'Human Races' are socially defined constructs

Jerry Russell said:
In some cases of highly isolated indigenous populations, there might very well be enough geographical separation to prevent any gene flow. These highly isolated populations could arguably represent distinct subspecies or races. However, the description of clinal variations is accurate for Africa and the Eurasian continent, where there is little if any local geographic isolation . The indigenous have been under massive attack from Eurasian-based civilization, their numbers have been decimated, and interbreeding is extensive.
And I don't think you're interested in talking about indigenous peoples, anyhow. In our context, this is a red herring.
That is true - in terms of the original thread, though dealing with Ignatiev is a different matter, even though the main thrust here is upon the mixture characterizing modern (including Western) civilization. In the old days local geographic isolation was much greater - the Pygmies of central Africa exhibit this most clearly. The Bantu migration around the Congo from West to East then Southern Africa linked up otherwise relatively isolated hunter-gatherers because the Bantu were pastoralists dependent upon cattle, the migrations occurring roughly around 500AD. The Bantu peoples look different to the Khoisan people of Southern Africa (i.e. the !Kung Bushmen today and the original Strandloopers and Hottentots); indeed most black South African tribes e.g. the Xhosa, are a mixture of Bantu and Khoisan people - hence the odd spelling of the word 'Xhosa' which is pronounced with the implosive click language of the Khoisan peoples. The Sahara Desert also isolates most North Africans from equatorial peoples and even from Egypt! The ancient Egyptians felt closer to Nubians than to Libyans (Caucasian North Africans) or Middle Eastern (Semitic) peoples, as Champollion understood.

Concerning 'subspecies' the term is NOT strictly defined genetically.
Jerry Russell said:
I don't know where you get this idea. Or, can you give a reference? Wikipedia definitely contradicts you, and so does everything else I can find on the web. 'Subspecies' and 'Race' are synonymous, although the latter term is deprecated. Lions and tigers are separate species, just as donkeys and horses are separate species, even though both pairs can readily hybridize. Ligers and mules have drastically reduced fertility compared to lions, tigers, donkeys or horses, but back crosses have been demonstrated.
Wikipedia is a source written by popular authorities, not genetic experts who have to restrict their technical jargon in order to prevent horrific ambiguities.

In the case of mules the back-breeding engenders essentially pure donkey offspring. I don't know about the 'liger' fertility and perhaps there is no clear evidence yet, given the need for funding to support a liger population for breeding - another question here being "what is the use of them other than for gene research?" If ligers can mate successfully and produce offspring with a mixed gene pool then I would class lions and tigers as subspecies. Not so with humans who are all interfertile with success, hence I would not use the term 'subspecies' for human geographical variants.

Note that there are rock wallabies (Petrogale persephone) in Australia, lumped under one species, that cannot interbreed successfully between subpopulations since they have accumulated too many mutations over the millions of years - despite mating successfully in that they are morphologically indistinguishable. Hence the one species is actually separate species, originally developing from geographic variants of a once widespread single species. That is, the gradual emergence of species requires mutations over time - with geographic variants then subspecies and finally species - with a restriction of interbreeding. I.e. species will emerge even without Darwinian natural selection due to the continous generation of mutations, reproductive isolation (i.e. the separation of rocky habitats suitable for the wallabies) and accidental replacement of an original gene variant by a mutant.

I only emphasize these points in order to illustrate dialectical thinking - the excluded middle in logic. Formal logic, traditionally privileged by the West against Hegel, now combats dialectical logic by seizing upon human intermediate-appearing clines (the excluded middle) as the components of a new formal logic, this formal logic excluding any geographical genetic difference between people since the extremes of human appearance can no longer be addressed because they have been obliterated by the formal logic. The formal logician (e.g. followers of Ignatiev) will then brand 'racist' anyone who brings up the subject e.g. someone noting the social fact that most people in the USA privileged by wealth are disproportionately White.

Jerry Russell said:
There is human geographical variation, but no "genetic segregation" aside from the tiny, isolated indigenous populations you mentioned. We agree, however, that human geographical variation does exist.
You are correct in that genetic segregation has largely disappeared due to increased human travel opportunities, but the 'tiny isolated indigenous populations' left are an artifact of colonization and human technology over the last 3-4,000 years.

Jerry Russell said:
All I can say is that McCarthy has carefully considered this issue, and doesn't believe it's a problem.

You say his examples of hupigs and such are mutants, he says they're the result of bestial encounters. McCarthy's PhD seems to be as good as anyone else's, and nobody is claiming to have done the necessary genetic analysis. So it seems that only Mother knows for sure, or maybe she doesn't know either.

McCarthy says there is indeed genetic evidence that the platypus is a bird-mammal hybrid, which is exactly what it looks like.
A platypus might look like that but the 'bill' is fleshy not hard like a bird's. It has fur; it is an egg-laying mammal, a monotreme like the echidnas and had an extinct relative in Argentina (Monotrematum). Given McCarthy's statement to the contrary I find it hard to believe that he is a genuine scientist. Now I don't deny that interspecies combination could occur, but if so that would to human genetic interference e.g. combining chromsomes of different species together to see if viable offspring cells could be produced in a test tube. Getting these cells to grow into viable adult organisms is quite another question however, something we are still trying to solve.

Yours faithfully
Claude
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
The formal logician (e.g. followers of Ignatiev) will then brand 'racist' anyone who brings up the subject e.g. someone noting the social fact that most people in the USA privileged by wealth are disproportionately White.
On the contrary, I think Ignatiev would be the first to say that wealthy people in the USA, and indeed worldwide, are disproportionately part of the White social construct.

The problem would come, and you would be branded as a racist, if you were to try to argue that this resulted from some genetic advantage of people within the White social construct, as opposed to others outside this construct.

A platypus might look like that but the 'bill' is fleshy not hard like a bird's. It has fur; it is an egg-laying mammal, a monotreme like the echidnas and had an extinct relative in Argentina (Monotrematum).
McCarthy thinks that echidnas and other monotremes are also probably bird-mammal hybrids.

Now I don't deny that interspecies combination could occur, but if so that would to human genetic interference e.g. combining chromsomes of different species together to see if viable offspring cells could be produced in a test tube.
It's nice of you to admit that such things are possible. Over geologic time, such experiments occur repeatedly, and you only need one success across hundreds of millions of years to produce an entirely new subclass of (quasi) mammalian species. As McCarthy explains:

http://www.macroevolution.net/bird-mammal-hybrids.html

There are two types of monotremes. One is the familiar duck-billed platypus. The other is the less familiar echidna. Monotremes are classified as mammals, though they lay eggs and have many other non-mammalian traits, but biologists consider them so aberrant that they have assigned all other mammmals to a separate category, Theria. Thus, all mammals other than monotremes are known as therians.
Monotremes: Bird-mammal hybrids?
platypus
Duck-billed platypus
One strong clue that platypuses may be bird-mammal hybrids is the fact that in research appearing in the journal Nature Grützner et al. (2004) reported that platypuses, despite being classified as mammals, lack the gene SRY, which determines sex in mammals, and instead have a gene similar to DMRT1, which determines sex in birds (see also: Veyrunes et al. 2008). They demonstrated that the platypus genome contains sex chromosomes of both bird and mammal origin (read an article about this research >>). As Grützner, specifically stated in an interview: “The platypus actually links the bird sex chromosomes system with the mammalian sex chromosome systems.”
A draft version of the platypus genome (Warren et al. 2008) identified at least two genes otherwise known only in birds (see also Rens et al. 2007). Indeed, some of the sex chromosomes of monotremes share homology with bird sex chromosomes rather than those of mammals, report Veyrunes et al. (2008), who state that there is no homology between the platypus and therian X chromosomes…the platypus X chromosomes have substantial homology with the bird Z chromosome (including DMRT1) and to segments syntenic with this region in the human genome. Thus, platypus sex chromosomes have strong homology with bird, but not to therian† sex chromosomes.
Dohm et al. (2007) and Rens et al. (2007) have also identified regions of homology with the chicken Z sex chromosome on the platypus sex chromosomes X2p and X1p. And yet, Veyrunes et al. (2008, p. 966) found that "not a single BAC identified on the platypus sex chromosomes represented scaffolds that shared homology with the human X chromosome." In other words, researchers have found large regions of the platypus sex chromosomes that are very similar to regions on the chicken sex chromosome Z, and yet no similarity whatsoever to the sex chromosome of a mammal, i.e., the human X chromosome. And Veyrunes et al. (2008, p. 970) specifically state that "Platypus sex chromosomes are more bird-like than mammal-like."
The foregoing genetic evidence, then, is clearly consistent with the idea that platypuses are anciently derived from a cross between a mammal and a bird. So is the fact that they both lay eggs and produce milk. Their strange morphology, too, combines birdlike traits with those of a mammal. Obvious and well-known features of this sort are the presence of both a duckbill and a hair coat. But they also have a variety of lesser-known traits that seem to connect them with birds despite their classification as mammals.
If platypuses are not bird-mammal hybrids, then why should this be the case? It seems that only an extreme bias against the idea that such distant hybrids might be possible can account for the failure of scientists to recognize this obvious implication.
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
A platypus might look like that but the 'bill' is fleshy not hard like a bird's. It has fur; it is an egg-laying mammal
And here I thought that platypusi were dinosaur / mammal hybrids.

One of my science mags a few years ago had an article about some researchers that decided that recreating a dinosaur from preserved DNA was perhaps too tough. So they decided to try coaxing developing bird egglets to express their genes for producing scales instead of feathers, and to garner teeth instead of fiat "bills". From what I remember everything is there to do the job. Much like the Euro-nobles occasionally growing vestigial tails, their blue-blood just being their blue veins being more apparent against their extraordinarily pale skin.

This latter being the need to develop the ruse regarding (the pharaoh) Moses emerging from the (pharaoh's) tabernacle with a lighter visage. A lighter visage than his audience's that is. No reptilian shape-shifting required. Like the cuckoo bird, this is but one technique employed in how 'evolved' humans cuckold their way into a different society, and also must then create the appropriate cultural social constructs for their long term secular success.
 
Last edited:
I think you have intuited Ignatiev's words correctly here, Jerry.
Jerry Russell said:
On the contrary, I think Ignatiev would be the first to say that wealthy people in the USA, and indeed worldwide, are disproportionately part of the White social construct.
One would have thought that wealthy people in the USA, Australia and most of the West were predominantly more 'White' i.e. had more Caucasian ancestry. (This is NOT true worldwide however since wealthy Chinese are not disproportionately or predominantly White, Caucasian, European or whatever.)

But if Ignatiev were to say that "Whiteness is a" mere "social construct" (as your quote concedes above), given that Ignatiev has already told us that "We mean that we want to do away with the social meaning of skin color, thereby abolishing the white race as a social category" then Ignatiev has FAILED in his task, (unless you want to make a hairsplitting distinction between 'social construct' and 'social category').:p
Jerry Russell said:
The problem would come, and you would be branded as a racist, if you were to try to argue that this resulted from some genetic advantage of people within the White social construct, as opposed to others outside this construct.
Since Ignatiev has failed at his task, no problem would arise, except that racists would realize that his psycho-babbling baloney either hid his incompetence or was an attempt to prevent research into an 'Aryan superiority gene' or some other such trumped-up drivel! I.e. Ignatiev "succeeds" only in creating utter confusion (as with the girl's comments you rightly quoted) or, among the more knowledgeable, achieving the exact opposite of what he says he wants to achieve.

Haven't we got enough Trumped-up drivel to deal with than fighting over some halfwitted agent-provocateur's cat-scratchings?

Yours faithfully
Claude
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
One would have thought that wealthy people in the USA, Australia and most of the West were predominantly more 'White' i.e. had more Caucasian ancestry. (This is NOT true worldwide however since wealthy Chinese are not disproportionately or predominantly White, Caucasian, European or whatever.)
The definition of 'White' that we had agreed on, does not include the concept of "more Caucasian ancestry". The Caucasus Mountains are a regional feature located at the juncture of Europe and Asia, and thus Caucasians would be properly a tiny subset of the genetic strains contributing to people known as 'White' according to social & cultural historical effects.

While wealthy Chinese are, by definition, not 'White', it wouldn't surprise me if prominent Chinese corporations turn out to be 'White owned' to a significant extent, and/or if a majority of profits from exploitation of Chinese workers ultimately flow to 'White' individuals.

Since Ignatiev has failed at his task, no problem would arise, except that racists would realize that his psycho-babbling baloney either hid his incompetence or was an attempt to prevent research into an 'Aryan superiority gene' or some other such trumped-up drivel! ... Haven't we got enough Trumped-up drivel to deal with than fighting over some halfwitted agent-provocateur's cat-scratchings?
Having failed to actually come to terms with what Ignatiev is saying, it seems you have nothing left but empty insults. How dare you accuse Ignatiev of being an "agent-provocateur", that is, an agent on someone's secret payroll. Am I supposed to be impressed? Normally it's Rick who goes around here accusing people of being agents without any evidence.

I don't even understand what you're saying, when you claim that Ignatiev has failed at his task. When it comes to demonstrating that the concept of the "White Race" is a social / historical construction rather than a scientific / genetic classification, I say he's absolutely correct. And I thought you had agreed to accept his vocabulary as a definition, even if you go right on denying the simple scientific facts.

When it comes to his goal of "abolishing the white race as a social category", obviously this has not been accomplished yet. But I wouldn't attribute this as a "failure" on Ignatiev's part.

About that 'Aryan superiority gene'... now you're getting to your point, right? You believe there's an "Aryan superiority gene" and you can't get government funding to prove your point? Poor baby....
 
Last edited:
Jerry Russell said:
The definition of 'White' that we had agreed on, does not include the concept of "more Caucasian ancestry". The Caucasus Mountains are a regional feature located at the juncture of Europe and Asia, and thus Caucasians would be properly a tiny subset of the genetic strains contributing to people known as 'White' according to social & cultural historical effects.
The term "White" cannot help but mean people of "more Caucasian ancestry" since the correct, though misleading, geographic and anthropological term for Europeans is 'Caucasians'. The peoples of the Caucasus are very varied in language and appearance, and with the discovery of Neanderthals as being the original people of Europe, as well as historical evidence for migration westward, Europeans hypothesized that White people came from Central Asia, migrating through the Caucasus to Europe. This bizarre and incorrect belief is the basis for the term 'Caucasian'.

In fact, Herodotus described the people of Colchis as being "black with woolly hair". This is bizarre too, since by Colchis is understood what is now the Georgian Republic on the western side of the Caucasus. One wonders whether there were prehistoric Egyptian migrations in the Black Sea or whether by 'Colchis' there is a miswriting of the original text.
Jerry Russell said:
While wealthy Chinese are, by definition, not 'White', it wouldn't surprise me if prominent Chinese corporations turn out to be 'White owned' to a significant extent, and/or if a majority of profits from exploitation of Chinese workers ultimately flow to 'White' individuals.
There is certainly some Western ownership of Chinese industry, but foreign businessmen have a tough time negotiating a profitable business in China. The days of Palmerston's Gunboat Diplomacy are long over. Had the democratic demonstrators at Tienanmin Square taken over China, they would readily have become a prosperous Comprador Bourgeosie selling out China's privatized industries to the West! Only undemocratic Deng stood in the way of these "democratic initiatives" in order to preserve China's sovereignty.

Jerry Russell said:
Having failed to actually come to terms with what Ignatiev is saying, it seems you have nothing left but empty insults.
:D:D:D
But he is saying nothing at all! How can one 'abolish Whites as a social category'? Only by forcing the human race to mate in a mixed way to "generate [milk] coffee-colored people by the score" to remove the extremes, as well as obliterating the historical evidence that such forced mating would have occurred?!!!! This extreme situation would have to be established first along with obliterating the historical evidence - only then could you 'abolish Whites as a social category' because it would no longer matter as there would be no historical evidence nor geographic variation to point too.:eek:
Jerry Russell said:
How dare you accuse Ignatiev of being an "agent-provocateur", that is, an agent on someone's secret payroll. Am I supposed to be impressed? Normally it's Rick who goes around here accusing people of being agents without any evidence.
Are you color-blind?????? I wrote the word 'agent-provocateur' in Katzy purple specifically so I did NOT imply that Ignatiev himself is the agent-provocateur. Rather, on this website he is the mere catspaw - if you understand what I'm getting at!

Jerry Russell said:
I don't even understand what you're saying, when you claim that Ignatiev has failed at his task. When it comes to demonstrating that the concept of the "White Race" is a social / historical construction rather than a scientific / genetic classification, I say he's absolutely correct. And I thought you had agreed to accept his vocabulary as a definition, even if you go right on denying the simple scientific facts.
This is not an "either or" question. No, Caucasians (or 'White Race' as you call them in the vernacular) are not reducible to mere social construction, only partly so. White skin is mainly in Europe and surrounding areas and has a genetic basis - Caucasians are a geographic variant of humanity, this NOT reducible to arbitrary social constructions. Rather, you have failed to understand Ignatiev's intention of befuddling and moralizing the issue of 'Whiteness'.
Jerry Russell said:
When it comes to his goal of "abolishing the white race as a social category", obviously this has not been accomplished yet. But I wouldn't attribute this as a "failure" on Ignatiev's part.
Because it cannot be abolished; it is integral to being a human, any more than 'African Race' can be abolished as a social category. Ignatiev at best is an example of the 'politics of empty gestures', or as the Germans would say "für die Katzen."

Jerry Russell said:
About that 'Aryan superiority gene'... now you're getting to your point, right? You believe there's an "Aryan superiority gene" and you can't get government funding to prove your point? Poor baby....
You've got that entirely wrong because the hybridization of archaic and modern humans disproves that notion (haven't you read my article in Human Evolution yet), but modern thinking has obscured the issue by trying to pretend that genetically-based human geographical variants do not even exist! Ignatiev's drivel merely encourages the Far Right to think that he's hiding something or trying to obscure embarrassing facts - but the embarrassing fact is that Ignatiev's theorizing is merely drivel, designed only to disempower and confuse.

Yours faithfully
Claude

PS: Well I guess I have to admit misleading you a bit by calling the agent-provocateur's actions "half-witted", leading you to think I was referring to Ignatiev - but note that I don't consider Ignatiev halfwitted:confused: but rather scheming:mad:.
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Claude,

You are arguing in circles. We had previously agreed, and I'll remind you:

The term 'White' then becomes a cultural convention describing even non-whites who adopt what might be called 'a Western outlook,' a term so sloppy and broad that it includes the Russian White Army!
Given that definition and understanding, the answer to your question should become clearer:

How can one 'abolish Whites as a social category'? Only by forcing the human race to mate in a mixed way to "generate [milk] coffee-colored people by the score" to remove the extremes, as well as obliterating the historical evidence that such forced mating would have occurred?!!!!
Since 'White' is a cultural convention, it will be abolished when the cultural convention is obsolete. That is, when nobody tries to determine whether someone has a "Western outlook" by judging the color of their skin. And, when no one believes that 'White' has any meaning as a genetic category.

I try to avoid describing myself as 'White': if anyone asks, I am half Irish and half Pennsylvania Dutch.

Are you color-blind??????
Yes, I do my best to be color-blind. But now that you mention it, I can assure you that Miss Kitty is not an agent provocateur, either.

The peoples of the Caucasus are very varied in language and appearance, and with the discovery of Neanderthals as being the original people of Europe, as well as historical evidence for migration westward, Europeans hypothesized that White people came from Central Asia, migrating through the Caucasus to Europe. This bizarre and incorrect belief is the basis for the term 'Caucasian'.
No, Caucasians (or 'White Race' as you call them in the vernacular) are not reducible to mere social construction, only partly so. White skin is mainly in Europe and surrounding areas and has a genetic basis - Caucasians are a geographic variant of humanity, this NOT reducible to arbitrary social constructions.
As you are more or less admitting here, the term 'caucasian' (as a racial classification) is a relic of 18th century pseudo-science.

Skin color is a variable which varies smoothly as a continuum among individuals, and geographically within Europe as well as across continental junctures. It is either useless or arbitrary as a means of classifying human individuals as either 'white' or 'other'.

Yes, of course skin color has a genetic & geographic basis. But, the cultural classification "White" is only weakly correlated with skin color or any other genetically controlled morphology.

You've got that entirely wrong because the hybridization of archaic and modern humans disproves that notion (haven't you read my article in Human Evolution yet), but modern thinking has obscured the issue by trying to pretend that genetically-based human geographical variants do not even exist!
Modern thinking denies that the existence of genetically-based human geographical variants can be used as a categorization system.

Who denies that such variants exist? Citation please???

No, I haven't read your article in its entirety. Where I found the article, I could only see the abstract. The article itself was hidden behind a very expensive paywall. If you would be so kind as to provide a review copy somehow, I'd be intrigued to read it. I don't understand how hybridization of archaic and modern humans, would either prove or disprove the existence of an "Aryan superiority gene", as you so crudely posed the question.
 
Jerry Russell said:
Claude said:
How can one 'abolish Whites as a social category'? Only by forcing the human race to mate in a mixed way to "generate [milk] coffee-colored people by the score" to remove the extremes, as well as obliterating the historical evidence that such forced mating would have occurred?!!!!
Since 'White' is a cultural convention, it will be abolished when the cultural convention is obsolete. That is, when nobody tries to determine whether someone has a "Western outlook" by judging the color of their skin. And, when no one believes that 'White' has any meaning as a genetic category.
The social category of 'Whites' will not disappear if genetic differences in skin color still exist, though its name may change due to changes in convention. Heritable skin color differences in humans are not mere cultural conventions - though the labels largely are - hence it is NOT reducible to a cultural convention! 'White' as a word invokes the color white, and skin color has a genetic basis - therefore the category, not a mere cultural convention, will always exist in some form, whether called 'Caucasian' or something quite different. You are confusing this issue with that of supposed IQ-genes, selfish genes or some nebulous differential genetic component of moral worth among human populations that could be assigned to different geographic variants of humans.

My paternal grandfather's mother was Cape Colored, these being a mixture of Hottentot, Malay and Afrikaner - but when I was a child they told me she was French!
Jerry Russell said:
I try to avoid describing myself as 'White': if anyone asks, I am half Irish and half Pennsylvania Dutch.
Yes, I do my best to be color-blind. But now that you mention it, I can assure you that Miss Kitty is not an agent provocateur, either.
You know her personally so I will accept your word. And so I have to accept Ignatiev as a true attention-getter.
Jerry Russell said:
As you are more or less admitting here, the term 'caucasian' (as a racial classification) is a relic of 18th century pseudo-science.
No, because it is used as a scientific term describing the people of Europe and adjacent areas. Carleton Coon extended the term to 'Caucasoids' which described many peoples living outside Europe with some Caucasian features other than skin color. He had Indians and Australian Aborigines in mind! His classification actually reflects archaic human features extending into modern humans. The genetics here is still being worked out, especially as people of southern India, while resembling Australian Aborigines, are NOT closely related on DNA studies. In fact Australian Aborigines are genetically closer to native Americans - which throw conventional teaching out the window.
Jerry Russell said:
Skin color is a variable which varies smoothly as a continuum among individuals, and geographically within Europe as well as across continental junctures. It is either useless or arbitrary as a means of classifying human individuals as either 'white' or 'other'.
It is a useful and convenient term since skin color covers the body and is one of the most obvious human features; a person's physical appearance often - though not always as I said above - indicates their geographical ancestry.
Jerry Russell said:
Yes, of course skin color has a genetic & geographic basis. But, the cultural classification "White" is only weakly correlated with skin color or any other genetically controlled morphology.

Modern thinking denies that the existence of genetically-based human geographical variants can be used as a categorization system.
Physical appearance, though a crude guide, is a result of genetically based differences, even though genetics reveals hitherto-unappreciated differences and similarities in populations.
Jerry Russell said:
Who denies that such variants exist? Citation please???
Yourself as you try to reduce 'White' and 'Caucasian' to mere social conventions or meaningless obsolete expressions.
Jerry Russell said:
No, I haven't read your article in its entirety. Where I found the article, I could only see the abstract. The article itself was hidden behind a very expensive paywall. If you would be so kind as to provide a review copy somehow, I'd be intrigued to read it. I don't understand how hybridization of archaic and modern humans, would either prove or disprove the existence of an "Aryan superiority gene", as you so crudely posed the question.
Thank you for having searched and established the veracity of this article. I'll now have to hunt down my original article on my computer and upload it.:oops:

The disproof is very easily proven. If certain humans (modern humans) were more intelligent than and looked very different to other (archaic) humans who were rivals fighting for territory, we would (given the behavior of colonials in more recent times) expect the former to exterminate the latter, much as early humans wiped out the Robust Australopithecines.

Yours faithfully
Claude
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Yourself as you try to reduce 'White' and 'Caucasian' to mere social conventions or meaningless obsolete expressions.
You are misunderstanding and/or misquoting me. I am not saying that skin color variations do not exist.

But, 'White' is indeed a social convention. Before this social convention was invented, Europe consisted of a wide variety of peoples known as Italians, Spaniards, Irish, English, Danes, Germans and so forth. There was seldom if ever any question of categorization: a person was identified culturally by the clothes they wore and the language they spoke. But it was also widely believed, and to some extent true, that you could tell a person's nationality by looking at their facial appearance.

I haven't done the research to verify this, but strongly suspect that the idea of a "White" or "Caucasian" race, in its modern form, was invented in America to describe the results of the "melting pot" experiment in which Europeans from all nations were imported and thrown together, but culturally separated from African slaves who were also imported. Ignatiev's PhD thesis was "How the Irish became White" -- Irish weren't always accepted as "White". Miss Kitty and I have debated endlessly about whether Ashkenazi Jews are "White", and I'd say now that they have the cultural option to pass as White, or to exclude themselves from the construct, according to their preference.

The disproof is very easily proven. If certain humans (modern humans) were more intelligent than and looked very different to other (archaic) humans who were rivals fighting for territory, we would (given the behavior of colonials in more recent times) expect the former to exterminate the latter, much as early humans wiped out the Robust Australopithecines.
But the different geographical variants of archaic humans weren't rivals fighting for territory, because they lived in vastly separated habitats, and there was no available technology for rapid transport.

I claim (here) that one particular tribe of humans must have become dominant across vast swathes of Europe during the late Neolithic era, as evidenced by the dispersion of the Indo-European language. This was coincident with the invention of horses and wheeled carts. I do not claim to know whether the success of this proto-Indo-European tribe was purely based on cultural innovation, or whether there was a genetic component. If there was a genetic component, I don't know whether it has been preserved to the present day, or in what form.

At any rate, Indo-European tribal dominance was not expressed by exterminating other tribes, but by ruling over them and reaping the economic & social benefits.
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
I haven't done the research to verify this, but strongly suspect that the idea of a "White" or "Caucasian" race, in its modern form, was invented in America to describe the results of the "melting pot" experiment in which Europeans from all nations were imported and thrown together, but culturally separated from African slaves who were also imported.
When can we expect your book titled The Invention of the White People?

Similarly, once the new global order is established I expect that the surviving remnants [sic] of Christians, those who will not accept the new revelation and covenant, will come to ethnicly (I)dentify themselves as ... 'Christians', just like the amalgamated Jewish peoples today. Both mostly (w)hite but a few other variants along for the ride.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
When can we expect your book titled The Invention of the White People?
It seems that the history has already been written, although no doubt the actual facts are somewhat more complex than my guesses expressed above.

See:

https://amzn.to/2VvYkUw

Race and Manifest Destiny: Origins of American Racial Anglo-Saxonism
by Reginald Horsman
American myths about national character tend to overshadow the historical realities. Reginald Horsman’s book is the first study to examine the origins of racialism in America and to show that the belief in white American superiority was firmly ensconced in the nation’s ideology by 1850.
The author deftly chronicles the beginnings and growth of an ideology stressing race, basic stock, and attributes in the blood. He traces how this ideology shifted from the more benign views of the Founding Fathers, which embraced ideas of progress and the spread of republican institutions for all. He finds linkages between the new, racialist ideology in America and the rising European ideas of Anglo-Saxon, Teutonic, and scientific ideologies of the early nineteenth century. Most importantly, however, Horsman demonstrates that it was the merging of the Anglo-Saxon rhetoric with the experience of Americans conquering a continent that created a racialist philosophy. Two generations before the “new” immigrants began arriving in the late nineteenth century, Americans, in contact with blacks, Indians, and Mexicans, became vociferous racialists.
In sum, even before the Civil War, Americans had decided that peoples of large parts of this continent were incapable of creating or sharing in efficient, prosperous, democratic governments, and that American Anglo-Saxons could achieve unprecedented prosperity and power by the outward thrust of their racialism and commercial penetration of other lands. The comparatively benevolent view of the Founders of the Republic had turned into the quite malevolent ideology that other peoples could not be “regenerated” through the spread of free institutions.
https://amzn.to/2LBz8Yn

The Rise and Fall of the Caucasian Race: A Political History of Racial Identity
by Bruce Baum
The term “Caucasian” is a curious invention of the modern age. Originating in 1795, the word identifies both the peoples of the Caucasus Mountains region as well as those thought to be “Caucasian”. Bruce Baum explores the history of the term and the category of the “Caucasian race” more broadly in the light of the changing politics of racial theory and notions of racial identity. With a comprehensive sweep that encompasses the understanding of "race" even before the use of the term “Caucasian,” Baum traces the major trends in scientific and intellectual understandings of “race” from the Middle Ages to the present day.
Baum’s conclusions make an unprecedented attempt to separate modern science and politics from a long history of racial classification. He offers significant insights into our understanding of race and how the “Caucasian race” has been authoritatively invented, embraced, displaced, and recovered throughout our history.
 
Thank you for having searched and established the veracity of this article. I'll now have to hunt down my original article on my computer and upload it. I cannot uphold stored copies of the printed text and do not have the original manuscript. Each page is about 2.3 MB because it is a photo.
 
Since I already had reprints I let the original text get lost in the computer - while all the unpublished material is still there!!! Very careless. So I have had to fix up the fragments of the manuscript and so I submit the small file in full (<400kb PDF).

You, Jerry - and no doubt even more grateful about it, Miss Kitty - will note that in the conclusion I cover myself by letting the suggestively racist comment be made by the well known Jared Diamond (of Jewish background).

The article is correct but obsolete - now that the Denisovan DNA has been found. In fact it is now a Three-Eve Theory since Neanderthal mtDNA came from Africa after Denisovan mtDNA, modern mtDNA and Neanderthal mtDNA being much closer to one another than to Denisovan mtDNA. The ancient lineage in Australian Aborigines that I assert exists is based on the Preliminary Report (Cann RL, Brown WM, Wilson AC, 1982. 'Evolution of human mitochondrial DNA: a preliminary report.' In: Bonne-Tamir B, Cohen P, Goodman RN (eds) Human Genetics, Part A: The Unfolding Genome. Liss, New York, pp 157-165) findings, is equivalent to the Denisovan lineage, the divergent Aboriginal mtDNA issue having been unwittingly exposed in a book (Gribbin J & Cherfas J, 1982, The Monkey Puzzle, Bodley Head, London pp 247-258) which the senior author Allan C Wilson and his cronies then denied.

We remain in this mess to this day! I have withheld the reason for the migration of modern humans from Africa as I wished for the ancient mtDNA to be discovered first.

Yours faithfully
Claude
 

Attachments

Last edited:
The Jared Diamond quote in the text above triggered my own observation to which your quoted reply is here. It concerns genocidal behaviour between peoples who looked (and spoke) very different and were rivals for resources
Jerry said:
But the different geographical variants of archaic humans weren't rivals fighting for territory, because they lived in vastly separated habitats, and there was no available technology for rapid transport.
That would be an adequate answer except that humans do migrate, and the migration of modern humans from Africa is a very well-attested phenomenon, as my article showed.

Jerry said:
I claim (here) that one particular tribe of humans must have become dominant across vast swathes of Europe during the late Neolithic era, as evidenced by the dispersion of the Indo-European language. This was coincident with the invention of horses and wheeled carts. I do not claim to know whether the success of this proto-Indo-European tribe was purely based on cultural innovation, or whether there was a genetic component. If there was a genetic component, I don't know whether it has been preserved to the present day, or in what form.

At any rate, Indo-European tribal dominance was not expressed by exterminating other tribes, but by ruling over them and reaping the economic & social benefits.
The main reason for this is the flooding of the Black Sea, where the people either had to drown or become warriors and impose themselves on others. Pliny the Elder and the Venerable Bede were among those that claimed that their people came from north of the Black Sea. See William Ryan & Walter Pitman "Noah's Flood" (1998).

Yours faithfully
Claude
 
Here is another tiny bite - but with humungous implications.

How malleable is personality (= character)? Is personality hereditary or is it primarily due to the environment? Or is it primarily idiosyncratic? These were the big questions that underpinned Horkheimer, Adorno and the others when they published The Authoritarian Personality.

Lenin, Stalin and other communists thought that personality was readily malleable from childhood - they were creating the 'Socialist Man' but nothing of this character had remained by 1991, hence the question remains unanswered. Traditional Fascism usually took the opposite view - that personality was innate but heritable (innate here meaning idiosyncratic) and racially segregated too. Capitalist liberal democracy (i.e. the West - or Whites in the broadest sense if you prefer;)) holds either to an intermediate position or no position at all. This is why the differential IQ question - specifically why Black IQs are 15 points lower than White IQs in the USA remains officially unanswered - because those who run society DO NOT WANT TO KNOW THE ANSWER.

The financial elites live on a razor's edge with this question. They cannot admit either option - especially as the IQ differences have persisted for nearly 100 years now, unlike IQs of poor White immigrants which were low in the first generation but moved to the average in the next generation.

1) If the Right is correct and Blacks are in the main congentially stupid then the excess "stupid genes" (in that they would be blamed for crime etc.) need to be weeded out by selective breeding or some severe social segregation is necessary - perhaps including genocide if the victims resist the return of slavery.

2) If the Left is correct then Blacks are the victims not only of social discrimination but deep cultural biases working unconsciously in both Black and non-Black US populations.

That the latter is already known to be more likely is shown by IQ differences between Black and White in Britain. It is about 3-4 points (I believe) on corrected data, actually 1 point on the raw data. The difference occurs because rural populations have lower IQs than city people, where most UK Blacks live.

The MSM don't want this issue addressed NOW - because of the social strife that will occur. However, when there are major social uprisings under way threatening elite agendas and thus their hegemony, Sir Rupert (a.k.a. Murdoch the Dirty Digger) & the MSM just might decide to favour one side over the other.

Yours faithfully
Claude
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
This is why the differential IQ question - specifically why Black IQs are 15 points lower than White IQs in the USA remains officially unanswered - because those who run society DO NOT WANT TO KNOW THE ANSWER.
Where would you look, for an "official answer"? Is Congress supposed to decide, or the Supreme Court? The New York Times? Wikipedia?

Google always gives Wikipedia as the first answer to any question. Looks official to me. And here it is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence

The connection between race and intelligence has been a subject of debate in both popular science and academic research since the inception of IQ testing in the early 20th century. There remains some debate as to whether and to what extent differences in intelligence test scores reflect environmental factors as opposed to genetic ones, as well as to the definitions of what "race" and "intelligence" are, and whether they can be objectively defined. Currently, there is no non-circumstantial evidence that these differences in test scores have a genetic component, although some researchers believe that the existing circumstantial evidence makes it at least plausible that hard evidence for a genetic component will eventually be found.
In other words, in spite of a most diligent research effort, there is no direct evidence that such a connection exists. An essential problem (as we have discussed endlessly already) is that Black and White are social constructs, weakly correlated to genetics.

Perhaps it would help if the researchers used a colorimeter to measure skin color as a continuous variable, and looked for correlation with IQ which is also a continuous variable? Other variables could be worked in, such as wealth, average skin color in the neighborhood and at school, and so forth.

1) If the Right is correct and Blacks are in the main congentially stupid then the excess "stupid genes" (in that they would be blamed for crime etc.) need to be weeded out by selective breeding or some severe social segregation is necessary - perhaps including genocide if the victims resist the return of slavery.
Perhaps the problem is not that skin color is related to intelligence, so much as that membership in the White social class is correlated with bigotry. Or perhaps using the colorimeter, we might detect a high correlation between white skin, and psychopathic narcissism. Is this a genetic effect, or merely cultural?

If it were possible to prove scientifically that white skin is genetically connected to psychopathic narcissism, would this then represent a valid case that lighter skinned people should be enslaved by darker skinned people? Do we need selective breeding to eliminate narcissistic, bigoted idiots?

All of this, of course, is pure speculation, although existing circumstantial evidence would certainly make it plausible that hard evidence for a genetic component for narcissistic bigotry will eventually be found.

2) If the Left is correct then Blacks are the victims not only of social discrimination but deep cultural biases working unconsciously in both Black and non-Black US populations.

That the latter is already known to be more likely is shown by IQ differences between Black and White in Britain. It is about 3-4 points (I believe) on corrected data, actually 1 point on the raw data.
Whatever the results of the quoted study, it is surely afflicted by the same imponderable factors as other studies. It's nice if the difference is only one point, but I'm not buying this as a disproof of the null hypothesis.

Whereas social discrimination and deep cultural biases both conscious and unconscious, are a known fact, not conjecture. Of course the Left is correct in this claim, regardless of whether or not there is also a genetic component involved.

However, when there are major social uprisings under way threatening elite agendas and thus their hegemony, Sir Rupert (a.k.a. Murdoch the Dirty Digger) & the MSM just might decide to favour one side over the other.
What you're saying is that the MSM might try to whip up Black vs White hatred, so that the Blacks and lower class Whites can kill each other with their stockpiled AR-15's, leaving the upper classes safe in their gated communities and underground bunkers? By Jove, I think you're onto something.

And maybe it's better for this plan, if the alleged "congenital stupidity of blacks" is something that Whites learn by listening to Stefan Molyneux, rather than from any more credible source.
.
 
Jerry Russell said:
Where would you look, for an "official answer"? Is Congress supposed to decide, or the Supreme Court? The New York Times? Wikipedia?
Presumably the decision would be made by experts i.e. 'scientists' whoever these faceless people are!

Jerry Russell said:
Google always gives Wikipedia as the first answer to any question. Looks official to me. And here it is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence

The connection between race and intelligence has been a subject of debate in both popular science and academic research since the inception of IQ testing in the early 20th century. There remains some debate as to whether and to what extent differences in intelligence test scores reflect environmental factors as opposed to genetic ones, as well as to the definitions of what "race" and "intelligence" are, and whether they can be objectively defined. Currently, there is no non-circumstantial evidence that these differences in test scores have a genetic component, although some researchers believe that the existing circumstantial evidence makes it at least plausible that hard evidence for a genetic component will eventually be found.
In other words, in spite of a most diligent research effort, there is no direct evidence that such a connection exists.
That's right - Junkipedia über Alles. So everything remains ambiguous, hanging like the Sword of Damocles!

Und so I vill accept your weak correlation....
Jerry Russell said:
An essential problem (as we have discussed endlessly already) is that Black and White are social constructs, weakly correlated to genetics.

Perhaps it would help if the researchers used a colorimeter to measure skin color as a continuous variable, and looked for correlation with IQ which is also a continuous variable? Other variables could be worked in, such as wealth, average skin color in the neighborhood and at school, and so forth.
...since the USA is a big country, and the correlations with colorimetry and anthropological measurements with IQ were carried on extensively in the 1930s looking for an IQ connection to a physical attribute. There was a minor correlation to skin colour but not to any other feature - the minor correlation readily explained by some mixed race (and thus lightered colored) Blacks having a wealthier upbringing. Otherwise the lower IQ score, as you intuited, was merely correlated with having the label 'Black' rather than with any specific feature.

IOW they could find no linkage disequilibrium linking IQ to a possible physical characteristic. So yes one could try to turn the argument around...
Jerry Russell said:
Perhaps the problem is not that skin color is related to intelligence, so much as that membership in the White social class is correlated with bigotry. Or perhaps using the colorimeter, we might detect a high correlation between white skin, and psychopathic narcissism. Is this a genetic effect, or merely cultural?

If it were possible to prove scientifically that white skin is genetically connected to psychopathic narcissism, would this then represent a valid case that lighter skinned people should be enslaved by darker skinned people? Do we need selective breeding to eliminate narcissistic, bigoted idiots?
...but I think you'd agree that narcissism is not genetic, given its prevalence today compared with 80 or so years ago!:D

Jerry Russell said:
All of this, of course, is pure speculation, although existing circumstantial evidence would certainly make it plausible that hard evidence for a genetic component for narcissistic bigotry will eventually be found.
The War of the Jerries and the Narcissists - fought in a hall of mirrors?

Nevertheless I can agree here:
Jerry Russell said:
What you're saying is that the MSM might try to whip up Black vs White hatred, so that the Blacks and lower class Whites can kill each other with their stockpiled AR-15's, leaving the upper classes safe in their gated communities and underground bunkers? By Jove, I think you're onto something.

And maybe it's better for this plan, if the alleged "congenital stupidity of blacks" is something that Whites learn by listening to Stefan Molyneux, rather than from any more credible source.
...as Molyneux certainly appeals to the congenitally stupid!

Yours faithfully
Claude

PS: I'm happy for you to move this posting too as I only just saw your comment above.
 
Top