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.
"The soviets believed in anti-racism because they believed in Lysenkioism, which is an outright denial of natural selection."
The victims of numerous "ethnic cleansings" (which was really taking the idea of "races" of people to an extreme) are alas no longer available for comment.
You do know what the primary tenet of Lysenkoism is, correct? In a nutshell that acquired traits can become hereditary -- which is pretty damn, well, racist. My genes have definitely given me my height, certain immunities/weaknesses to certain diseases, even my skin/hair/eye color, and yes has factored into my IQ (although there could be a great debate to be had for just how valuable IQ is in the making of success or even a good citizen -- some might say individual character does play a significant role, I tend to agree with that)...but it has not conferred any ability whatsoever to build a ship...or sing opera.
Why should every African American be compelled to go to Africa? Culturally they wouldn't fit in as they weren't raised in any of those cultures; genetically they wouldn't either (most of them carry a significant European genetic footprint). And maybe they would just prefer to stay where they were originally from; there's that reason. Oh, wait, surely you don't believe (since you don't believe racism = skin color) that all people who have Sub-Saharan African features belong to a particular race (as you described it -- genetic proximity, not skin color)? Well, whatever you do, don't put them in Cameroon or Germany unless you do a genetic workup and find they've got R1b!
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).
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.
"The soviets believed in anti-racism because they believed in Lysenkioism, which is an outright denial of natural selection."
The victims of numerous "ethnic cleansings" (which was really taking the idea of "races" of people to an extreme) are alas no longer available for comment.
You do know what the primary tenet of Lysenkoism is, correct? In a nutshell that acquired traits can become hereditary -- which is pretty damn, well, racist. My genes have definitely given me my height, certain immunities/weaknesses to certain diseases, even my skin/hair/eye color, and yes has factored into my IQ (although there could be a great debate to be had for just how valuable IQ is in the making of success or even a good citizen -- some might say individual character does play a significant role, I tend to agree with that)...but it has not conferred any ability whatsoever to build a ship...or sing opera.
Why should every African American be compelled to go to Africa? Culturally they wouldn't fit in as they weren't raised in any of those cultures; genetically they wouldn't either (most of them carry a significant European genetic footprint). And maybe they would just prefer to stay where they were originally from; there's that reason. Oh, wait, surely you don't believe (since you don't believe racism = skin color) that all people who have Sub-Saharan African features belong to a particular race (as you described it -- genetic proximity, not skin color)? Well, whatever you do, don't put them in Cameroon or Germany unless you do a genetic workup and find they've got R1b!
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).
And who was promoting it? Margaret Sanger was also a notorious socialist. But thanks for playing.