>>LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>>>no.e...@thanks.to.spam.net (DK) wrote:
>My stand is inherently morally superior to any stand taken by a
>subhuman racist slime.
...and...
>>Sheesh. So after I cite you a review by leading experts in the field,
>>after I quote extensively for from it, all you are capable of is
>>to issue blanket statement that "there is no reason to believe that
>>race would be particularly useful in that endeavor" (the whole
>>fucking review deal with the fact that there *is*, and quite indisputably)?
>Only for subhuman racist slime.
...and...
>>>[selective racist claptrap deleted]
>>Nice of you to call a review in the most prestigious medical
>>journal by a group of highly respected experts a "racist claptrap".
>>
>>And you know what pisses me off most? - It's the fact that
>>you DID NOT EVEN READ IT!
>Absolutely correct. It was posted by a subhuman racist seeking to
>justify an immoral position, and therefore is not worthy of
>consideration.
Let me see if I understand your reasoning Bob:
Anyone who believes that "race" exists is a subhuman(!)
racist, and because racists are evil anything such a person
says about the issue is not worthy of consideration.
You know, I had noticed that there was something weird about the
way you were responding to my posts. You seemed strangely obtuse,
mostly missing the point of what I was saying, and wandering off
instead into your own little sermons.
But I think I understand now. You are the secular analogue of a
religious fundamentalist. Consider:
Refusing to accept the existence of God is an act of
wickedness. Atheists are therefore evil, and anything such
a person says about religion is not worthy of consideration.
It is *precisely* the same logic. "Only wicked people disagree
with me, and since wicked people are never right about anything it
follows that what I believe must be true".
Of course this logic is completely bogus. Wicked people are *often*
right! They often make sound arguments, and use the truth for
wicked ends. The ideas that an argument is false because a bad
person is making it, or because it would lead to immoral consequences,
are such elementary fallacies that even the ancient Greeks understood
them. You can look it up!
In fact, even most religious fundamentalists these days understand
these fallacies, and are too self-aware to actually use such
reasoning openly. Even the most benighted Creationists usually
claim to have read and understood the arguments of their opponents.
It's been a long time since I've run into someone who actually
boasted about not needing to read what his opponents had to say,
due to the "inherent moral superiority" of his own beliefs. (But
then, this is one of the reasons Usenet is so much fun. I *never*
get to talk to people like this in real life! :-)
--
John Brock
jbr...@panix.com
Bob LeChevalier
>Let me see if I understand your reasoning Bob:
>
> Anyone who believes that "race" exists is a subhuman(!)
> racist, and because racists are evil anything such a person
> says about the issue is not worthy of consideration.
The second part I said. I don't care what people believe. It is what
they talk about and what they favor as opposed to what they criticize.
And even then, I may only consider them a bigot. When they continue
ranting about race, then their bigotry has become an obsession and
they have been infected with nincompoopus racisti.
>You know, I had noticed that there was something weird about the
>way you were responding to my posts. You seemed strangely obtuse,
>mostly missing the point of what I was saying, and wandering off
>instead into your own little sermons.
Your posts have no point except to promote a racist agenda. Otherwise
you would talk about something else.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier
>What is particularly dangerous of that ilk is their self-righeousness
>and ruthless determination to achieve their goals by any means.
I am ruthlessly opposed to all ideologies.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier
>>>Echos of all this can be found in several threads here
>>>where I am repeatedly accused of being a racist merely because
>>>I believe, based on a numerous modern studies of human population
>>>genetics, that biological races do exist and that concept of
>>>biological race is a valid and useful one.
>>
>>In other words, you are a racist, by definition.
>
>and discrimination based on race.
dictionary.com
>rac·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rszm)
>n.
>The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
I have never known a single person who believed the first part, who
did not also believe the second part.
You are "repeatedly accused of being a racist" because you quack like
those ducks. Only racists consider race worth talking about,
ESPECIALLY in the face of "PC".
lojbab
Gray Shockley
(in article <tcesv19gnn7k73gqa...@4ax.com>):
> d...@no.email.thankstospam.net (DK) wrote:
>>> There is no geographical isolation nor genetic/reproductive isolation
>>> in any known population of human beings.
>>
>> You gotta be kidding. Modern mobility is hardly 200 years old.
>
> Which means that there have been no races for 200 years, because there
> is no isolation.
>
>> Australoids were isolated for at least 50,000 years
>
> No evidence of that. They were relatively isolated in that they
> didn't interbreed with Europeans, but they weren't completely isolated
> by any stretch of the imagination.
>
> http://www.crystalinks.com/aboriginals.html
> <The notion of pristine natives with a "pure" culture was an artificial
> < one - many Aborigines had considerable contact with Melanesians and
> < Indonesians long before the European colonists arrived in Australia.
>
> Considering that the Pacific islands were settled during the last few
> thousand years, during that few thousand years none of the Pacific
> basin was completely isolated.
>
>> and Amerindians for at least 20,000.
>
> Again false. There seems to be evidence of two migrations from Asia,
> and some evidence that there was interchange between West Africa and
> Brazil long before the modern era, and some evidence that the
> Phoenicians also made it to Brazil
> http://phoenicia.org/brazil.html
There's also those annoying Ogam stones which make some angry and heated in
the denial that those stones betray and reveal an ancient people ("Celtic"?)
and those who almost religiously "buy into" this "evidence" of the "first
Americans".
But the most amusing re-action appears to be that almost everyone in the
discussion starts with tics and progresses rapidly to twitches and, from
there, into convulsions (of either laughter or less acceptable forms of
physical, emotional and mental re-action).
I, of course, know the purpose of those stones. They are there to test our
faith and acceptance of the Druidic God(s).
Gray Shockley
---------------------------------
For a free America, eliminate
non-prophet businesses.
>
>>> In the case of canis lupus, there are multiple classification systems
>>> for subspecies, so "formally recognized" is not a well-defined
>>> situation.
>>
>> The fuzzines of borders of uncertainties of classification do not
>> preclude classification itself.
>
> The fuzziness means that the classification is arbitrary and
> subjective. Since it is harmful, leading to the infection
> nincompoopus racisti, it is to be avoided.
>
>>> However the overall range is much larger than the range
>>> for humans. For example, average weight in the wild and lupus
>>> subspecies ranges from 16kg to 60kg
>>
>> So what? Nothing prevents the difference for other traits
>> to be in the opposite direction, with humans having higher variation.
>
> There are no significant traits for which such racial variation
> exists.
>
>>>>>> This seems very unnatural from both an evolutionary
>>>>>> and a historical standpoint.
>>>>>
>>>>> How can something that has happened be 'unnatural'?
>>>>
>>>> You can't be that stupid! The very first definition of
>>
>> [edit: "first" instead of "same"]
>>
>>>> "unnatural": "In violation of a natural law", "not in accordance with
>>>> or determined by nature; contrary to nature".
>>>
>>> There is nothing in nature that prevents women from seeking
>>> non-familial careers
>>>
>>>> In this case, the author's obvious but not explicitly stated law
>>>> is clearly one of reproduction. E.g., for the survival of population,
>>>>> 2 offsprings is per pair of parents is minimally required.
>>>> 'Cause your argument runs like: "Because rapes and subsequent
>>>> murders of 3 year old girls *do* happen, therefore it is NATURAL.
>>>> No, tell me you did not really means that!
>>>
>>> Actually, "rape" is indeed a "natural" occurrence. It is not a
>>> civilized occurrence.
>>
>> Same mistake again. The "law" in question is one of reproduction,
>> not just a matter of occurrence.
>
> Making a guess as to what you mean, human fertility is so far above
> the rate of 2 offspring per pair, that we are drowning the planet.
> Sublimating the reproductive urge to a more sustainable level is a
> sound biological strategy.
>
>>>>> It went against Laws of physics?
>>>>> Culture change...it happens. Try looking up 'culture lag."
>>>>> Whats it like to be an anachronism?
>>>>
>>>> The stupid PC that permeates our society everywhere is
>>>> quickly becoming a severe roadblock on a way toward progress.
>>>
>>> Define "progress". If it involves any sort of racial separation or
>>> eugenics, then it is not progress.
>>
>> For scientific progress, it would be accumulation of more knowledge.
>
> "PC" is not a significant block on accumulating scientific knowledge.
> It may steer the direction of acquisition of scientific knowledge away
> from things that racists want to believe, to things that are actually
> useful to society.
>
>> If it turns out eugenics is an explanation
>
> No. It is a policy, and an immoral one. But if we ever implement it,
> I favor immediate sterilization of all racists as the first step.
>
> lojbab
Gray Shockley
(in article <tthsv1pt2co1notnt...@4ax.com>):
> d...@no.email.thankstospam.net (DK) wrote:
>> In article <1140712165....@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>,
>> "spiznet" <ma...@spiznet.com> wrote:
>
>>> The fact that the lineages are so recently related (less than 200kya
>>> for a homo lineage we can trace back more than 2mya) in this case means
>>> that in homo sapiens "race" is not very significant.
>>
>> Significant is a relative and uncertain term. Certainly, it is significant
>> enough to be useful in medicine. Few quotes the recent review:
>>
>> Nature Genetics, 2004, 36(11 Suppl):S48-53. JL Mountain, N Risch.
>> Assessing genetic contributions to phenotypic differences among ‘racial’
>> and ‘ethnic’ groups.
>
> Note that they consider racial groups along with ethnic groups. In
> medicine it is useful to know that someone is a Mormon from Utah, and
> they didn't even exist 200 years ago. There are some genetic diseases
> that can be identified from any family of 5-6 generations having a
> specific pattern, so for medicine, there might be a million "races".
> Or none.
>
>> "
>> Recent analyses of multilocus genetic data have generated clusters
>> that correspond closely with socially or geographically defined groups.
>>
>> [There is a bit of PC speak here. Data clearly show that "socially"
>> is not anywhere near the "geographically"]
>
> Actually, that is probably referring to Ashkenazi Jews, who are pretty
> much socially defined.
>
>> There is the potential, therefore, for genetic factors to contribute to
>> phenotypic differences between groups.
>>
>> [Again, nothing besides social sensitivities justifies this level
>> of caution: "potential to contribute top phenotypic difference".
>> Jeez, show me a biologist that would not agree that genetic factors
>> contribute to phenotypic differences]
>
> The question is whether these genetic and phenotypic difference
> correspond with any socially-defined "races". They don't.
>
>> ..our lack of understanding of the etiology of many complex
>> traits means that racial and ethnic labels remain useful in epidemiological
>> and clinical settings. Given the potential for furthering racism
>> by discussing race and genetics together in a scientific context, we
>> might seek to eliminate the use of racial categories in these contexts.
>>
>> [Again, an extra scientific argument. "It is real but we'd be better off
>> not to mention it explicitely].
>
> Actually it says that racial and ethnic groupings are "useful". It
> would indeed likely be better to eschew using race, because then we
> would look for other factors that are probably MORE useful.
>
>> ..assuming that our society values the goal of understanding the underlying
>> basis of those disparities, the continued use of labels in epidemiological
>> research and clinical practice seems justified. Racial and ethnic
>> categories
>> are proxies for a wide range of factors, potentially genetic and nongenetic.
>
> So we should be looking for those unidentified factors, which means
> eschewing the proxies that stand between us and those factors.
>
>>> Also note that
>>> within 2 or 3 generations of admixture any "race" will disappear.
>>
>> Maybe. Maybe not so fast. Jews have been relatively successful in
>> keeping their gene pool from admixture.
>
> False, as evidenced by the considerable discrepancy between Sephardic
> and Ashkenazi Jews. The Ashkenazi had considerable admixture with
> northern and Eastern Europeans. The Sephards had considerable
> admixture with Spanish and Moorish Arabs. There was some admixture
> between Ashkenazi and Sephardic after the expulsion of the latter from
> Spain 500 years ago.
>
>
> Up until around 50 years ago. Nowadays in the US, something like 50%
> of all Jews intermarry.
>
>> In any case, everything elvolves
>> and the fact that homogenization may eventually lead to disappearence
>> of distinct lineages does not mean that the lineages do not exist or never
>> existed. (Which is a point of PC anthropology in the USA).
>
> The claim is not that "lineages" do not exist. The claim is that the
> "races" as defined by racists do not exist. The lineages of
> mitochondrial DNA form a tree structure, and one can arbitrarily
> define some branch of that tree as a "lineage", but none of those
> lineages exactly correspond to race, and indeed, the lineages
> apparently do not correspond all that well to Y-DNA lineages.
>
> http://www.humanitas-international.org/perezites/news/jewish-dna-nytimes.htm
> for the differences between Jewish mitochondrial DNA and Y-DNA.
>
> A friend of mine, with the good British name "Burgess" found that a
> significant percentage of those having that surname were of a Y-DNA
> type reflecting a Middle Eastern ancestry some 2000-4000 years ago.
> Maybe their ancestors were sailors in Roman or Phoenician days that
> left their seed behind in British ports.
I'd be a mite bit suspicious of some of Caesar's soldiers. I've noticed that
several have rather guilty looks on their faces.
Or mebbe that was something by Picasso.
+ gray
>
> And of course the Y-DNA and the mitochondrial DNA only trace two of
> one's lineages, the strictly paternal one and the strictly maternal
> one. The problem with that is that as recently as 10 generations ago,
> you had 1024 ancestors, and genetically you can only "prove" two of
> them.
>
> Meanwhile a significant portion of European nobility are known to have
> some blacks in their ancestry. Russian writer Alexander Pushkin's
> grandfather was black, and was elevated to the nobility by Peter the
> Great, and his genes have spread all over Europe. There were blacks
> among medieval Spanish nobility as well. In those days, being
> "Moorish" was not necessarily stigmatized, especially since many of
> the black Moors were wealthy traders.
>
> Jenghis Khan spread his genes all over Asia, and thus through
> migration into Europe. Attila the Hun and his men did likewise,
> though we haven't identified genes that can be associated with him as
> we can with Jenghis and his men, and many of Attila's men stayed in
> Europe. Neither group was "white", but likely almost every European
> has some of Attila in his genome (just as it is likely that almost
> every European is descended from Charlemagne).
>
> We are all mongrels.
>
> lojbab
Gray Shockley
(in article <62msv15dm7i7p7f99...@4ax.com>):
> no.e...@thanks.to.spam.net (DK) wrote:
>>> To suggest that the authors
>>> of this screed have any understanding of anything bordering
>>> on anthropology, history, science, ethics, morality, good sense
>>> etc, etc, ad nauseum, is to insult the intelligence of a flatworm.
>>>
>>> They seek legitimacy, people. Don't give it to them.
>>
>> So if a bigot makes a correct observation that 2x2=4, all good
>> people must oppose the claim, so as not to give him a legitimacy?
>
> No, all good people must reject the reference, and find a sound
> reference if they wish to have an "authority" for 2+2=4. If they
> cannot find a non-bigoted authority for 2+2=4, they should be
> skeptical. (Of course, everyone knows that 2+2 = 22).
>
> lojbab
Both of my kindergarten teachers said that "two times two equal four" and
both of them were good Christian ladies of the Steel Magnolia variety, so
there can be no question.
They said it; I believe it; That settles that.
[Imagine - if you can - a fish with no feet.]
++ gray
Gray Shockley
(in article <1140741328....@t39g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>):
> Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>>> and Amerindians for at least 20,000.
>>
>> Again false. There seems to be evidence of two migrations from Asia,
>> and some evidence that there was interchange between West Africa and
>> Brazil long before the modern era, and some evidence that the
>> Phoenicians also made it to Brazil
>> http://phoenicia.org/brazil.html
>
> Um, I wouldn't cite anything like that again if I were you.
> Hyperdiffusionism is a very old racist tactic.
>
> In particular, that site has this evidence:
>
> http://phoenicia.org/america.html
>
> Yes, that is as insane as it sounds.
>
> The DNA evidence with Indians is rather complicated,
> but contrary to popular belief, modern Indians' DNA
> doesn't fit in with East Asians at all. B's the only
> mitochondrial type which does. Blood groups, it's
> even worse.
>
> (Naturally, no one argues that East Asians 'replaced'
> modern Indians, if you get my drift. And if you don't,
> a lot of pop anthropologists use 'replace' as a
> euphemism for mass murder.)
>
> Feature-wise, both ancient skeletons and modern
> Indians tend to more fit a mixture of caucasoid and
> negroid features.
>
>>>> In the case of canis lupus, there are multiple classification systems
>>>> for subspecies, so "formally recognized" is not a well-defined
>>>> situation.
>>>
>>> The fuzzines of borders of uncertainties of classification do not
>>> preclude classification itself.
>>
>> The fuzziness means that the classification is arbitrary and
>> subjective. Since it is harmful, leading to the infection
>> nincompoopus racisti, it is to be avoided.
>
> Pretty much what we all agree on.
>
>>> Same mistake again. The "law" in question is one of reproduction,
>>> not just a matter of occurrence.
>>
>> Making a guess as to what you mean, human fertility is so far above
>> the rate of 2 offspring per pair, that we are drowning the planet.
>> Sublimating the reproductive urge to a more sustainable level is a
>> sound biological strategy.
>
> Don't try to explain overpopulation to neocons. Really, this
> planet could sustain a larger population -- provided we all
> lived like in India.
Or we have all the military of the world plowsharing.
++ gray
>
>>> If it turns out eugenics is an explanation
>>
>> No. It is a policy, and an immoral one. But if we ever implement it,
>> I favor immediate sterilization of all racists as the first step.
>
> I don't think eugenics could be an 'explanation' for anything.
> It's not a 'theory' per se. It's an application of theory.
>
deowll
"Bob LeChevalier" <loj...@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:hqvuv1d38gclqruuh...@4ax.com...
> no.e...@thanks.to.spam.net (DK) wrote:
>>In article <9s7uv1p4dadg5cujv...@4ax.com>, Bob LeChevalier
>><loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>>>>LOL. You defense techniques might work in the courtroom
>>>>in front of a bunch of random people but in science such silly
>>>>arguments don't work.
>>>
>>>But they do.
>>
>>Yeah, right. You argument, repeatedly used in your useless reply,
>>is consistently one of denial:
>>
>>>Absolutely correct. It was posted by a subhuman racist seeking to
>>>justify an immoral position, and therefore is not worthy of
>>>consideration.
>>
>>This no-argument gives you exactly zero credibility.
Actually you are a politically correct person pretending to do science
without doing science. You should do fine. It's only people who try to look
at the facts in a politically charged field in which emotion over rules data
that are going to get it in the neck. You certainly can't be accused of
doing that.
>
> It gives me infinite credibility except with racists, whose opinion
> doesn't matter in the slightest.
Of course his views don't matter. He has the physical evidence and you have
the political inside line and no he isn't a racist as you are using the
phrase but you do get a thrill out of saying it and like most lies this will
most likely stick if you repeat it enough.
>
>>Discussing anything further with you or trying to educate you is entirely
>>pointless.
>
> Racists are incapable of "educating", but they still insist on posting
> to the education groups, whereupon they WILL get a response from me.
> I don't much care whether they choose to "discuss", since all they
> have to offer is racist tripe.
>
And politically correct hacks who don't deal with evidence other than by
denial end up being the next generations jokes but most likely not until
after they retire or die.
>>Good bye.
>
> Good riddance. We won't miss you.
Speak for yourself. I like people who shape their opinions based on evidence
rather than what is politically correct. The one thing I know about you is
that almost everything you say is going to be popular but not based on facts
and as science less than drivel.
man_in_...@yahoo.com
> There's also those annoying Ogam stones which make some angry and heated in
> the denial that those stones betray and reveal an ancient people ("Celtic"?)
> and those who almost religiously "buy into" this "evidence" of the "first
> Americans".
Oh, it gets worse: The whole Kennewick man suit consisted
primarily of white supremacist groups trying to argue that
whites were in North America before Indians.
Bob LeChevalier
>"Bob LeChevalier" <loj...@lojban.org> wrote in message
>news:hqvuv1d38gclqruuh...@4ax.com...
>>>is consistently one of denial:
>>>
>>>>Absolutely correct. It was posted by a subhuman racist seeking to
>>>>justify an immoral position, and therefore is not worthy of
>>>>consideration.
>>>
>>>This no-argument gives you exactly zero credibility.
>
>Actually you are a politically correct person
No. I am a morally correct person.
>pretending to do science without doing science.
No, I leave biology to the biologists. I am just an intelligent,
educated, sane layperson. In astrophysics, I have a degree, but I
don't practice that field. In linguistics, I have no formal training,
but I on occasion do some science, recognizing that linguistics is
also a social science making it very difficult to actual do such
science (something most linguists don't recognize, because they are
trained as social "scientists").
>You should do fine. It's only people who try to look
>at the facts in a politically charged field in which emotion over rules data
>that are going to get it in the neck. You certainly can't be accused of
>doing that.
Scientists tend to stay away from areas where emotion overrules data,
because it is unlikely that unbiased data can be gathered.
>> It gives me infinite credibility except with racists, whose opinion
>> doesn't matter in the slightest.
>
>Of course his views don't matter. He has the physical evidence and you have
>the political inside line and no he isn't a racist
He believes that human races actually exist rather than being a
figment of his imagination; therefore by definition he is a racist.
>>>Good bye.
>>
>> Good riddance. We won't miss you.
>
>Speak for yourself. I like people who shape their opinions based on evidence
>rather than what is politically correct. The one thing I know about you is
>that almost everything you say is going to be popular but not based on facts
>and as science less than drivel.
Actually, I tend not to say the popular thing on most issues. On
race, I merely say the correct thing. But you are free to believe
whatever you want.
lojbab
John Brock
Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>jbr...@panix.com (John Brock) wrote:
>>Let me see if I understand your reasoning Bob:
>>
>> Anyone who believes that "race" exists is a subhuman(!)
>> racist, and because racists are evil anything such a person
>> says about the issue is not worthy of consideration.
>The second part I said. I don't care what people believe. It is what
>they talk about and what they favor as opposed to what they criticize.
>And even then, I may only consider them a bigot. When they continue
>ranting about race, then their bigotry has become an obsession and
>they have been infected with nincompoopus racisti.
You know, I wasn't even going to bother to respond, but after seeing
the following exchange between you and deowll in another post I
couldn't resist. You say you don't care what people believe, you
care about what they say. But then you tell deowll:
=== BEGIN QUOTE ===
In article <iu8402pv8un17idl8...@4ax.com>,
Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>"deowll" <deo...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>Of course his views don't matter. He has the physical evidence and you have
>>the political inside line and no he isn't a racist
>He believes that human races actually exist rather than being a
>figment of his imagination; therefore by definition he is a racist.
=== END QUOTE ===
So, um, it looks like you *do* care what people believe, don't you? :-)
Of course even aside from that, don't you think that there is
something kind of questionable about saying that you don't care
what people believe, as long as they don't actually talk about it?
Something kind of -- as DK pointed out -- Stalinistic?
And I notice you had no comment on my observation that your logic
is exactly analogous to that of a religious fanatic, i.e., "If you
don't believe what I believe then you are evil, which means that
nothing you say is worthy of consideration".
Oh yes, one more thing. Are you really oblivious to the irony of
your referring to racists as "subhuman"? :-) :-) :-)
>>You know, I had noticed that there was something weird about the
>>way you were responding to my posts. You seemed strangely obtuse,
>>mostly missing the point of what I was saying, and wandering off
>>instead into your own little sermons.
>Your posts have no point except to promote a racist agenda. Otherwise
>you would talk about something else.
If you had read my posts carefully -- I know you consider it a
point of pride not to read things you disagree with -- you might
have noticed that I actually had nothing to say about race itself.
I merely disagreed with a statement having to do with the perception
of race 100 years ago, and then made some arguments backing my
claim up. Standard Usenet chitchat. But I guess for the fanatic
any disagreement at all, however slight, is enough to make you "an
enemy of the people".
--
John Brock
jbr...@panix.com
Bob LeChevalier
No. Because if he never said anything and never acted on his beliefs,
I wouldn't know he had them, and therefore would have nothing to
criticize.
I'll go beyond that and say that if he and all the rest weren't
posting subhuman racist tripe to the education newsgroups, I would
probably neither know nor care what any of you think.
>Of course even aside from that, don't you think that there is
>something kind of questionable about saying that you don't care
>what people believe, as long as they don't actually talk about it?
No. I have a right to feel that way. And I do.
>Something kind of -- as DK pointed out -- Stalinistic?
Stalin killed people for their words, and sometimes even for other's
perceptions of their words. I have neither the power nor the desire
to practice Stalinism.
>And I notice you had no comment on my observation that your logic
>is exactly analogous to that of a religious fanatic, i.e., "If you
>don't believe what I believe then you are evil, which means that
>nothing you say is worthy of consideration".
I have a right to feel that way. And I do. I don't pretend that my
feelings are "logical".
>Oh yes, one more thing. Are you really oblivious to the irony of
>your referring to racists as "subhuman"? :-) :-) :-)
Those who are familiar with me and my postings over the years know
that the irony is quite intentional. Those who are familiar with the
subhuman racist nincompoop sometimes calling itself "John Knight" or
"fathersmanifesto" or more recently "JacobIsrael" will probably be
able to guess why.
>>>You know, I had noticed that there was something weird about the
>>>way you were responding to my posts. You seemed strangely obtuse,
>>>mostly missing the point of what I was saying, and wandering off
>>>instead into your own little sermons.
>
>>Your posts have no point except to promote a racist agenda. Otherwise
>>you would talk about something else.
>
>If you had read my posts carefully -- I know you consider it a
>point of pride not to read things you disagree with -- you might
>have noticed that I actually had nothing to say about race itself.
>I merely disagreed with a statement having to do with the perception
>of race 100 years ago, and then made some arguments backing my
>claim up. Standard Usenet chitchat. But I guess for the fanatic
>any disagreement at all, however slight, is enough to make you "an
>enemy of the people".
Those who post about race in the education newsgroups have painted a
bullseye on their tail and asked for me to fire at it. I am happy to
oblige. I will continue to do so, subject to time available, as long
as the postings continue.
lojbab
Lee Olsen
man_in_...@yahoo.com wrote:
<snip>
>
> The DNA evidence with Indians is rather complicated,
> but contrary to popular belief, modern Indians' DNA
> doesn't fit in with East Asians at all. B's the only
> mitochondrial type which does. Blood groups, it's
> even worse.
>
What recent DNA papers can you cite that offer differerent conclusions
from these two?
Or
Theodore G. Schurr (2004) The Peopling of the New World: Perspectives
from Molecular Anthropology, Annual Review of Anthropology Volume
33:551-83
<snip>
Lee Olsen
No, the suit was about scientists claiming that Kennewick Man looked
nothing like the local NAs who occupy the area today (and some of the
same scientists are still claiming that today) and therefore had the
right to study the skeleton.
The group you are probably thinking about, Asatru Folk, quickly
realized they would lose and would be just wasting their money, so
they dropped their claim.
man_in_...@yahoo.com
And yet Stanford et alia still claim as much. Real nice.
man_in_...@yahoo.com
> What recent DNA papers can you cite that offer differerent conclusions
> from these two?
>
> http://tinyurl.com/7slck
Personally, I think the whole 'clock' concept basically
ignores the very foundations of modern biology. You know,
since while mutations are random, natural selection isn't?
Simple fact:
B found in Japan.
A, C, D, and X not found in China, Japan, Korea, or
anywhere else classically considered 'East Asia'.
Therefore, it follows logically that only someone with
no knowledge of biology would ignore A, C, D, and X.
You know, an anthropologist.
man_in_...@yahoo.com
DK, you're a dumbass.
Doug McDonald
> Lee Olsen wrote:
>> What recent DNA papers can you cite that offer differerent conclusions
>> from these two?
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/7slck
>
> Personally, I think the whole 'clock' concept basically
> ignores the very foundations of modern biology. You know,
> since while mutations are random, natural selection isn't?
>
> Simple fact:
>
> B found in Japan.
>
> A, C, D, and X not found in China, Japan, Korea, or
> anywhere else classically considered 'East Asia'.
This is completely and totally screwed up.
Look at the maps at my website, www.scs.uiuc.edu/~mcdonald
These are basically up to date as far as mtDNA haplogroups
A, B, C, D, and X are concerned.
A, B, and D are common in Japan. C and X are not.
A, B, and D are very common in China, C is present but rare,
X absent.
A, B, C, and D are all quite present in Mongolia.
some combination of A, C, and/or D is common in all of the
tribes of East Siberia. B is uncommon except in Buryats and
some more minor tribes. X is absent.
Thus there is no problem with anything except X. X is
present in the Altai at very low levels.
>
> Therefore, it follows logically that only someone with
> no knowledge of biology would ignore A, C, D, and X.
> You know, an anthropologist.
>
I have no idea what the point of this statement is. All of
A, B, C, and D clearly are present in large numbers in
eastern Asia.
Doug McDonald
Lee Olsen
But that doesn't make him a white supremacist, it just makes him
wrong.
It is too bad that Stanford's hackneyed hypothesis has been given so
much time in the media. I doubt if he has been very successful in
convincing anthropologists that his claims are correct. People who
actually believe the media, and their quoting of press-release
archaeologists, get what they deserve.
man_in_...@yahoo.com
> > And yet Stanford et alia still claim as much. Real nice.
>
> But that doesn't make him a white supremacist, it just makes him
> wrong.
And what, by your criteria, would make him a white supremacist?
If nothing else, he's just repeating something the South African
government said under apartheid. Come to think of it, the Rhodesian
government said the same thing. Only difference is where they are.
> It is too bad that Stanford's hackneyed hypothesis has been given so
> much time in the media. I doubt if he has been very successful in
> convincing anthropologists that his claims are correct. People who
> actually believe the media, and their quoting of press-release
> archaeologists, get what they deserve.
And yet no anthropologists step up to challenge him. Other
anthropologists have had crazy hypotheses about Pleistocene
America too. (Let's not forget how ancient charcoal happens to
contaminate all Pleistocene sites with evidence of human
habitation, but not Pleistocene sites with no evidence of human
habitation. Nor does it contaminate more recent sites with
evidence of human habitation.) The Kennewick man plaintiffs loved
to spin paranoid conspiracy theories about NAGPRA.
Day Brown
kind of preservative fluid from a thousand years ago, found in a city
in NE china) was so well preserved that they could identify her blood,
which was AB...
the medical transcriptionist told me that East Asians dont *have* AB
blood.
The wench was an import, just as rich men still do, from Tien Shen
where Aryans were living at the time. Rich men have always imported
exotic livestock; horses, dogs, cattle, and of course- women. Likewise,
other rich men have exported daughters, wanting only to keep their
sons. Thus the aristocracies all over are the most mongrelized bunch
around, and dont really have the 'pure blood' they are always going on
about.
man_in_...@yahoo.com
> Complicating the matter, on being told that a Chinese woman (in some
> kind of preservative fluid from a thousand years ago, found in a city
> in NE china) was so well preserved that they could identify her blood,
> which was AB...
>
> the medical transcriptionist told me that East Asians dont *have* AB
> blood.
That's a myth. East Asians have both A and B, and therefore
have AB.
Roger 3
Actually, the Irish were indeed considered sub-human, most notably by
W. R. Greg and Francis Galton, the fathers of the eugenics movement.
The two of them could not envision that cultures that were not as
technically advanced as their own had any merit whatsoever. It's
rather sad, actually, but denigrating the Irish was a popular thing to
do in England and the U.S.A. at the time - it gave us NINA (No Irish
Need Apply) signs in New York and Boston, but it also gave us such
masterpieces as Swift's 'A Modest Proposal'.
Try googling for Galton, water-babies, J.S. Mill and Punch. You'll
find a wealth of information on the subject.
Sorry about the intrusion, I'm more of a lurker than anything else, but
this just happened to touch on a subject that I know a lot about.
Roger
prd
news:duc950$t2e$1...@news.ks.uiuc.edu by Doug McDonald
<mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> . . . :
> I have no idea what the point of this statement is. All of
> A, B, C, and D clearly are present in large numbers in
> eastern Asia.
D diversity in Japan is pretty high, whether or not it is very
common, with analysis of origin one looks for both density and
diversity per sample size.
I suspect X and B came from similar common sources. I will let gisele
try to figure out where C and A came from. :^).
John Brock
I would never deny that the Irish (or the Italians, who were also
mentioned post I responded to) were denigrated or discriminated
against. It is the most common thing in the world for the people
of one ethnic group the denigrate the people next door using the
worst possible language that they can come up with. But the
statement was made that "a hundred years ago the Irish weren't
considered to be 'white'", and I posted because I've seen this
claim before, and it just strikes me as nonsense.
I made some arguments in another post that you might want to look
at before responding, but to put it in a nutshell, because of our
history with slavery Americans for a long time have had very strong
and specific ideas about "race", and about who was "white" and who
wasn't, and those ideas were much the same in the past as they are
today. Whatever insults the Irish or Italians may have suffered
in America, there is no question that from the time the country
was founded any Irishman or Italian walking into any town anywhere
in the South would have been instantly accepted as "white" by the
locals (both black and white). That doesn't mean he wouldn't have
been seen as a damn foreigner once he opened his mouth, but he
would have been seen as a damn foreigner who was *white*. I don't
see how anyone can reasonably argue otherwise, and to the extent
that anyone does I think those arguments trace back to people who
have engaged in selective quote-mining in order to advance a
modern-day political agenda involving the "social construction" of
race.
(BTW, if you do respond, it is a good idea to quote some of the
post you are responding to, in order to provide context).
--
John Brock
jbr...@panix.com
Roger 3
> In article <1141704803.0...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> Roger 3 <Roger.Bu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Mr. Brock,
> >
> see how anyone can reasonably argue otherwise, and to the extent
> that anyone does I think those arguments trace back to people who
> have engaged in selective quote-mining in order to advance a
> modern-day political agenda involving the "social construction" of
> race.
>
> (BTW, if you do respond, it is a good idea to quote some of the
> post you are responding to, in order to provide context).
> --
> John Brock
> jbr...@panix.com
I must appologise for not quoting your post, I'm using (and still
getting used to) Google's Groups interface - which leaves much to be
desired.
To the topic. Charles Kingsley was an opponent of J. S. Mill and the
other Dismal Scientists. Surprisingly, it was the proponents of the
then new science of Economics that sided with the liberal English
protestants against the ideas of 'race', 'paternalism',
'classification' and 'societal ordering'. The protestants were
egalitarian in nature and felt that all humans should be treated
equally, simply because they were human. The economists too were
egalitarian, but this was a necessary result of one of the basic
precepts of their science: /homo economicus/. /Homo economicus/ is
your average man, he makes rational decisions based on the knowledge he
has available. Many of the new economists were uncomfortable about the
implications of /homo economicus/, to be sure, but when put to the test
they stood by humanity and their science - all men are equal, and
cannot be classified according to the theory of 'types'.
I've digressed a little bit, but it's important that you understand
some of the background so that what I have to say makes sense. The
world at that time was limited by the horse-drawn carriage and sailing
ships - cars were 40 years away, and air travel was the stuff of
scientific fantasy ala Jules Verne. We would be doing the victorians a
disservice by putting our attitudes on their thoughts, a phenomenon
called presentism. In such a small world, the concepts of *us* and
*them* meant different things than they do now - location had just as
much to do with alienness as skin color. Illustrative of this is
Charles Kingsley. We would consider him a reactionary conservative
today, but then his ideas and defenses were about as unusual as the
politicians today who put up Defense of Marriage Acts. A populist, he
also wrote a 'children's' book, called The Water-babies, ostensibly
about the virtues of hard work, but in reality, it was both an attack
on economics and a defense of the idea of racial 'types', of which the
Irish were a primary object of derision. Here's a non-quote-mined
exerpt from Dr. David Levy of the Center for the Study of Public Choice
at George Mason University:
"Here Kingsley confronts the laissez-faire doctrine of letting people
seek their own happiness. The fairies show Tom a book:
And on the title-page was written, "The History of the great and famous
nation of the Dosasyoulikes, who came away from the country of
Hardwork, because they wanted to play on the Jews' harp all day long."
(229)
The consequences of doing as they liked?
"So they lived miserably on roots and nuts, and all the weakly little
children had great stomaches, and then died."
"Why," said Tom, "they are growing no better than savages."
"And look how ugly they are getting," said Ellie.
Yes; when people like on poor vegetables instead of roast beef and
plum-pudding, their jaws grow large, and their lips grow coarse, like
the poor Paddies who eat potatoes. (233) "
David Levy http://www.econlib.org/LIBRARY/Columns/LevyPeartdismal4.html
You can find the full text of The Water-babies at project gutenberg
here: http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/1018
The Irish were very much considered sub-human, though they were not -
often - made into slaves, they were most definitely, according to the
theory of racial types, below your poorest average Englishman. Were
they considered superior to Africans? I honestly couldn't tell you, my
studies focused more on the generalities of both 'competing' ideas.
Jois
isn't for sci.anthropology.paleo. Please exclude from future posts.
"Roger 3" <Roger.Bu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1141763749....@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
Jois
isn't for sci.anthropology.paleo. Please exclude from future posts.
"John Brock" <jbr...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:dukdss$fgr$1...@reader2.panix.com...
Gray Shockley
(in article <07NNPRIG3878...@anonymous.poster>):
>> Theodore G. Schurr (2004) The Peopling of the New World:
>> Perspectives from Molecular Anthropology, Annual Review of
>> Anthropology Volume 33:551-83
>
> (From reading the abstract, haven't had the time to dig
> through the full article).
>
> Just 70 individuals populated the new world? I don't see
> how you could get the genetic diversity exhibited by Native
> Americans
In the case of Hildale and Colorado City, the lack of diversity in the
genetic pool has led to a very high occurrence of a rare disease called
fumarase deficiency, a degenerative condition that causes disabilities such
as mental retardation and muscle control problems. Only about 50 cases have
been diagnosed on the entire planet, but as many as 20 have been diagnosed
just in the two small polygamous towns. The abnormal concentration of cases
results from people carrying the gene for the disease marrying other people
who carry that gene.
More at:
<http://www.thespectrum.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060302/OPINION01/6030
20324/1014>
++ gray
> (example: NW Indians men have full beards, Plains
> Indians maybe have a thin mustache) from just 70 individuals;
> especially since it would be highly unlikely that we'd be
> talking about 70 *unrelated* individuals coming here singly.
> 70 people would most likely be related to each other, coming
> across in a group.
>
> Nor do I think that you could put down the differences that
> we do observe as adaptive ones, nor from my reading does it
> fit what previous workers thought from looking at the
> paleoarcheology--that there were at least three different
> migrations.
>
> I personally suspect that we don't know as much about
> genetic markers as some molecular biologists think that we
> do. For one thing, some of the DNA previously labeled
> "junk" has recently been discovered not to be "junk", but
> involved in epigenetics, the interaction between "junk"
> DNA and the surrounding proteins. The ideal marker cannot
> be an adaptive response, like skin color, as that will
> change with selective pressures.
man_in_...@yahoo.com
> Just 70 individuals populated the new world? I don't see
> how you could get the genetic diversity exhibited by Native
> Indians maybe have a thin mustache) from just 70 individuals;
> especially since it would be highly unlikely that we'd be
> talking about 70 *unrelated* individuals coming here singly.
> 70 people would most likely be related to each other, coming
> across in a group.
I was surprised by that too. I mean, a lot of the diseases
we get (Lupus, keloids, and diabetes mellitus come to mind.)
are 'black' diseases, but no one ever argues for a lack of
genetic diversity along the western coast of Africa. (We're
also more likely to get mood disorders but less likely to get
sickle-cell.)
> Nor do I think that you could put down the differences that
> we do observe as adaptive ones, nor from my reading does it
> fit what previous workers thought from looking at the
> paleoarcheology--that there were at least three different
> migrations.
Just calling it 'adaptive' is Lamarckism. For example, I don't
have much facial or body hair, not because my ancestors were
meticulous in hair removal, but because women didn't like that.
Instead this junk DNA actually has a genetic effect and
therefore isn't junk.
> I personally suspect that we don't know as much about
> genetic markers as some molecular biologists think that we
> do. For one thing, some of the DNA previously labeled
> "junk" has recently been discovered not to be "junk", but
> involved in epigenetics, the interaction between "junk"
> DNA and the surrounding proteins. The ideal marker cannot
> be an adaptive response, like skin color, as that will
> change with selective pressures.
It would take decreasing the population by several orders
of magnitude to make molecular biology worthless. Oh, wait.
Secret Squirrel
no.e...@thanks.to.spam.net (DK) wrote in
news:dun6hj$ck5$1...@news.doit.wisc.edu:
> In article <07NNPRIG3878...@anonymous.poster>,
> Secret Squirrel <ssqu...@nottheremailer.net> wrote:
>
>>Just 70 individuals populated the new world? I don't see
>>how you could get the genetic diversity exhibited by Native
>>Americans (example: NW Indians men have full beards, Plains
>>Indians maybe have a thin mustache) from just 70
>>individuals
>
> That's because you don't understand basic genetics.
> The smaller is a founder population, the higher level of
> diversity is expected to result. Look up "genetic drift"
> and "population bottleneck".
I *think* I understand both. "Genetic drift" in an segment
of a population that becomes isolated is how speciation
occurs, a smaller population can become *different* than
its parent more quickly and more easily. Population
bottlenecks, OTH, work to *constrain* the diversity within
a population; the human genome exhibits *less* genetic
diversity than it ought because of the Toba eruption and
subsequent bottleneck, no?
If the New World was indeed settled by only 70 related
indivdiuals, we should see a) greater differences between
them and the Old World populations, and b) small differences
within Native American populations, no? But what you have
are short southwestern Indians and freakishly tall Plains
peoples like MIB's Lakota. To me that would fit best a varied
genetic ancestry arising from multiple migration events.
70 individuals are about the same size as many European royal
families, or even smaller. So why don't Native American groups
all share things such as Hapsburg chins or Romanov hemophilia?
And before you say that the diversity we see is a result of
selective pressures, I remind you that Native American groups
were never isolated from one another, but intermarried and
adopted captives from warfare, which would have worked to
suppress said diversity. Again, you would see a lot of
sameness.
It seems simpler to say that the diversity is just the
result from diversity in the original populations. I also
had thought that the traditional paleoarcheaology models
had agreed with that (at least three big migrations, or so
I recall).
Secret Squirrel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A
iQEVAwUBRA9wAT/rA6+b3AyhAQHnjgf9EA/xgD7udC/6Kjtqs89qhxINxiMlWfd5
m9dqKr2s0ucgbU9yi87IWlTLTOnFST+Yfayz2cqwhRsJNTDM9kO7p/dC/kCtmcLS
EovlHWpA0uTYhEkhW+8QIRS3jU3knILS6EkCJf0V+Rveyx2xn427lMYGB91io6wD
1arPMm8INuXwF519wzMWVS+TA4L2ZRDdwcab5w3aJhuVkA+cax7hj0e58GekOnlt
JHLF7gmeL3C6KHalh3nf1FyWK4yGasYtkEQTTtfESuKQADK5xuSEIC/rLVbye0wo
gi1ZAupJMO/zVrS5qF+KaTe4amVNWDJ8ShMS0ea1shT2TV+HR9dU4w==
=0G+k
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Cary Kittrell
> In article <5P0MNPUI3878...@anonymous.poster>, Secret Squirrel <ssqu...@nottheremailer.net> wrote:
> >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >
> >no.e...@thanks.to.spam.net (DK) wrote in
> >news:dun6hj$ck5$1...@news.doit.wisc.edu:
> >
> >> In article <07NNPRIG3878...@anonymous.poster>,
> >> Secret Squirrel <ssqu...@nottheremailer.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>>Just 70 individuals populated the new world? I don't see
> >>>how you could get the genetic diversity exhibited by Native
> >>>Americans (example: NW Indians men have full beards, Plains
> >>>Indians maybe have a thin mustache) from just 70
> >>>individuals
> >>
> >> That's because you don't understand basic genetics.
> >> The smaller is a founder population, the higher level of
> >> diversity is expected to result. Look up "genetic drift"
> >> and "population bottleneck".
> >
> >I *think* I understand both. "Genetic drift" in an segment
> >of a population that becomes isolated is how speciation
> >occurs, a smaller population can become *different* than
> >its parent more quickly and more easily. Population
> >bottlenecks, OTH, work to *constrain* the diversity within
> >a population; the human genome exhibits *less* genetic
> >diversity than it ought because of the Toba eruption and
> >subsequent bottleneck, no?
>
>
> - Neutral drift is a major force in the evolution.
> - Neutral genetic drift is a fixation of non-selected traits.
> - This happens basically as a statistical "fluke".
> - Therefore, the amount of genetic drift is inversely
> proportional to the population number ("safety in numbers";
> flukes tend to disappear as you go on).
> - It follows that the smaller founder population
> (a "population bottleneck") the *higher* genetic
> diversity will eventually result if all other things are equal.
I was with you until that last statement -- it would seem to me that a
smaller population could exhibit more genetic drift "as a whole", but
at the same time have less diversity within the group?
-- cary
Cary Kittrell
> In article <dus5u5$moa$1...@onion.ccit.arizona.edu>, ca...@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
> >In article <dur2fo$o1g$1...@news.doit.wisc.edu> d...@no.email.thankstospam.net (DK)
> > writes:
> >> In article <5P0MNPUI3878...@anonymous.poster>, Secret Squirrel
> > <ssqu...@nottheremailer.net> wrote:
> >> >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >> >
> >> >no.e...@thanks.to.spam.net (DK) wrote in
> >> >news:dun6hj$ck5$1...@news.doit.wisc.edu:
> >> >
> >> >> In article <07NNPRIG3878...@anonymous.poster>,
> >> >> Secret Squirrel <ssqu...@nottheremailer.net> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>>Just 70 individuals populated the new world? I don't see
> >> >>>how you could get the genetic diversity exhibited by Native
> >> >>>Americans (example: NW Indians men have full beards, Plains
> >> >>>Indians maybe have a thin mustache) from just 70
> >> >>>individuals
> >> >>
> >> >> That's because you don't understand basic genetics.
>
> >> >I *think* I understand both. "Genetic drift" in an segment
> >> >of a population that becomes isolated is how speciation
> >> >occurs, a smaller population can become *different* than
> >> >its parent more quickly and more easily. Population
> >> >bottlenecks, OTH, work to *constrain* the diversity within
> >> >a population; the human genome exhibits *less* genetic
> >> >diversity than it ought because of the Toba eruption and
> >> >subsequent bottleneck, no?
>
>
> >> - Neutral drift is a major force in the evolution.
> >> - Neutral genetic drift is a fixation of non-selected traits.
> >> - This happens basically as a statistical "fluke".
> >> - Therefore, the amount of genetic drift is inversely
> >> proportional to the population number ("safety in numbers";
> >> flukes tend to disappear as you go on).
> >> - It follows that the smaller founder population
> >> (a "population bottleneck") the *higher* genetic
> >> diversity will eventually result if all other things are equal.
> >
> >I was with you until that last statement -- it would seem to me that a
> >smaller population could exhibit more genetic drift "as a whole", but
> >at the same time have less diversity within the group?
>
> above.
>
> DK
Oops. OK. Glad to hear it, I was getting very puzzled. Thanks.
-- cary
Secret Squirrel
d...@no.email.thankstospam.net (DK) wrote in
news:dur2fo$o1g$1...@news.doit.wisc.edu:
> In article <5P0MNPUI3878...@anonymous.poster>,
> Secret Squirrel <ssqu...@nottheremailer.net> wrote:
>>no.e...@thanks.to.spam.net (DK) wrote in
>>news:dun6hj$ck5$1...@news.doit.wisc.edu:
>>
>>> In article <07NNPRIG3878...@anonymous.poster>,
>>> Secret Squirrel <ssqu...@nottheremailer.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Just 70 individuals populated the new world? I don't see
>>>>how you could get the genetic diversity exhibited by
>>>>Native Americans (example: NW Indians men have full
>>>>beards, Plains Indians maybe have a thin mustache) from
>>>>just 70 individuals
>>>
>>> That's because you don't understand basic genetics. The
>>> smaller is a founder population, the higher level of
>>> diversity is expected to result. Look up "genetic drift"
>>> and "population bottleneck".
>>
>>I *think* I understand both. "Genetic drift" in an segment
>>of a population that becomes isolated is how speciation
>>occurs, a smaller population can become *different* than
>>its parent more quickly and more easily. Population
>>bottlenecks, OTH, work to *constrain* the diversity within
>>a population; the human genome exhibits *less* genetic
>>diversity than it ought because of the Toba eruption and
>>subsequent bottleneck, no?
>
> No. *More*!
>
> - Neutral drift is a major force in the evolution. -
> Neutral genetic drift is a fixation of non-selected traits.
> - This happens basically as a statistical "fluke". -
> Therefore, the amount of genetic drift is inversely
> proportional to the population number ("safety in numbers";
> flukes tend to disappear as you go on). - It follows that
> the smaller founder population (a "population bottleneck")
> the *higher* genetic diversity will eventually result if
> all other things are equal.
Interesting, because what you're saying contradicts
everything I've read. Just a survey from the web shows
numerous references to the Toba bottleneck (or multiple
hypothesized bottlenecks) which are given as an explanation
for the *lower-than-expected* human genetic diversity; that
if we had not had said bottleneck(s) we ought to see greater
human genetic diversity. The descendents of a founding
population are said to have less genetic diversity than the
original, not more.
<http://www.jqjacobs.net/anthro/paleo/bottleneck.html>
"Ambrose concludes that bottlenecks occurred among
genetically isolated human populations because of a six-year
long volcanic winter and subsequent hyper-cold millennium
after the cataclysmic super-eruption of Toba. This volcanic
winter played a role in recent human differentiation. The
resultant combination of founder effects and genetic drift
may account for **low human genetic diversity** (my emphasis)
as well as population differences associated with so-called
races. The bottleneck hypothesis offers an explanation for
why humans exhibit so little genetic variation, yet
superficially appear diverse. It also affords an explanation
for the apparent recent coalescence of mtDNA and African
origins."
<http://www.andaman.org/book/app-r/ch5_bottleneck/textr5.htm>
The last point is the oddest - and the least widely known. It
is also one of the arguments in favour of a relatively recent
bottleneck (e.g. Toba) rather than one much longer ago (e.g.
one proposed for 2 million years ago by the "regional
continuity" supporters, ref. Hawks, et al, 2000). The low
genetic diversity implies that the present teeming multitudes
of human beings goes back to a small and relatively recent
founding population.
A geneticist had this to say on Homo sapiens:
... we have sequenced 10 kb of non-coding DNA in a region
of low recombination at Xq13.3 from 70 humans
representing all major language groups of the world. In
addition, the same sequence has been determined from 30
chimpanzees, representing all major subspecies, as well
as bonobos. Comparison to humans reveals an almost
four-fold higher diversity and a three-fold greater age
of the most recent common ancestor of the chimpanzee
sequences. Phylogenetic analyses show the sequences from
the different chimpanzee subspecies to be intermixed ...
These data, as well as preliminary work in the other
great apes, indicate that the human genome is unique in
carrying extremely little nucleotide diversity. (ref.
Kaessman H. et al, 2000)
While human overall genetic diversity is low, what diversity
exists, is highest in Africa. This fact is one of the major
arguments in favour of the "Out of Africa" theory of human
origins:
... the gene pool in Africa contains more variation than
elsewhere, and the genetic variation found outside of
Africa represents only a subset of that found within the
African continent. From a genetic perspective, all humans
are therefore Africans, either residing in Africa or in
recent exile. (ref. Pääbo S., 2001)
<http://www.bookrags.com/sciences/genetics/population-bottlene
ck-gen-03.html>
Population Bottleneck
A population bottleneck is a significant reduction in the
size of a population that causes the extinction of many
genetic lineages within that population, thus decreasing
genetic diversity. Population bottlenecks have occurred in
the evolutionary history of many species, including humans.
As shown in Figure 3, humans have remarkably little genetic
diversity, especially in comparison to our closest living
relative, the chimpanzee.
Indeed, there is substantially more genetic difference among
individuals within chimpanzee troops in West Africa than
among all living humans on earth. As shown in Figure 1, this
is due to a series of bottlenecks in human evolutionary
history. Geneticists studying many different parts of the
human genome have concluded that the past effective
population size (that is, the number of reproducing females)
averaged only 10,000 individuals over the last one million
years, and was as low as 5,000 around 70,000 years ago.
Compare this to the approximately one billion reproducing
females alive today, and it becomes clear just how narrow
these bottlenecks were.
- -------
Now, I can see that if a group of people go to a remote area,
say, Iceland, that population will "drift" away from its
parent and the *total human genetic diversity* (parent and
'offspring') will be increased. But the bottlenecked
population will still contain less diversity within itself
than the parent, or it seems by what I've read. From what
you posted, Toba should have created *greater* human genetic
diversity, no? But these references say the bottleneck(s)
reduced it.
And, then there's the concept of a viable population, that
once the number of individuals falls below a certain
threshold a species is doomed to extinction, because it
doesn't have, and moreover can't create, the genetic
diversity needed to sustain itself. But you're telling me
that small is *good*, that small leads to more diversity.
I don't claim to have real expertise in genetics, although
I'm not wholly unread or unfamiliar with the subject either.
Care to explain what seems to be a contradiction to me?
Secret Squirrel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A
iQEVAwUBRBDBgT/rA6+b3AyhAQFzOAf+J7jbLHpmUs2culRtrBaaAsqwHUbNYGMz
Jq2sNmEmJPLH67g82wvcB07Sf4F6gNEz5Zd3VMbI9Hr0GzBgqTKo1Omn25EuHfNw
8paFebxkhDQpOCDNz4BHp4+1LdJF5irDuTP+uXu3zH8XRpYZbas2Wz4AJiZRscYW
zw33ca44G+kDPtwMGcZ0+2+XRBNFgfK/D9+sak1KirvcLhRTXELIatdtwVcpbCsw
u3z0Eb/9cLBia9Jvt8l3LGDpp6t0vMFmk+YkMJF4dyViN5W4C86JyjNaL/CoOFxY
QtE2FOjrhoZzDRFQ2+cOkt6Af593ugC8Zuyos9AZ2NXssctgiSTqow==
=FTRN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comm
"Whiteness of another color." It's filled with illustrations, explanations
and much research and documentation. The Irish were defined as non-white
not based on color - but based on features. They are NOT indisginguishable
from the British. I can spot an Irish person very easily - without glasses
on. They have a "look" - or a few "looks" that the Brits definitely could
spot right on. Anyway, see in.
"Bob LeChevalier" <loj...@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:m9gvv1tckjhrsgsvb...@4ax.com...
> d...@no.email.thankstospam.net (DK) wrote:
>>>>Echos of all this can be found in several threads here
>>>>where I am repeatedly accused of being a racist merely because
>>>>I believe, based on a numerous modern studies of human population
>>>>genetics, that biological races do exist and that concept of
>>>>biological race is a valid and useful one.
Medical personnel believe it too, tho many of them admit that they can't be
too open about it anymore. Yeah, fuck truth. Fuck free speech. In epi,
every single case control study had to be divided male black, female black,
white or other male, white or other female. Every single study. Why -
because they have to due to ENOUGH differnces.
>>
>>>In other words, you are a racist, by definition.
>>
>>Fucking shameless liar. Definition of racism is racial prejudice
>>and discrimination based on race.
Bob has done that before - and it is LIBELOUS. I posted a definitinon of
racism before, too. Yet he CONTINUES to libel people.
>
> dictionary.com
>>rac·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rszm)
>>n.
>>The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or
>>ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
The believe that races EXIST as biological entities is not the same as the
rest of this about character, ability, or inferiority/superiority. Stop
playing head games. It's beneath you.
>
> I have never known a single person who believed the first part, who
> did not also believe the second part.
HELLO. Righto, YOU have never known a single person. I have known MANY
people that worked in EPIDEMIOLOGY even, and in GENETICS even, that didn't
believe races existed, they accepted it as a fact of the human species and
didn't give a shit about the rest of the BULLSHIT associated with a subject
that has nothing to do with politics. Based on the fox experiment alone, I
now have good evidence, and so does anyone with HALF a god damned brain, to
believe that appearance DOES go hand in hand with behavior. Based on breeds
of dogs too but they were too often bred for appearance so that's biased.
But foxes were selected FOR behavior, exclusively for behavior - what they
ended up with in not too many generations down the line selecting for
BEHAVIOR, was a markedly changed appearance in the "different behavior"
foxes - a uniform appearance too - LIKE what anyone with eyes would call
"another breed or race of fox." They were selected for BEHAVIOR. This has
NOTHING to do with character or ability. Behavior is not ability. Behavior
is not character. Behavior is behavior. Whether it's good or bad is purely
subjective and relative to the culture.
I do not believe - and by that I mean FEEL IN MY GUT and THINK IN MY HEAD -
that a human being is superior or inferior to a WORM - and that's a god
damned FACT. I do not believe that KILLING a human being is any different
from killing a bug, either. I mean I REALLY do not believe there is a
difference. ONLY human laws made by humans for humans create a difference.
Kill a bug - ok. Kill a human - go to jail. I have even challenged people
to SHOW ME the difference - and they have unimously FAILED to show me a
difference - without resorting to some human invented laws. I now believe
that you can not FATHOM such a view. I also believe that you can't fathom
that such a view is based on spiritual KNOWLEDGE, not theory. There are big
differences between humans and dogs, cats, worms, bugs. NONE is superior to
the other. One can DO things better than the other - depends on what
things. Of course they behave differently, too, duh. But that's got nothing
to do with the false concept of superior/inferior. I think you can't fathom
that - and that continuation of your LIBELOUS slandering of people,
labelling them "racist," is nothing but pure bullying and an attempt at
emotional intimidation on your part. Shame on you, man. It makes you
STINK.
>
> You are "repeatedly accused of being a racist" because you quack like
> those ducks. Only racists consider race worth talking about,
> ESPECIALLY in the face of "PC".
PC is nothing more than draconian tyranny, it forces even DOCTORS to have to
squirm around facts and LIE to people. That's what PC is. You are an
excruciatingly suffocating DUALIST, Bob. Believe in races/breeds means oh
oh, a person is a racist - in your mind alone. That's NUTS, it's schizoid
thinking. Breeds of hu man beings DO exist - and there are genetic tests
for such things these days and they haven't even SCRATCHED the surface. But
only in the minds of RACISTS and their dualist counterparts (YOU) does that
mean that the concept of inferior/superior has entered the agenda. ONLY in
your mind. Two sides of the SAME coin, man. Get the hell OFF the coin - or
at least try - or prove you are incapable of it. Dualist thinking is
klippothic.
>
> lojbab
Day Brown
complicated than outlined so far. To begin with, there is no "moment of
conception", but a period of time before the ovum wall shuts down. And
sometimes, two sperm get in, And as we see from "The Sperm Wars", such
sperm dont even havta be from the same donor.
And then, all that loose DNA dont always zip together like a new
jacket, but sometimes like an old one with disengaged loops hanging
out. Some of which can be from one donor, some from the other, linking
up at different points all at the same time, with strings from both Y
chromosome lines left to develop. Or not; miscarry, abort.
"Children of the Ice Age" by Stanley, talks about how isolated the
early groups of hominids were, not yet adapted for many ecosystems. And
ever since, that same kind of inbred hillbilly clan thing has been
going on all over the planet, and stil is in some parts.
So- with all this dispersal across millions of miles of landscape
groups wander around for years without ever seeing anyone. Some of them
Homo Erectus, some like the 'Hobbits" found recently, some Neanderthal,
some Sapiens. They were more worried about hyenas than hostile tribes.
So- I'd expect them to be a very diverse bunch, so inbred there'd be
lotsa freaks. Course, sometimes the freak you get is Einstein.
So- if Native Americans descend from just 70, and that 70 included some
Magdelinian or other line from the other end of Eurasia, that much
diversity would limit a lotta the freaks. But if they are inbred
anyway, what do we make of the Native Europeans who Sykes said came
from just 7 mtDNA lines?
Wouldnt we expect even more freaks, but also more geniuses? We know
about the geniuses, so I surfed the circus freaks in antique photos.
Outside of the orginal "Siamese twins', and a Black pinhead named Zip
that Barnum had, all the other freaks had white faces. Well, except for
the bearded lady.
prd
news:1142133376.1...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com by "Day
Brown" <dayb...@ozarkisp.net> . . . :
Are "we" still discussing this, and the fruitloop festival has moved
in. Not only is the thread bullshit, but its participants are
bullshitters.
--
Philip
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
____Groups_____
Mol Anthro http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DNAanthro/
Pal Anthro http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleoanthro/
Arch. Aux http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sciarchauxilliary/
Gliadin Sci http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/GliadinScience/
____Sites_____
Mol. Evol. Hominids http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/
Evol. of Xchrom. http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/xlinked.htm
Comm
were considered non white - and definitely so were the Italians. "whitness"
was based on features - NOT on skin color. to this day, this holds true.
Blonde light eyed people with very pale skin, but with a hint of black
features are considered black by everyone and by blacks - to this day.
This, about the Irish and Italians and lots of others, is documented by
Jacobson in a book, I think the title is "Whiteness of another color." He
cites actual court cases involving racial matters involving these groups of
people who are now considered white. It's also an easy and interesting
read. Get the book. Get it from library if you don't want to buy it (I
did). You might find it hard to believe - but it is true. I was considered
a non-whitein the 1950s too - and I'm a red head, I'm 1/4 Slavic and 3/4
Tatar but Slavs were considered Asian, despite our color. I'm about as
white as any Irish when I'm not tan from the sun. Italians are WAY darker
than me. When I tan, I get coppery, like Germanic people or Scandinavians
get when they get tan. Italians get this kind of yicky color, olive - I
don't like it. Anyway - you now have the information. Get the book.
White was defined as 1. Indo European. 2. Aryan. 3. Caucasian.
Therefore, Jews, being Semites, were also not white. Irish were Celtic,
thought to not be IE descended. People knew what mixtures (non white ones)
went into the Italians. I remember when the Jews were officially declared
white, too - after the 1950s!
White was defined based purely on features of the face - and the Anglos
could spot the "Irish jib" quite easily. So can I. Also, odd as you might
find it, those Anglos used to be PINK complected - that was how white they
were, and there is considerable literature and writing quoted by Jacobson to
show this was as-given well known at the time. He cites court cases where
an Italian marrying a black was not considered miscegenatino because the
Italian was non-white - and many many other documented facts. Read the
book. It is a real eye-opener - and no, it is not supporting any agenda. I
personally remember being told that Italians weren't white. I personally
didn't even consider them white! Nor were we. Now? heh, everyone is white
and I bet the Asians will soon be white too, LMAO. If Turk-Tatars are
white, the Japanese will probably be next. But the blacks? Heh, they'll
always be black. That's the way it is.
"John Brock" <jbr...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:dukdss$fgr$1...@reader2.panix.com...
Bob LeChevalier
>YO Bob - see in. Uh, first of all, check out Jacobson's book, I think it's
>"Whiteness of another color." It's filled with illustrations, explanations
>and much research and documentation. The Irish were defined as non-white
>not based on color - but based on features. They are NOT indisginguishable
>from the British. I can spot an Irish person very easily - without glasses
>on. They have a "look" - or a few "looks" that the Brits definitely could
>spot right on. Anyway, see in.
All the more reason to recognize that "race" is socially defined.
>Medical personnel believe it too, tho many of them admit that they can't be
>too open about it anymore. Yeah, fuck truth. Fuck free speech. In epi,
>every single case control study had to be divided male black, female black,
>white or other male, white or other female. Every single study. Why -
>because they have to due to ENOUGH differnces.
I have no problems with "differences". The label "race" says that
something is SO different that they are other-than-us, as your cited
book probably makes clear given your description.
Every human being is different from any other. When you take groups
of them based on some perceived traits, and draw lines between them
and other groups, that is a social decision, unless you can prove that
those particular traits lead to some sort of fundamental difference
(at which point we would have to agree as to what is fundamental).
Biologists who refer to haplotypes are talking about genetic traits,
an objectively defined phenomenon. When they refer to "populations",
they are referring to statistical relatedness of groups, and are not
making claims about individuals. When they refer to "lineages" they
are referring to genetic ancestry, again an objectively defined
phenomenon.
When they refer to race, they are referring to a socially-defined set
of lines that is not objectively defined, which changes with time, and
often with the line-drawer.
If they recognize that the line drawing is arbitrary, and merely refer
to races because society uses them as visual approximations of the
"populations" concept, and that statements about individuals in a
"race" are therefore at best only statistical guesses, they are
probably not "racists". If they claim that race is a fundamental and
objective reality, rather than being subjective and ad-hoc, they are
racists.
>>>>In other words, you are a racist, by definition.
>>>
>>>Fucking shameless liar. Definition of racism is racial prejudice
>>>and discrimination based on race.
>
>Bob has done that before - and it is LIBELOUS.
Since it is true, it is not libelous.
>> dictionary.com
>>>rac·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rszm)
>>>n.
>>>The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or
>>>ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
>
>The believe that races EXIST as biological entities is not the same as the
>rest of this about character, ability, or inferiority/superiority. Stop
>playing head games. It's beneath you.
Races are *social* categorizations that say that SOME differences
(usually biological ones, but Jews have a significant socially defined
component) are important enough to group people as "different from"
other people.
Medical people who rely on self-described race as a diagnostic tool
are not necessarily racists. They are merely using a social trait as
a statistical "symptom", just as they would use the socially-defined
category "smoker" to suggest a screening for lung disease.
Forensic anthropologists come a little closer to the line, but I see
it that they are using racial labels as a surrogate for specific
traits in skeletal structure, and it is the traits that they are
focused on. A member of a socially-defined race whose skeleton does
not match the physical traits is to them not a member of the "race".
I'd rather that they not use the racial labels, because it feeds the
racists, but that is outside of my control and theirs.
Racists are people who use racial terms when they are NOT needed or
useful, usually to inflame or judge others.
>Based on the fox experiment alone, I
>now have good evidence, and so does anyone with HALF a god damned brain, to
>believe that appearance DOES go hand in hand with behavior.
I'm sure it does. Tall people who don't bend over get a lot of
headaches. But it is socially-learned behavior. (Whether that is
true for foxes, I don't know, since I make claims about human "races"
not fox "races").
>But foxes were selected FOR behavior, exclusively for behavior - what they
>ended up with in not too many generations down the line selecting for
>BEHAVIOR, was a markedly changed appearance in the "different behavior"
>foxes - a uniform appearance too - LIKE what anyone with eyes would call
>"another breed or race of fox." They were selected for BEHAVIOR.
Behavior almost certainly has a genetic component. Sorting out
genetic behavior from learned behavior in human beings is non-trivial.
...
>Of course they behave differently, too, duh. But that's got nothing
>to do with the false concept of superior/inferior. I think you can't fathom
>that - and that continuation of your LIBELOUS slandering of people,
>labelling them "racist," is nothing but pure bullying and an attempt at
>emotional intimidation on your part. Shame on you, man. It makes you
>STINK.
Your opinion is noted.
That you and I behave differently may be due to gender differences,
due to genetic differences, or due to differences in our social
upbringing and interactions. They are not due to our "race".
>> You are "repeatedly accused of being a racist" because you quack like
>> those ducks. Only racists consider race worth talking about,
>> ESPECIALLY in the face of "PC".
>
>PC is nothing more than draconian tyranny, it forces even DOCTORS to have to
>squirm around facts and LIE to people.
No doctor has to lie to anyone. They merely have to avoid using
offensive stereotypes.
>Believe in races/breeds means oh oh, a person is a racist - in your mind alone.
Belief in breeds of dogs is objective, because dogs were bred by
intent for traits. Apparently foxes as well, by your statements,
though those traits may have been behavioral.
Human beings have not been "bred" in recorded history.
>That's NUTS, it's schizoid thinking. Breeds of hu man beings DO exist
No they do not, because human beings aren't bred. They mate more or
less indiscriminately, and there has not been any sustained effort to
control such mating (though various cultures have had a nobility that
has attempted to do so - but even though European nobility is inbred
enough to cause genetic diseases in profusion, there are numerous
commoners in their family trees all the same).
>- and there are genetic tests
>for such things these days and they haven't even SCRATCHED the surface.
Genetic testing tests for traits, not for races.
>But
>only in the minds of RACISTS and their dualist counterparts (YOU) does that
>mean that the concept of inferior/superior has entered the agenda. ONLY in
>your mind.
Of course. But so long as racists exist, they need to be balances by
those who will condemn them as the slime that they choose to act like.
lojbab
man_in_...@yahoo.com
> >PC is nothing more than draconian tyranny, it forces even DOCTORS to have to
> >squirm around facts and LIE to people.
>
> No doctor has to lie to anyone. They merely have to avoid using
> offensive stereotypes.
And besides which, 'race and disease' things rarely fit the
stereotypes. I mean, everyone says Indians are supposed to
be stoic, yet we're more likely to be bipolar.
But even then, in order for that to be evidence in favor of
a racial classification system, all Indians would have to
be bipolar, or bipolar disorder would have to be unique to
Indians. Neither is true.
prd
news:1142194249.9...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com by
man_in_...@yahoo.com . . . :
Native americans are at risk for a number of neurological diseases
related to modern diseases of affluence. Three primary components are
overconsumption of sugar, overconsumption of wheat, overconsumption
of alcohol (relative to native americans). In people with DQ8 the
first two appear to be related. Native americans that do not consume
large amounts (i.e. American-diet quantities) can lower their risk
for a number of neurological diseases.
A traditional grain of native americans was corn, the corn was
dried and frequently calc washed removing the excess sugar and much
of the fat with the cuticle. This was then made into tortillas and
other products and left with complex carbohydrates. This was suitable
for the highly active lifestyle of many tribes. The over the border
grain shift has been to wheat, wheat contains gluten which slows down
the GI tract, it also damages the GI track of people who have DQ8 and
DQ2.5 (A majority of mexicans in some areas have DQ8, as well as in
central america and parts of south america it reaches it global
maxima). Gluten is also an autoimmune activator and is associated
with a large number of neurological diseases, diabetes, skin
disorders, etc. Interestingly this response can be shut off by people
who eat very large amounts of chile peppers. People from southern
mexico believe that eating large amount of chiles may be a cure for
diabetes and related diseases.
A recent study in mexico showed that almost all type 1 diabetes was
associated with europeans who bore DQ2.5 and not in the mostly native
population; however our current work shows a different trend in the
United States with a plausible association of DQ8. It is clear from
these studies that Irish, Scandinavians, Southern Native
Americans, Iberians, Sardinians, Russians, and Slovs should be eating
much less wheat and because of the associated risk of diabetes much
less sugar. It is not specifically about race, DQ8 is also high in
certain parts of asia, DQ2.5 is nodal in the sardinian/basquan
population. The highest risk factor for CD is in DQ8/DQ2.5
heterozygotes, young male DQ2.5 bearers from belgium have a higher
risk of T1D and CD for instance. DQ2.5 bearers in finland have 10
fold higher risk of T1D than their russian counterparts, and culture
is implicated as the cause.
The point is this Native peoples evolved in a certain kind of
environment, they are at risk for certain kinds on diseases
introduced from the outside world. The conquerors of the mesoamerican
native group are high DQ2.5 bearers, admixture with high DQ8 bears
(Ache as the global node at 75%, highest DQ hapltype frequency in the
world) produces a population at greatest risk, however as long as
this people stick to a mostly traditional lifestyle and diet they can
avoid certain diseases. Movement to the US or a shift in the latin
countries to a US styled diet will result in 'diseases of affluence'
which also includes marked increases in neurological disorders.
Wealth and Poverty in the new world is relative, There is wealth
for native peoples in their culture that younger generations seem to
forget, and overconsumptionism as in the US impovershes the body.
This does not have to do with race per say, but the recent papers on
human evolution show that aspects dealing with digestion have evolved
in the last 5000 to 10000 years, and the people who lived in western
asia, eastern europe, central and south asia have a head start, the
negative selection of alpha-2-gliadin and its homologs took their
toll in the prehistoric window and the toll is almost invisible
during modern times. In Sweden, where wheat culture came late, has a
high level of DQ2.5 and DQ8 (40% of the population bear one or the
other) an estimated 1% of the population has subclinical or clinical
manifestations. Amoung these are peripheral neuropathies, and many of
these appear to be associated with the Essential fatty acid
metabolism pathways, which can be compensated for by eating more cold
water fishes and vitamin B; however if a person does not eat both
either cold water fishes or vitamin then there is an increased risk
for bipolar personality disorders like manic depression. In italy it
was shown that 80% of individuals with Sterge-Weber syndrom with or
without recurrent epilepsy benefitted by removal of wheat from the
diet. Wheat is also associated with Hashimoto's thyroidites, Grave's
disease, Lupus, Myasthenia Gravis, non-Microbial hepatitus, anti-
mitochondrial disease, Addison's Diseases, Dermatitis Herpetiformis
(which in and of itself can drive a person crazy).
Nor is this unknown by the native population, I have talked to
several natural medicine folks in Houston, all trained in mexico by
professionals, they all claim the same thing, Native Americans should
not eat wheat, they report that many native problems that doctors
have failed to treat have improved over months if they simply stopped
eating wheat, part of this may be the removal of starch from the diet
(diabetes). Every form of celiac disease can be traced to factors to
ancient indigeonous population, in Chile DQ8 bearers have a more
classic form, in dutch T1D is strongly associate early onset male
disease. In families the risk is much higher compared to DQ8 and
DQ2.5 bearing populations, however CD is not observed in the DQ8
bearing population of mexico or central america, but it appears that
the indigenonous population is showing some of the same secondary
diseases as seen in the classical examples, particularly when they
immigrate to the United States. We may lack adequate testing for CD
in the indigeonous derived population or they may have an altered,
almost subclinical or presubclinical form of the disease.
The bottom line is that research in indigeonous health issues lags
the big diseases, heart disease, stroke, cancer. However it is my
position that in native peoples the shift to a wheat diet results in
a slowing metabolism in natives and a less active lifestyle as a
result of digestive changes caused by gluten. The result is a small
increase in T1D large increase in T2Diabetes, and a much higher risk
for autoimmune diseases, neurological diseases, coronary diseases,
etc later on in life. Paired populations between the US and Mexico
show that mexicans often do not share american diseases, the major
differences is the natives on the mexican side eat alot of corn,
beans and cactus and on the american side wheat, beef, and foods with
processed sugar. It is clear that the american diet is much more
dangerous to indigeonous americans than to southern europeans and
middle easterners.
Alcoholism and the lack of the 'hangover' enzyme in certain native
groups also is a risk factor for certain personality disorders, it is
claimed that the alcoholic is born with the gene to become addicted
after one or a few drinks, this tendency is somehow linked to bipolar
disease, and even though the individual may never drink, the risk may
influence the appearance of other disorders late in life. Once again
some fatty acid pathways may influence the course of diseases, and
often the clinical signs of manic depression can be reduced by
increasing the intake of Essential Fatty Acids such as those found in
fish.
IOW while there does not have to be notable 'racial' differences
between peoples there are, in fact, differences, and these
differences do not devide on 'racial' lines but on genetic lines.
I should point out that cultural conversion in Japan within the last
20 years is causing similar problems, and similar problems will be
seen over much of the eastern world except India and NW china as
peoples are increasingly influenced by western lifestyles. Per say
these are not diseases of race, but of affluence, but the exact
manifestations may be racially or tribally associated.
Day Brown
Unfortunately, much of this has resulted in a decline of the reasoning
powers of the electorate, which results in more demagoguery and less
real action.
The ratios you refer to result in part in the success or failure
cultures have trying to run a civil republic without falling into
either anarchy or tyranny.
Secret Squirrel
prd <X_he...@address.net> wrote in
news:OwfRf.555373$qk4.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.ne
t:
I don't necessarily disagree with parts of your analysis,
however I do point out that as a general rule, natural
selection is *not* a strong force in protecting us against
diseases such as "autoimmune diseases, neurological diseases,
coronary diseases, etc later on in life". That's because once
you're past breeding age, you're a Darwinian zero, you've
already (supposedly) passed your genes on. Like animals we
hold in captivity, we've extended human lifespans way beyond
what they would "naturally" be.
I suppose that natural selection would offer some
protection against the more virulent strains of some of
these afflictions, however, that strike when one is younger;
and that there might be some survival advantage conferred
to the young where old people are present (aka nuclear
families are not "natural", despite the speculations of
evolutionary psychologists).
Secret Squirrel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A
iQEVAwUBRBYHgz/rA6+b3AyhAQHeVwf7BJCkOyt46VUHKNrOGkQfGDkeeDg/vzyN
pFFHkgWBpF0njq8ITXQoZbJF1Gw11Cqw3cXCpjhlRM0ZlbAD5sIEGmWRhNVqHFrx
u89veLxF4WyaFOEYQdIND6/HY3wZ9ok3E3Pi9Xc3FQNdqeWL3wIGuBXX8YOD6m6R
qIW3+wn3SBSWisxgIKPdpVVijnoqTUBIdkLxQ1rp+ATIJdA/hf4Svs1Y20ZIVJYc
fsPh1jpCsdrypebtbrEtKu95sdwkTKU3NLc2FswWQyzxxJ9jrtuGW5K4hjU5Fq1q
ubK8psAhZwZN1hkZ4+FXiwEUDstCfHD+ZPwv2zgrQoksvjTqaKK1nQ==
=gVb+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
prd
news:M8Z5G2UN3879...@reece.net.au by Secret Squirrel
<ssqu...@nottheremailer.net> . . . :
Both Celiac 'Sprue' and Type 1 diabetes are potentially lethal in
children. Sprue was first recognized as gliadin intolerance within
Italian children with failure to thrive syndrome in the 1940s and
1950s with a 5 year mortality rate of 50%. The difference between now
and then is that with increased affluence the early onset diseases
have been appended by the nascent appearance of late onset diseases.
Obviously some of the late onset recognition is the result of
misdiagnosis, some of it has resulted from culture changes within
individual lifespans. At a subclinical frequency of 1% I would argue
that gliadin is currently negatively selecting in the NW european and
slavic populations, over the last 40 years the rate of autoimmune
diseases in sardinia has increased 10 fold, also likely the result of
cultural shifts. Therefore your argument does not hold alot of water.
Studies of celiac disease patients show them to have lower weight
(about 5%) relative to the normal population even at the time of
diagnosis and siblings are often suspected of disease because of
lower body mass spontaneously become clinical. This suggests a
reduction of the ability to uptake nutrients. In addition celiac
mothers have a much higher incidence of infertility, much higher
incidence of spontaneous abortion, and tend to have increased numbers
of Down syndrome and autistic children. The reasoning is not clear.
Read the literature before making such statements.
man_in_...@yahoo.com
depression is an archaic term for bipolar.
My point was more that the stereotype is that Indians don't show
any emotion, yet we're more likely to have abnormal emotional
reactions.
Naturopathy is bullshit.