You're wrong, because you're using the marxist definition of race. Race is not skin color, race is a genetically close group of the ethnicities. Skin color is just a convenient, albeit imperfect, phenotype that let's you gauge a person's race at a glance.
The part that you're missing that behavior and intelligence are genetic, and while you can't make assumptions about individuals, you can make assumptions about the population. We know that the last common ancestor between whites and Africans was 60,000 years ago, and that most human brain evolution occurred in the last 10,000 outside of Africa, due to the discovery of agriculture. In addition, we can see morphological and functional differences in brain scans. Africans have smaller prefrontal cortexes, and fewer cortical convolutions (indicating less processing power).
This is all in addition to behavioral we differences we observe, cross culturally. For example, Africans fail the mirror test until they are pretty old.
What you're saying is actually a form of creationism. Evolution is racist, it optimized the different races for the environments they evolved in. In Africa you don't need intelligence to survive, food is abundant and available year round. I. The north, it's not available for half the year, so you need to evolve to be very forward thinking and clever.
White people are better at living in modern societies because our ancestors already paid their dues in the past. There is a reason the Europeans found that Africans were still living in mud huts, and hadn't even discovered written language, while they were zipping around on sea faring wooden ships. We are better than them.
Ok, let's go with "genetically close group" -- there are people in Africa who are genetically more akin to European populations than they are to the rest of Africa (R1b in parts of Central Africa, look it up). That same haplogroup much lower in E. Europe (specifically, Ukraine).
Although I would most definitely agree that skin color is a very poor indication of "race", I don't think anyone wants to make the case that Cameroonians are more European than Ukrainians (maybe some might, who knows).
From there, I would once again posit that neither skin color nor genetic haplogroup affiliation has very much to do with culture -- which can have many variations within both similar skin pigmentations as well as genetic affiliations (Swedes and Swiss are not 100% alike culturally, even if they may look very similar and have very similar genetics, as an example).
And I'm not the one trying to make the "better than them" argument -- I'm just pointing out that no one should be considered better than in the eyes of the law...which IS a marxist/socialist construct ("four legs good; two legs bad; some pigs are better than others" -- no thanks; I don't want to live under that social code).
You're talking a single measure of closeness, which is not a valid argument. Haven't you wondered how gene testing companies like 23andMe are able to determine your ethnicity and race? In the last 10 years, due to advancement in gene testing, we actually can determine (almost down to the region) where you came from due to correlations in alleles and such. You can see such clustering even when examining only a few alleles, here is just one such example https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Plots-of-genetic-similarity-according-to-Eigenstrat-derived-PCA-based-axes-of-genetic_fig1_225095386.
What you're missing, and what most libertarian types need to understand, is that your personality and behavioral profile is mostly determined by the time you are born. Culture is a reflection of genetic predisposition, not an overlay on top of it. The ones asserting that culture create differences in behavior are making the same "blank slate" argument that liberals make when they assert that gender is a social construct.
I'm just pointing out that no one should be considered better than in the eyes of the law...which IS a marxist/socialist construct
Racism is actually a biological construct; being a racist just means that you recognize that evolution is real. And lastly, being equal under the law, doesn't mean equal. At some point you have to ask yourself, are the people that are good making up for those who are not? And when it comes to Africans, the answer is a resounding no. They shouldn't be harmed, but if we keep trying to accommodate them we are only going to destroy our own societies. They need to go back to Africa.
You're the one who brought it up; just responding!
"Libertarian type" -- haha! I'm sure the more "libertarian types" on this board just love the fact that you called me that (seriously, they and I have had arguments with each other before; don't think they'd call me that).
On that note: I don't deny the existence of racism, nor really with evolution (although I'm not without skepticism as to the myriad of theories regarding it). I do however consider, as a person with some fondness for Christianity, both to be things appropriately countenanced with some deal of skepticism and caution -- I'm not down with a lot of what I've seen, not at all...from spiritual as well as scientific standpoints.
The Soviet Union pushed anti-racism as a means to undermining the United States...what they actually did in their own society was a different matter altogether. In fact, one could argue that eugenics (a construct with very racist underpinnings in addition to class-ist ones) has always been part and parcel of any socialist movement. In short, they're racist af. They love segregating people off into categories!
"They need to go back to Africa": who? and more to the point -- where in Africa? (it isn't a monolithic place: genetically, racially, genetically, linguistically...culturally). And, why just "them"? I for one would dearly love to send white American leftists back to Europe (anything to get them the fuck out of my backyard) ...but that's perhaps a bit unfair to Europeans; selfish if you will...and where would be a whole other issue.
The Soviet Union pushed anti-racism as a means to undermining the United States...what they actually did in their own society was a different matter altogether.
This is completely untrue, and shows a significant lack of historical understanding. The soviets believed in anti-racism because they believed in Lysenkioism, which is an outright denial of natural selection. They believed in it so deeply they even allowed their own crops to fail, and their people to starve, in order to keep up the facade that it was correct. They also didn't divide by race at all, only class. They were even the first to allow women in their military and secret police, because they thought that men and women were basically the same. And it also had nothing to do with the US at all; this all happened long before there was any real tension between the soviets and the US.
"They need to go back to Africa": who?
Uh, all African Americans? I suspect back to the Ivory Coast, which is where almost all slaves originated from, but frankly I don't care where.
Eugenics was big in the US long before the USSR or Third Reich. From forcible sterilization to Planned Parenthood targeting whatever they deemed unfit (Margaret Sanger was a notorious racist).
You're wrong, because you're using the marxist definition of race. Race is not skin color, race is a genetically close group of the ethnicities. Skin color is just a convenient, albeit imperfect, phenotype that let's you gauge a person's race at a glance.
The part that you're missing that behavior and intelligence are genetic, and while you can't make assumptions about individuals, you can make assumptions about the population. We know that the last common ancestor between whites and Africans was 60,000 years ago, and that most human brain evolution occurred in the last 10,000 outside of Africa, due to the discovery of agriculture. In addition, we can see morphological and functional differences in brain scans. Africans have smaller prefrontal cortexes, and fewer cortical convolutions (indicating less processing power).
This is all in addition to behavioral we differences we observe, cross culturally. For example, Africans fail the mirror test until they are pretty old.
What you're saying is actually a form of creationism. Evolution is racist, it optimized the different races for the environments they evolved in. In Africa you don't need intelligence to survive, food is abundant and available year round. I. The north, it's not available for half the year, so you need to evolve to be very forward thinking and clever.
White people are better at living in modern societies because our ancestors already paid their dues in the past. There is a reason the Europeans found that Africans were still living in mud huts, and hadn't even discovered written language, while they were zipping around on sea faring wooden ships. We are better than them.
Ok, let's go with "genetically close group" -- there are people in Africa who are genetically more akin to European populations than they are to the rest of Africa (R1b in parts of Central Africa, look it up). That same haplogroup much lower in E. Europe (specifically, Ukraine).
Although I would most definitely agree that skin color is a very poor indication of "race", I don't think anyone wants to make the case that Cameroonians are more European than Ukrainians (maybe some might, who knows).
From there, I would once again posit that neither skin color nor genetic haplogroup affiliation has very much to do with culture -- which can have many variations within both similar skin pigmentations as well as genetic affiliations (Swedes and Swiss are not 100% alike culturally, even if they may look very similar and have very similar genetics, as an example).
And I'm not the one trying to make the "better than them" argument -- I'm just pointing out that no one should be considered better than in the eyes of the law...which IS a marxist/socialist construct ("four legs good; two legs bad; some pigs are better than others" -- no thanks; I don't want to live under that social code).
You're talking a single measure of closeness, which is not a valid argument. Haven't you wondered how gene testing companies like 23andMe are able to determine your ethnicity and race? In the last 10 years, due to advancement in gene testing, we actually can determine (almost down to the region) where you came from due to correlations in alleles and such. You can see such clustering even when examining only a few alleles, here is just one such example https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Plots-of-genetic-similarity-according-to-Eigenstrat-derived-PCA-based-axes-of-genetic_fig1_225095386.
What you're missing, and what most libertarian types need to understand, is that your personality and behavioral profile is mostly determined by the time you are born. Culture is a reflection of genetic predisposition, not an overlay on top of it. The ones asserting that culture create differences in behavior are making the same "blank slate" argument that liberals make when they assert that gender is a social construct.
It's actually not, anti-racism is actually the Marxist construct. The soviet union was the first to publicly assert that race didn't matter, and that class did https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2020/06/15/despite-its-complicated-history-soviet-antiracism-was-ahead-of-the-historical-curve-a70569.
Racism is actually a biological construct; being a racist just means that you recognize that evolution is real. And lastly, being equal under the law, doesn't mean equal. At some point you have to ask yourself, are the people that are good making up for those who are not? And when it comes to Africans, the answer is a resounding no. They shouldn't be harmed, but if we keep trying to accommodate them we are only going to destroy our own societies. They need to go back to Africa.
You're the one who brought it up; just responding!
"Libertarian type" -- haha! I'm sure the more "libertarian types" on this board just love the fact that you called me that (seriously, they and I have had arguments with each other before; don't think they'd call me that).
On that note: I don't deny the existence of racism, nor really with evolution (although I'm not without skepticism as to the myriad of theories regarding it). I do however consider, as a person with some fondness for Christianity, both to be things appropriately countenanced with some deal of skepticism and caution -- I'm not down with a lot of what I've seen, not at all...from spiritual as well as scientific standpoints.
The Soviet Union pushed anti-racism as a means to undermining the United States...what they actually did in their own society was a different matter altogether. In fact, one could argue that eugenics (a construct with very racist underpinnings in addition to class-ist ones) has always been part and parcel of any socialist movement. In short, they're racist af. They love segregating people off into categories!
"They need to go back to Africa": who? and more to the point -- where in Africa? (it isn't a monolithic place: genetically, racially, genetically, linguistically...culturally). And, why just "them"? I for one would dearly love to send white American leftists back to Europe (anything to get them the fuck out of my backyard) ...but that's perhaps a bit unfair to Europeans; selfish if you will...and where would be a whole other issue.
This is completely untrue, and shows a significant lack of historical understanding. The soviets believed in anti-racism because they believed in Lysenkioism, which is an outright denial of natural selection. They believed in it so deeply they even allowed their own crops to fail, and their people to starve, in order to keep up the facade that it was correct. They also didn't divide by race at all, only class. They were even the first to allow women in their military and secret police, because they thought that men and women were basically the same. And it also had nothing to do with the US at all; this all happened long before there was any real tension between the soviets and the US.
Uh, all African Americans? I suspect back to the Ivory Coast, which is where almost all slaves originated from, but frankly I don't care where.
Eugenics was big in the US long before the USSR or Third Reich. From forcible sterilization to Planned Parenthood targeting whatever they deemed unfit (Margaret Sanger was a notorious racist).