Texas demographer: 'It's basically over for White people'

[The Gadfly]

Wait a minute; I thought we eventually wanted to get to a society where "race" doesn't matter (at least if we aren't, I didn't get the memo on that). If I didn't know better, I'd think I just walked into a discussion among a group of nineteenth-century anthropologists, arguing over which people belonged in which racial classification.

Now let me get this straight; I'm supposed to treat my Puerto Rican friend (who's as white as I am) as a member of another race, even though he traces his ancestry back to 15th century Spain? How terribly politically incorrect of me! What about my Greek neighbors? Am I supposed to "recognize" them as non-whites" as well (I thought I heard someone say only Northern Europeans are "White")? What about.....oh, to hell with it; makes my head hurt. Color me "confused"; I'm supposed to see differences I can't see, and not see differences I can see, and the whole thing will somehow come out politically correct in the wash? By the way, is "confused" a "race" too (I did say "color", didn't I?) My bad. *slaps self on wrist*

 

[William Joyce]

1. There is absolutely no reason why a "calm and decent" society requires racial homogeneity.
2. Race is a social construct, not a biological one.
3. Racial battles for people who have nothing better to do with their time. I've broken bread with African-Americans, with Arabs, with Hispanics, with Asians. Never had much of a problem.

1. Oh
2. My
3. GOD

I must assume you're white. Only whites say shit like "race is just a figment of your imagination."

 

[William Joyce]

Wait a minute; I thought we eventually wanted to get to a society where "race" doesn't matter (at least if we aren't, I didn't get the memo on that). If I didn't know better, I'd think I just walked into a discussion among a group of nineteenth-century anthropologists, arguing over which people belonged in which racial classification.

Now let me get this straight; I'm supposed to treat my Puerto Rican friend (who's as white as I am) as a member of another race, even though he traces his ancestry back to 15th century Spain? How terribly politically incorrect of me! What about my Greek neighbors? Am I supposed to "recognize" them as non-whites" as well (I thought I heard someone say only Northern Europeans are "White")? What about.....oh, to hell with it; makes my head hurt. Color me "confused"; I'm supposed to see differences I can't see, and not see differences I can see, and the whole thing will somehow come out politically correct in the wash? By the way, is "confused" a "race" too (I did say "color", didn't I?) My bad. *slaps self on wrist*

Or how about this:

Black Africans who emigrated to the United States last week -- and were never enslaved -- are entitled to affirmative action, but a descendant of an Irish bonded servant whose ancestor emigrated three generations ago is not.

 

[High_Gravity]

I think white people need to embrace their bi-racial brothers and sisters, when a white person has a child with someone who is black, mexican, asian etc the child is automatically considered not white. Embrace your half white brothers and sisters.

 

[maatsmom843]

the phrases "natural selection" and "survival of the fittest" keep repeating themselves in my head. . . ..

haha, we all know what would happen after a few generations if every white woman and man in the world only hooked up with persons of color (any color)!

 

[maatsmom843]

1. There is absolutely no reason why a "calm and decent" society requires racial homogeneity.
2. Race is a social construct, not a biological one.
3. Racial battles for people who have nothing better to do with their time. I've broken bread with African-Americans, with Arabs, with Hispanics, with Asians. Never had much of a problem.

1. Oh
2. My
3. GOD

I must assume you're white. Only whites say shit like "race is just a figment of your imagination."

why is that? because aside from the way that our phenotypical differences manifest themselves (ie as differences in skin color, eye color/shape, hair texture) and the superficial differences in our culture, traditions and attitudes, there is NO genetic basis for race in the first place!

From Race in a Genetic World | Harvard Magazine May-Jun 2008

Is race. . . purely a social construct? The fact that racial categories change from one society to another might suggest it is. But now, says Fullwiley, assistant professor of anthropology and of African and African American studies, genetic methods, with their precision and implied accuracy, are being used in the same way that physical appearance has historically been used: “to build—to literally construct—certain ideas about why race matters.”

Genetic science has revolutionized biology and medicine, and even rewritten our understanding of human history. But the fact that human beings are 99.9 percent identical genetically, as Francis Collins and Craig Venter jointly announced at the White House on June 26, 2000, when the rough draft of the human genome was released, risks being lost, some scholars fear, in an emphasis on human genetic difference. Both in federally funded scientific research and in increasingly popular practice—such as ancestry testing, which often purports to prove or disprove membership in a particular race, group, or tribe—genetic testing has appeared to lend scientific credence to the idea that there is a biological basis for racial categories.

In fact, “There is no genetic basis for race,” says Fullwiley, who has studied the ethical, legal, and social implications of the human genome project with sociologist Troy Duster at UC, Berkeley. She sometimes quotes Richard Lewontin, now professor of biology and Agassiz professor of zoology emeritus, who said much the same thing in 1972, when he discovered that of all human genetic variation (which we now know to be just 0.1 percent of all genetic material), 85 percent occurs within geographically distinct groups, while 15 percent or less occurs between them. The issue today, Fullwiley says, is that many scientists are mining that 15 percent in search of human differences by continent.

Nor can genetic tests verify a person’s race or ethnicity. Genes that affect skin pigmentation or blood proteins involved in malarial resistance, the authors note, may not measure direct and unique ancestry (for example, a founder effect), but reflect instead an evolutionary response to “shared environmental exposures.” Furthermore, the tests are based on comparisons to databases of DNA from living populations, and are therefore vulnerable to “systematic bias” because of “incomplete geographic sampling” or the fact that “present-day patterns of residence are rarely identical to what existed in the past.” One testing company even uses an underlying model that “reinforces the archaic racial view that four discrete ‘parental’ populations (Africans, Europeans, East Asians, and Native Americans) existed in the past” even though “there is little evidence that four biologically discrete groups of humans ever existed….”

. . . . . . . . . . .

 

[Tank]

Scientist can tell what a persons race is from a drop of blood.

 

[IanC]

1. There is absolutely no reason why a "calm and decent" society requires racial homogeneity.
2. Race is a social construct, not a biological one.
3. Racial battles for people who have nothing better to do with their time. I've broken bread with African-Americans, with Arabs, with Hispanics, with Asians. Never had much of a problem.

1. Oh
2. My
3. GOD

I must assume you're white. Only whites say shit like "race is just a figment of your imagination."

why is that? because aside from the way that our phenotypical differences manifest themselves (ie as differences in skin color, eye color/shape, hair texture) and the superficial differences in our culture, traditions and attitudes, there is NO genetic basis for race in the first place!

From Race in a Genetic World | Harvard Magazine May-Jun 2008

Is race. . . purely a social construct? The fact that racial categories change from one society to another might suggest it is. But now, says Fullwiley, assistant professor of anthropology and of African and African American studies, genetic methods, with their precision and implied accuracy, are being used in the same way that physical appearance has historically been used: “to build—to literally construct—certain ideas about why race matters.”

Genetic science has revolutionized biology and medicine, and even rewritten our understanding of human history. But the fact that human beings are 99.9 percent identical genetically, as Francis Collins and Craig Venter jointly announced at the White House on June 26, 2000, when the rough draft of the human genome was released, risks being lost, some scholars fear, in an emphasis on human genetic difference. Both in federally funded scientific research and in increasingly popular practice—such as ancestry testing, which often purports to prove or disprove membership in a particular race, group, or tribe—genetic testing has appeared to lend scientific credence to the idea that there is a biological basis for racial categories.

In fact, “There is no genetic basis for race,” says Fullwiley, who has studied the ethical, legal, and social implications of the human genome project with sociologist Troy Duster at UC, Berkeley. She sometimes quotes Richard Lewontin, now professor of biology and Agassiz professor of zoology emeritus, who said much the same thing in 1972, when he discovered that of all human genetic variation (which we now know to be just 0.1 percent of all genetic material), 85 percent occurs within geographically distinct groups, while 15 percent or less occurs between them. The issue today, Fullwiley says, is that many scientists are mining that 15 percent in search of human differences by continent.

Nor can genetic tests verify a person’s race or ethnicity. Genes that affect skin pigmentation or blood proteins involved in malarial resistance, the authors note, may not measure direct and unique ancestry (for example, a founder effect), but reflect instead an evolutionary response to “shared environmental exposures.” Furthermore, the tests are based on comparisons to databases of DNA from living populations, and are therefore vulnerable to “systematic bias” because of “incomplete geographic sampling” or the fact that “present-day patterns of residence are rarely identical to what existed in the past.” One testing company even uses an underlying model that “reinforces the archaic racial view that four discrete ‘parental’ populations (Africans, Europeans, East Asians, and Native Americans) existed in the past” even though “there is little evidence that four biologically discrete groups of humans ever existed….”

. . . . . . . . . . .

race can be easily detected by DNA analysis. but would you change your mind even if you were given proof?

 

[maatsmom843]

are you asking me, or the scholars at harvard who compiled this article?

 

[maatsmom843]

wait a second!
what do you guys' replies even have to do with the issue that i posted?????

the point of the article that i cited was that though there are superficial differences manifest in our appearences, GENETICALLY, there is no difference between the races, the racial component of our makeup accounts for less than .02% of all of our genetic material

furthermore, IanC, i would indeed appreciate if you would be so benevolent as to cite a scholarly article which effectively disproves these points :

“There is no genetic basis for race,” and "Nor can genetic tests verify a person’s race or ethnicity. Genes that affect skin pigmentation or blood proteins involved in malarial resistance, the authors note, may not measure direct and unique ancestry (for example, a founder effect), but reflect instead an evolutionary response to “shared environmental exposures."



but i'm sure this post will only be answered with insults and irrelevant insecure racist ramblings

 

[Tank]

Nobody is confused about racial differences, when we have race riots.

 

[Tank]

“There is no genetic basis for race,” and "Nor can genetic tests verify a person’s race or ethnicity.

but i'm sure this post will only be answered with insults and irrelevant insecure racist ramblings

 

[IanC]

wait a second!
what do you guys' replies even have to do with the issue that i posted?????

the point of the article that i cited was that though there are superficial differences manifest in our appearences, GENETICALLY, there is no difference between the races, the racial component of our makeup accounts for less than .02% of all of our genetic material

furthermore, IanC, i would indeed appreciate if you would be so benevolent as to cite a scholarly article which effectively disproves these points :

“There is no genetic basis for race,” and "Nor can genetic tests verify a person’s race or ethnicity. Genes that affect skin pigmentation or blood proteins involved in malarial resistance, the authors note, may not measure direct and unique ancestry (for example, a founder effect), but reflect instead an evolutionary response to “shared environmental exposures."



but i'm sure this post will only be answered with insults and irrelevant insecure racist ramblings

are you confusing me with some other poster? insults aren't really my style and insecure is definitely not an adjective that people would use to describe me.

 

[IanC]

wait a second!
what do you guys' replies even have to do with the issue that i posted?????

the point of the article that i cited was that though there are superficial differences manifest in our appearences, GENETICALLY, there is no difference between the races, the racial component of our makeup accounts for less than .02% of all of our genetic material

furthermore, IanC, i would indeed appreciate if you would be so benevolent as to cite a scholarly article which effectively disproves these points :

“There is no genetic basis for race,” and "Nor can genetic tests verify a person’s race or ethnicity. Genes that affect skin pigmentation or blood proteins involved in malarial resistance, the authors note, may not measure direct and unique ancestry (for example, a founder effect), but reflect instead an evolutionary response to “shared environmental exposures."



but i'm sure this post will only be answered with insults and irrelevant insecure racist ramblings

your article from Harvard Magazine was interesting but it certainly didn't disprove the fact that there are races. Fullwiley even ended it with this contradictatory sentence that seems to imply that there are races-

"This new construction of race…is socially inflected—but it is not solely a social construct because biology is front and center.”

the article seems to think that changing the definition of the word 'race' and mixing the situations where race is involved proves that there is enough confusion to warrant throwing the whole concept of race out the window.

your article also mentions Lewontin and the whole 'more differences within a race than between races argument'. I suggest you google Lewontin's Fallacy.


as far as being able to genetically determine racial identity and admixture, it is extremely accurate. if you want to argue the social constructs of race, go ahead. but if you are arguing that there is no racial genetic differences that are expressed physically, mentally and physiologically then you are deluding yourself.

 

[IanC]

“There is no genetic basis for race,” and "Nor can genetic tests verify a person’s race or ethnicity.

but i'm sure this post will only be answered with insults and irrelevant insecure racist ramblings

the study that was talked about in the video identified 3631 out of 3636 patients. there were more discrepancies in gender identity than racial identity.

 

[maatsmom843]

my comment was directed @ tank, he seems to hound my posts just so he rebutt them with some lame, irrelevant racist crap

i'm getting the impression from you though, that you're not even reading my posts before you start in on your attempt to point out the flaws in my argument.

i never argued that there is no such thing as race, in fact one of the first things i said was:

why is that? because aside from the way that our phenotypical differences manifest themselves (ie as differences in skin color, eye color/shape, hair texture) and the superficial differences in our culture, traditions and attitudes, there is NO genetic basis for race in the first place!

so what in all of the All's beautiful creation are you talkin about man?

 

[IanC]

my comment was directed @ tank, he seems to hound my posts just so he rebutt them with some lame, irrelevant racist crap

i'm getting the impression from you though, that you're not even reading my posts before you start in on your attempt to point out the flaws in my argument.

i never argued that there is no such thing as race, in fact one of the first things i said was:

why is that? because aside from the way that our phenotypical differences manifest themselves (ie as differences in skin color, eye color/shape, hair texture) and the superficial differences in our culture, traditions and attitudes, there is NO genetic basis for race in the first place! so what in all of the All's beautiful creation are you talkin about man?

I have the same problem arguing with my wife. I am supposed to magically know what she means not what she says

 

[Tank]

there is NO genetic basis for race in the first place!

so what in all of the All's beautiful creation are you talkin about man?

A person race can be identified by a single drop of blood, how much mare genetic can you get?