fist tap Marcus Garvey Jr.
Undercover Black Man said ...
"I'd rather see her twerk it."
Denmark Vesey said ...
... Exactly
Of course you would.
Yewuh Poongmuderphugger, an Indian zoologist, conducted a fascinating study with Rhesus Monkeys.
The monkeys were placed at birth in a large cage in the middle of the jungle.
They were fed daily until they became adults.
Although the feeding continued, the doors were eventually flung open.
The monkeys remained inside the cage. Fearful of freedom. Content with their captivity.
Undercover Black Man said ...
"I'd rather see her twerk it."
Denmark Vesey said ...
... Exactly
Of course you would.
Yewuh Poongmuderphugger, an Indian zoologist, conducted a fascinating study with Rhesus Monkeys.
The monkeys were placed at birth in a large cage in the middle of the jungle.
They were fed daily until they became adults.
Although the feeding continued, the doors were eventually flung open.
The monkeys remained inside the cage. Fearful of freedom. Content with their captivity.
165 comments:
I'd rather see her twerk it.
*stares blankly at UBM.*
These are the kinds of mind-f---cks I used to get from Mike's page. Fish, yer slippin', man.
Lighten up, DV. I thought this was the place for jokes.
On the other hand, if you believe the Latin phrase "pro se" has anything at all to do with the word "pro-se-cutor," that's not funny at all.
That's just sad.
Too many niccas are mesmerized by the pretense of intellectuality... by hustlers like this woman who go through the motions. (Ridiculously at that.) But they are helpless as a baby when confronted with a true intellectual challenge.
Like, ummm... this here.
Lighten up?
Got me wrong D.
I'm cool as a cucumber. You my boy. Keep me chucklin'. Shit, I look for your posts first.
I actually get a kick out of your slavish assignment of authority to all things other.
In your world "Global Warming" and "Gas Chambers" are indisputable facts while sacred geometry and the language of silence are examples of "pretense" intellectuality.
To you truth is who, not what.
^ Thanks, DV. It's good to feel welcome.
Meanwhile, try to wrap your mind around the possibility that genomic science will reveal that those human populations that migrated out of Africa 10,000 years ago evolved different cognitive capacities as a matter of natural selection.
If true, it would have an immense impact on racial politics.
That Discover piece I linked to is a sign of things to come.
That Discover POS only signifies that there's an audience of determined morons indulging a disgraceful public fetish for racist pseudo-science and a pathological inability to discriminate between actual science and race pornography.
POS moneyshot;
EVOLUTION AND THE BRAINPerhaps the most incendiary aspect of the fast-evolution research is evidence that the brain may be evolving just as quickly as the rest of the body. Some genes that appear to have been recently selected, Moyzis and his collaborators suggest, influence the function and development of the brain. Other fast-changing genes—roughly 100—are associated with neurotransmitters, including serotonin (a mood regulator), glutamate (involved in general arousal), and dopamine (which regulates attention). According to estimates, fully 40 percent of these neurotransmitter genes seem to have been selected in the past 50,000 years, with the majority emerging in just the past 10,000 years.
Addressing the hot-potato question—What might these changes signify?—Moyzis and Wang theorize that natural selection probably favored different abilities and dispositions as modern groups adapted to the increasingly complex social order ushered in by the first human settlements.ay,yai,yai,yai,yai.....,
will ignorant inanities never cease?!?!
Whenever people start talking about the brain and about neurotransmitters, it's important to know a couple of really elementary facts about the limits of what's known about the brain and about neurotransmitters. These simple facts put all that palaver into proper perspective - you needn't ever even trouble yourself to go to the genetic argument given the paucity of information available concerning the brain, its structure, chemistry and functions;
http://subrealism.blogspot.com/2009/04/brain-mindless-obsession.htmlThe flimsiness of the entire enterprise was brought home to me in devastating fashion in a conversation with Elliot Valenstein, a leading neuroscientist at the University of Michigan, and the author of three highly regarded and influential books on psychopharmacology and the history of psychiatry. I was talking to Valenstein about why today’s psychiatric drugs address only a very small proportion of the neurotransmitters that are thought to exist. Virtually all these drugs deal with only four neurotransmitters: dopamine and serotonin, most commonly, and also norepinephrine and GABA (technically known as gamma-aminobutyric acid). While no one knows exactly how many neurotransmitters there are in the human brain—indeed, even how a neurotransmitter is defined exactly can be a matter of debate—there are at least 100.
So I asked Valenstein, “Why do all the drugs deal with the same brain chemicals? Is it because those four neurotransmitters are the ones understood to be most implicated with mood and thought regulation—that is, the stuff of psychiatric disorders?”
“It’s entirely a historical accident,” he said. “The first psychiatric drugs were stumbled upon in the dark, completely serendipitously. No one, least of all the people who discovered them, had any idea how they worked. It was only later that the science caught up and provided evidence that those drugs influence those particular neurotransmitters. After that, all subsequent drugs were ‘copycats’ of the originals—and all of them regulated only those same four neurotransmitters. There have not been any new radically different paradigms of drug action that have been developed.” Indeed, while 100 drugs have been designed to treat schizophrenia, all of them resemble the original, Thorazine, in their mechanism of action. “So,” I asked Valenstein, “if the first drugs that were discovered had dealt with a different group of neurotransmitters, then all the drugs in use today would involve an entirely different set of neurotransmitters?”
“Yes,” he said.
“In other words, there are more than a hundred neurotransmitters, some of which could have vital impact on psychiatric syndromes, yet to be explored?” I asked.
“Absolutely,” Valenstein said. “It’s all completely arbitrary.”Of course, Harpending's contribution to the article is exactly the sort you'd expect from someone who furnishes glowing intros to Phillipe Rushton tracts Race, Evolution and Behavior: A Life History Perspective - and who recently participated at the Preserving Western Civilization Conference in Baltimore.
At the end of the day, any criticism leveled at 50 page bookwoman queen hairy bey - goes in spades for the non-geneticist, non-neuroscientist quacks who make up the ranks of pseudo-scientific racist pornographers. It goes spades to the 10th power for the ineducable retards comprising their faithful and uncritical clientele..,
Here's the shape of things to come in the new biocentrism. In order to really "get" the implications of this bounding new regime, one must be free to an extent from the diseases of abstractification which constrain required objectivity.
The deep symbiosis between bacteria and their human hosts is forcing scientists to ask: Are we organisms or living ecosystems?
"Equally challenging, though in a different respect, will be changing long-held ideas about ourselves as independent individuals. How do we make sense of this suddenly crowded self? David Relman suggests that how well you come to terms with symbiosis “depends on how comfortable you are with not being alone.” A body that is a habitat and a continuously evolving system is not something most of us consider; the sense of a singular, continuous self is a prerequisite for sanity, at least in Western psychology. A symbiotic perspective depends on a willingness to see yourself as the product of evolutionary timescales. After all, our cells carry an ancient stamp of symbiosis in the form of mitochondria. These energy-producing organelles are the vestiges of symbiotic bacteria that migrated into cells long ago. Even those parts of us we consider human are part bacterial. “In some ways, we’re an amalgam and a continuously evolving collective,” Relman says.
Craig... in your opinion, is it even conceivable that genomic mapping will one day reveal differences in cognitive abilities between the average Norwegian, the average Nigerian and the average Han Chinese? Or is that now -- and ever will be -- an impossibility?
Mills...
"in your opinion, is it even conceivable that genomic mapping will one day reveal differences in cognitive abilities between the average Norwegian, the average Nigerian and the average Han Chinese? Or is that now -- and ever will be -- an impossibility?"Mills, after all this time of explaining the very basics of logical inquiry to you, you still don't get it.
Lemme try again. See if you can follow this time.
Aside from the inherent impossibility of defining "average Nigerian, average Norwegian, average Han Chinese," etc. The term "average whoever" is completely useless.
Why?
Let's for your sake assume there is something like an "average Nigerian", an "average Norwegian", and an "average Han Chinese" all of whom we assign different "cognitive ability" values. So let's say your "average Nigerian" has a "cognitive ability" vale of 8, your "average Norwegian" has one of 7, and your "average Han Chinese" has one of 6.
Now if you're going to reason that there is a genetic cause for the "average Nigerian" to have a "cognitive ability value" of 8, then you're gonna have to explain what makes a person who has a "cognitive ability value" of 6 genetically a Nigerian as well since a "cognitive ability value" of 8 is what characterizes an "average Nigerian".
Or put it this way. There's a Han Chinese with the "cognitive ability value" of 4, a Norwegian with the "cognitive ability value" of 4, and a Nigerian with the "cognitive ability value" of 4. Since you wanna argue that these "cognitive ability values" are genetically group-based, you're gonna have to show how a Nigerian person with a "cognitive ability value" of 4 is genetically LESS related to a to a Norwegian person with a "cognitive ability value" of 4 and genetically MORE related with a a Nigerian person with a "cognitive ability value" of 8. That is something one can not do if one posits that the genetic factor that is the underlying reason for the particular cognitive ability value is what defines a person's group membership.
It is just LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.
The International HapMap Project is an organization whose goal is to develop a haplotype map of the human genome (HapMap), which will describe the common patterns of human genetic variation. The HapMap is expected to be a key resource for researchers to find genetic variants affecting health, disease and responses to drugs and environmental factors. The information produced by the project is made freely available to researchers around the world.
Craig... in your opinion, is it even conceivable that genomic mapping will one day reveal differences in cognitive abilities between the average Norwegian, the average Nigerian and the average Han Chinese? In the opinion of geneticists, the HapMap project is not up to the far more modest objectives it seeks to achieve.
The science behind the project is flawed. Joseph D. Terwilliger, a professor at Columbia University’s Genome Center, criticized the approach in “An utter refutation of the ‘Fundamental Theorem of the HapMap’,” which he co-authored in the European Journal of Human Genetics last year.
According to Terwilliger, the HapMap Project is only useful for diseases like that share a common ancestor — where the disease genetics have changed very little over many generations, and are relatively simple to study — a situation that does not apply to many other serious genetic diseases.
“Diseases like macular degeneration are not the rule, they’re the exception,” Terwilliger said. “It’s not schizophrenia, it’s not diabetes.”
Terwilliger said that when the HapMap Project began, most geneticists were in favor, but that nearly half of the geneticist community no longer approves of the way that the HapMap Project is being done because the nature of most diseases are much more genetically complex than macular degeneration. No one who understands the basic limitations of the methods being employed, understands the objectives that this data gathering seeks to obtain - would ever even bother to ask that question.
The term "average whoever" is completely useless.
Not to most people, Fish. Not to people who want to make sense of the world.
The average height of a Batwa man (or so-called “African pygmy”) is about 5 feet tall.
The average height of a Han Chinese man is 5 feet 6 inches tall.
The average height of an Icelandic man is 5 feet 11 inches tall.
The average well-educated person knows what the word “average” means. It does not mean that every pygmy is 5 feet tall, or every Chinaman is 5 foot 6, or every Icelander is 5-11.
The reason different human sub-groups differ in average height is because of genetic adaptations over the course of thousands of years, based on their environments.
No one who understands the basic limitations of the methods being employed... would ever even bother to ask that question.
And yet some researchers are asking the question. And others are scared like punks because the answer might hurt black people’s feelings... or fuck with their own liberal value system... or get them viciously attacked as “race pornographers.”
Harvard cognitive scientist Steven Pinker: “People, including me, would rather believe that significant human biological evolution stopped between 50,000 and 100,000 years ago, before the races diverged, which would ensure that racial and ethnic groups are biologically equivalent.”
But what if that’s just not true?
From Discover magazine: “Many scientists apparently worry that proof of divergent brain evolution could be so racially polarizing that we, as a society, would almost be better off in the dark.”
They’re not the only ones who think that. But the truth will out... one way or another. Get your minds ready for it.
And yet some researchers are asking the question.Those aren't researchers.
Geneticists and molecular biologists aren't telling these racist tall tales. They already know the limits of the method being employed and work scientifically within those constraints.
Interestingly, and quite predictably, it's only anthropologists, journalists, storytellers, and professional racists who insist on making an attempt to dress up old racist tripe with misfit pseudo-scientific garments.
Harvard cognitive scientist Steven PinkerI knew Steven Pinker and sat through three of his classes on the human visual system. Pinker is hardly Gouldian in either his politics or receptivity to conservative ideology. However, not even Pinker will dabble in straight up scientific malpractice, and it's straight up scientific malpractice that that atrocious Discover article is peddling.
But the truth will out...Of course it will. Thankfully, real scientists who actually understand what they're doing and do it within the constraints of sound scientific method, i.e, logical and factual falsifiability under peer-review, will still have to squander cycles beating back racist morons who don't understand the data and the methods being employed, yet who shamelessly sieze on material beyond their comprehension to promote their sad sorry racist garbage.
It's too bad you don't have the basic training or intellectual horsepower required to see your way out of this thicket David.
I saw your elder, better, and patron being interviewed by Bill Moyers the other day. Interestingly, he came across as an intelligent and reasonable man. Is he cognizant of how extraordinarily stupid you show yourself to be in public on the net?
Too many niccas are mesmerized by the pretense of intellectuality... But they are helpless as a baby when confronted with a true intellectual challenge.rotflmbao...,
yet some researchers are asking the question. And others are scared like punks because the answer might hurt black people’s feelings... or fuck with their own liberal value system... or get them viciously attacked as “race pornographers.”"viciously attacked"rotflmbao....whew!!!!
wOw.
I have yet to see one of the pornographers defend his nonsense in a scientific context. Matter of fact, to my knowledge it just.doesn't.happen.
On the other hand, it's invariably the consumers of that trash that are its most vociferous defenders.
Funny how that works....,
Puts me in mind of the stupid and befuddled teabaggers whose visceral hatred for a Black man in the white house is being manipulated and "masked" by wealthy tax protesters.
oops, meant to say "funded, organized, manipulated, and masked" just like the perennial befuddled pseudo-scientific racist element.
Olbermann And Garofalo On Tea Bagging Tea Parties, Ignorance And RacismMy man BT brought it hard on this topic over at his joint;
The “Tea Party” is funded by the same old backroom thugs who brought you much of the scientific racial and uber-conservative movement.
The “tea party” anti-tax movement is not as spontaneous as its organizers would like you to think. Chris Good writes in The Atlantic, “Here is the organizational landscape of the April 15 tea party movement, in a nutshell: three national-level conservative groups, all with slightly different agendas, are guiding it. All are quick to tell you that the movement is a bottom-up affair and that its grassroots cred is real. They are: FreedomWorks, the conservative action group led by Dick Armey; dontGO, a tech savvy free-market action group that sprung out of last August’s oil-drilling debate in the House of Representatives; and Americans for Prosperity, an issue advocacy/activist group based on free market principles.
The principal funder of Americans for Prosperity is one of the Koch Foundations. Who fund a number of the Anti Civil Rights organizations such as the Federalist Society, the misnomered Institute for Justice - and along with the Bradley, Scaife and Olin Foundations funds much of the conservative, as well as racist “Foundations” and “Think Tanks” in the country - including folks like Jared Taylor’s New Century Foundation which funds the racist screed American Renaissance so favored by conservative authors, and the Civil Rights Institute, and organization dedicated to school re segregation by another name.
Racism in America is a fully funded exercise, with something on the order of $40 to $100 million a year being spent to keep the pot boiling.
Just so I’m clear where you stand, Craig: You believe that immune systems evolved differently among distinct, geographically separate human sub-groups... but that cognitive functioning DID NOT evolve differently among distinct, geographically separate human sub-groups. Right?
Then how to explain the “comparatively supernatural linguistic high achievement” of the so-called Aborigines of Australia?
As you so helpfully pointed out to me in a previous discussion, Craig, the Walbiri people are said to be “the world's greatest natural linguists.”
This raises two obvious questions, Craig. Is their unique linguistic facility encoded in their genes?
And does that mean the Walbiri brain evolved differently than the non-Walbiri brain?
Just so I’m clear where you stand, Craig: You believe that immune systems evolved differently among distinct, geographically separate human sub-groups... but that cognitive functioning DID NOT evolve differently among distinct, geographically separate human sub-groups. Right?Quote me - so that I know from whence this attribution emanates.
Then how to explain the “comparatively supernatural linguistic high achievement” of the so-called Aborigines of Australia?They pursue an aggressive and highly structured outgroup mating strategy which requires communion across multiple tribal dialects. The baseline requirement for fluency in multiple dialects is further abetted by some rather unique word substitution and abbreviation games that are practiced both inside and across dialects, for entertainment, status, and achievement/performance.
In short, these people make more focused and deliberate use of their language faculties than any other extant peoples, inclusive of their extensive oral (no writing) knowledge management tradition.
This raises two obvious questions, Craig. Is their unique linguistic facility encoded in their genes?Nobody knows enough about either the brain or genetics to credibly answer that question.
And does that mean the Walbiri brain evolved differently than the non-Walbiri brain?It means that Walbiri culture emphasizes language performance like no other.
Nobody knows enough about either the brain or genetics to credibly answer that question.
But one day they will, I bet.
And pardon me for supposing that when you descibed the Walbiri people as “the world's greatest NATURAL linguists,” you were speaking not of cultural learning, but of a propensity they were born with.
Really?
That's how you interpreted;
Hale humbly acknowledged the capacity of the Walbiri to do what he could do as a polyglot, except instead of being an artifact of exceptional individual genius - his unique capabilities were evident in these people as a living cultural universal. They were - and to my knowledge continue to be - a culture centered on comparatively supernatural linguistic high achievement.No wonder genetic science remains a book permanently closed to your understanding....,
^ No, that's how I interpreted your use of the phrase "natural linguists." Please try to be more precise in your use of words in the future. Now you're saying they're not "natural linguists."
No.
I'm saying you're a bad faith actor not at all troubled by excluding context if you think it'll gain you a rhetorical point.
In context, which included - Hale humbly acknowledged the capacity of the Walbiri to do what he could do as a polyglot, except instead of being an artifact of exceptional individual genius - his unique capabilities were evident in these people as a living cultural universal. They were - and to my knowledge continue to be - a culture centered on comparatively supernatural linguistic high achievement.There's no possibility whatsoever of mistaking my meaning.
Just as, in context, there's no possibility of mistaking Hap Map data as dispositive of population-specific cognitive differences.
In order for you to peddle your racist fundamentalism, it's necessary for you to lie, distort, misunderstand, or exclude relevant information.
Does Simon know you perpetrate like this when you're not under his immediate supervision, or, is he a closet racist who puts on a good and rational front, but is in reality engaged in Austerian skullduggery on the under?
Go read some Sergey V. Petoukhov, Lynn Margulis, Stuart Hammeroff, or Eshel Ben-Jacob - and try to expand your horizons past the godawful bottleneck that Charles Murray crammed your excessively plastic and impressionable brain into 15 years ago....,
Just as, in context, there's no possibility of mistaking Hap Map data as dispositive of population-specific cognitive differences.
Give it time. They've only just begun.
Neither one of us can predict what shall be known by genomic researchers 10 or 20 years hence.
Wrong.
One of us CAN predict with a very high degree of certainty what's on the event horizon - because one of us follows and understands the relevant theory, science, and technology...,
The theories to which you've irrationally devoted yourself are hundreds of years old, and have existed in their explicit and pseudo-scientific form for nearly 150 years.
The present explosion in technique and specific knowledge, instead of strengthening these doddering racist delusions, have only served - here-to-date - to further erode and marginalize them.
Here's what's next, and here's why that's inevitable.
Craig, at least take some responsibility for contributing to my confusion on the Walbiri point, because you repeatedly set it up in these terms:
“What highly isolated non-literate people is regarded as the greatest natural linguists on the face of the earth?”
“[W]hat people comprise the human race's most measurably and demonstrably gifted natural linguists?”
When you talk about the “natural” attributes of a “gifted” people, you’re talking genetics.
Nope.
I can just as easily talk about the exceptional gifts of Black folk conducing to a Global System of Black Popular Supremacy - without once ever resorting to primitive essentialism.
See, I read the Hughes and Schuyler debate The Negro Art Hokum many years ago and it left an indelible impression with me. I've also studied the bizarre and inane work of negro eugenicists, and there were more than a few - with one particularly rotten actor ensconced for life at Howard University.
What never ceases to amaze me about the entire boondoggle, particularly in its current incarnation - is that there has never been, nor will there ever be - any profit in that entire area of inquiry. (excluding of course the paltry lucre raked in by race-pornographer 50 page book men and women from their audience of suggestible racist followers)
The reason I assert with the utmost confidence that there won't be any consequential developments on this front is not only because I know the limits of existing technique and knowledge, I've also observed the machinery of the scientific political economy act so as to preclude any further race-based busterism in the highest precincts of science for profit.
Mills...
"The average well-educated person knows what the word “average” means. It does not mean that every pygmy is 5 feet tall, or every Chinaman is 5 foot 6, or every Icelander is 5-11.
The reason different human sub-groups differ in average height is because of genetic adaptations over the course of thousands of years, based on their environments."Sigh...
Mills. THINK! Use that Noodle!.
If a Chinese man is 5 feet 6 and that height is solely genetically determined, and another Chinese man is 5 feet 7 and THAT height is genetically determined, are these two Chinese men in possession of two different height-determining genes or not?
The answer obviously is that they indeed are in possession of two different height-determining genes.
Now if a Nigerian man is 5 feet 6 and THAT height is solely genetically determined as well, is the Chinese man who is 5 feet 6 and the Nigerian who is 5 feet 6 related (as far as-height-determining-genes is concerned) to the Chinese man who is 5 feet 7?
Obviously the answer is that he is, as far as the height gene is concerned, related to the Nigerian man who is 5 feet 6 and NOT with with the Chinese man who is 5 feet 7.
Now, since the Chinese man of height 5'6" is NOT (as far as the height gene is concerned) related to the Chinese man who is 5'7", and since it is nonsensical to take the average of two non-related objects you can't use the concept of average the way you use it.
The present explosion in technique and specific knowledge, instead of strengthening these doddering racist delusions, have only served - here-to-date - to further erode and marginalize them.
Really, Craig? Not according to this, from the Oxford journal Human Molecular Genetics:
“A robust body of evidence suggests that cognitive abilities, particularly intelligence, are significantly influenced by genetic factors.”
Then there’s this, published in 2005:
“Scientists at The Queensland Institute of Medical Science (QIMR) have identified two regions of the human genome that appear to explain variation in IQ. Their work was published this week in the American Journal of Human Genetics and has drawn world-wide interest.
“The research has shown that between 40% and 80% of variation in human intelligence can be attributed to genetic factors. ...
“Identifying the genes responsible for variation in the range of normal intelligence could provide clues for the treatment of disorders like dyslexia, autism, attention deficit hyperactivity, and even schizophrenia.”
Let's see... Human Molecular Genetics and the American Journal of Human Genetics. What was it you said upthread, Craig? “Geneticists and molecular biologists aren't telling these racist tall tales...”
Sounds like you got more reading to do, mate.
yawn.....,Let me know if you ever come across anything consequential at vdare or gnxp - until then - spare me the breathy pronouncements from the obscure researchers that get trumpeted every two the three years and which have done so since Arthur Jensen and William Shockley devised this fustercluck in the late 60's and early 70's.
If there was anything there, anything at all, it would've shown up in the NYTimes - at that time - with the quickness....,
If there was anything there, anything at all, it would've shown up in the NYTimes - at that time - with the quickness....,
Get serious, Craig. We're talking about the "third rail of racial politics" here!
And since when do you only believe what you read in the NYTimes? I thought you liked to dog out journalists and storytellers and whoever else ain't kickin' it in peer-reviewed scholarly journals.
Your inflamed hackles illustrate just how profoundly some folks don't want to deal with this topic.
At. All.
Please..,
I systematically dismantled every.single.thing you had to say on the subject.
But your steez is so weak, it's the functional equivalent of trouncing a toddler.
The little scatalogical article you brought here to disrespect queen hairy bey didn't inflame my hackles in the least little bit.
She's silly as hell, but you and the authors of that piece of swill are about 50 times sillier.
The fact that you're credulous enough to act like you had the second coming in the palm of your hand. (ahem, no personal pun intended there...,) afforded me a perfect moment to demonstrate exactly how flimsy the foundations of your worldview and politics really are.
Hopping into the spotlight intellectually buck nekkid like you did - and handing me an opportunity to effortlessly spotlight and eviscerate the fustercluck of logic, language and values seeping out of your head full of pottage - why - that's simply too good to pass up.
As for the NYTimes, I repudiate anything I happen across in the NYTimes race/DNA beat and that's why I know for a fact that Nicholas Wade is one of your world's chief sensationalist purveyors of pseudo-scientific race porn.
You'll have to excuse me now, one of my all-time favorite diversions is underway on TCM.
Dismantled? Only in your own mind, Craig. All you did was cry "Racism!" at a piercing falsetto pitch... a mode of argumentation which I'm trying to make you understand is increasingly worthless in the genome age.
The popular scientific press (Discover magazine) as well as esteemed scholarly journals (Human Molecular Genetics, American Journal of Human Genetics) are much more worthy of serious consideration than your old-school leftist shout-down tactics.
Shit, dude... you can't even shut me up!
DV... where y'at? Tell this cat he got thoroughly pwnd today.
You'll have to excuse me now, one of my all-time favorite diversions is underway on TCM.
God bless the storytellers.
Yesterday I finished off your current racial realist spasm with my very first comment. In that comment I raised the following objections to the Discover article's core premise;
1. Neuroscience is presently more art than science. i.e., nobody knows what aspects of brain structure or chemistry conduce to higher cognitive performance.
2. Nobody has yet identified a direct genetic link to a specified neurological mechanism shown to have an effect on cognitive performance.
You never responded to these straightforward objections. Do you have a response to these objections to offer today?
Shutting down your racial realist talking points boils down to pointing out one or more of the following inevitable factual or logical errors in its presentation;
1. Intentional ambiguity concerning the fact that race is a social construct.
2. Conflation of racial groups in society with populations that have been isolated from one another.
3. Insistence that intelligence is genetic, absent any evidence to support this claim. (Evidence in this case would consist of specifying certain genes, and then demonstrating causation between these genes and IQ results.)
4. Faith in IQ testing as demonstrative of testing intelligence as a biological trait, without culture, or education playing any sort of role in what is tested.
5. Dismissal of cultural factors conducing to IQ test results.
6. The belief that folks who disagree with the above are just being politically correct, and are hysterically afraid that you're right.
Don't get it twisted David. I don't enjoy debating this nonsense with you, but instead consider it a moral obligation and public service to kill and cauterize your idio-logical contagion wherever it appears. If you haven't yet seen the Cochran Harpending just-so story in the LATimes, I suspect it's only a matter of time - so we might as well call out this latest eruption and lance it pre-emptively before you commence to gleefully spreading it around like a slug spreads a slime trail.
... the fact that race is a social construct.
Who, pray tell, established this "fact," Craig? On what science rests this "fact"?
'Tis not a fact at all, but a leftist article of faith... and the ultimate black-partisan talking point.
For me, it defies reason that human populations which developed separately over the course of 10,000 to 50,000 years... subjected to different selective pressures (climate, pathogens, etc.)... would be genetically identical.
It also defies reason to argue with certainty that genetics plays no role in variations in human intelligence.
The best you can say is "nobody knows" blah-blah-blah... and "Nobody has yet identified a direct genetic link" blah-blah-blah.
That doesn't mean nobody will ever know... or that nobody will ever identify thus-and-such. (And it seems you're doing your part to try and ensure no one ever does... by attacking the motives of any geneticist who dares search for a link between intelligence and genetics.)
I'm arguing that our knowledge of the link between genes and intelligence (and genes and everything) will be revolutionized by the mapping of the human genome. So far, Craig, you have made a very unpersuasive case that such knowledge is -- and will always be -- unknowable
rotflmbao....,
Like I said, finished you off with those first two shots, straight to y'dome piece.
1. Neuroscience is presently more art than science. i.e., nobody knows what aspects of brain structure or chemistry conduce to higher cognitive performance.
2. Nobody has yet identified a direct genetic link to a specified neurological mechanism shown to have an effect on cognitive performance.
Since you're making the positive claims David, the burden of proof falls to you.
If you would be so kind, provide a consistent, scientifically grounded, measurable and repeatable definition of race.
Thanks.
Are Craig Venter and James Watson members of the same race?
If you "finished me off"... why-da-fuck you still babblin'??
Ain't no "burden of proof" on me, Boo Boo. I'm just trying to get the conversation started.
Looks like I did.
These "Moors" are real confused.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SkblsAo7gg&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eafrostyly%2Ecom%2Fenglish%2F&feature=player_embedded
Mills...
"For me, it defies reason that human populations which developed separately over the course of 10,000 to 50,000 years... subjected to different selective pressures (climate, pathogens, etc.)... would be genetically identical.".
Mills, no one made that argument. Quite the contrary. Every human individual (except identical twins) is genetically unique. Racists try to construct a genetic identity between two unique genetically non-identical individuals. And that is impossible without positing purely socially derived definitions of what characterizes "biological race".
This is why you, David, or anyone else for that matter will never be able to answer Nulan's question: "If you would be so kind, provide a consistent, scientifically grounded, measurable and repeatable definition of race."
Who, pray tell, established this "fact," Craig? On what science rests this "fact"?
'Tis not a fact at all, but a leftist article of faith... and the ultimate black-partisan talking point.Craig Venter - the man who mapped the human genome - is down with the ultimate Black partisan talking point.
In a fascinating commentary in today's issue of Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics, infamous genomics maverick Craig Venter contributes to an article which proves that race-based medicine is doomed to fail. Why? Because "race" as most people understand it has almost nothing to do with genetics — and therefore makes a bad target for tailored medicines.
Venter and the other authors of the study say that sometimes people of the same race share genetic similarities, but not often enough to base drug targeting on racial groups. The researchers prove their point by examining the two most-studied human genomes in the world: Those of white guys Craig Venter and James Watson. Turns out that the men's genomes are dissimilar enough that they would likely respond quite differently to common antidepressants — despite the fact that both identify as white. (This is particularly amusing for those who have followed Watson's career, since he was recently suspended from his job for racist comments about the genetic inferiority of blacks.)
race has little to do with genetic makeup, say scientists
I agree with cnulan, genetics has absolutely nothing to do with IQ!
The only reason why a human has a higher IQ than a dog, for instance, is purely cultural. If a dog was raised in school like a boy, it would end up with exactly the same IQ as a human as well. Genes aint got nothing to do with it, you racists!
And I also agree with Fisher. A brown-haired boy has more genetically in common hair color-wise with a brown squirrel than a blonde human.
Looky, everything, bar none, is entirely a social construct or due to social influence. Genes play NO role in anything! In fact, even genes are social constructs! They are nothing more than the imaginary creations of racist scientists!
Ahhhhh .... nice point Silent Lucidity.
I didn't realize these cats were suggesting genes ... had ... nothing ... to do with IQ.
Hell, everything is genetic.
Good looking people, make good looking babies.
Smart people make smart babies.
Dumb white people, make dumb white babies.
Dumb black people, make dumb black babies.
However I challenge the presumptions of what constitutes "dumb" and what constitutes "smart".
A motherfucker mapping his own DNA code and splitting atoms does not necessarily strike me as any smarter than a man planting seeds in the soil and sitting on his back porch watching rabbits play in the yard.
*stares blankly at Denmark Vesey*
Discussing biological intelligence, cultural IQ, sentience, and consciousness with the short bus iggerati - is EXACTLY like trying to jump over your own knees.
s.l.o.w.l.y....,
o.n.e. m.o.r.e. t.i.m.e....,
nah, phuggit.
if you believe a "nice point" came out of a specie-conflating sphincter squirting shit as ridiculous as this;
And I also agree with Fisher. A brown-haired boy has more genetically in common hair color-wise with a brown squirrel than a blonde human.and this;
If a dog was raised in school like a boy, it would end up with exactly the same IQ as a human as well.youze a lyrical pipe-hitter in good company smack dab in the middle of the short bus....,
Damn, my fault CNu.
I thought homie was being facetious.
Mills...
"And I also agree with Fisher. A brown-haired boy has more genetically in common hair color-wise with a brown squirrel than a blonde human"/
Actually that's correct. If it is a gene that determines hair color, then a "brown hair color gene" would be the source of brown hair color in humans as well as in squirrels.
Therefore, if one defined genetic relatedness solely based on the hair color gene, a brown-haired squirrel would indeed be related to a brown-haired human and neither of them to the blonde human.
Consequently I could easily construct a "biological race" by arbitrarily choosing ('cause I feel like it or am SOCIALLY compelled to do so) the "brown-hair gene", and posit that there is a race of brown hair mammals vs a race of blond hair mammals. And then I could go, average across both human/squirrel biological races, and determine that "the average blond hair mammal" has an IQ level of 80 and the "the average brown hair mammal" has an IQ of 110.
There is nothing different in constructing "biological race" in this context than there is in the purely human context. It is equally absurd.
DV - I agrees! "Smart" and "dumb" are also just artificial social constructs.
Who says that it takes more "intelligence" to gene-map than passively watch grass grow? Who says a human is smarter than a slug? Racist scientists, that's who!
And Mike, I agree - to a point. Fact is, "humans" and "squirrels" are also just arbitrary social constructs as well. Therefore, neither exists in reality either and are both just as meaningless concepts as race too. All of taxonomy is really just a racist Matrix, truth be told.
Whereas in reality, White is not better than Black, because there is no White or Black you see! I have yet to meet a smart or dumb, White or Black human or squirrel - because all of those labels are merely social constructs that exist only in our own minds. Which are also social constructs, themselves. In fact, I don't even truly exist - but am also nothing more than a social construct.
nah, a-holes are real - even when only experienced virtually....,
Mills...
"DV - I agrees! 'Smart'...".
Stupidity as a virtue.
Oh, well.
"a-holes are real - even when only experienced virtually....,"
Uhh, huh? Are you trying to plug a fleshlight or something here (excuse the pun)? :/
UBM
Does it bother you that your entire theory is built on the idea that nothing has been discovered yet, but it will be one day?
I don't understand this belief that one day there will be enough evidence to prove that black people in general are intellectually inferior and it's based on genetics. This is despite the interesting work, like Guns, Germs and Steel, that says something totally different and gives a different explanation for the development of civilization, which is one of your key points.
This is really weird to me. This devotion to a theory that has been challenged and disproven many times.
And not just by "liberals" but by regular scientists who have found it does not hold up to scrutiny over the years.
Really strange.
It's really interesting how y'all can muster the energy to debate the same issues over and over again, with new supporting evidence.
I mean, it can be informative, Lord knows, but I don't think I would have the patience. I already get burned out dealing with race at my blog.
And UBM, I think Fisher and Nulan do a better job of pointing out the holes in your argument than you do with their arguments.
You are saying that blacks are probably genetically inferior, but you admit that all of the studies that posit this are flawed in their methodology. You admit that there is not enough info to prove that what genetic markers determine intelligence.
Yet, you blame this lack of evidence on "liberals." I don't get it man. We must live in a different world. In the world I live in, a white former Klansman can serve in the United States Senate. Another white dude can argue against integration, all while having a mixed race baby out of wedlock. And they were both successful politicians.
It would seem to me that most of Americans believe black people are genetically inferior. Credible evidence of this fact would be welcomed by a huge segment of the population. But, you're convinced that a vocal minority is preventing those discoveries from happening?
For somebody who seems to hate conspiracy theories, that's a hell of a conspiracy theory man.
Mike "I am not a member of a biological black race" Fisher says,
Racists try to construct a genetic identity between two unique genetically non-identical individuals.Here we see modern evolutionary psuedo-theory talking out both sides of its mouth.
No human being is genetically "equal" with another except for twins, but that doesn't stop Fish from telling us we are genetically similar enough to apes to actually be their descendants.
Fish telling us "blacks" are the descendants of apes... Ain't that some racist shite?
Big Man detonates a 75 megaton weapon, and then calmly exits ground zero leaving nothing but fused glass in his wake as far as the eye can see....,
Big Man...
"I mean, it can be informative, Lord knows, but I don't think I would have the patience. I already get burned out dealing with race at my blog.".
When a roach crawls into one's house posing as a human and spreads roach feces around, a clean-up is unavoidable. As often as it takes.
Big Man detonates a 75 megaton weapon, and then calmly exits ground zero...
Put your pom-poms down, Craig.
Yo, Big Man... let's boogie down. You wrote:
Does it bother you that your entire theory is built on the idea that nothing has been discovered yet, but it will be one day?
Big Man, the necessary predicate of my entire argument is the mapping of the human genome, which was functionally accomplished for the first time in 2003. Just a few years ago.
Just a few months ago came publication of the first mapped genomes of an African man and a Chinese man. We are at the very beginning of understanding human beings at the genomic level.
So what's difficult to understand about my argument that "one day" we will know immensely more about racial differences than we do today?
Just last year, an international research consortium began the “1000 Genomes Project,” to map the DNA of a thousand individuals from all over the world. The result will be an amazing blueprint of human genetic variation.
This project will take several years to complete, and there's no telling what will be learned. Shit... we might finally figure out why white folks clap on the 1 and 3!
As for your boy Jared Diamond, he wrote "Guns, Germs, and Steel" in 1998... before the Human Genome Project had yielded any published results. Why would you hang your hat on a book like that, whose theories about human diversity and the movement of populations is based on archaeology and linguistic analysis... not genetics?
I'm telling all so-called "black partisans" to get ready with some new shit... or you might wake up and find yourselves arguing that the world is flat.
Mills...
"Big Man, the necessary predicate of my entire argument is the mapping of the human genome, which was functionally accomplished for the first time in 2003. Just a few years ago.
Just a few months ago came publication of the first mapped genomes of an African man and a Chinese man. We are at the very beginning of understanding human beings at the genomic level.
So what's difficult to understand about my argument that "one day" we will know immensely more about racial differences than we do today?".
((shakin' head)))
Mills. There never has occurred and never will occur the mapping of THE human genome. The only mapping that has occurred it the mapping of A human genome.
Since every human being (except clones and twins) is GENETICALLY DISTINCT from every other human being, there is no THE human genome, but there are SIX BILLION and PLUS DISTINCT human genomes.
Since by definition, EACH HUMAN INDIVIDUAL is GENETICALLY DISTINCT, one can not and never will determine a "genetic-based race", because that logically postulates that two or more human individuals are genetically THE SAME as opposed to the rest of humanity.
"Just last year, an international research consortium began the '1000 Genomes Project,' to map the DNA of a thousand individuals from all over the world. The result will be an amazing blueprint of human genetic variation.".
Now that's the only correct statement you've made yet. Let me rephrase it so that you understand what you said:
The result will be an amazing blueprint of human genetic variation of a thousand INDIVIDUALS, that is, a THOUSAND HUMAN GENOMES.
And that's all.
No "biological race".
Fisher: Do you believe there is any scientific value to mapping a thousand human genomes? If so, what might it be?
Mills...
"Do you believe there is any scientific value to mapping a thousand human genomes? If so, what might it be?"
Sure. there is scientific value.
Mostly medical.
^ I don't understand, Mike. Since we're talking about the DNA of a thousand individuals... and all individuals on the planet are genetically unique (except identical twins)... what medical value could possibly be gleaned from mapping their genomes?
What medical value, I mean, for any persons besides those thousand individuals themselves? I am confused...
Mills...
"I am confused...".
Obviously.
Lemme put it in terms you might be able to grasp.
Most people have a nose. The basic function of the nose is the same with everyone that has one. Namely to breathe and smell. However, nobody's nose is identical to anyone else's nose.
Arguing with a post-Darwinian black supremacist like Nulan only teaches you one thing... That Modern Evolutionary Theory is for dummies.
The fact is, descent with modification (can't you just see the eugenics) tells us nothing about human intelligence and volition.
That stuff, the stuff that Nulan likes to think about, is the stuff that post-Darwinians recognize as being susceptible to manipulation and persuasion. The notion that man is driven by survival and reproduction is thoroughly falsified by modern Western culture.
The basic function of the nose is the same with everyone that has one. Namely to breathe and smell. However, nobody's nose is identical to anyone else's nose.
Ahhhh... I get it now! Everybody has a nose... but some people have a better sense of smell than other people. (Some can't even smell when they're ankle-deep in horseshit.)
So perhaps the answer to why some people have a more acute sense of smell can be gleaned by mapping a thousand genomes... is that what you meant to convey, Mike?
Otherwise, your reply didn't have squat to do with my direct question: What medical value could possibly be gleaned from mapping a thousand individual genomes... on a planet of 7 billion people?
Can you please give me -- and everyone else reading -- just one actual example of the sort of medical benefit that scientists hope to derive from DNA mapping?
Permit me Fisher, given that I already dispatched this stupid question upthread.
The HapMap projects, ALFRED and HapMap sought to identify potential genetic cures for conditions arising in population groups. Those projects have now demonstrated the limits of both their predictive power and scope of useful applicability.
The real devastation comes in the area of race-based medicine, where there was some hope and controversy around the idea that there are meaningful differences at the phenotypic level that might prove responsive to racially customized medication. That one's also dead enough that you could stick a fork in it, unless of course you're a "racial realist" or a racial realist fanboy....,
Venter and the other authors of the study say that sometimes people of the same race share genetic similarities, but not often enough to base drug targeting on racial groups. The researchers prove their point by examining the two most-studied human genomes in the world: Those of white guys Craig Venter and James Watson. Turns out that the men's genomes are dissimilar enough that they would likely respond quite differently to common antidepressants — despite the fact that both identify as white. (This is particularly amusing for those who have followed Watson's career, since he was recently suspended from his job for racist comments about the genetic inferiority of blacks.)
Mills...
"So perhaps the answer to why some people have a more acute sense of smell can be gleaned by mapping a thousand genomes...".
Maybe, Mills. But if you wanna construct "biological race" outta that the only logical such "biological race" would be the "such-and-such-sense-of-smell-having-biological race". And that with each individual having the IDENTICAL sense of smell. Plus YOUR decision to make the genetic marker "sense of smell" the marker for biological race rather than the maker for, let's say, visual acuity, is a SUBJECTIVE and thus SOCIAL (by a member of society) decision.
Nulan...
"Permit me Fisher...".
Merci.
^ So Craig... do you believe there is any scientific value to the "1000 Genomes Project"? Or do you think it'll be an enormous waste of time and money on the part of the National Institutes of Health, the Beijing Genomics Institute, and other funders?
I am sure you're aware, Craig, that researchers with the 1000 Genomes Project plan to sequence the DNA of 400 or so Europeans, 400 or so East Asians, and 400 or so Bantu-speaking Africans.
So obviously you are wrong to suggest that science has abandoned the concept of "race-based medicine."
A mere eight months ago, four leaders of the 1000 Genomes Project wrote this:
"[T]he Project will provide important benefits to genetic association studies of
complex disease."
They also wrote: "[P]opulation genetic analysis of the
sequence data should provide important insights about human genetic variation, population
history and natural selection."
In other words... how Africans, Asians and Europeans might have evolved differently.
Once more, Craig, I have shown you to be flat-out, dead-ass wrong on the facts. The question is: Were you wrong by accident... or on purpose?
(And where's that dude talkin' 'bout "Nulan and Fisher be pointing out holes in your argument, Mills?")
^ So Craig... do you believe there is any scientific value to the "1000 Genomes Project"? Or do you think it'll be an enormous waste of time and money on the part of the National Institutes of Health, the Beijing Genomics Institute, and other funders?
and
Once more, Craig, I have shown you to be flat-out, dead-ass wrong on the facts. The question is: Were you wrong by accident... or on purpose?
rotflmbao....,
schizophrenic, a little....?
If you already know that I'm flat-out, dead-assed wrong - why you axin my opinion?
In the world of scientific politics, credibility, prestige, and funding are contingent on orthodoxy and adherence to the political mainstream - much as they are in the political realm of less well-educated, less well-trained minds.
A very great deal has been invested in pushing traditional old commonsense notions into this realm, i.e., that "race" or even the more precise "population group traits" have some predictive bearing on recombinant results.
Where the data wheel meets the empirical evidence road - that doesn't appear to be the case.
Don't feel too bad though David.
More intelligent and better trained negroes than you - with actual personal financial and reputational skin in the game - have fallen for the okey doke in this complicated area - and have been handed their hats accordingly.
Now that you've been handed yours, perhaps you'll gracefully exit the field munching on brim, but likely as not, you'll just continue showing your ass and being laughed at every time you expose that big cottage-cheesy yalla moon for all the world to see.
Mills...
"In other words... how Africans, Asians and Europeans might have evolved differently.".
What the fuck is a African, Asian, and European in evolutionary biological terms? Define each category. Scientifically.
Mills. Even if you could define these categories biologically, and I bet you any amount of money that you, Mills, can not, Africa, Asia, and Europe are part of one and the same landmass where the people inhabiting that land mass have been exchanging genes for hundreds of thousands of years. There is no "separate" evolution, else there would be population groups whose members are genetically unable to reproduce with the members of another population group. And THAT would make them separate species.
Mills. On a serious side note. What is your IQ?
If you already know that I'm flat-out, dead-assed wrong - why you axin my opinion?
Since you buck-danced around my direct question, Craig, I am left to assume that you DO NOT see any scientific value in mapping the genomes of 400 Africans, 400 Asians and 400 Europeans.
That's cool. But it places you outside the mainstream of scientific thought, and it renders worthless your opinions on the subject of genomics.
To everyone following this conversation from the cheap seats: Check Nulan's maneuver of last resort. He dismisses the 1000 Genomes Project -- one of the most ambitious undertakings in the history of science -- as a manifestation of racist political orthodoxy!
For those readers who want a more reliable glimpse into the future of human knowledge, check the Wikipedia entry on the 1000 Genomes Project.
Nulan wrote: "Where the data wheel meets the empirical evidence road - that doesn't appear to be the case."
But will it "appear to be the case" after they've sequenced the DNA of 400 Africans, 400 Asians and 400 Europeans, you dissembling twat?
What the fuck is a African, Asian, and European in evolutionary biological terms? Define each category. Scientifically.
An "African" is someone whose ancestors evolved for the past 10,000 years in Africa.
An "Asian" is someone whose ancestors evolved for the past 10,000 years in Asia.
A "European" is someone whose ancestors evolved for the past 10,000 years in Europe.
Mills. On a serious side note. What is your IQ?
rotflmbao...,
might as well have asked him how big his little...., nevermind.
rotflmbao...,
Dude, you spend entirely too much time rolling on the floor.
I just destroyed you in this conversation. I just showed the world that, despite your pretenses, you are not arguing from a place of science but of politically correct wishful thinking.
Why did you leave it to me to bring up the 1000 Genomes Project? Why have you never mentioned the 1000 Genomes Project on your blog? Thinking if you ignore it, it'll go away?
As I've said from jumpstreet: We are at the very early stages of understanding human beings at the genomic level. But the answer to the Big Question will come in our lifetime. Prepare to adjust your political rhetoric accordingly.
dissembling twat!?!?
oh Lawd!!!!
rotflmbao...., whew!!!
man, you never cease to tickle and amuse, but then, that's your raison d'etre.
I just destroyed you in this conversation. I just showed the world that, despite your pretenses, you are not arguing from a place of science but of politically correct wishful thinking.
Please explain slowly for anyone attending, exactly how you destroyed Terwilliger's fundamental critique of population genetics and disease, or, Venter's flat dismissal of population genetics and medicine?
Why did you leave it to me to bring up the 1000 Genomes Project? Why have you never mentioned the 1000 Genomes Project on your blog?
Because I don't follow the population genetics crowd, don't give credence to race "realist" superstition, it's not even going to make my radar. I dismissed that study as bad science a priori for the very reasons stipulated by Terwilliger and Venter.
Again, if you can refute either one of these with your allegedly scientific "arguments" David, by all means, nothing stopping you here but air and opportunity.
So far, all I can see you doing is rehashing 150 year old Galton and making specious appeals to folk "wisdom".
Mills...
"An 'African' is someone whose ancestors evolved for the past 10,000 years in Africa.".
Hold up...
rotflmao
whew.
no, but seriously...
Oh shit.
rotflmao
rotflmao
uhhmm. Ok. Lemme get a hold on myself...
Ok, Mills, I see.
Now assuming that there is such a person all of whose ancestors over the course of 333 generations never left "Africa" (exactly which part of Africa, by the way), what exactly constitutes "evolved"? Evolved from what to what? How did this person's ancestors 333 generations ago fundamentally differ from the person today?
"An 'Asian' is someone whose ancestors evolved for the past 10,000 years in Asia.
A 'European' is someone whose ancestors evolved for the past 10,000 years in Europe.".
Mills. Are you aware of the fact that most EVERYONE in Europe is genetically related to Ghengis Khan? And that the same thing is true of everyone in China? Not to speak of Mongolia, Afghanistan, and Pakistan? And that was only about 800 years ago. Which makes this a mere 27 generations.
There is NOBODY on this planet whose ancestors solely lived in one geographical area on this planet for 10000 years. It is statistically impossible.
Now, let's get to the brass tacks here.
You posited three biological races here: "African", Asian", and "European".
One of the "biological marker" which you CHOSE was "10,000 years".
Why 10,000? Why not 11,000? why not 20 years? Why not 150,000 years? What specific OBJECTIVE biological factor had you posit 10,000 years?
What you did here is THE perfect example of the social construction of the concept "race".
Please explain slowly for anyone attending, exactly how you destroyed Terwilliger's fundamental critique of population genetics and disease, or, Venter's flat dismissal of population genetics and medicine?
I shall devote myself to that task presently, Craig.
Thank you for putting on the record -- unambiguously -- your dismissal of the 1000 Genomes Project as "bad science a priori." Readers can decide for themselves whether your opinion carries more weight than the National Institutes of Health's.
Funny thing, though, Craig. If you are absolutely convinced that there's no genetic difference between Africans, Asians and Europeans as relates to cognitive functioning... then wouldn't a comparison of the mapped genomes of more than a thousand individuals of various races prove you right?? Wouldn't it be the only thing that could prove you right?
Why aren't you heralding the 1000 Genomes Project as the tool that will finally destroy racialist pseudoscience, once and for all?
Sounds to me like you're scurred (a priori) of what the project might discover.
Best to prepare your mind now, I say.
Why 10,000? Why not 11,000? why not 20 years? Why not 150,000 years? What specific OBJECTIVE biological factor had you posit 10,000 years?
Not a biological factor, chumley... a historical factor. Are you not aware that the out-migration of modern human populations from Africa occurred from 50,000 years ago to 10,000 years ago? And only after that migration did the different "races" diverge? That's because they were subjected to different selective pressures. So the theory goes.
(I've read that blue eyes didn't exist in human beings till 10,000 years ago. It was an evolutionary adaptation to living in Northern Europe.)
Mills...
"Not a biological factor, chumley... a historical factor. Are you not aware that the out-migration of modern human populations from Africa occurred from 50,000 years ago to 10,000 years ago? And only after that migration did the different "races" diverge?".
There is so much illogical about this statement, that I don't know where to begin. Well, lemme just point the following little fact out.
Look closely at your statement, Mills.
You are PROVING the existence of "the different 'races'", by ASSERTING the existence of different races in the first place.
Circulus in probando, Mills. And round-and-round you go.
"(I've read that blue eyes didn't exist in human beings till 10,000 years ago. It was an evolutionary adaptation to living in Northern Europe.)".
Yeah, and you need blue eyes in order to survive in Northern Europe. Right?
Be that as it may, then answer the following please:
(a) Do ALL members of your "European biological race" have blue eyes?
(b) Are ALL people who have blue eyes members of your "European biological race"?
Why aren't you heralding the 1000 Genomes Project as the tool that will finally destroy racialist pseudoscience, once and for all?
for exactly the same reason I didn't support federal subsidization of corn ethanol or federal subsidization of missile defense programs. Bad science and engineering happen ALL OF THE TIME under the rubric of gub'mint. Stupid people get rich and powerful off of heavily funded bad science and engineering and we the public have nothing to show for the squandered "investments".
This is why Craig Venter was able to privately fund the mapping of the human genome, carry the methods forward light years ahead of what gub'mint was doing, and wind up finishing the job well in advance of any of his federal or federally subsidized "competitors".
Now.
Venter says you're full of shit.
Disprove and disabuse Venter and I'll concede the field to you and your silly, contrafactual, illogical, and poorly informed superstitions. Until then, STFU and stop trying to gobble mindshare by having the last word instead of winning hearts and minds by providing actionable and persuasive evidence in support of your racist fantasies.
Fisher,
I'm absolutely delighted to see that you've come around to approaching this digital pinata with the level of seriousness which his nonsensical flailings deserve....,
Yeah, and you need blue eyes in order to survive in Northern Europe. Right?
Pale skin and pale eyes make it easier for the body to derive vitamin D from the limited sunlight available in Northern Europe. (This is one of the "selective pressures" I mentioned earlier. You do believe in natural selection, right, Fish?)
(a) Do ALL members of your "European biological race" have blue eyes?
No.
(b) Are ALL people who have blue eyes members of your "European biological race"?
All people who have blue eyes today inherited those blue eyes from a European, yes.
Having answered your questions, Fish, please answer this:
What did you mean when you declared upthread that "there is scientific value" in mapping a thousand human genomes... "Mostly medical"?
What medical value could derive from sequencing the DNA of 400 Africans, 400 Asians and 400 Europeans?
Fisher, I'm absolutely delighted to see that you've come around...
It does my heart well to reunite old lovers.
Mills...
"What did you mean when you declared upthread that 'there is scientific value' in mapping a thousand human genomes... 'Mostly medical'?".
Certain diseases appear to be of genetic origin. Comparing the genetic make-up of an individual with a specific disease with the genetic make-up of 999 other individuals who do not have the disease may be of medical value.
"What medical value could derive from sequencing the DNA of 400 Africans, 400 Asians and 400 Europeans?"None.
Because the are no such people as "biological Africans, biological Asians, or biological Europeans".
Mills...
"(a) Do ALL members of your "European biological race" have blue eyes?
No.".
How did you arrive at the conclusion that ALL members of your "European biological race" DO NOT have blue eyes?
^ It is a fact of science that Europeans are unique among human subgroups for their wide variety of eye colors and hair colors. Blue eyes, green eyes, gray eyes... blonde hair, red hair, brown hair...
Pretty much everywhere else on the planet, humans have black hair and brown eyes.
Mills...
"Pretty much everywhere else on the planet, humans have black hair and brown eyes.".
I see.
Permit me another question:
Do ALL members of your "European biological race" NOT have black hair and brown eyes?
^ What does that question have to do with the simple fact -- presented by me, not contradicted by you -- that Northern Europeans evolved differently than other human subgroups over the last 10,000 years?
It seems all you're interested in doing, Fish, is playing silly-ass word games. You know I don't have infinite patience for that.
Let's argue about whether the 1000 Genomes Project is a good idea or a dangerous idea.
get saved Michael!!!
come in.to.the.light....,
The is no such thing as a "biological Northern European subgroup", Mills.
Now. It's a simple question, Mills. Just answer it.
Do ALL members of your "European biological race" NOT have black hair and brown eyes?
Turn from foolishness and make right decisions...,
The is no such thing as a "biological Northern European subgroup", Mills.
Why do you put quotes around phrases you make up yourself?
What, your Northern European human subgroup is not a biological one?
Look, Mills, just answer the question:
Do ALL members of your "European biological race" NOT have black hair and brown eyes?
^ Here’s a better use of my time, Fish. I’m gonna show you how silly you sounded when you wrote:
“Racists try to construct a genetic identity between two unique genetically non-identical individuals. And that is impossible without positing purely socially derived definitions of what characterizes ‘biological race’.”
This teaching exercise involves a thought experiment. Can you handle that, Michael? (All y’all in the cheap seats can play along at home.)
You argue that it’s “impossible” to “construct a genetic identity between two unique genetically non-identical individuals.”
Well... let’s start with two unique genetically non-identical individuals: an Icelander and an Australian Aborigine.
The Fisher position states: That Icelander is no more distinct biologically from the Aborigine than he is from any other Icelander. After all, another Icelander is simply another “unique genetically non-identical individual”... just like Mr. Aborigine. Right?
Okay, let’s look at the Icelander’s two parents. And also the Aborigine’s two parents. Is the Icelander more biologically linked – more genetically connected – to his own two parents than he is to the Aborigine’s two parents?
Of course he is. The Icelander literally carries his parents’ genetic information in his own DNA. He does not carry the genetic information of the Aborigine’s parents.
Therefore, the relatedness of the Icelander to his parents is a biological reality.
Now... what about the Icelander’s four grandparents? Is he more genetically connected to his own grandparents... or to the Aborigine’s grandparents?
The answer is obvious. There is nothing “socially constructed” about the biological connection between the Icelander and his four grandparents... or his eight great-grandparents... or his 16 great-great-grandparents.
Carry it back 10 generations. We’re talking about 1,024 direct ancestors for the Icelander... and 1,024 direct ancestors for the Aborigine.
Here’s the tricky part: Our imaginary Icelander isn’t the only living descendant of his 1,024 direct ancestors. There are thousands of others. Think of them as his “distant cousins.”
Same deal with the Aborigine. Thousands of “distant cousins.”
Is the genetic connection between the Icelander and his thousands of Icelandic cousins a “social construct” or a biological reality? It is a biological reality, of course.
So now we have two groups of individuals... on two geographically isolated islands. We have the Icelander and his thousands of cousins who share common ancestors... and the Aborigine and his thousands of cousins who share common ancestors.
Is it clear now, Michael, that the Icelander shares a “genetic identity” with his thousands of distant cousins? A “genetic identity” that he does not share with the Aborigine... or any of the Aborigine’s thousands of cousins?
This illustrates the very premise of the 1000 Genomes Project. They are going to map and compare the DNA of individuals from different human subgroups... subgroups that developed in geographic isolation for a hell of a lot longer than 10 generations.
Mills, "related" and "identical" are two different concepts. I never postulated that two individuals may not be closer related to each other than with a third individual.
But "related" ain't enough to establish "biological race". Not even "closely related".
Why is that, Mills?
Because you have to make a SUBJECTIVE (and thus once again, that pesky social construct) and thus non-scientific decision about what degree of "related" is enough to establish "biological race".
Now, would you please finally answer this very simple question?
Do ALL members of your "European biological race" NOT have black hair and brown eyes?
Mills...
"The Icelander literally carries his parents’ genetic information in his own DNA. He does not carry the genetic information of the Aborigine’s parents.".
That's another logical fallacy. by the way.
Both your Icelander and the Australian "Aboriginal" have a common ancestor. Who says that the genetic information that the Aborigine’s parents carry within them and that was handed down to them from that common ancestor is not the genetic information that was handed down from that common ancestor to the Icelandic's parents?
Now Mills. Don't forget to answer my question:
Do ALL members of your "European biological race" NOT have black hair and brown eyes?
I never postulated that two individuals may not be closer related to each other than with a third individual.
If two individuals may be "closer related to each other" than with a third individual... and the basis of that relatedness is commonality of ancestors (thus a sharing of genes)... then it logically follows that groups which share a commonality of ancestors are genetically distinguishable -- as a matter of biological reality -- from other groups with separate bunches of common ancestors.
Both your Icelander and the Australian "Aboriginal" have a common ancestor. Who says that the genetic information that the Aborigine’s parents carry within them and that was handed down to them from that common ancestor is not the genetic information that was handed down from that common ancestor to the Icelandic's parents?
Well now you're being just plain ignorant, Fish.
Yo Craig... please explain "genetic adaptation" to your boy.
Mills...
"If two individuals may be 'closer related to each other' than with a third individual... and the basis of that relatedness is commonality of ancestors (thus a sharing of genes)... then it logically follows that groups which share a commonality of ancestors are genetically distinguishable -- as a matter of biological reality -- from other groups with separate bunches of common ancestors.".
Sigh...
Mills. You still ain't gonna get around the fact that you have to define the degree of "relatedness". And defining that is an arbitrary decision.
For example.
Your Icelander and your Australian are clearly related because they share a common ancestor. Now tell me, dear Sir, what degree of relatedness constitutes the watershed between "biological races"?
"Well now you're being just plain ignorant, Fish.
Yo Craig... please explain "genetic adaptation" to your boy.".
Well, Mills. Since both the Icelander and the Australian presumably have two arms, two legs, two eyes, a brain, two nipples, one anus, etc. and, above all, can reproduce with each other they gotta have the same genetic info within them. Yes?
Before I forget Mills:
Do ALL members of your "European biological race" NOT have black hair and brown eyes?
Since both the Icelander and the Australian presumably have two arms, two legs, two eyes, a brain, two nipples, one anus, etc. and, above all, can reproduce with each other they gotta have the same genetic info within them. Yes?
Yo Craig... still proud of 'im, mayne?
:^D
Mills...
"Yo Craig... still proud of 'im, mayne?".
Obviously you can not think logically, Mills.
Note my initial sentence: "Who says that the genetic information that the Aborigine’s parents carry within them and that was handed down to them from that common ancestor is not the genetic information that was handed down from that common ancestor to the Icelandic's parents?".
That is, there the probability that there is a set of genetic information (regardless of size) that originated with ancestor 0 that ended up in the Icelander as well as the Australian.
Now you are the one who is trying to construct two biological races out of two individuals who carry a set of genetic information (regardless of size) which is the same information imparted by their ancestor 0.
Now you're gonna have to come up with a reason why this same information is insufficient to construct ONE biological race out of the Australian and the Icelander.
Now try doing that without resorting to an arbitrary social construction.
See how this works?
What was your IQ again?
Mills, why do you keep avoiding answering this very simple question:
Do ALL members of your "European biological race" NOT have black hair and brown eyes?
Actually this was supposed to read "That is, there the certainty..." and not "That is, there the probability..."
Actually this was supposed to read "That is, there the certainty..." and not "That is, there the probability..."
Hee-hee... grammar much?
Do ALL members of your "European biological race" NOT have black hair and brown eyes?
Your question, Fish, is rendered moot by a revelation I had early this morning. I think we might finally reach common ground here. See how this works for you...
Remember that old “SNL” commercial parody... “It’s a floor wax!” “It’s a dessert topping!” “Floor wax, asshole!” “Hey, calm down... it’s a floor wax and a dessert topping!”
I propose that “race” is a biological reality and a social construct! Furthermore, being a “social construct” does not negate its standing as a biological fact of nature.
The concept called “race,” in other words, is just like the concept called “family.”“Family” is a biological reality... and a social construct. And its being a social construct doesn’t nullify the biological reality of genetic relatedness among family members.
You, Michael Fisher, cannot define “family” in a way that comprehensively defines all persons who belong to a particular “family” – and all those who do not – without resort to arbitrary social distinctions. Because, as you point out, every human being alive shares a common ancestor.
To be intellectually consistent, Fish, you must argue for abolishing the concept of “family” just as you argue for abolishing the concept of “race.” Because, by your measure, “family” is just as biologically irrelevant as “race” in drawing distinctions between human beings.
And yet the concept of “family” as a genetic reality is an essential element of all human societies.
So rather than get bogged down in semantics, Michael, can we just agree that race is a genetic reality and a social construct?
You still didn't answer the question, Mills.
"Do ALL members of your 'European biological race' NOT have black hair and brown eyes?"
And no, "family" is PURELY a social construct.
Mills...
"To be intellectually consistent, Fish, you must argue for abolishing the concept of 'family' just as you argue for abolishing the concept of 'race'.".
You just LOVE to revel in logical fallacies.
Just because I disapprove of certain social constructs because they are instruments of oppression, doesn't mean I have to disapprove of ALL social constructs.
For example, I don't disapprove of the social construct "society" in the context of the word "just".
Now, how about it, Mills:
Do ALL members of your 'European biological race' NOT have black hair and brown eyes?"
And Mills. Do Barack and Michelle Obama (just the two), constitute a "family"?
I see y'all are still plugging away. I wanted to respond to Mills cause he asked me a question a while back.
1. I understood that you believe the mapping of genome is going to reveal the information you think is out there. Namely that Africans are genetically inferior when it comes to intellect.
I just pointed out that you have no definite proof that will happen, and, at least according to the scientist that Nulan pointed too, the similiarities between the genetics folks of the same "race" are not so large as to make sweeping statements about entire "races" smart.
So, from where I sit, there is a group of similiarly qualified and intelligent folks saying one thing, and another group saying something else. You've made a decision to ride with one group, despite the comments of the other group. Cool.
But, why pretend that your decision is the only logical one? And, why pretend that the reason other folks don't agree with you is because they are "scared" of the truth?
It reminds me of people talking about religion. Despite the underlying fact that NOBODY knows exactly how the world was created, or whether God truly exists, folks are convinced that their beliefs are actually facts, while other folks beliefs are just, beliefs.
My point wasn't about whether or not Africans are genetically inferior. I don't know the answer to that. My point was that in the absence of proof of that fact, you have decided to run with that belief, ignore the other evidence that contradicts it, and then tell everybody who doesn't agree with you that they are sticking their heads on the mud to avoid seeing reality.
That's pretty arrogant.
Now, I'm not saying that CNulan isn't arrogant, we've disagreed on topics in the past, but I found it strange that a black dude would go out of his way to jump on a bandwagon that says that people with his genetic history are intellectually inferior. That's just a little strange.
Secondly, Mr. Fisher's arguments are always the same, but that is good in a way. Even if you disagree with him, you can't argue that you don't know what he believes.
I think he's made the point repeatedly here and other places that defining the agree of relatedness between people in a "race" has always been the problem.
The one drop rule, octoroons, the paper bag test....
Nobody has really decided how much "other" makes you a non-white. All of the rules regarding this have been subjective and subject to change depending on circumstances.
So, I guess when folks map the genome they are going to be able to determine a "race" gene, and be able to point to that gene as the one that controls, "race." Right?
Cause if they can't identify the gene that defines race, then how are they going to be able to group everybody according to race and then determine who is intellectually inferior?
And I knew Fisher was going to rebut your last argument like that...
He has been consistent in saying that is problem with race as a social construct is the idea of who has historically done the "constructing" and what purpose that construct has been used for.
It's not like he's against all social constructs, in fact I've seen him write that before, I think in an argument with Thor or somebody.
Sometimes y'all be stumbling all over yourselves to rebut and insult each other that you miss the opportunities to learn something for the other cat. And I mean all of y'all...
Oh, and MIlls, I enjoyed Guns, Germs and Steel. I'm not saying it was the absolute truth, but it gave me some good info about the development of civilization, which I believe you used as one of your key determinants of intelligence.
Just because I disapprove of certain social constructs because they are instruments of oppression, doesn't mean I have to disapprove of ALL social constructs.
Here is the core of your intellectual inconsistency, Michael. If you truly disapprove of the social construct "race" because it's an instrument of oppression... then why do you embrace the social construct of "blackness"??
To define yourself as "black" is to construct a social universe where some people are "not black." And that sort of social construction, according to you, is an instrument of oppression per se.
To be true to your stated principles, Fish, you must reject the definition of yourself as "black."
Also, Fish... radical feminists believe that the social construct "family" is an instrument of oppression. Are they right to believe that? Just as right as you in believing that "race" is an instrument of oppression?
I understood that you believe the mapping of genome is going to reveal the information you think is out there. Namely that Africans are genetically inferior when it comes to intellect.
Let's get something straight once and for all, Big Man. I do not believe that Africans are genetically inferior to Europeans, Asians or anybody else. I don't believe that any human being -- let alone any human subgroup -- is inferior to any other.
I don't believe that the Australian Aborigines -- who never even developed the bow and arrow -- are inferior to the Chinese, who invented gunpowder. The boomerang served the Aborigines just fine.
Also, the Australian Aborigines don’t have names for numbers. They don’t have a word for “seven,” for example. They don’t have a concept of seven or eight. This doesn’t mean they’re inferior to the Arabs who developed algebra.
Indigenous tribes in the Amazonian rain forest never developed the wheel. This does not mean they’re inferior to Europeans who invented rocket science.
“Inferior” has nothing to do with what I’m talking about.
... at least according to the scientist that Nulan pointed too, the similiarities between the genetics folks of the same "race" are not so large as to make sweeping statements about entire "races" smart.
Nulan misrepresented Dr. Terwilliger's position, Big Man. Stay tuned.
(That's right, Craig. I ain't forgot ya, babe...)
Mills...
"Here is the core of your intellectual inconsistency, Michael. If you truly disapprove of the social construct "race" because it's an instrument of oppression... then why do you embrace the social construct of "blackness"??".
Who said I embrace the social construct of "blackness"? Go ask Farst/Thordaddy about that. He'll tell you whether I do or do not.
"To define yourself as 'black' is to construct a social universe where some people are 'not black.'".
Last I looked, I never defined MYSELF as black. In contrast to you, who, as you admitted, can and does live as "white" I've always BEEN defined as black or "non-white".
"And that sort of social construction, according to you, is an instrument of oppression per se.".
Correct
To be true to your stated principles, Fish, you must reject the definition of yourself as 'black.'".
Logical fallacy, once again.
I am "black" because others who have the power to do so impose that definition on me. That ACT OF IMPOSITION is an unjust act in and off itself. Now, with that act of imposition comes the imposition of living conditions generally associated with "blackness" which, on an average global scale, are inferior in quality to those people who do the imposing of myself and other human beings as "black".
So what must be opposed is not the category "black". Black is just a color, after all. What must be opposed is the ACTION of IMPOSING the category regardless of my will or consent.
Which opposition logically is opposition to white supremacy.
Now Mills you STILL haven't answered the very simple question:
Do ALL members of your 'European biological race' NOT have black hair and brown eyes?
Do ALL members of your 'European biological race' NOT have black hair and brown eyes?
Fish, I agree with you that race is a social construct (albeit grounded in a biological reality... just like "family").
Why not push forward with the fascinating question of whether this particular social construct is, per se, an "instrument of oppression."
I don't believe it is.
Last I looked, I never defined MYSELF as black.
Not even when you filled out the 2000 Census, Mike?
Just askin'...
Mills...
"Fish, I agree with you that race is a social construct (albeit grounded in a biological reality... just like 'family').".
Nope, race ain't "grounded in biological reality", and neither is "family".
If two people who, by law, may not be "closely related" genetically (such as mother and son or father and daughter or sister and brother) may not reproduce to with each other...
That is, if two genetically "non-related" (though that term is misleading since all humans are genetically related) people such as Michelle Obama and Barack Obama can constitute a family, then "family" is purely a social construct NOT based on biological reality (in terms of genetic relatedness between the two individuals).
Now, please finally answer my question, Mills.
Do ALL members of your 'European biological race' NOT have black hair and brown eyes?
Mills...
"...this particular social construct is, per se, an "instrument of oppression.".
I never said that.
Re-read what I explicitly said just up-thread.
Lemme modify that. It's USED as an instrument of oppression.
Lemme modify that. It's USED as an instrument of oppression.
Heh. See there, Fish? You don't know what the fuck you wrote... a few hours after you've written it.
Guns are USED as an instrument of oppression. But they're used for other things too. Are guns per se objectionable?
Religion is USED as an instrument of oppression. But it's used for other things too. Is religion per se objectionable?
Race is USED as an instrument of oppression. But it's used for other things too. Is race per se objectionable?
You and I are done, Fish.
Yoo hoo... CNu! Where y'at, baby? I got something cooking on the stove... just for you!
Way upthread, Craig Nulan wrote: “... I don’t follow the population genetics crowd.... I dismissed [the 1000 Genomes Project] as bad science a priori for the very reasons stipulated by Terwilliger and Venter.”
You fucked up, though, Craig. See... you misinterpreted Dr. Terwilliger’s position. You presented his critique of medical genetics as a total rejection of population genetics.
Terwilliger DOES NOT reject population genetics. Terwilliger believes in population genetics.
Specifically, he believes that the ultimate scientific value of mapping human genomes “may well be through its impact on the ability to accurately quantify and describe the genetic differences between populations.”
That’s what Terwilliger wrote in a 1998 paper titled “Linkage disequilibrium mapping of complex disease: fantasy or reality?”
How ’bout them apples, CNu? Your chosen expert, Dr. Joseph Terwilliger, is on my side in this debate!
Mills...
"Is religion per se objectionable?"Actually, yes.
"Race is USED as an instrument of oppression. But it's used for other things too.".
For what "other things" is race used, Mills?
^ As I explained to Big Man on today's "collar-grab" thread:
Race has been used as an instrument of oppression... but it has also been used in other ways.
In the manifestation we call “ethnic nationalism” -- a sense of peoplehood based on shared ancestry -- it empowered the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania to resist the tyranny of Soviet Communism. In other words, race was an instrument of self-determination.
I assume that Mike Fisher endorses the concept of “self-determination of peoples.” That’s hard to do if he rejects absolutely the concept of “peoplehood” as an oppressive social construct.
>>>It would seem to me that most of Americans believe black people are genetically inferior. Credible evidence of this fact would be welcomed by a huge segment of the population. But, you're convinced that a vocal minority is preventing those discoveries from happening?<<
An addendum to this. David, isn't one of the cardinal rules of science that you not jump to a conclusion until you have all the facts to back it up. You seem to indicate that this future evidence will reveal the inherent mental inferiority of blacks.
What if the reverse were true? What if this discovery were that blacks as a whole were racially superior. (I'm one of the believers that race as a whole is a social construct, but just for the sake of argument here.)However, working from your line of thinking, if a scientist thought as you did couldn't there stand a chance that he might, in amending a conclusion before he had the evidence to back it, mistakenly ignore pertinent evidence that seemingly prove him wrong, all the while lending an inordinate amount of attention to other discoveries-- even going so far as to incorrectly interpret or fixate upon the results that seemingly prove him right. Don't many experiments get ruined when scientists get ahead of themselves and think they know the results before they really do?
Yes, I know that one can have a hypothesis, and use it as a working point. This, however, only after extensive observation and study. If so, what observations exactly lead to your particular hypothesis.
Mills...
"In the manifestation we call “ethnic nationalism” -- a sense of peoplehood based on shared ancestry -- it empowered the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania to resist the tyranny of Soviet Communism. In other words, race was an instrument of self-determination.".
Mills, "race" and "nation" are two different social constructs with two different specific meanings. For example: Two people can be members of the same "race" ("race" being a social construct based SOLELY on a biological fiction) but members of different "nations". Moreover, two people can be members of two different "races" and simultaneously members of the same "nation".
^ Then what is your meaning of "nation"?
I think Josef's Stalin's definition is the most logical:
"A nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture."
^ WTF? Glad you’ve got no truck with arbitrary “social constructs,” Fish. Seriously... is this your preferred definition of “nation”?
“Historically constituted” since when? “Stable” how? “Psychological make-up” as measured by what? And how can one assess the “commonality” of cultures?
That is a shitlot of vague verbiage there, Mike. And it would seem to disqualify the United States from nation status... unless the U.S. started banning the immigration of persons of a different language and culture and “psychological make-up.”
You went reaching for a definition of “nation” that makes no reference to genetic kinship.
What about folks who share a sense of “peoplehood” but not a “nation”... such as the Roma people, more commonly known as gypsies? They don’t have any attachment to “territory” at all. Or the so-called pygmies of Central Africa
Most importantly, how would you characterize the bond of kinship that diaspora populations feel towards others of their ethnic group worldwide -- such as the Irish (be they in the U.S., Canada, Australia or Argentina) or Indians (be they in the U.S., South Africa, Saudi Arabia or Trinidad)? Is the embracing of an “Irish” identity more tied to the concept of nationhood, do you think... or to the idea of shared genetic ancestry?The concept I'm talking about is "peoplehood." Do you share a sense of peoplehood with others of German descent, Michael? Do you share a sense of peoplehood with others of African descent? Or American descent?
Or do you feel no sense of "peoplehood" at all as a matter of genetic ancestry?
No Mills. Nobody can feel genetic ancestry or relatedness.
No Mills. Nobody can feel genetic ancestry or relatedness.
Can you feel it when you look at your child's face?
Mills...
"Can you feel it when you look at your child's face?"No Mills. The bonding between me and my daughter is purely psychological. There is an assumption on my part that she is genetically related to me. But I ain't never tested either one of us for that.
If fathers could "feel" their genetic relatedness to what they believe is their off-spring, Maury Povich woulda been out of business many a moons ago.
05 10 09
Hey DV:
You wanted my take on what she said and I will keep it simple. Those arguments about jurisdiction and so forth are recylced tax protestor arguments.
What bothers me about her statements is that she could benefit from the infrastructure of living here, but not be subject to its jurisdiction sorta like diplomatic immunity. In an abstract way, some of the things she said were right, like the fact that we don't agree to the majority of the stuff that is done in the name of our country or that nationalities are veiled militarized regions. Other than that, there was much conflation with disparate minutia.
The Moorish science concepts are interesting, but I believe the Queen Mother is from a fringe group only loosely tied to the original Moors.
Recalling this thread, I used some of her arguments to help some buddies get out of debt collector lawsuits last year;)
Post a Comment