How are there people stupid enough to believe in this?

How are there people stupid enough to believe in this?
Believe what?

I dunno, could it be that they believe in the existance of a jewish race?

I mean I'm just taking a wild guess, but have no clue what would have led up to such an assumption that is what the thread would be about.

Not like I read the title of the thread or anything and then inferred the point of it...

I dunno, could it be that they believe in the existance of a jewish race?

I mean I'm just taking a wild guess, but have no clue what would have led up to such an assumption that is what the thread would be about.

Not like I read the title of the thread or anything and then inferred the point of it...Jewish is a religion, not a race.

Must by why the jewish race iwas referred to as a myth?

That sure does explain why a lot of idiots out there talk about the jewish race...

There is also a distinct ethnic group within the religion of Judaism, due to their relative social isolation. I believe the notion of race is inaccurate.

Anyone can be jewish, but the religion came from a particular group of related peoples in a peoticular geographical area. As such, their genetic similarities has lended unrealistic creedence to the myth that there is a Jewish "Race".

There are certain genetic markers which were present in early Jewish cultures, and can be found today only in groups with direct liniage to the early Jewish tribes. So in that sense, they are direct "ancestors of Abraham" - they are at least the decendants of a common group.

Modern Judeism accepts converts and marrage from outside the faith, though, which brings in genes from outside the population. So even if we were to accept the idea of human Races, "Jewish" really couldn't be ascribed as a catagory.

This influx of genetic material is no different from any other genetic population, human or otherwise. The genes of a given population will change over time, through mutation and interbreeding with outside populations. There is not, however, enough uniform gentic difference between human groups to classify "races", as, for instance, we classify dog breeds.
So no, there isn't a Jewish Race.

Jewish is a religion, not a race.
But according to the religion, the Jews are the Chosen People = the descendents of Jacob (a.k.a. Israel). Belief in the religion infers belief in some kind of racial (genetic) identity; however after so many generations, the gene pool is certainly much polluted by intermarriage with goyim. Most religious Jews take a dim of Jews who "marry out", and an even dimmer view of adherents to their religion who are not of Jewish descent.

Even better is how the west tries to cover up the Khazar conversion to Judiasm.

angrybellsprout: I think I heard about that as a part of a series on Genghis Kahn and his ties to Christianity; the White Huns, et al.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khazar

The existance of Khazaria destroies the Jewish race myth and it destroies the entire basis for the european jew to have invented zionism in the late 19th century.

Can't allow knowledge of that to come out...

Well, there is a hebrew race, and they still exist. Thier ties to Judaism have been strong enough since the early bronze age that it is sometimes referred to as the "jewish race", even though that is incorrect terminology.

The hebrew speaking people were apart of the semetic race just like the aramaic and arabic speaking ones...

Yes...and that runs counter to what I'm saying how?

Because a lot of idiots try to claim that hebrew = semite = jewish race

I'm not saying that you were going down that path, but I just wanted to eliminate any chance for that crap to get started up before it did.

How are there people stupid enough to believe in this?
The Jews have to believe they are a race , that way they can legitimize their unlawful occupation of Palestinian land . Saying what they really are , a religious sect made up of many different races negates any indigenous claim to Israel . The Palestinians are what is left of the ancient Hebrew race , they are the true Jews .

Under the Ottoman Empire it was mostly people of the semetic race, be them of the jewish christian or muslim faith. Back then it was all about being arab brothers, even if some of the brothers had goofy religions you still loved them on the basis of their being brothers in the semetic race.

You are exactly right , the Jews of mideast are semitic but the Jerws of Europe come from the Khazars who are non-semitic converts to the religion . In fact all study into this has been censored as anti-semitic .
Journal axes gene research on Jews and Palestinians (http://www.guardian.co.uk/genes/article/0,2763,605806,00.html)
A keynote research paper showing that Middle Eastern Jews and Palestinians are genetically almost identical has been pulled from a leading journal.

Academics who have already received copies of Human Immunology have been urged to rip out the offending pages and throw them away.

Such a drastic act of self-censorship is unprecedented in research publishing and has created widespread disquiet, generating fears that it may involve the suppression of scientific work that questions Biblical dogma.
This proves that the Palestinians are the true indigenous inhabitants of the Holy Land . The Palestinians are the true Jews who existed in the Old Testament with Moses . The Palestinianian are a mix of the Caananite,Hebrew ,Arabic bloods of that history .Todays squatters who claim to be Jewish are nothing more than converts from Europe . This is why this information was pulled , it is the truth .

I did one of my undergrad western civilization papers on the Khazars, and the funny thing was that the only sources that I could find were jewish history books and Russian history books.

I did one of my undergrad western civilization papers on the Khazars, and the funny thing was that the only sources that I could find were jewish history books and Russian history books.
Censoring history , rewriting history , controlling our knowledge all to stop the truth from getting out , that is what they are afraid of . And in this case those Jews in Israel are frightened of learning their own identity .

Good ol european jews, censoring everything that tells any sort of truth about them...

The Jews have to believe they are a race , that way they can legitimize their unlawful occupation of Palestinian land.

No. You see, Israel was given to the Jews following World War II, when a large proportion of Jews were exterminated by the Nazis. Didn't you know that? The United Nations agreed to it.

Saying what they really are , a religious sect made up of many different races negates any indigenous claim to Israel.

I don't think their main claim is as indigenous people. From the militants you see on TV, you'd be forgiven for thinking that half the Jews in Israel were from America.

The Palestinians are what is left of the ancient Hebrew race , they are the true Jews.

I don't think the Palestinians would like that idea :p

I did one of my undergrad western civilization papers on the Khazars, and the funny thing was that the only sources that I could find were jewish history books and Russian history books.
Censoring history , rewriting history , controlling our knowledge all to stop the truth from getting out , that is what they are afraid of . And in this case those Jews in Israel are frightened of learning their own identity .

Is there some kind of logical leap here I'm missing? If most sources on Celtic history were written by British people, would that make it

"Censoring history , rewriting history , controlling our knowledge all to stop the truth from getting out , that is what they are afraid of"

?

I believe that much of what has been written about the Khazars is of a highly speculative nature. Worse, much has been written by people with a political axe to grind -- whether pro or anti Zionist, etc. What is known with certainty does not amount to a lot.

However, DNA evidence cannot readily be tampered with, and projects such as the National Geographic magazine's "Genographic" project are beginning to unravel the genetic origins of peoples. I think that ten years from now, we shall have a pretty good idea how Jewish the Jews are. Meantime, I would rather look at the emerging DNA evidence than rely on historical speculation.

The Palestinians are what is left of the ancient Hebrew race , they are the true Jews .
If thats the case [attempt to provoke deleted], then when iran says kill jews & wipe them off the planet, then its ok to kill Palestinians too, because they are the real jews, but they happen to be practising a different new fire brand dynamite religon.

This proves that the Palestinians are the true indigenous inhabitants of the Holy Land. The Palestinians are the true Jews who existed in the Old Testament with Moses. The Palestinianian are a mix of the Caananite,Hebrew ,Arabic bloods of that history.The Palestinians are descendants of the Philistines, people who sailed in from a Mediterranean island kingdom. They landed in Israel at a time when the entire Jewish people were away on one of their legendary misadventures and it looked like nobody was home, so they decided to live there. They were not Arabs, they were not even Semites. It's difficult to figure out exactly who they were now, because they intermarried with the people of the region and today their DNA is impossible to sort out. It's been suggested that they were a Cushitic people like the ancient Egyptians, but I suspect this is merely an educated guess because of their geography. Today's Palestinians may speak Arabic, pray to Allah, and have ancestors in all the tribes of the region, but the original Palestinian people did not live there prior to Roman times.

The evidence linking the Palestinians to the Philistines is pretty sketchy.

I dunno, could it be that they believe in the existance of a jewish race?

LOL Jews are Semites, which is a mixed-racial group of distinctly Asiatic and Negroid traits.

:m:

I don't think their main claim is as indigenous people.

Israel is a Nationalist, and by analysis of gov't constructs NATIONAL SOCIALIST state.

I support Israel, however.

:m:

No. You see, Israel was given to the Jews following World War II, when a large proportion of Jews were exterminated by the Nazis. Didn't you know that? The United Nations agreed to it.
No the UN partitioned Palestine into Jewish and Palestinian areas , the Jews with Ameruican backing declared Israel and immediately invaded and occupied Palestinain areas .
I don't think their main claim is as indigenous people. From the militants you see on TV, you'd be forgiven for thinking that half the Jews in Israel were from America.
They do try and claim they are indigenous , thats why that link I provided on Palestinian genes was banned .
I don't think the Palestinians would like that idea :p
Actually it is very common with Palestinians to say so .
Is there some kind of logical leap here I'm missing? If most sources on Celtic history were written by British people, would that make it

"Censoring history , rewriting history , controlling our knowledge all to stop the truth from getting out , that is what they are afraid of"

?
Read up on the Khazar theory and you will see why
I believe that much of what has been written about the Khazars is of a highly speculative nature. Worse, much has been written by people with a political axe to grind -- whether pro or anti Zionist, etc. What is known with certainty does not amount to a lot.

However, DNA evidence cannot readily be tampered with, and projects such as the National Geographic magazine's "Genographic" project are beginning to unravel the genetic origins of peoples. I think that ten years from now, we shall have a pretty good idea how Jewish the Jews are. Meantime, I would rather look at the emerging DNA evidence than rely on historical speculation.
That is true , you realise I am myself speculating as well , the fact that Jews who now inhabit Isreal are in fact converts to the faith . For those Jews to say that they are true Jews after 2000 years of living in Europe is a tad much to digest .
If thats the case [attempt to provoke deleted], then when iran says kill jews & wipe them off the planet, then its ok to kill Palestinians too, because they are the real jews, but they happen to be practising a different new fire brand dynamite religon.
Thanks for enlightening me , I shall cherish this piece of wisdom .

Today's Palestinians may speak Arabic, pray to Allah, and have ancestors in all the tribes of the region, but the original Palestinian people did not live there prior to Roman times.
Palestinians have always been their the DNA according to studies puts them as the Caananites , which were the first inhabitants . The fact is ancient Hebrews are now being accepted by athropoligists as not even being a race rather a religious sect of people .

The bit about the Iranians, the balistic missles that they wish to use on the israeli don't discriminate as to if someone is a zionist or not...

If thats the case [attempt to provoke deleted], then when iran says kill jews & wipe them off the planet, then its ok to kill Palestinians too, because they are the real jews, but they happen to be practising a different new fire brand dynamite religon.

:rolleyes: here we go again!!

Jews have been breeding amongst themselves for thousands of years.
Which makes them something, race, breed whatever, I don't care. But they are a distinct strain of homo-sapien with certain jew specific attributes in both appearance and behaviour.

As for people of all races who practice judaism. They're called people of all races who are practising judaism. Some of them probably play "soccer" too, or "collect pennies", who gives a flying fuck.

James R:

No. You see, Israel was given to the Jews following World War II, when a large proportion of Jews were exterminated by the Nazis. Didn't you know that? The United Nations agreed to it.

As Brian's already pointed out, this isn't exactly true. The Israel they have today isn't what they were given under the mandate... however...

'The United Nations!' Big fucking deal. An alliance of foreign super-powers said that a bunch of Jewish thugs could have some Arab land, and that suddenly makes their land theft and ethnic cleansing a O.K? I dare you to say the same shit to a someone who is Polish. 'The Prussian, Austria, Russian alliance said that Poland has been annexed and no longer exists, so STFU!'.

Brian's already pointed out, this isn't exactly true. The Israel they have today isn't what they were given under the mandate... however...
So? The territory the US takes up isn't what it was given in the 1783 Treaty of Paris. The land Britain has wasn't what it originally consisted of as England.
Countries expands in territory...it's not like it's anything new.
'The United Nations!' Big fucking deal. An alliance of foreign super-powers said that a bunch of Jewish thugs could have some Arab land, and that suddenly makes their land theft a O.K?
Yes. That's why it's called the "United Nations"- the countries' representatives convene and agree on shit. It's called "international diplomacy". Not that I should expect a violent antisemite such as you to know anything about peaceful international relations... :rolleyes:
I dare you to say the same shit to a someone who is Polish. 'The Prussian, Austria, Russian alliance said that Poland has been annexed and no longer exists, so STFU!'.
Thier King abdicated, thier government was dissolved, and thier territory was split up. I'm pretty sure that kinda makes a country not exist anymore.
'Course, Poland reappeared on the map of Europe as a Republic in 1919...but that's a different story.

I didn't know that the UN created Palestine, I thought that it was apart of some zionist bullshit that started up in Britian...

It was Islamic Zionism.

How are there people stupid enough to believe in this?

Racism is the most prevalent of all irrational beliefs in Human culture today, even more widespread than any form of theism or religion.

Racism doesn't necessarily mean the meme of hatred and intolerance; racism can be interpreted merely as "a belief in races"- but there is no scientific basis to assert that there has been more than ONE Human race for some 30,000 years or more. If one interpets "race" to mean species, there is only one; we can all interbreed and have fertile offspring- from the tallest, darkest skinned, tongue-roller, to the shortest, lightest skinned, widow's peak-ed person with colored irises.

...

"Jewishness" is a cultural division of Human ethnicity; it is not Judaism, it is not Israelihood. I work with a "Jewish" atheist from Ohio.

Is he "a Jew"-? to a racist, probably so.

To himself, he's just Human; of "Jewish" descent.




Greetings

Hapsburg:

So? The territory the US takes up isn't what it was given in the 1783 Treaty of Paris. The land Britain has wasn't what it originally consisted of as England.
Countries expands in territory...it's not like it's anything new.

Then I guess we should have let Hitler keep Poland, Czech, France and Austria.
I guess we should have let Saddam keep Kuwait.

Expanding one's territory at the expense of another nation is not a O.K in today's day and age. It's recognized as imperialism, and is frowned upon by the U.N. But then again, rulings by the U.N are only meant to be obeyed when they work in your favour... right?


Yes. That's why it's called the "United Nations"- the countries' representatives convene and agree on shit. It's called "international diplomacy".

Or, if you want to describe it for what it is: "A band of superpowers acting in their own interests." Were Palestinian interests represented in the U.N? Did the U.N have Palestinian representation? And why the fuck does an alliance of foreign nations have the right to steal land from the indigenous inhabitants?


Not that I should expect a violent antisemite such as you to know anything about peaceful international relations...

Ad hominem attack. Not that I would expect an ignorant Zionist fuck such as yourself to have even a rudimentary grasp of logic fallacies.

Nor would I have faith in your ability to understand that a body of foreign superpowers which had no Palestinian representation, had no right to carve up land which did not belong to it. This would be equivalent to the EU demanding that America give Texas to the Chinese immigrants, so that they could form a 'Chinese only' state.


Thier King abdicated, thier government was dissolved, and thier territory was split up. I'm pretty sure that kinda makes a country not exist anymore.

Quite so. And I dare you to tell a Polish citizen 'A band of superpowers stated that your country no longer exists, so they are completely justified in crushing your independence, stealing your land, and oppressing you for 123 years. Each shit, Slav!"

Quite simply, 'Because the UN said so' is about as convincing as 'because the Allies said so' when Hitler annexed Czechslovakia.

actually the term race generally has to do with sub-species...

take the various canines or felines... they are all the same species and can breed with each other, but they are all different races/breeds/sub-species...

race does exist, but how important is it

then again judiasm is a religion and not a race, though lots of idiots seem to try and believe that it i

This would be equivalent to the EU demanding that America give Texas to the Chinese immigrants, so that they could form a 'Chinese only' state.

That analogy might be a bit more pertinent if, after a large number of Chinese immigrants arrived, the other states declared war on them and tried to 'drive them into the sea'.

racism can be interpreted merely as "a belief in races"- but there is no scientific basis to assert that there has been more than ONE Human race for some 30,000 years or more.
RACE: Try this interesting experiment for yourself . . .

Make love to a small sample of Chinese girls. In the past, I have have found Cantonese the most readily available, but allow local circumstances to dictate. Vietnamese may be substituted if necessary. Four or five should be enough, though barely sufficient for statistic purposes. Take every opportunity to acquaint yourself with their physical features, and compile a database of their skin colour and texture, hair colour and texture, eye colour and shape, nose shape, key structural dimensions, etc. Feel free to include any characteristics you find of interest, such as the presence or absence of body hair.

If you experience difficulty in recruiting subjects for your experiment, you may find a useful resource in the young lady advertising her services as an "attractive oriental masseuse" in your local free-sheet. She may be able to attract the subjects you require from among her friends, but for reasons of experimental validity, you should avoid including sisters or first cousins in your sample. (Decline her offer to introduce you to the local gambling den.)

When you have compiled your experimental data, make a comparison with a sample of similar size from among the Scandinavian girls you have seduced in the course of your life. For best statistical validity, you should make a full list of prospective subjects, and randomly select the four or five required. However, for practical purposes, it may be better to choose those for whom you find it possible to recollect the most complete data. If desired, you may find it advantageous to re-examine one or more of them so as to arrive at a more reliable and comprehensive database.

It is important to take note of cosmetic alterations that would invalidate objective observation. For example, more Chinese have had "eye jobs" than many people suspect. Another thing that must be allowed for is personal bias in the selection of subjects. Many Chinese girls do not have bottoms; that is to say, they lack a certain shapeliness in the posterior region. Ideally, perfect impartiality should be exercised to prevent their exclusion from the sample.

Whilst I do not wish to unjustly anticipate the findings of experimenters, I suggest that a dispassionate statistical examination of the cumulative data is overwhelmingly likely to show that the subjects clearly divide into two groups. Although there will be an overlap in elements such as height, a multi-factorial analysis will disclose the presence of two disparate populations. Many people find that “race” is a useful word to describe the nature of this phenomenon.

What "race" are albinos, to those many people? What "race" are those who can roll their tongues, or who have brown irises?

That analogy might be a bit more pertinent if, after a large number of Chinese immigrants arrived, the other states declared war on them and tried to 'drive them into the sea'.

More like if the EU invaded the USA and the Chinese were crying around the EU for their own state. Then the EU declared a small part of Texas to be for the Chinese, while they were personally claiming that their ancestors ruled the entire north american continent thus so should they. Then after a few decades of the EU trying to force a 'chinese state' upon the people of Texas and a few chinese terrorist groups starting stuff as well, the other states finally came in and did something about it.

Then I guess we should have let Germany keep Poland, Czech, France and Austria.
I guess we should have let Saddam keep Kuwait.
I don't see what this has to do with Israelis having thier own country in the place they originated.

Or, if you want to describe it for what it is: "A band of superpowers acting in their own interests." Were Palestinian interests represented in the U.N? Did the U.N have Palestinian representation? And why the fuck does an alliance of foreign nations have the right to steal land from the indigenous inhabitants?
Palestine wasn't a sovereign nation. Israel was.
As to why the UN has the right to make new nations? Their primary member nations have nukes, and thus have the ability to dictate terms to whoever, whenever.

Ad hominem attack. Not that I would expect an ignorant Zionist fuck such as yourself to have even a rudimentary grasp of logic fallacies.

Nor would I have faith in your ability to understand that a body of foreign superpowers which had no Palestinian representation, had no right to carve up land which did not belong to it. This would be equivalent to the EU demanding that America give Texas to the Chinese immigrants, so that they could form a 'Chinese only' state.
Your metaphor doesn't make any sense. The hebrews have lived in what is now Israel for thousands of years. As far any definition of "homeland" is concerned, Israel is the Hebrew people's homeland.


Quite so. And I dare you to tell a Polish citizen 'A band of superpowers stated that your country no longer exists, so they are completely justified in crushing your independence, stealing your land, and oppressing you for 123 years. Each shit, Slav!"
Hey, the Poles fought well and hard against incursion, just not good enough. They bounced back, though.

Quite simply, 'Because the UN said so' is about as convincing as 'because the Allies said so' when Hitler annexed Czechslovakia.
I thought they made Bohemia and Moravia a Protectorate, and Slovakia remained independant...I'll have to go back and check my history textbook...

You have already shown that you have some belief in the jewish race myth...

Most of the european jews are just that, europeans. They have no orgins in Palestine. They tend to be of turkic or slavic decent, so for them to have a country in the place they origionated would be taking a chunk out of eastern ukraine, southwestern russia and part of georgia.

source (http://www.aish.com/societywork/sciencenature/Jewish_Genes.asp)

The research was based on samples from 29 populations, 7 Jewish, categorized into five major divisions: Jews, Middle-Eastern non-Jews, Europeans, North Africans, and sub-Saharan Africans.

The findings were that most Jewish communities -- long separated from one another in Europe, North Africa, the Near East and the Arabian Peninsula -- do indeed seem to be genetically similar and closely related to one another, sharing a common geographical origin.

These Jewish communities are more closely related to each other and to other Middle Eastern Semitic populations -- Palestinians, Syrians, and Druze -- than to their neighboring non-Jewish populations in the Diaspora.

A multi-sided view: source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi#Possible_DNA_Clues)


DNA research may shed some light on Ashkenazi origins. One study [6] indicates that the Y chromosome of both Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews is of Middle Eastern origin, similar to Palestinian, Lebanese and Syrian DNA types. Since the Y chromosome is only passed from father to son, it may be used to trace male origins. Another study looked at Ashkenazi mitochondrial DNA [7] (mtDNA can only be passed from mother to child, and so allows the tracking of maternal origins). According to this study, Ashkenazi mtDNA generally matches that of local European populations and not Middle Eastern populations. These studies could be interpreted as showing that male Jewish traders moved from Middle Eastern and Southern European communities into Northern European communities and married local females in those regions. A more recent study has indicated that about 40% of the current Ashkenazi population are descended matrilineally from just four women.[8] All of these studies are preliminary, and interpretations of data tend to follow commonly accepted historical explanations of Ashkenazi origins. A definitive view must await more exhaustive studies that include larger numbers of subjects from possibly related ethnic groups, as well as more genetic markers.

Racism doesn't necessarily mean the meme of hatred and intolerance; racism can be interpreted merely as "a belief in races"- but there is no scientific basis to assert that there has been more than ONE Human race for some 30,000 years or more.

Not all "scientists" agree with that. In fact, many consider it to be delusional propaganda.

River Ape:

Whilst I do not wish to unjustly anticipate the findings of experimenters...

Your proposed experiment is biased from the start, since you start by classifying people as "Scandinavian" or "Oriental". Based on what? Looks, I suppose. And then you propose - what? - looking at them and assessing their race. And you expect a different conclusion?

Not all "scientists" agree with that. In fact, many consider it to be delusional propaganda.

Name them, and show me their "science."

Maybe they were selected for scandinavian or oriental origins james r.
Do you disagree that if they somehow were selected purely by where their family line originated, the chinese people wouldn't look like the other chinese people, and the scandinavian people wouldn't look like the other scandinavian people?
Do you honestly believe that what we consider an "oriental appearance" has randomly popped up all over the globe since the beginning of humanity?
Were there multiracial tribes in pre-history?

Surely it's more logical to believe the distinct human phenotypes have geographically seperate origins.
That as humans migrated over the globe, populations which would settle in new places would adapt to those places, changing to suit those environments and the lifestyles/cultures that arose amongst each population in their new environments.
Every single little indication points to this.

It's such a worrying trend where good intentions or political agendas are getting in the way of discovering the real truth.
Like this thread, excuse me for thinking you were seriously trying to determine whethers jews were a race.
Oh no, ofcourse there's some political agenda behind it where the truth isn't a concern for anybody.

Hapsburg:

"Then I guess we should have let Germany keep Poland, Czech, France and Austria.
I guess we should have let Saddam keep Kuwait. "

don't see what this has to do with Israelis having thier own country in the place they originated.

Kuwait wasn't once a part of Mesopotamia?
Some Germanic tribes didn't originate in the countries which Hitler annexed?

Even if the majority of the European Jews of today are direct descendants of the ancient Hebrews who lived in the area of Palestine 2000+ years ago, (which is highly doubtful), that is not sound justification for them to dispossess the current inhabitants of the land, who have been LIVING THERE for the past 2000 years.


“ Or, if you want to describe it for what it is: "A band of superpowers acting in their own interests." Were Palestinian interests represented in the U.N? Did the U.N have Palestinian representation? And why the fuck does an alliance of foreign nations have the right to steal land from the indigenous inhabitants? ”

Palestine wasn't a sovereign nation. Israel was.
[quote]
Palestine wasn't a Western nation-state. Your point? Do you truly believe that foreign superpowers have the moral right to dispossess the indigenous inhabitants of the land, merely because it isn't a nation-state? So the Australian Aborigines, Native Indians, and numerous tribes in Africa and Asia, didn't have a claim to the land, because they weren't a Western nation-state?

And I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but Israel was never a nation-state. Israel never existed. The Hebrews were just another band of Canaanites (as even researchers at the university of Tel Aviv have concluded) who lived alongside numerous other bands of Canaanites. There was no nation-state of Israel.

[quote]
As to why the UN has the right to make new nations? Their primary member nations have nukes, and thus have the ability to dictate terms to whoever, whenever

So might makes right? If you're strong enough to enforce your edicts, no matter how unfair they may be, you are morally in the right?


"Nor would I have faith in your ability to understand that a body of foreign superpowers which had no Palestinian representation, had no right to carve up land which did not belong to it. This would be equivalent to the EU demanding that America give Texas to the Chinese immigrants, so that they could form a 'Chinese only' state. ”

Your metaphor doesn't make any sense. The hebrews have lived in what is now Israel for thousands of years. As far any definition of "homeland" is concerned, Israel is the Hebrew people's homeland.

1. Many European Jews today are not the descendant's of the ancient Hebrews. According to the Bible (a lovely piece of fiction), God promised the descendants of Abraham the land from the Niles to the Euphrates. He didn't promise this land to a bunch of arrogant European dipsticks who converted to Judaism 1000+ years later.

2. It is also the Palestinians homeland, given that the Palestinians are the direct descendants of the Canaanites. And I could claim they have stronger ties to the land, given the small fact that they have been living on the land for 2000+ years.

3. Merely because the Israelis occupied the land 2000+ years ago, does not give them the right to dispossess the population inhabiting it today. Should the Scots and Irish dispossess the English of their land, given that their Celtic ancestors inhabited it 1000+ years ago? Should France given Alsace and Lorraine back to the Germans? Should the Greek Orthodoxs be allowed to annex Istanbul and Cyprus? If such logic was employed, there would be mass migrations of many nationalities, given that they have established their civilizations on the remnants of former civilizations.


“ Quite so. And I dare you to tell a Polish citizen 'A band of superpowers stated that your country no longer exists, so they are completely justified in crushing your independence, stealing your land, and oppressing you for 123 years. Each shit, Slav!" ”

Hey, the Poles fought well and hard against incursion, just not good enough. They bounced back, though.

True. The point I was trying to get across is that might does not make right. 'Because an alliance of superpowers said so, so there!' isn't exactly the most comforting or morally correct response to 'WHY DID YOU ANNEX OUR LAND?!'

You have already shown that you have some belief in the jewish race myth...
Myth? Show me proof that the Hebrews of yore no longer exist.

Most of the european jews are just that, europeans. They have no orgins in Palestine. They tend to be of turkic or slavic decent, so for them to have a country in the place they origionated would be taking a chunk out of eastern ukraine, southwestern russia and part of georgia.
Most of the Israelis nowadays were born in Israel. Thus, they're Israeli, not russia, turks, or slavs.

So might makes right? If you're strong enough to enforce your edicts, no matter how unfair they may be, you are morally in the right?
Morals? This is the 21st Century. Morals are obsolete.

2. It is also the Palestinians homeland, given that the Palestinians are the direct descendants of the Canaanites. And I could claim they have stronger ties to the land, given the small fact that they have been living on the land for 2000+ years.
Then why can't they live in Israel peacefully, as Israeli citizens?

Hapsburg:

Then why can't they live in Israel peacefully, as Israeli citizens?

Why can't the Israeli invaders live peacefully as Palestinian citizens?

The Arab (Shepardic) Jews, Christians and Muslims were all living together peacefully in Palestine, until the European Zionists invaded.

Why can't the Israeli invaders live peacefully as Palestinian citizens?
Are they not? Is not "palestine" interchangeable with "israel" when referring to the geographical region?

slavic turkic semetic are all racial stocks, israeli and russian are nationalities...

hebrews exist, but the vast majority of the trash that came from europe to invade Palestine weren't hebrews but slavs and/or turks

but like i said, you have fallen for the 'jewish race myth' which is complete bunk and only an idiot would fall for it

jewish slavs and turks having rights to palestine would be like going to all the catholic mestizo and saying that because they are catholic that obviously their ancestors were jews who converted thus they are also apart of the 'race' and should be able to declare their own war on the others

Dr Lou Natic:

Do you disagree that if they somehow were selected purely by where their family line originated, the chinese people wouldn't look like the other chinese people, and the scandinavian people wouldn't look like the other scandinavian people?

How far back are you going to take the family line? ALL family lines originated in Africa.

Do you honestly believe that what we consider an "oriental appearance" has randomly popped up all over the globe since the beginning of humanity?

Yes. What do you believe?

Were there multiracial tribes in pre-history?

Which period of prehistory? Which region of the world? Why does it matter?

Surely it's more logical to believe the distinct human phenotypes have geographically seperate origins.

What do you mean by "distinct human phenotypes"?

That as humans migrated over the globe, populations which would settle in new places would adapt to those places, changing to suit those environments and the lifestyles/cultures that arose amongst each population in their new environments.
Every single little indication points to this.

I'm not arguing against that. What are you arguing?

It's such a worrying trend where good intentions or political agendas are getting in the way of discovering the real truth. Like this thread, excuse me for thinking you were seriously trying to determine whethers jews were a race.

What features would be needed, according to you, to classify somebody as Jewish? (And do you beleive there is a Jewish race?) My guess is you just look at the person and say "He looks Jewish."

Oh no, ofcourse there's some political agenda behind it where the truth isn't a concern for anybody.

What's your agenda?

ALL family lines originated in Africa.

Some scientists believe parallel evolution occurred, so that's not certain as of yet.

ALL family lines originated in yeast.

hebrews exist, but the vast majority of the trash that came from europe to invade Palestine weren't hebrews but slavs and/or turks

Turks and slavs are trash? What a lovely, tolerant view.

Turks and slavs are trash? What a lovely, tolerant view.

For sake of argument: what if he were right? In the name of "tolerance," you'd ban truth. That's insane. Do you have mental problems?

Not too many, no ... do you?

Could he be right? It's possible ... but only minutely. Certainly there must be some Turks and Slavs who are Nasty People but that's true for any group. The probability that Turks and Slavs uniformly deserve the label trash is close to 0.

It's possible ... but only minutely. Certainly there must be some Turks and Slavs who are Nasty People but that's true for any group.

If enough of them are, other groups won't want them around.

I've observed that every group has Nasty People, but in different proportions.

:m:

Turks and slavs are trash? What a lovely, tolerant view.

A zionist who can't read?

imagine that...

I claimed that most of the trash was turkic/slavic not that most of the turkic/slavic people were trash...

I know way too advanved of grammar for an inferior twat such as yourself...

Then again I bet you aren't even capeable of figureing out what the term trash was referring to...

Free Online Spellchecker (http://www.spellcheck.net/) for those difficult words like 'advanced' :p

Actually, he just got you one but good - you misread his post. Going to apologize, or contest it, or just be a coward?

I apologise.

All immigrants to Palestine trash? What a lovely, tolerant view.

Wrong again:

"hebrews exist, but the vast majority of the trash that came from europe to invade Palestine weren't hebrews but slavs and/or turks"

This right? :D

All European immigrants to Palestine?

(The main reason I contest his viewpoint is that he's expressing it in accordance with his self chosen 'angry-' name. Labelling people as trash, twat, idiot etc just because you don't like them isn't conducive to logical argument.)

Promoting a 'jewish race' isn't conducive to a logical argument.

The bulk of the zionists, most of which resided in the UK USA and parts of continental Europe, that pushed for the invasion and colonization of Palestine weren't members of the native race, but slavs and turks, some of whom actually practiced judiasm. They are nothing but trash, though the rest of the zionist idiots attempt to defend them by trying to float the 'jewish race' myth...

Nowhere have I promoted a Jewish race.

And you're still overgeneralising. To quote myself from another thread (http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=948133#post948133):

-----

(Here's a paragraph from Palestine and Israel: The uprising and Beyond, by David McDowell. The goal of the book, according to him, is a balanced analysis of events leading up to the second intifada, although he admits having more sympathy for the Palestinian cause.)

Early Zionist Settlement

The Uprising occurred a century after the first Zionist settlement in Palestine. In the 1880s, towards the close of the Ottoman period, the first Zionist settlers began to arrive in Palestine, leaving their homes in Russia or eastern Europe as a result of pogroms and persecution. They believed that the dangers to European Jewry, persecution in the east and assimilation in the west, could only be resolved by the establishment of a Jewish nation, able to order its own affairs on its own territory. It was natural that these Zionists should fix upon Palestine, in European eyes a relatively undeveloped land closely connected with the last time, 2,000 years earlier, that the Jews had been a nation. By 1914 85,000 such settlers had arrived in Palestine, amounting 9 percent of the population. For most, it was only after they had arrived in Palestine that they began to appreciate the central moral and practical difficulty facing the Zionist undertaking: that Palestine was already inhabited by half a million Christian and Muslim Arabs.

Zephyr:

(The main reason I contest his viewpoint is that he's expressing it in accordance with his self chosen 'angry-' name. Labelling people as trash, twat, idiot etc just because you don't like them isn't conducive to logical argument.)

Everyone here knows that that is bullshit. You contested it because you thought that he was referring to the Turkish and Slavic races as 'trash', when in fact he wasn't. Ergo, this is an issue of you jumping to conclusions.

BTW, you are aware that even many Polish non-Jewish citizens felt that Polish Jews were trash?

Ergo, this is an issue of you jumping to conclusions.

And labelling someone as an 'inferior twat' who 'can't read' isn't jumping to conclusions? Gimme a break. Everyone makes assumptions at times - it's called reading between the lines. If somebody makes a mistake, it's fair to correct them, but if I contested people on every non-explicit idea they read from my posts, we'd never get anywhere.

BTW, you are aware that even many Polish non-Jewish citizens felt that Polish Jews were trash?

Yes, and the Nazis thought Slavs were trash. Your point?

pointing out the obvious fact that certian people are illiterate is simply that... pointing out an obvious fact

fact
No; fantasy. It is 'fact' that you neglect to start some of your sentences with capital letters, but since this has no bearing on the strength of your arguments I wouldn't normally bother to mention it. To claim that I am illiterate, though, is a laughable tactic which might fool yourself ... but only yourself.

Besides which, you still haven't responded to my modified question. Do you believe all European immigrants to Palestine were trash? I think that's a bigoted view, but note I'm not accusing you of it - I'm asking.

Zephyr:

Yes, and the Nazis thought Slavs were trash. Your point?

You need to ask? Obviously that functional illiteracy of yours is working up again.

It has to do with you assuming that Slavic Zionists = All Slavs.


Everyone makes assumptions at times - it's called reading between the lines.

No, you weren't reading between the lines. As is typical of the political correctness police, you misinterpreted angrybellsprout's statements. I guess it's far easier to call someone a racist, then actually address what they have to say. "You're racist, hence all of your arguments are invalid, end of story!"

You need to ask?

I ask so as to avoid misinterpretation.

It has to do with you assuming that Slavic Zionists = All Slavs.

No, it has to do with opinion. You said:

BTW, you are aware that even many Polish non-Jewish citizens felt that Polish Jews were trash?

Do you think that makes it true? Because a large group of people supposedly believed it? Nazis believed all Slavs were trash, does that make that true?

(This is called 'analogy'.)

As is typical of the political correctness police, you misinterpreted angrybellsprout's statements. I guess it's far easier to call someone a racist, then actually address what they have to say. "You're racist, hence all of your arguments are invalid, end of story!"

I never called him racist.

Zephyr:

I ask so as to avoid misinterpretation.

Usually I wouldn't mind. But you seem to be rather clueless in this thread.


Do you think that makes it true? Because a large group of people supposedly believed it? Nazis believed all Slavs were trash, does that make that true?

You STILL miss the point. I'm not contending that Slavic Jews are trash, moron.
I repeat:
"It has to do with you assuming that Slavic Zionists = All Slavs."

Quite simply, you felt that abs was being racist, because you thought that he was slamming all Slavs and Turks.

This is false. He was slamming Slavic and Turkic Zionists.

Merely because he is slamming Slavic Zionists, doesn't not mean he is slamming the entire Slavic race.

That is why I pointed out that many non-Jewish Slavs felt that Jewish Slavs were trash. You can dislike Slavic Zionists without disliking Slavic non-Zionists. In fact, many Slavic Zionists disliked Slavic non-Zionists, which demonstrates my point quite neatly.

Ye gods, it is like spoon feeding an infant!

Quite simply, you felt that abs was being racist, because you thought that he was slamming all Slavs and Turks.

This is false. He was slamming Slavic and Turkic Zionists.

I changed my question half a page back, before any of your posts on my supposed inability to read. Maybe you forgot to ... read that.

That is why I pointed out that many non-Jewish Slavs felt that Jewish Slavs were trash. You can dislike Slavic Zionists without disliking Slavic non-Zionists. In fact, many Slavic Zionists disliked Slavic non-Zionists, which demonstrates my point quite neatly.

Which makes them prejudiced.

How far back are you going to take the family line? ALL family lines originated in Africa.
And all dogs originated in asia. But german shepherds originated in germany, kangals in turkey, bulldogs in england.
There's a place of origin for each type. When the strains of homo-sapien branched around the world, different types evolved to suit specific areas.
Each with their own unique appearance and culture.
If you know what you're doing you can look at someone and say "that guy's papua new guinean" "a phillipino" "irish" or whatever, by the characteristics he posesses of that human strain.
If you don't believe this is the case, you have to accept that I have esp, because I "get it right" a hell of alot.
According to you a pastey guy with red hair could be a zulu or anything, so I'm pretty good for guessing where peoples' ancestries lie correctly with such consistency. Considering the vast array of options I had.
I've been given no obvious cues from their appearance apparently. So I'm something of a phenomonen.

Yes. What do you believe?
Well, I'm afraid you can't expect to be taken seriously then.
You seriously, with full sincerity, believe it's something of a coincidence that every person of oriental appearance you've encountered was either actually from asia or had parents from asia?
You think it's been an unusual run of chance that you've not yet encountered a "Patrick O'brien" from ireland with full irish ancestry who happens to look like bruce lee?
Or maybe you've met such a Patrick O'brien?

So if I'm understanding you, ghengis khan may well have looked like shaquille o'neal, shakespeare might have looked like ghandi. We shouldn't make assumptions on what they looked like from where they existed right?
If we trekked deep into the kalahari we'd find tribes with members as varied in appearance as the members of the UN?

Which period of prehistory? Which region of the world? Why does it matter?
Oh any old one really, in any region of the world.
It matters because you claim that the "oriental appearance" isn't a phenotype which arose in asia, but rather a random way individual people can look.
By your own admission you believe people of "oriental appearance" have existed at random throughout all populations of human through history.
So it would follow that early tribes would be multiracial.
Not that race exists ofcourse, they'd just look like what "racists" would call multiracial.
If (god forbid) a racist saw an early tribe of people he'd ignorantly and offensively say "there's a nigger pounding grain, a spic sharpening a spear, some chink kids playing with a turtle, a honky making a mud hut" rather than "there's a mob of niggers" because all the people would look like different races to his biggoted eyes but in reality they'd just be 'people'(awww), differing in appearance due to being individuals.

The tribes we've seen in nat geo mags have either been fake and staged to be all black for racist propoganda purposes, OR it was just an unusual coincidence that they all happened to be black, and one of the women might have popped out an oriental or white kid days after the photo shoot. No reason why not.

Correct?

I'm not arguing against that. What are you arguing?
Are you sure you aren't?
This started with you implying that you can't accurately use visual cues to determine someone's origins.
You've gone on to more emphatically indicate this is your view by saying the oriental appearance isn't asiatic in origins but a way in which people from all over the world might happen to look and have happened to look everywhere through history.

Now you're agreeing that different populations of people adapted to different environments around the globe, each population changing to suit their respective environments.

So which is it?

Did a population of homo sapiens which settled in asia evolve what is considered the "oriental appearance", or has it been a random appearance which popped up in all populations.

The latter is just an impossible view to justify, without one hell of a zany conspiracy theory, but hey give it your best shot.

What features would be needed, according to you, to classify somebody as Jewish? (And do you beleive there is a Jewish race?) My guess is you just look at the person and say "He looks Jewish."
I believe there is a jewish race, or more accurately jewish races, because jews have purposefully been breeding with jews only for thousands of years.
This doesn't mean everyone calling themself a jew is part of the jewish race or part of any jewish race.
But people from long lines of jews (and there are jews with comprehensive family trees) have to be considered part of a distinct breed.
Hardly any dog breeds are as old and pure as jews. Many dog breeds were having other breeds crossed into them to restore them just 40 years ago, but they're still considered a breed, because they breed true to type.
Jews breed jews. There's no way around that.

The situation with jews is interesting, as they're a breed which survives multiculturalism where as most homo-sapien strains have traditionally just been seperated by geography.
At the same time it seems many strains naturally tend to breed amongst themselves, seperated loosely by the cultural lifestyles of their people even within multicultural communities.

The fact is, I can pick out jewish people by the way they look.
My esp up to it's old tricks I suppose?
I agree there are european jews and middle eastern jews.
But each can be distinguished from other europeans and other middle easterners.

What's your agenda?
My agenda is getting an accurate view of mankind.
And I get frustrated by the blockades placed on my path for stupid political and so called "ethical" reasons.

I have a similar interest in the history of dog types and breeds. It's a topic I'm fascinated with.
The way in which populations of organism change once seperated, in accordance with the demands of their environments and lifestyles. Isolated breeding populations becoming more and more different from one another over time.
It's interesting for me to analyse the natural habitats and cultures of different populations which share an ancestral population, and see how these factors have shaped the different animals they've become.

Can you honestly say you share my interests?
I suspect not. I suspect your finger is in this pie for reasons not pertaining to understanding the strains of homo sapien.
You seem to have the, essentially admirable, goal of racial tolerance and equality.
But your tactics are dishonest.
You seem scared of the truth, worried it might reveal something which encourages people to be racist.

Did you ever consider that fully understanding the situation down to it's core might be the best most effective path to racial tolerance?
I can't say one dog is better than another because I know each is perfect for a different thing.

If I was one of these races you're so eager to defend I'd be offended by your concerns. I'd get the impression you were worried about what "dirt" would be uncovered once we were fully understood.
Like you suspected we were really inferior, and you were trying to keep the truth from the racists.

Race: An interbreeding, usually geographically isolated population of organisms differing from other populations of the same species in the frequency of hereditary traits. A race that has been given formal taxonomic recognition is known as a subspecies.

With a definition like this, I don't know how people get the idea in their heads that race doesn't exist.

Science bad, liberal propaganda good.

Science bad, liberal propaganda good.
Oh, and like conservative, religionist, antiscientific propaganda is actually resonable? :rolleyes:

I know because I'm bringing religion into things and ignoring the scientific fact of the slavic and turkic races being the root of most of the euorpean jews.

Instead we should just all agree that anyone who follows Judiasm is automatically a semetic person who can trace their ancestory to Abraham...

Race: An interbreeding, usually geographically isolated population of organisms differing from other populations of the same species in the frequency of hereditary traits.

But the vast majority of human beings have not been geographically isolated in the last 10,000 years or so, which is the time within which all so-called races have evolved.

The human genome lacks so much diversity that if all the people on Earth except those in sub-Saharan Africa were wiped out tomorrow, practically all the genetic diversity of the human species would still exist in various individuals left alive.

Dr Lou Natic:

When the strains of homo-sapien branched around the world, different types evolved to suit specific areas.

Only to a small degree. But in the modern era, certainly over the last 100 years or so, all of those types have become hopelessly intermingled, in a genetic sense. No human these days is really isolated from the gene pool.

If you know what you're doing you can look at someone and say "that guy's papua new guinean" "a phillipino" "irish" or whatever, by the characteristics he posesses of that human strain.

I seriously doubt it. You might be able to say "That guy looks like he might have had Irish ancestors somewhere in the past".

Can you tell an American from an Irishman, just by looking? Can you tell a Tongan from a Maori?

According to you a pastey guy with red hair could be a zulu or anything...

Well, yes. No nation in the world is populated by people who all have genes which no other human on Earth possesses.

You seriously, with full sincerity, believe it's something of a coincidence that every person of oriental appearance you've encountered was either actually from asia or had parents from asia?

But that's not true. Are you American? If so, I assume you've met some third- or fourth-generation Asian-looking Americans. Where do you draw the line at saying somebody has ceased to be Asian? How many generations back do you go?

The fact is, you don't classify people that way, do you? You don't look at their ancestry. You just glance at them, then apply a label according to how they look to you.

You think it's been an unusual run of chance that you've not yet encountered a "Patrick O'brien" from ireland with full irish ancestry who happens to look like bruce lee?

What's "full Irish ancestry"?

So if I'm understanding you, ghengis khan may well have looked like shaquille o'neal, shakespeare might have looked like ghandi. We shouldn't make assumptions on what they looked like from where they existed right?

We can make likely guesses of how they may have looked. More to the point, though, we can't assume much else about them, even if they looked as we might guess.

If we trekked deep into the kalahari we'd find tribes with members as varied in appearance as the members of the UN?

Most likely, no. But their genetic diversity could be about the same as the members of the UN.

It matters because you claim that the "oriental appearance" isn't a phenotype which arose in asia, but rather a random way individual people can look. By your own admission you believe people of "oriental appearance" have existed at random throughout all populations of human through history.

You draw an arbitrary line between people of "oriental" and other appearances. That line is, most probably, peculiarly individual to you. If you got down to the nitty-gritty, you'd probably find that you could find examples of people that you would call "oriental" but others would call some other race.

So it would follow that early tribes would be multiracial.

Goes without saying, since practically all the current genetic diversity of the human species already existed in those early tribes in Africa.

Not that race exists ofcourse, they'd just look like what "racists" would call multiracial.

Now you're getting it! The construction of the notion of "race" is actually quite recent, especially in America. Years before the civil war, the political distinction between "black" and "white" practically didn't exist in American discourse.

If (god forbid) a racist saw an early tribe of people he'd ignorantly and offensively say "there's a nigger pounding grain, a spic sharpening a spear, some chink kids playing with a turtle, a honky making a mud hut" rather than "there's a mob of niggers" because all the people would look like different races to his biggoted eyes but in reality they'd just be 'people'(awww), differing in appearance due to being individuals.

Correct. Racist terms seek to destroy individuality, and replace it with generic stereotypes - always for political reasons.

The tribes we've seen in nat geo mags have either been fake and staged to be all black for racist propoganda purposes, OR it was just an unusual coincidence that they all happened to be black, and one of the women might have popped out an oriental or white kid days after the photo shoot. No reason why not.

You don't see the diversity in those tribes. All you can see is their skin colour. That says a lot about you, but not much about them.

This started with you implying that you can't accurately use visual cues to determine someone's origins.

I could line up 6 people, all born in America, right now, and you would go ahead and classify them into 6 different "races". So, I am completely correct in saying you can't use race to determine an individual's origins.

Where do you live? The United States? If so, I could guarantee that I could find a black African person, or somebody from Mongolia, or somebody from Iceland perhaps, who would share more genetic similarities with you than your "white", American next-door neighbour.

Did a population of homo sapiens which settled in asia evolve what is considered the "oriental appearance", or has it been a random appearance which popped up in all populations.

During a period of relative geographic isolation, such a population did indeed develop in Asia. But that period is now long gone. All the genes from that population are now found in individuals all over the world. Chances are that you have some of them.

I believe there is a jewish race, or more accurately jewish races, because jews have purposefully been breeding with jews only for thousands of years.

You are thinking, of course, only of that subset of people for which this is true, and who now call themselves "Jewish". At the same time, you ignore the people of Jewish ancestry for which that did not occur - those who, for various reasons, decided to breed outside the Jewish religion. Do you deny that such people exist, even today? To do so would be foolishly naive.

This doesn't mean everyone calling themself a jew is part of the jewish race or part of any jewish race.

Correct. Thus, racial labels don't always say something meaningful, do they?

Hardly any dog breeds are as old and pure as jews.

Hardly any dog breeds are as "pure" as the entire human species.

Jews breed jews.

Not always.

The fact is, I can pick out jewish people by the way they look.

So you keep saying.

My esp up to it's old tricks I suppose?

It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. You label people in certain ways. Why should anybody be surprised that your labels match your prejudices?

My agenda is getting an accurate view of mankind.

For what purpose? How is your concept of "race" useful?

The way in which populations of organism change once seperated, in accordance with the demands of their environments and lifestyles. Isolated breeding populations becoming more and more different from one another over time.

But human beings have not separated over the last several thousand years. If anything, they have got closer and closer together.

I suspect your finger is in this pie for reasons not pertaining to understanding the strains of homo sapien.
You seem to have the, essentially admirable, goal of racial tolerance and equality.
But your tactics are dishonest.
You seem scared of the truth, worried it might reveal something which encourages people to be racist.

No. I know people are racist for illogical reasons, to do with the way they were brought up. I only wish it was possible to logically argue racists out of their bigotry, but it's very difficult to argue somebody out of something they weren't argued into in the first place.

Did you ever consider that fully understanding the situation down to it's core might be the best most effective path to racial tolerance?
I can't say one dog is better than another because I know each is perfect for a different thing.

But that's the point of the race debate. Different human "races" are just labels. At best, they indicate superficial differences. But the racist assumption is that the superficial differences are just surface manifestations of deep and important differences between different people. All the (modern, non-political) science shows that to be a deeply flawed view. Nobody is "better" just because they have white skin. And you can't say much more about a person if the only thing you know about them is that they have white skin.

There seems to be a lot of ideology on this thread and little scientific discussion.

What do readers here think of Cavalli-Sforza's work? Since the genome of a mouse is 99 percent similar to a human being's and the chimp is 99.9 percent the same as a human, we should focus on what the differences provide since those local developments are the unique aspects that we appreciate, whether called race or ethnicity or any other label.

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,56953,00.html

Ideology, such as "we should focus on [whatever] differences"- no thanks; it's the same, tired, wreckless idiocy of Steve Sailer, Ann Coulter, et al, all over again.

Racism is fundamentally a belief in "races"... you wanna believe, kid?

Knock yourself the fuck out-








Way out.

To deny the existance of race is just intentionally running away from science...

Abraham...
Didn't exist.

A'ight...riddle me this: If jews aren't a race, then why are some people called "Jewish-Americans", in the same manner as americans of african descent are called "African-Americans"?

To deny the existance of race is just intentionally running away from science...

Depends on what you mean by race; I'm betting it's unscientific, making you the first to flee.

If not, then you're just trolling.

race == sub-species == breed

all depending on the type of organism that you are talking about...

Didn't exist.

A'ight...riddle me this: If jews aren't a race, then why are some people called "Jewish-Americans", in the same manner as americans of african descent are called "African-Americans"?

That's a poor argument. It is better to speak of genetic groupings that establish a racial population.

Jews suffer a much higher frequency for the following diseases:

Bloom's Syndrome
Canavan Disease
Familial Dysautonomia
Fanconia Anemia
Gaucher Disease
Mucolipidosis IV
Niemann-Pick Disease
Tay-Sachs Disease
Torsion Dystonia

http://www.mazornet.com/genetics/index.asp
http://www.mssm.edu/jewish_genetics/genetic_diseases.shtml
http://www.geneticstesting.com/patient_info/jewish_diseases.htm

Doctors and other scientists accept the fact of race because it can help to diagnose and treat disorders. To deny this information is harmful to the patient and an exercise in deliberate ignorance for the sake of political correctness.

race == sub-species == breed

all depending on the type of organism that you are talking about...

We're discussing Humans, and I won't let you cower out by changing the subject.

You're equivocating the old idea of what "race" is with a taxonometric classification which is nonexistent within Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

...

As predicted, you've proffered an unscientific label where one doesn't exist _or_ belong.

The HGP shows that there is more genetic variation within ethnic subgroups than between them. This is settled science. As is mDNA research, which measures matrilinear inheritance; in our case- back to some 6 or 7 possible mothers about 12,000 years ago, and further to a single mother about 150,000 years ago in Northern Africa.

...

If you don't grasp the fundamental anthropologial meaning (http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm) of the term race, then you won't understand the following sentence:

All Humans living today are one race; their only competitor "race" (Homo Neanderthalis) died out or was absorbed within the past 30,000 years.

That is also settled science.

...

Again for the retards- it is equivocation (logical fallacy; semantic trick) of the term race to mean species and subspecies both; forget that it isn't even a valid scientific taxonometric division to begin with.

In the case of Humans, specifically, there are no such subspecies (which are sufficiently different or isolated from one another for a racial distinction).

Only arbitrary phenotypic, geographic, cultural or ethnic division...

Based on subjective preferences, fostered in ignorance.

There is a human subspecies - Homo sapiens sapiens, of which every modern human is a part.

To be honest, I cannot answer the following. What are people's thoughts on this:
The external differences which can be used to genertically divide up the world's human population into "races" are due to differences in genes of which the amount is an order of magnitude below the differences between dog breeds.
The differences between a caucasian and an asian are certainly due to adaption to geographical locations over time, however, they are not nearly significant enough to be considered distinct breeds by modern taxonomists (politics aside).

This is my gut reaction, but to be honest, people are so afraid of hurting other people's feelings that I've never really seen genetic evidence to back this up.
The only data I have seen is the "there is more genetic difference inside any given "race" than between them and another "race"; but this does not speak directly to the question.

To deny the existance of race is just intentionally running away from science...

The point is not that race doesn't exist. Clearly, the concept of race is used for all kinds of things by all kinds of people.

The point is that race is not a biologically helpful model, except perhaps as a pointer to distant links to a particular geographical region.

There is a human subspecies - Homo sapiens sapiens, of which every modern human is a part.

Yes, Modern in the paleontological sense, not simply "those alive today."


The external differences which can be used to genertically divide up the world's human population into "races" are due to differences in genes of which the amount is an order of magnitude below the differences between dog breeds.

Nope, no comparison (on a percentage difference). Canines are much different... (they can interbreed outside normal species grouping; foxes, wolves, et al) only point i beg to differ on. Sorry.

In Humans, external differences being "race" date back several hundred years, and a plurality of Human subspecies has been utterly destroyed for about three years now.



The differences between a caucasian and an asian are certainly due to adaption to geographical locations over time, however, they are not nearly significant enough to be considered distinct breeds by modern taxonomists (politics aside).

Not adaptation to a location, but close; one doesn't adapt to a continent or mountain range.

There are presently no "sufficiently isolated" populations of Humans to speciate.


This is my gut reaction, but to be honest, people are so afraid of hurting other people's feelings that I've never really seen genetic evidence to back this up.

You might visit :

http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/faq/faqs1.shtml



The only data I have seen is the "there is more genetic difference inside any given "race" than between them and another "race"; but this does not speak directly to the question.

Yes it does, and that is exactly why it is not "race" which most people mistakenly attempt to compare; it is genetic variation within groups of karyotypes, and between groups of phenotypes. I apologize if that seems poorly phrased.

As I've said before, the belief in races is even more prevalent than theism.

That's supremely dangerous, memetically.


All the Best to You.

So we have established that Jews are an ethnic group (or rather, two, Ashkenazi and Sephardi)?

Not all Jews (and certainly not all Israelis-) are of tribal lineage, many were cultural converts. I'd say modern Jewishness (not Judaism, ofcourse) is cultural when speaking about its entirety ("all jews are blah blah blah"), and an ethnicity when speaking about their origins; it's the difference between who they are versus whence they came.

Historically, it looks like fewer than 10% converted. Judaism seems to be a religion, an ethnicity, a language (Hebrew) and a culture - the whole thing together forms the Jewish nation.

In Humans, external differences being "race" date back several hundred years, and a plurality of Human subspecies has been utterly destroyed for about three years now.
Please translate/explain! This seems to be a very confused sentence emanating from a very confused mind.

This seems to be a very confused sentence emanating from a very confused mind.

Actually, confused sentences sometimes emanate from minds so clear that they can't imagine anyone else not understanding their ideas ;)

lol. good comment, zephyr! :)



querty mob: you raise an interesting point; that not only dog breeds, but dog species have the ability to reproduce and create viable offspring.
This was a question I've had for years: if the definition of species requires the ability to produce viable offspring under natural circumstances, then why are wolves and domestic dogs considered different species?

As our understanding of genetics changes our taxinomic classifications, should we re-think our definitions of species? Possibly adding a quantitative qualification; genetic difference teired into buckets of increasing percentage difference? Possibly placing weighted importance on the genes that have a more direct effect on reproduction?

If so, then the question of human "races" could easily be put to bed with real numbers.

Does anyone know of, say the percentage of genetic difference between a black lab and a golden retriever? Or a husky and a chihuahua?

I doubt that it is much...

Please translate/explain! This seems to be a very confused sentence emanating from a very confused mind.

The old notion of "race" is one of external differences (phenotypes), but it is now "settled" science (as of three years ago), with the close of the Human Genome Project (1990-2003), that even the modern genetic description of "race" as subspecies (regarding Humans) has no basis.

There are no Human subspecies which are sufficiently isolated, or varied, to qualify as "distinct from Homo Sapiens Sapiens."

...

As one with a profound (but indeed extraprofessional) interest in Paleoanthropology and Archaeology, I'm not content with present Human taxa either, but it's simply not within my means to influence any kind of change.

For example, it's almost humorous that our species (Homo Sapiens) has an "ordained" subspecies of "Sapiens" also, since (even in Latin) it's redundant (which isn't exactly wise), and really describes nothing of scientific or genetic worth.

...

Besides, there's a good case that a great many persons fail to meet even a loose interpretation of "sapience"... particularly around here.

Myself included.

;)

The old notion of "race" is one of external differences (phenotypes), but it is now "settled" science (as of three years ago), with the close of the Human Genome Project (1990-2003), that even the modern genetic description of "race" as subspecies (regarding Humans) has no basis.


Far from true. Some scientists have made that claim, but there is no universal support for it.

As usual, wishful/moral thinking intrudes on reality.

Point to what is false then, not that with which you will argue is merely contested, and explain what this "universal support" is- which destroys my views, but permits yours.


As usual, wishful/moral thinking intrudes on reality.

My, what an unflattering mischaracterization of a materialist with a purely scientific world view.

I reject it's implications; that you're deliberately straying from the subject, and that you can't better articulate your position.

What is false is the method of measurement. And since race is historically accepted, I don't need to prove anything. You did. You failed.

What is false is the method of measurement.

Then what is the "true" "method of measurement" of "race"... "historically"?

Bald assertion?

I would be very wary of using historical classification as justification for race - such classification did indeed use morphological factors to define races, but was way too politically charged to be relied on.

If, ten years after the classification of the "negro" race, scientists had decided that there was no true division with the Caucasian race, no one would have said anything. Doing so would have put in jeopardy thier families and thier own lives - too much money was involved for the idea to just go awayike a puff of smoke.

There is also a distinct ethnic group within the religion of Judaism, due to their relative social isolation. I believe the notion of race is inaccurate.
When one's mother is a Jew, (s)he is also officially (according to their religion) a Jew. Whether (s)he believes Jewish bullshit or not.

If either of a person's parents are American, then the child is American. That doesn't mean that there is an American race.

If either of a person's parents are American, then the child is American. That doesn't mean that there is an American race.

Jew doesn't apply to people from a certain country. According to their religion, you are a Jew when you have a Jewish mother, even if you reject Jewish teachings, so it isn't really religion either. Then what is it? I know that there is no such thing as a Jewish race, but Jews themselves like to believe that they are a race. Are there even races? One could argue that homo sapiens is the only human race in existence...

And prove it scientifically; more variation within karyotypes than between phenotypes.

Ta Da.

The old notion of "race" is one of external differences (phenotypes), but it is now "settled" science (as of three years ago), with the close of the Human Genome Project (1990-2003), that even the modern genetic description of "race" as subspecies (regarding Humans) has no basis.
Do I understand you to mean that you are abolishing "race" by giving it a "modern genetic description" such that it ceases to exist? I do not believe I have ever used the word to mean "subspecies". I doubt that any of the people who have been arguing for the undeniable reality of race have meant "subspecies". Why have you been attacking us for using "race" in the usual useful and practical everyday meaning of the word?

Q: Isn’t there actually more genetic distance between populations within the traditional human races than between the major races themselves?

In 1972, Richard Lewontin studied global variation at seventeen protein polymorphisms,[69] and found that about 85% of genetic variation existed between individuals within a given population. The next largest portion, about 8%, was found between populations within continents, with the remaining 6% of variance attributable to differences between the major human races (Fig. 2). The ~85% within-population figure has been affirmed numerous times, while the relative size of the other components of variance probably depends on the specific populations chosen for analysis, and is often the reverse of Lewontin's findings. In any event, many data sets have been assembled since 1972 for classical polymorphisms and all other genetic markers, and as a general rule, populations within continents are more closely related to one another than they are to the populations of other continents. This pattern can be seen in any matrix of global genetic distances, such as those assembled by Cavalli-Sforza et al. in The History and Geography of Human Genes.

Population genetic studies often report AMOVA statistics (Analysis of MOlecular VAriance), which show the hierarchical proportions of variance between aggregates of the individuals sampled. The following is a discussion of worldwide data on autosomal microsatellites and RFLPs, Alu insertions, mtDNA and Y chromosome STRPs:

“The hierarchical AMOVA analysis shows that, with the exception of Y STRPs, all systems show much less differentiation between populations within continents than between continents. This result is expected when there is greater gene flow between populations that are in close geographic proximity to one another. The autosomal values…are especially small, ranging from 1.3% for the RSPs to 1.8% for the Alu polymorphisms. This is in agreement with the small continental GST values shown in table 4…they are highly consistent both with one another and with previous analyses of worldwide variation in autosomal microsatellites and RFLPs, which also show considerably greater differentiation between continents than between populations within continents... The fact that there is little differentiation between populations within continents has important implications in the forensic setting, in that it supports the current practice of grouping reference populations into broad ethnic categories when autosomal STRP data are used...” [73] (Fig. 3)

http://www.goodrumj.com/RFaqHTML.html

Q: Isn’t there actually more genetic distance between populations within the traditional human races than between the major races themselves?

In 1972 [...]

You do understand the implications of that, right? -that there is more genetic variance (distance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_distance) is probably the more correct term when comparing actual ethnicities, but variance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_variation) covers all possible mutations in Human genotypes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genotype)) between just dark-skinned people than between the average dark-skinned Human and the average light-skinned Human.

That is what is meant by "more variation within karyotypes than between phenotypes."

Phenotypes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenotypes) are the sum of external traits which make up physical appearance in individuals; height, weight, symmetry, melanin content, etc... and karyotypes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karyotype) are the sum of all (46 +/-) chromosomes within individuals.

This "traditional human races" nonsense has no scientific basis, it's purely arbitrary, cultural, and ideological; since those divisions were based SOLEY on physical traits (phenotypes); in particular, skin tone, and hair and iris color (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanocytes). When anthropologists (http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm) discuss Human races it is within the context that it is a social meme (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme). Evolutionary Paleoanthropologists were among the first to sidestep the "race" trap when discussing Human speciation and descent, and use it for taxonometric descriptions at the subspecies level and for groups of subspecies that are related over time; it's not sophistry that there is presently only one Human "race" (in the taxonomic (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=taxonomy) meaning of the word), because there are no other competing Human races, and haven't been for some 30,000 years or so.

It is sophistry (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sophistry) that multiple Human races exist today, since there is no scientific basis to assert it; only cultural memes and ignorance.

...

My position on Racism is that the term is most simply defined as "a belief in a plurality of present day Human races."

Most people aren't even aware of this significant advance, but it has the potential to be the greatest Human paradigm shift of this millenium. As mDNA research has revealed, every Human being alive today had a maternal ancestor who lived about 150,000 years ago.

Never before has it been clearer who we are and where we came from, and when.

What's another thousand years...

Jew doesn't apply to people from a certain country. According to their religion, you are a Jew when you have a Jewish mother, even if you reject Jewish teachings, so it isn't really religion either. Then what is it?
Well, the Jews are a very commercial people, FuJiMan . . . maybe we should describe them as a "brand"! :eek:

It is sophistry that multiple Human races exist today, since there is no scientific basis to assert it; only cultural memes and ignorance.
Qwerty, I have lived in London -- one of the most racially diverse cities in the world -- and worked at University College London -- one of its most racially diverse institutions. If I am in a room with three Japanese, four Somalis, and five Bangladeshis, the racial division of our group is probably the factor of which we are all most aware; along, perhaps, with the division between male and female. If there were striking differences in age or dress, these might also make an immediate impact on our sense.

Now, if you want to have a scientific debate about whether or not there are differences between karyotypes that give rise to "subspecies", you are welcome to do so, but please do not confuse this with what people (including scientists like myself) commonly refer to as race.

Take your head out of a genetics textbook (or its internet equivalent) and LOOK and OBSERVE the world about you. What word do you want me to use instead of race to describe race, and by what right do you claim permission?

Qwerty, I have lived in London -- one of the most racially diverse cities in the world -- and worked at University College London -- one of its most racially diverse institutions. If I am in a room with three Japanese, four Somalis, and five Bangladeshis, the racial division of our group is probably the factor of which we are all most aware; along, perhaps, with the division between male and female. If there were striking differences in age or dress, these might also make an immediate impact on our sense.

Now, if you want to have a scientific debate about whether or not there are differences between karyotypes that give rise to "subspecies", you are welcome to do so, but please do not confuse this with what people (including scientists like myself) commonly refer to as race.

Take your head out of a genetics textbook (or its internet equivalent) and LOOK and OBSERVE the world about you. What word do you want me to use instead of race to describe race, and by what right do you claim permission?

Well now, are Japanese, Somalis, and Bangladeshis really racial divisions? -or simply geopolitical labels for cultural and ethnic characteristics... if one wants those diverse and "exotropic" categorizations to all be "race, races or racial"- they do so without the need for anyone's permission, or right, for the sake of convention, and in my opinion- at their own peril.

Because we are each the sum of our genes and our memes (or mores), the belief in "racialism" amounts to a cross-generational and cross-cultural perpetuation of a myth- via linguistic and logical equivocation of the term, AND that this is so because it is simply expedient (or laziness) to do so (lump many/most/all of our differences into a single category), rather than logically, semantically, or scientifically accurate.

...

Now- drop the condescending tone, before I hit someone with my Genetics textbook!

;)

Well, qwerty, would you say it was expedient or lazy to describe British pillar boxes as red? I would say that it was a rather evident element in the description of a pillar box. The fact that I found "red" an unsatisfactory word from a scientific aspect (and often applied to vermilion or carmine) would not alter this judgement. I would be inclined to take a rather condescending tone towards a scientist who told me that my imagining it was red was due to a cultural meme or ignorance -- even if he were kind enough to enlighten me by informing me that what was really important was that it had a slot for posting letters and a door for taking them out.

River Ape -- a believer in reddism, bluism, and greenism :D

It's nice to see that even you don't take your comparison seriously, but it's a shame you have no logical or evidentiary rebuttal for my position.

Run down to a "red" and drop me a post sometime.

All the Best to you.

Well, qwerty, would you say it was expedient or lazy to describe British pillar boxes as red?
To call a color red is inaccurate and ignorant, as there are many shades of red and no firm line of "redness" and "non-redness". Is maroon a red? Where do you draw the line?

Color spectrum theory proves that there is a vast variance under which you wish to group all things with the arbitrary label "red." There is no such scientific correspondence, therefore all color labels are false and must be abolished.

In other words, J.B has nothing to add but can't stand being ignored.

Aw.

It's nice to see that even you don't take your comparison seriously, but it's a shame you have no logical or evidentiary rebuttal for my position.
The comparison was a reasonable though limited one, I believe. Your logic seems to run along very similar lines to that deployed by firecross.

If, because I recognise the inescapable everyday reality of race, you also believe me to hold certain traditional "racist" views as part of some kind of cultural inheritance, I can only tell you that you are mistaken. I have no interest in rebutting the idea that there are no human "subspecies" because it is not one that I hold.

As regards evidence, earlier in this thread I suggested an interesting experiment you could try for yourself. :cool:

Well now, are Japanese, Somalis, and Bangladeshis really racial divisions?

Yes. Japanese are a different population than Chinese or Koreans.

If the Bible is mostly myth, as it seems to be, what right do the Jews claim to justify their presence in the so-called holy land, and what genetic connection, if any do modern-day Jews have to the Jewish race of 2-3000 years ago, when the original Israel existed? :confused:

The same type of genetic connection all humans have to thier early homonid ancestors. I'm sure a large amount of the Jews in Israel are direct descendants of the original migrators.

No one alive today is related to Homo Neanderthalensis, rather, we're not descended from them. HSS split off the homonid tree later and evolved more recently supplanting them on every continent between 20,000 and 30,000 years ago.

Neanderthals aren't our ancestors. They were our cousins.

The whole "who's land is it" debate is stupid.
It belongs to whoever can obtain it.
You don't just get land, you have to earn it.
If jews and palestinians both want it they need to fight, simple as that.
Both sides are just big fucking babies.
Who do they think is going to step in and slap the wrist of the other baby they're having a disagreement with? You want the land take it. If you can't, stop being such a pussy bitch. Stop whining and waiting for some "daddy" to come and help.
Pack up your rocks and camels and become nomadic desert people.

I've never seen such a shamefull display. They just roll around on their backs crying because the other "bad mans" want the same land they want.
What the fuck?

And you're claiming these aren't distinct breeds of people?
Only jews and arabs would or could, when faced by such a scenario, make a nasal whine so loud the world is deafened by it.

If jews and palestinians both want it they need to fight, simple as that.
They did. In 1948. Israel won, and earned thier sovereignty.

Neanderthals [...] were our cousins.
Right, but not literally.

And you're claiming these aren't distinct breeds of people? Only jews and arabs would or could, when faced by such a scenario, make a nasal whine so loud the world is deafened by it.
Serbs, Croats
Hutus, Tootsies

There are plenty of other instances (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_cleansing), and worse (http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB174/1010.pdf), which the world ignored.

If the Bible is mostly myth, as it seems to be, what right do the Jews claim to justify their presence in the so-called holy land, and what genetic connection, if any do modern-day Jews have to the Jewish race of 2-3000 years ago, when the original Israel existed? :confused:

Cohanim (plural of Cohen) are the priestly family of the Jewish people, members of the Tribe of Levi.The books of Exodus and Leviticus describe the responsibilities of the Cohanim, which include the Temple service and blessing of the people. The Torah (the first five books of the Bible) describes the anointing of Aaron, the brother of Moses, as the first High Priest (Cohen Gadol).

In the first study, as reported in the prestigious British science journal, Nature (January 2, 1997), 188 Jewish males were asked to contribute some cheek cells from which their DNA was extracted for study. Participants from Israel, England and North America were asked to identify whether they were a Cohen, Levi or Israelite, and to identify their family background.

The results of the analysis of the Y chromosome markers of the Cohanim and non-Cohanim were indeed significant. A particular marker, (YAP-) was detected in 98.5 percent of the Cohanim, and in a significantly lower percentage of non-Cohanim.

http://www.aish.com/societywork/sciencenature/the_cohanim_-_dna_connection.asp

To say race doesn't exist is an oversimplification of modern genetic evidence by science writers, what people really mean when they say that "race doesn't exist" is that the idea of "racial stocks" used by racists is a meaningless concept in modern populational genetics. From Wiki:

One of the crucial innovations in reconceptualizing genotypic and phenotypic variation was anthropologist C. Loring Brace's observation that such variations, insofar as they are affected by natural selection, migration, or genetic drift, are distributed along geographic gradations called "clines" (Brace 1964). This point called attention to a problem common to phenotypic-based descriptions of races (for example, those based on hair texture and skin color): they ignore a host of other similarities and difference (for example, blood type) that do not correlate highly with the markers for race. Thus, anthropologist Frank Livingstone's conclusion that, since clines cross racial boundaries, "there are no races, only clines" (Livingstone 1962: 279). In 1964, biologists Paul Ehrlich and Holm pointed out cases where two or more clines are distributed discordantly—for example, melanin is distributed in a decreasing pattern from the equator north and south; frequencies for the haplotype for beta-S hemoglobin, on the other hand, radiate out of specific geographical points in Africa (Ehrlich and Holm 1964). As anthropologists Leonard Lieberman and Fatimah Linda Jackson observe, "Discordant patterns of heterogeneity falsify any description of a population as if it were genotypically or even phenotypically homogeneous" (Lieverman and Jackson 1995).

In everyday speech, race often describes populations better defined as ethnic groups, often leading to discrepancies between scientific views on race and popular usage of the term. For instance in many parts of the United States, categories such as Hispanic or Latino are viewed to constitute a race, though others see Hispanic as a linguistic and cultural grouping coming from a variety of backgrounds. In Europe, such a distinction, suggesting that South Europeans are not European or white, would seem odd at least or possibly even insulting. In the United States, in what is referred to as the one-drop rule, the term Black subsumes people with a broad range of ancestries under one label, even though many who are termed Black could be more accurately described as white through simple anthropologic or taxonomic method. In much of Europe groups such as Roma and Turks are commonly defined as racially distinct from White Europeans, though these groups could be considered "Caucasian" by old physical anthropological methods which employed finite nose measurements as the standard form of racial classifaction.

Some argue it is preferable when considering biological relations to think in terms of populations, and when considering cultural relations to think in terms of ethnicity, rather than of race. Instead of classing people into one "group", say "Caucasians" or Europeans you have Britons, Frenchmen, Germans, Nords, western Slavs and Celts rather than having a term implying a (possible) ancestory group in the Caucasus which is definitely too distant for any real consideration, and moreover reaching to groups including eastern Slavs, Roma, as well as Georgians, and others who differ notably, both in culture, and to a noteworthy extent in physical appearance, from the aforementioned ethnic groups. There can be as much difference between two ethnicities grouped into a single "race" as there can be between ethnicities grouped (often arbitrarily) into an another "race".

These developments had important consequences. For example, some scientists developed the notion of "population" to take the place of race. This substitution is not simply a matter of exchanging one word for another. Populations are, in a sense, simply statistical clusters that emerge from the choice