UK arrested Tommy Robinson for reporting child-rape gangs that the government caters to. The UK banned reporting of his arrest, denied him a lawyer, and is trying to have him assassinated in prison. Regardless of how you feel about his views, this is a totalitarian government.

Tommy Robinson isn't the first to that the UK has jailed after a secret trial. Melanie Shaw tried to expose child abuse in a Nottinghamshire kids home -- it wasn't foreigners doing the molesting, but many members of the UK's parliament. The government kidnapped her child and permanently took it away. Police from 3 forces have treated her like a terrorist and themselves broken the law. Police even constantly come by to rob her phone and money. She was tried in a case so secret the court staff had no knowledge of it. Her lawyer, like Tommy's, wasn't present. She has been held for over 2 years in Peterborough Prison. read, read

Race

From en-Rightpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Race differences
Arguments regarding the existence of races
Racial taxonomy
Race and crime
Race and health
Race and intelligence
Race and physical attractiveness
Race and sports
Differential K theory
Human Accomplishment
Other race differences
Learn the difference.

Race is a biological taxonomic construct originally based on ancestry, which can refer to the specific categories or subspecies of humans originating from a common ancestral lineage. Race is also currently defined by genotypic similarity. The phrase entered the English language in the 16th century and originates from the Italian razza (possibly derived from the Latin: radix meaning "root"). Closely connected terms, though not entirely synonymous, include nation, tribe, folk, ethnos and phyle (the Old English term was þeode). The various races of humanity have brought into being distinct cultures and ways of life in the areas of the world that they live in.

Definition of race

Caucasoid (top left), Mongoloid (top right), Negroid (bottom left) and Capoid (bottom right) females.
  • Darwin (1857): "Grant all races of man descended from one race; grant that all structure of each race of man were perfectly known—grant that a perfect table of descent of each race was perfectly known.— grant all this, & then do you not think that most would prefer as the best classification, a genealogical one, even if it did occasionally put one race not quite so near to another, as it would have stood, if allocated by structure alone. Generally, we may safely presume, that the resemblance of races & their pedigrees would go together."
  • Dobzhansky (1970): “A race is a Mendelian population, not a single genotype; it consists of individuals who differ genetically among themselves … This is not to deny that a racial classification should ideally take cognizance of all genetically variable traits, oligogenic as well as polygenic."
  • Hartl and Clark (1997): "In population genetics, a race is a group of organisms in a species that are genetically more similar to each other than they are to the members of other such groups. Populations that have undergone some degree of genetic differentiation as measured by, for example, Fst, therefore qualify as races."
  • Leroi (2005): "Populations that share by descent a set of genetic variants in common that are collectively rare in everyone else."
  • Coyne (2014). “To a biologist, races are simply genetically differentiated populations, and human populations are genetically differentiated. Although it’s a subjective exercise to say how many races there are, human genetic differentiation seems to cluster largely by continent, as you’d expect if that differentiation evolved in allopatry (geographic isolation)
  • Vincent Sarich and Frank Miele in their book Race: The Reality of Human Differences (2004: 207): "Races are populations, or groups of populations, within a species, that are separated geographically from other such populations or groups of populations and distinguishable from them on the basis of heritable features."
  • Neven Sesardic stated in the paper Race: a social destruction of a biological concept (2010): "First, the basic meaning of "race" seems to imply that, due to a common ancestry, members of a given race A will display increased genetic similarity, which will make them in some way genetically different from individuals belonging to another race, B. Second, it is frequently assumed that A-individuals will also differ systematically from B-individuals with respect to some genetically determined morphological characteristics (skin color, hair texture,facial features,etc.), with these morphological differences being the basis for the common-sense racial recognition and classification. And third, A-individuals could differ from B-individuals with respect to some genetically determined psychological characteristics as well."[1]
  • Richard Lynn in his book Race Differences in Intelligence (2006: 7): "A simple and straightforward definition of race is that it consists of a group that is recognizably different from other groups. A fuller definition is that a race is a breeding population that is to some degree genetically different from neighboring populations as a result of geographical isolation, cultural factors, and endogamy, and which shows observable patterns of genotypic frequency differences for a number of intercorrelated, genetically determined characteristics, compared with other breeding populations. Geographical contact zones between races generally contain racial hybrids, who show intermediate values of gene frequencies from the more central distributions of the breeding groups."

A common tactic by race denialists is to create straw man definitions of biological race which are then easily refuted. One example is by defining biological races so that "all the members of these races share certain traits and tendencies with each other that they do not share with members of any other race. These traits and tendencies characteristic of a race constitute, on the racialist view, a sort of racial essence". This straw man definition is then easily refuted by pointing out, for example, that one can find some Blacks who have a higher intelligence than some Whites. Modern race realists instead use definitions such as those mentioned above that imply that the different races differ on average on many different traits with one example being on average higher intelligence for Whites than for Blacks.[1]

Races are not unique to Homo Sapiens, as biologist Ernst Mayr (2002) explains: "Races are not something specifically human; races occur in a large percentage of species of animals. You can read in every textbook on evolution that geographic races of animals, when isolated from other races of their species, may in due time become new species.[2]

Of several definitions of race the two which enjoy popular currency are cladistic, defined by descent, and evolutionary taxonomic, which groups by genotypic similarity. The two definitions do not produce the same classifications. For example, birds and crocodiles are more related by descent than other reptiles. The cladist would classify them together and then into a wider Reptilia group. However birds have diverged genetically from reptiles and the evolutionary taxonomist would classify them separately. Of the two definitions evolutionary taxonomic is more informative for gene/trait prediction and cladistic is more informative for descent (by defintion).

Race defined by either shared descent or overall genotypic similarity does produce non-overlapping clusters, and thus race is a well defined construct. In this sense a set of gene probabilities can be considered the 'essence' of a race (Devitt 2008), although this is not essentialism in the pre-Darwinian immutable Platonic sense.

Historical views

Distinct racial types from the tomb of Ramesses III

Lynn (2006: 11) notes that:

"...until the middle years of the twentieth century all anthropologists, biologists, and social scientists accepted that the human species contains a number of biologically distinct races."

Throughout Human history, different races have coined words for the divisions of mankind, as well as depicting them in artforms, which stretch back to ancient Egypt and beyond.

As Richard McCulloch (2002) informs:

"Races are historically real. The major races of Europe, Asia and Africa that we know today, as well as many of their subraces, are documented in the written historical record from its beginning over three thousand years ago, and in the artistic record over a thousand years earlier."[3]

Tiles for example found in a tomb of Ramesses III depict different racial types. The ancient Greeks and Romans also classified the populations they had encountered during their era into races. However it wasn't until the 16th century that the word race entered the English language.[4]

The Egyptian Book of Gates

Classifications of race had appeared as early as ancient Egypt and Greece, for example as illustrated in the Egyptian Book of Gates (13th century BC) which depicts different racial types. Carleton Coon in the opening of his Origin of Races (1962) pointed out that "literate people of the ancient world were well aware that mankind was divided into a number of clearly differentiated races". However, these ancient race taxonomies were limited by the severe lack of geographical knowledge held at the time.

Scholar Nicholas Hudson (1996) stated that "In classical and Medieval literature, the major term in ethnographic descriptions was gens—a Latin word that is usually translated as “people” or “nation.” Significantly, gens connotes a common ancestry or stock (hence its etymological link with genero, to beget or produce), reflecting an ancient way of understanding a nation not as a social or political unit, but as a group of people linked by origin. Gens was therefore close in meaning to “race,” understood in the traditional sense of “lineage” or “extraction.” Yet the belief that humanity is divided into only four or five main “races,” as was claimed in the eighteenth century, represented a significant enlargement of the ancient idea of gens."[5]

Andrew Hamilton in his article "Taxonomic Approaches to Races" (2008) wrote that "This pre-modern European conception of human groups, assuming Hudson is correct, resembled contemporary second-order classifications such as populations, local races, or subraces rather than first-order groupings like subspecies, geographic, continental, or major races."[6]

Also many non-European areas made distinctions between different groups of human and ascribed different physical and mental characteristics to different groups. Examples include China, Egypt, India and Islamic areas. Prehistoric paintings have been seen as evidence for that such group distinctions were made also in prehistory.[7][8]

Essentialism and Typology, and Physical and Genetic Populationism

Prior to Darwin it was common to claim that races were manifestations of essential 'types' in the sense of Platonic idealism, rather than simply clustered aggregates of physical and genetic variations. Ancestrally related populations identified by physical variation, such as by Blumenbach, match ancestral populations identified by genetic variation. Neither is typological. Essentialism and typology (other than as a guideline 'average' for clusters) have entirely fallen out of favor amongst scientists, and are now only referenced when constructing strawmen against Hereditarians, who posit average genetic IQ variation between populations. Hereditarians have no more an 'essentialist' or 'typological' view of race than those who support the existence of average skin color variation between races, i.e. everybody.

Racial taxonomy

Albinos: First row are Caucasoid. Second row are Mongoloid. Third row are Negroid. Even with the same skin color, the heads are shaped quite differently.

The Homo Sapiens species is divided into various subspecies, of which only Sapiens Sapiens is extant, followed by infrasubspecific races.

Scientific racial taxonomy emerged in the 18th century, as Lynn (2006: 13) explains:

"Biologists and anthropologists began to analyze and classify races in the middle years of the eighteenth century. The first taxonomy of races was advanced by the Swedish biologist Carl Linnaeus in 1758."

Blood groups are consistent with the traditional racial classification (Ibid):

"In the early twentieth century data were collected on differences in the frequencies of blood groups in various populations throughout the world. Hirszfeld and Hirszfeld (1919) showed that the frequencies of a number of blood groups are consistent with race differences in col-oration and morphology."

Modern genetics also supports the standard race typology (Rosenberg et al., 2002):

"A detailed genetic analysis of more than a thousand human subjects clusters them into five groups corresponding to major geographical regions."[9]

The ontological value of race is due to its informativity which stems from the fact that traits are correlated through a dimension described by race labels, such that knowing some racial traits allows one to predict others. Dawkins 2004:

"However small the racial partition of total variation may be, if such racial characteristics as there are are highly correlated with other racial characteristics, they are by definition informative, and therefore of taxonomic significance."

Race as subspecies

There is one human subspecies extant which divides into races. Homo sapiens is divided into several subspecies including sapiens sapiens and sapiens neanderthalensis. Only one subspecies level in any organism is named by the Code of Zoological Nomenclature. This does not imply that further subdivision is not possible, and biologists routinely use infrasubspecific categories with other organisms, using terms such as subspecies (in the broad sense), race, breed, etc.

Morphological taxonomies

More complete racial taxonomy emerged as geographical knowledge expanded, and most parts of the world were explored. As anthropologist Alice M. Brues (1990) wrote "By the end of the eighteenth century, knowledge of the appearance of various peoples of the world was fairly complete. At this time European scholars began to speculate on these racial differences..."[10]

This was also when taxonomy started to be studied as a modern science. Morphology (form/structure, comparative anatomy) was the only method of establishing ancestry for any organism at this time. Morphological characteristics used in human taxonomy included pigmentation, hair form and skeletal form.

Carolus Linnaeus, the pioneer of zoological taxonomy, divided Homo Sapiens into four major races in his Systema Naturae (1735): Homo Europaeus (Europeans), Homo Afer (Sub-Saharan Africans), Homo Asiaticus (Asians), and Homo Americanus (Native Americans). This classification was based on morphological features and argued for differences in temperament and psychology. It has been seen that Linnaeus's system for classification of organisms, primarily based on morphological differences, has undergone surprisingly little change in the times following it, and has been corroborated by genomics.[6]

Blumenbach's five races.

Blumenbach in his The Natural Varieties of Mankind (1781) added a "Malayan" race, after South-East Asia had become extensively mapped. His five proposed races include: Caucasian, Mongolian, Ethiopian, American, Malayan.[6] Blumenbach based his taxonomy on various non-metric skull traits which are a strong indicator of ancestry. It should be pointed out that areas such as Australia and Oceania were not mapped until the 1770's. In 1770, James Cook mapped the east coast of Australia, which he named New South Wales and claimed for Great Britain. This explains why racial typology at the stage did not include an Australoid racial taxon. Blumenbach stated that the innumerable "varieties of mankind run into one other" (gradation invicem confluent), which probably meant that there are minor intermediate races and low density clines between major groups, and also varieties within major races, rather than an overall cline, since he also wrote of the "main varieties of human" (humani varitatum principalum).

Georges Cuvier (1817) was the first to propose the well-known categorization having three main races which he called Caucasian, Mongolian, and Ethiopian. This has been seen as rudimentary, also by some who have used it for simplicity such as J. Philippe Rushton, and other classifications have often divided these major races into more minor races.[6] See also the next sections regarding genetic evidence supporting both views.

When blood group data become available it was used for racial classifications which were consistent with those based on morphology.[11]

Much of the research was done within the field of anthropology. One explanation for this is that it was anthropologists who traveled to and made detailed ethnographic studies of different peoples. Such studies also included descriptions of morphological characteristics.

Models of human evolution

The recent discovery of Neanderthal[12] and Denisovan admixture in non-African humans has confirmed that some form of multiregional evolutionary model is appropriate for the evolution of modern humans. A pure "Out of Africa" model has been falsified. Recent human evolution and gene flow has largely been confined to three broad continental areas: West Eurasia (Caucasoids), East Asia (Mongoloids), and Sub-Saharan Africa (Negroids).[13]

Within versus between group variation

The F(ST) or "genetic variation between versus within groups" for human races is approximately 0.15. This is ample to satisfy taxonomic significance. The F(ST) for humans and chimpanzees is 0.18.[14] The attempt to claim F(ST) invalidates the human race concept is known as Lewontin's Fallacy.[15]

Molecular genetics: clusters and clines

Plot from a 2009 genetic study of certain Asian populations demonstrating that they can be identified and separated genetically. The genetic data was analyzed using principal components analysis which makes no prior population assumptions. It was noted that "genetic ancestry is strongly correlated with linguistic affiliations as well as geography". East and South East Asians clustered separately from Europeans (CEU) and Indians. In between there are small clusters representing mixed low density populations such as the Central Asian Uyghur (CN-UG), the Kashmirian Ladakhi (IN-TB), the Nepalese Tharu (IN-NI), and Singaporean Tamils (SG-ID).[16]

The rise of population genetics has provided scientists with a new understanding of the sources of phenotypic variation.

Genes under selection which differentiate geographic populations tend to be distributed along race lines: there are, roughly speaking, some genes which "all members of one race share and are absent from others".

A study conducted by the HUGO Pan-Asian SNP Consortium in 2009 used principal components analysis, which makes no prior population assumptions, on genetic data sampled from a large number of points across Asia. They found that East Asian and South-East Asian populations clustered together, and suggested a common origin for these populations. At the same time they observed a broad discontinuity between this cluster and South Asia, commenting "most of the Indian populations showed evidence of shared ancestry with European populations". It was noted that "genetic ancestry is strongly correlated with linguistic affiliations as well as geography".[17]

Coop et al. found "a selected allele that strongly differentiates the French from both the Yoruba and Han could be strongly clinal across Europe, or at high frequency in Europe and absent elsewhere, or follow any other distribution according to the geographic nature of the selective pressure. However, we see that the global geographic distributions of these putatively selected alleles are largely determined simply by their frequencies in Yoruba, French and Han (Figure 3). The global distributions fall into three major geographic patterns that we interpret as non-African sweeps, west Eurasian sweeps and East Asian sweeps, respectively."[13]

These studies validate the division of humanity into three major races: Caucasoid, Negroid and Mongoloid. Native Americans and Malay are often separated but cluster closest to and have shared ancestry with Mongoloids. Each major race breaks down into sub-races, such as Whites within Caucasians and Altaics (Japanese and Koreans) within East Asians. A common race denial tactic is to point out the expanding sub-categories and claim it is impossible to say how many races there are. This simply ignores the branched nature of the taxonomy: higher categories exist regardless of how often they sub-divide.

Race is a first level operationalization of human genetic variation.

Civilizations and achievements

Average country IQs according to IQ and the Wealth of Nations.

Race is the largest determinant to the formation of civilization, and achievements. The biologist John R. Baker in his book Race (1974) outlines how Caucasoids created most ancient civilizations, from Sumer, to ancient Greece, while the Mongoloids, ancient China. The Negroid however has never created a civilization. In fact the evidence reveals that without a foreign racial influence, Negroids never invented the wheel, never smelted metals, never domesticated a plant or animal, never constructed buildings other than out of mud, never developed a written language, and could not count beyond their fingers (Ibid). Another useful source also informs that:

"Throughout 6,000 years of recorded history, the Black African Negro has invented nothing. Not a written language, weaved cloth, a calendar, a plow, a road, a bridge, a railway, a ship, a system of measurement, or even the wheel. He is not known to have ever cultivated a single crop or domesticated a single animal for his own use (although many powerful and docile beasts abounded around him.) His only known means of transporting goods was on the top of his hard burry head. for shelter he never progressed beyond the common mud hut, the construction of which a beaver or muskrat is capable."[18]

Deconstructionism of race

Since the mid-20th century, with the emergence of egalitarianism and political correctness the reality of race is undergoing deconstruction. People the world over are being deracinated. Deracination ideology is about bringing about the culture necessary for implementing One World Government, with the goal of promoting miscegenation.

Criminality by race

Homicide offending by race.gif

Nomenclature

Race Division of mankind, unit, group
Racism racial differences
Racialism racial superiority claims
Belonging (race) sense of belonging
Racial ideologue a person who turns race into an ideology
Race realist a person who accepts the reality of race and keeps it in proportion
Kinist a Christian race realist
Race denier a person who denies that race exists, or that there are racial differences

Current status on race

A study from 2004 found that "Rejection of race ranges from high to low with the highest rejection occurring among anthropologists in the United States (and Canada). Rejection of race is moderate in Europe, sizeable in Poland and Cuba, and lowest in Russia and China".[19]

American Anthropological Association

The American Anthropological Association in 1998 issued a Statement on "Race" that rejected the existence of human races. However, this was not based on any voting by the members but decided by the Executive Board based on a text submitted by a committee.[20] Many AAA members have rejected the statement. As an example anthropologist Francis E. Johnston has stated in his paper "Race and Biology" (2004) presented at the interdisciplinary conference Race and Human Variation sponsored by the AAA that:

"Our challenge, especially for those concerned with race, is not to discard the term as irrelevant. There is a basis to race, especially in the broad, Linnaean sense and to ignore it is to do a disservice to the scholarship which has preceded us, as well as to stand as fools before our students and the general public."[21]

Surveys

In a 1985 survey 41% of American physical anthropologists and 53% of cultural anthropologists disagreed' with the statement "There are biological races in the species Homo sapiens".[22] In 1999 these numbers had increased to 69% and 80%.[23] However in 1985 only 16% of biologists and 36% of educational psychologists disagreed with the same statement on race.[22]

In contrast to America, a 2003 study conducted in Poland found that race was rejected by only 25 percent of anthropologists.[24]

Textbooks

A 2003 study revealed that race entries in the Journal of Physical Anthropology have fallen over 50%.[25]

Many studies of American anthropology college textbooks have found that they increasingly started to reject human biological races in the early 1970s, which had become orthodoxy by 1980. With the exception of a single publication, the early 1990s witnessed no textbooks supporting the idea human races exist as natural biological groups.[22][23][26]

Only one major anthropological textbook (Humankind Emerging, 1992) by Bernard Grant Campbell in the 1990's defended racial realism

Sharply differing to attitudes surrounding race in America, papers published in China's leading journal in biological anthropology during the 1982-2002 period saw everyone of the 324 articles dealing with human variation using traditional race concepts.[27]

Bias

A 2009 study has shown that "the views of anthropologists on race are sociopolitically (ideologically) influenced".[28]

Professor George W. Gill has argued that race denial in America is largely politically motivated and not based in science. He wrote that despite still some American physical anthropologists supporting human biological races:

"...not one introductory textbook of physical anthropology even presents that perspective as a possibility. In a case as flagrant as this, we are not dealing with science but rather with blatant, politically motivated censorship."[29]

Gallery

See also

References

  1. 1.0 1.1 Neven Sesardic. Race: a social destruction of a biological concept. Biol Philos (2010) 25:143–162 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10539-009-9193-7
  2. The Biology of Race and the Concept of Equality
  3. Race: Reality and Denial
  4. Grom the French for race - "race, breed, lineage" (in turn, probably a loan from Italian razza.
  5. Hudson, Nicholas. (1996). "From ‘Nation’ to ‘Race’: The Origin of Racial Classification in Eighteenth-Century Thought," Eighteenth-Century Studies. 29. Spring. 248.
  6. 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 Andrew Hamilton. Taxonomic Approaches to Races] The Occidental Quarterly. vol. 8, no. 3, Fall 2008 http://toqonline.com/archives/v8n3/TOQv8n3Hamilton.pdf
  7. Vincent Sarich och Frank Miele. Race: The Reality of Human Differences. 2004. Westview Press.
  8. J. Philippe Rushton. Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History Perspective. 1997. Transaction Publishers.
  9. Genetic Structure of Human Populations
  10. Brues. Alice M. (1990). People and Races. Waveland Press. p. 19.
  11. Richard Lynn. Race Differences in Intelligence. 2006. Washington Summit Publishers.
  12. A Draft Sequence of the Neandertal Genome, Green et al., 2010
  13. 13.0 13.1 The Role of Geography in Human Adaptation, Coop et al., 2009
  14. Human genetic diversity and the nonexistence of biological races, 2009
  15. Human genetic diversity: Lewontin's fallacy, Edwards, 2003
  16. HUGO Pan-Asian SNP Consortium. Abdulla MA, Ahmed I, Assawamakin A, Bhak J, Brahmachari SK et al. Mapping human genetic diversity in Asia. Science. 2009;326;(5959)1541-5. PMID: 20007900 http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1177074 http://www.humpopgenfudan.cn/p/A/A1.pdf
  17. Mapping Human Genetic Diversity in Asia, The HUGO Pan-Asian SNP Consortium, 2009
  18. Whites & Blacks 100 FACTS
  19. Lieberman L, Kaszycka KA, Martinez Fuentes AJ, Yablonsky L, Kirk RC, Strkalj G, Wang Q, Sun L., "The race concept in six regions: variation without consensus" Coll Antropol. 2004 Dec;28(2):907-21 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15666627?dopt=Abstract
  20. American Anthropological Association Statement on "Race"
  21. Race and Biology
  22. 22.0 22.1 22.2 Lieberman, Leonard; Hampton, Raymond E.; Littlefield, Alice; Hallead, Glen (1992). "Race in Biology and Anthropology: A Study of College Texts and Professors". Journal of Research in Science Teaching 29: 301–321. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660290308
  23. 23.0 23.1 Lieberman, L (February 2001). "How "Caucasoids" got such big crania and why they shrank. From Morton to Rushton." Current anthropology 42 (1): 69–95. 201. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/318434.
  24. "'Race'—Still an Issue for Physical Anthropology? Results of Polish Studies Seen in the Light of the U.S. Findings" by Katarzyna A. Kaszycka. American Anthropologist March 2003, Vol. 105, No. 1, pp. 116-124
  25. Lieberman, Leonard; Kirk, Rodney C.; Littlefield, Alice. (2003). "Perishing Paradigm: Race 1931-99". American Anthropologist. 105. p. 110.
  26. Lieberman et al., "The Decline of Race in American Physical Anthropology". Anthropological Review. Vol. 66. pp. 3-21. 2003.
  27. On the Concept of Race in Chinese Biological Anthropology: Alive and Well. Qian Wang, Goran Štrkalj, and Li Sun. Current Anthropology. Vol. 44, No. 3 (June 2003), p. 403 http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/374899
  28. Katarzyna A. Kaszycka, Goran Štrkalj, Jan Strzalko, Current Views of European Anthropologists on Race: Influence of Educational and Ideological Background, American Anthropologist Volume 111, Issue 1, pages 43–56, March 2009, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-1433.2009.01076.x
  29. Does Race Exist? Posted. 02.15.00 NOVA. PBS. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/does-race-exist.html

Further Reading

  • César Tort (Editor): The Fair Race's Darkest Hour. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform; First edition 2014, ISBN 978-1502901644 [440 p.]