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! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
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 Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
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.
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.
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. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
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? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
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.
Right, but not literally. Serbs, Croats Hutus, Tootsies There are plenty of other instances, and worse, which the world ignored.
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: On the topic of Jews, they are an ethnic group (or more correctly, 3 ethnic groups, the Ashkenazim, the Sephardim, and middle-eastern Jews) of Near-Eastern extraction, as is shown by genetic studues (such as a genetic haplotype often called "Aaron's Y Chromosome," also found in other Semetic-speaking ethnicities). The Khazar hypothesis of the origin of the Ashkenazim has been falsified by recent genetic evidence (there were a buch of Khazars who coverted to the Jewish RELIGION, but they eventually became muslims, and made no marks on ethnic Jews). Oh, and The Hebrews did not wipe out the Canaanites, they WERE the Canaanites, they started out worshipping the same gods as thier fellow Canaanites in Phoenecia did, and only became fully monotheistic after the Babylonian exile. There is little diference between Jews and Palestinians genetically, the differences are cultural. Jews sure don't look European to me, they look like any other people of the eastern Mediterranean.
Ethnic Jews are a mix of Arabs and Europeans. Back in Jesus' day every Jew was of middle eastern descent, but now after the creation of Israel they've been mixed with the Jewish peoples that have lived in Europe through the medieval ages, and now came to israel.
I think I should mention (just in case, by some incredible fluke, someone missed that excellent slog-fest) that the "Khazarene hypothesis" and the "Jews are not related to Palestinians and therefore have no 'genetic right' hypothesis" have been extensively refuted on another thread. In short: the Khazar-Levy group comprises a tiny percentage of Jewish people worldwide; the majority is Judah (for which modern Jewish people derive their appelation) followed to a lesser degree by Benjamin. Levy (of which Cohen is a part) represents the descendants of the priestly classes, not the mainstay of modern Judaism. So if one were going to argue that Jewish people are no genetically different from Europeans, one would be in error. You could make that argument about Levy, possibly; but Jewish determination of "Jewishness" rests on matrilineal, not patrilineal inheritance (although, within Judaism per se, much emphasis is placed on paternal descent) and so the best measure of differentiation would be mitochondrial DNA, since this is maternally inherited. I believe that all of the extant Jewish groups have high mtDNA similarity. As for the "no genetic right" hypothesis, functional gene assays indicate extensive similarity between European Jewish people, Occidental Jewish people and Palestinians. Which is to say: there is no genetic differentiation among these groups, and if one were to argue against 'right-of-return' on some bizarre genetic basis, one would be in error, as no such differentiation exists. Thanks. Geoff
