The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Forensic Anthropology: Forensic Anthropologists Might Not be True Believers in Race Does Not Exist!
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Forensic anthropologists are the physical anthropologists with calipers (that most evil of all scientific instruments) who are called in by the cops to determine the sex and race of the skeletons of murder victims found in shallow graves in the woods.

Even though in theory that shouldn’t work, because, as we all have been told repeatedly, Race Does Not Exist Biologically, in practice, forensic anthropologists are pretty good at their jobs.

From Forensic Anthropology, a paper complaining that forensic anthropologists don’t really believe that Race Does Not Exist. Instead, forensic anthropologists have mostly stopped using the word “race” and started using the word “ancestry,” but “virtually no studies considered the possibility that skeletal variation reflected embodied social inequity.” After all, isn’t it obvious that blacks tend to have proportionally longer lower leg bones due to, uh, redlining?

Assumed Differences; Unquestioned Typologies: The Oversimplification of Race and Ancestry in Forensic Anthropology

Published: Aug 26, 2021

Sean D. Tallman
Department of Anatomy and Neurobiology, Boston University School of Medicine; Department of Anthropology, Boston University

Nicolette M. Parr
Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency

Allysha P. Winburn
Department of Anthropology, University of West Florida

Abstract
Forensic anthropologists traditionally estimate “race” or “ancestry” as part of the biological profile. While practitioners may have changed the terms used to describe regionally patterned human skeletal variation, the degree to which they have altered their typological approaches remains unclear. This study analyzed 119 peer-reviewed forensic anthropology articles published in four relevant journals (1966–2020) by matching combination(s) of the key words “race,” “ancestry,” “ethnicity,” and/or “population affinity.” Results indicated that while “ancestry” has supplanted “race,” this change has not brought concurrent modifications in approach, nor deeper scrutiny of underlying concepts. “Race” and “ancestry” were infrequently defined in 13% and 12% of sampled articles, respectively, and a plethora of social, geographic, and pseudoscientific terms persisted. Forensic anthropologists increasingly engaged with questions addressing the forces patterning human biological variation: 65% of studies postdating 1999 discussed population histories/structures and microevolution; 38% between 1966–1999. Fewer studies contextualized or critiqued approaches to analyzing population variation (32% of studies postdating 1999; 4% from 1966–1999), and virtually no studies considered the possibility that skeletal variation reflected embodied social inequity (5% of studies postdating 1999; 0% from 1966–1999). This lack of interrogation and clarity contributes to the faulty notion that all forensic anthropologists share similar definitions and leads to an oversimplification of complex biocultural processes. While the lack of definitions and biocultural engagement may be partly due to editorial and peer-review pressures, it is likely that many forensic anthropologists have not interrogated their own perspectives. This article holds that it is essential for us to do so.

Thus, “many forensic anthropologists have not interrogated their own perspectives” (probably because they are more focused on identifying the victims to help the police interrogate the, you know, murderers).

 
Hide 40 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. The Golden State Killer was found out because his DNA matched to a dozen or more of his 4th or 5th cousins in a random database of about 1 million. Thousands of hours of genealogical research narrowed it down to him. He was arrested, confessed, convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment.

    Interrogate that you leftist morons and idiots.

  2. From an opinion piece published in Nature today from somebody who heads an NIH funded lab whose purpose is to do population genetics and bioinformatics research around health.

    Too many scientists still say Caucasian
    Racist ideas of categories for human identity continue to warp research and medicine.
    Alice B. Popejoy

    Of the ten clinical genetics labs in the United States that share the most data with the research community, seven include ‘Caucasian’ as a multiple-choice category for patients’ racial or ethnic identity, despite the term having no scientific basis. Nearly 5,000 biomedical papers since 2010 have used ‘Caucasian’ to describe European populations. This suggests that too many scientists apply the term, either unbothered by or unaware of its roots in racist taxonomies used to justify slavery — or worse, adding to pseudoscientific claims of white biological superiority.

    I work at the intersection of statistics, evolutionary genomics and bioethics. Since 2017, I have co-led a diverse, multidisciplinary working group funded by the US National Institutes of Health to investigate diversity measures in clinical genetics and genomics (go.nature.com/3su2t8n).

    Many working in genomics do have a nuanced understanding of the issues and want to get things right. Still, I have been dismayed by how often the academics and clinicians I’ve encountered shy away from examining, or even acknowledging, how racism warps science. Decades of analyses have shown that ‘racial groups’ are defined by societies, not by genetics. Only the privileged have the luxury of opining that this is not a problem. As a white woman, I too have blind spots that need constant examination.

    Race doesn’t exist, also give me more funding for me to research population genetics and ancestry in terms of public health.

    • Replies: @aj54
    @Altai

    race is not a social construct, societies are racial constructs

    Replies: @Anonymous

  3. Ow, the stupid, it hurts!!

    • Replies: @HammerJack
    @Captain Tripps

    True that, but it's also fairly captivating to watch the new "state religion" subsume anything and everything whilst it creeps (or barges) into every single corner of society, no matter how private or obscure. Ever and always in search of apostasy, and especially apostates. The Inquisition is always hungry. It must be fed.

  4. “Interrogate” is such a hostile word to use when talking about books, or about one’s own life and work. In many parts of the world, interrogation is often accompanied by torture.

    it is likely that many forensic anthropologists have not “tortured” their own perspectives. This article holds that it is essential for us to do so.

    They teach this to freshman at Harvard:

    https://guides.library.harvard.edu/ld.php?content_id=44324954

    • Replies: @Rob
    @Giant Duck

    Ooh, good point!

    Next time someone uses interrogate in the leftist “intellectual” sense, be all “whoa! How about a trigger warning! For a lot of people, the majority of humanity “interrogation” is something government thugs called police do black brown - BIPOC bodies! How dare you appropriate their lived experiences! People are “interrogated” about their sexual orientations! Is that the sort of interrogation that appeals to you?!?”

    I think I’ll use this sometime.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

  5. Now that AI can tell race from an x-ray, that should let the forensic anthropologists off the hook for any political blowback from declaring the race of a decedent

  6. @Altai
    From an opinion piece published in Nature today from somebody who heads an NIH funded lab whose purpose is to do population genetics and bioinformatics research around health.

    Too many scientists still say Caucasian
    Racist ideas of categories for human identity continue to warp research and medicine.
    Alice B. Popejoy


    Of the ten clinical genetics labs in the United States that share the most data with the research community, seven include ‘Caucasian’ as a multiple-choice category for patients’ racial or ethnic identity, despite the term having no scientific basis. Nearly 5,000 biomedical papers since 2010 have used ‘Caucasian’ to describe European populations. This suggests that too many scientists apply the term, either unbothered by or unaware of its roots in racist taxonomies used to justify slavery — or worse, adding to pseudoscientific claims of white biological superiority.

    I work at the intersection of statistics, evolutionary genomics and bioethics. Since 2017, I have co-led a diverse, multidisciplinary working group funded by the US National Institutes of Health to investigate diversity measures in clinical genetics and genomics (go.nature.com/3su2t8n).

    Many working in genomics do have a nuanced understanding of the issues and want to get things right. Still, I have been dismayed by how often the academics and clinicians I’ve encountered shy away from examining, or even acknowledging, how racism warps science. Decades of analyses have shown that ‘racial groups’ are defined by societies, not by genetics. Only the privileged have the luxury of opining that this is not a problem. As a white woman, I too have blind spots that need constant examination.

     

    Race doesn't exist, also give me more funding for me to research population genetics and ancestry in terms of public health.

    Replies: @aj54

    race is not a social construct, societies are racial constructs

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @aj54


    race is not a social construct, societies are racial constructs
     
    Very good!
  7. wow. almost as dumb as economics and business school.

    i’ll believe race doesn’t exist when texas executes one.

  8. Forensic anthropologists traditionally estimate “race” or “ancestry” as part of the biological profile.

    Has any forensic anthropologist worked up a “biological profile” of the Jan. 6 pipe bomber based on the video evidence of the individual?

  9. She’s just starting out: https://uwf.edu/cassh/community-outreach/anthropology-and-archaeology/faculty/allysha-winburn.html

    Cut her some slack. It takes a while to see the landscape beyond what her teachers told her.

  10. Forensic anthropology = Ooh, flaying a torn corpse!

    • LOL: Goddard
    • Replies: @jamie b.
    @Reg Cæsar

    Goof in harlot necropsy

    Pro fancying torso hole

    Of holy entropic organs

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

  11. “virtually no studies considered the possibility that skeletal variation reflected embodied social inequity” I believe that’s leftist speak for nonsense on stilts. This goes back to Franz Boas study of human cranial variation done before WWI, that study was dismantled I think in the early 2000’s, but then in keeping with general tenor in anthropology it appears it was promptly memory holed and anthropologists have pretended that study never happened.

    • Thanks: TruthRevolution.net
  12. @Captain Tripps
    Ow, the stupid, it hurts!!

    Replies: @HammerJack

    True that, but it’s also fairly captivating to watch the new “state religion” subsume anything and everything whilst it creeps (or barges) into every single corner of society, no matter how private or obscure. Ever and always in search of apostasy, and especially apostates. The Inquisition is always hungry. It must be fed.

    • Agree: kaganovitch
  13. “virtually no studies considered the possibility that skeletal variation reflected embodied social inequity”

    Seems like evidence of murder would be the ultimate “embodied social inequity.”

    Seriously, forensic archaeologists study class and health through skeletons all the time, and yet, it’s still possible to determine race despite these confounding factors.

    • Replies: @El Dato
    @Charlotte

    "White Radiation causes black skeletons to become bigger but black dicks to shrink as numerous eyewitnesses can attest!"

    This is a case for Black Superman.

  14. Ok, an observation. If science is deemed to be an objective field of study, is it at least possible that the interpretation of scientific consensus based “facts” can contain an element of subjectivity? In other words, perhaps the science itself may indeed follow along objective lines, but the interpretation of the research, the data, and the findings will nearly always be subjective?

    Example: Race and IQ. This topic has been studied for at least a half century, with some aspects appearing to be fairly settled on the matter (that race and IQ definitely has a genetic basis, although how large that basis is remains anyone’s best educated guestimate). But whenever the various findings are displayed in the public forum, various interpretations abound. Why? What is it that draws the lightening rod around the subject of race and IQ?

    And, why is it automatically assumed that a particular group must be masters of every single field that they put their hands to do? Why can’t it be publicly acknowledged that while a race might be good at say, sporting events, that doesn’t also mean that they’re automatically geniuses in the field of quantum physics, molecular biology, and The Ringel-Kotzig conjecture?

    At the risk of being controversial, I would posit a basic common sense noticing observation. When one says quantum physics, and advanced mathematics, one doesn’t automatically say “Oh yeah, Shantavius and Shaniqua definitely have those fields covered, they’re all over it. Let’s ask them for the answers.” Whereas one would ask Lee Jin Jong or Mark Chang for the answers.

    Contrary to Malcolm Gladwell’s 10k hrs of practice, whenever one thinks of advanced mathematicians and physicians, one simply doesn’t associate those fields with black people, whether they’re African born or African-American. And blacks have been around whites in the US for nearly half a millennium so its not as if they shouldn’t have started to pick up a few things by this point in time. Instead one has to rely on subjective responses such as “racism”, “white privilege” etc. So basically, verbal, scientific, and mathematical adroitness are now considered to be acting white, or privileged information accessible only to whites. Whereas making the jump shot or rushing for 200 yrds in a game is considered to be a sport gene, and innate skill.

    And that’s the rub. One simply can’t have it both ways, if one desires to live in a reality based world.

    I mean, just because one’s an alpha in making the jump shot, the three pointer, and rushing for 200 yrds per game, doesn’t mean that they’re great at everything. Perhaps it would help a nation to stop pretending that that is the case. But that would mean relinquishing one’s hold on subjective interpretation of the data and the facts. More and more in the 21st century the Alice and Wonderland quote about believing six fantastic things before breakfast seems apt.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Yojimbo/Zatoichi


    Contrary to Malcolm Gladwell’s 10k hrs of practice, whenever one thinks of advanced mathematicians and physicians, one simply doesn’t associate those fields with black people, whether they’re African born or African-American.
     
    I think of Neal deGrasse Tyson.
  15. @Giant Duck
    "Interrogate" is such a hostile word to use when talking about books, or about one's own life and work. In many parts of the world, interrogation is often accompanied by torture.

    it is likely that many forensic anthropologists have not "tortured" their own perspectives. This article holds that it is essential for us to do so.
     
    They teach this to freshman at Harvard:

    https://guides.library.harvard.edu/ld.php?content_id=44324954
    ...


    Replies: @Rob

    Ooh, good point!

    Next time someone uses interrogate in the leftist “intellectual” sense, be all “whoa! How about a trigger warning! For a lot of people, the majority of humanity “interrogation” is something government thugs called police do black brown – BIPOC bodies! How dare you appropriate their lived experiences! People are “interrogated” about their sexual orientations! Is that the sort of interrogation that appeals to you?!?”

    I think I’ll use this sometime.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @Rob

    I associate "interrogate" with Major Strasser of Hogan's Heroes blustering "We have ways of making you talk."

    I'm guessing Foucault liked the black leather Nazi connotations of "interrogate" so that's why academics use it now.

    Replies: @Corvinus, @Corvinus

  16. Still not as dumb as the anthropologists who declare remains as non-binary.

  17. @Rob
    @Giant Duck

    Ooh, good point!

    Next time someone uses interrogate in the leftist “intellectual” sense, be all “whoa! How about a trigger warning! For a lot of people, the majority of humanity “interrogation” is something government thugs called police do black brown - BIPOC bodies! How dare you appropriate their lived experiences! People are “interrogated” about their sexual orientations! Is that the sort of interrogation that appeals to you?!?”

    I think I’ll use this sometime.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    I associate “interrogate” with Major Strasser of Hogan’s Heroes blustering “We have ways of making you talk.”

    I’m guessing Foucault liked the black leather Nazi connotations of “interrogate” so that’s why academics use it now.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @Steve Sailer

    "From Forensic Anthropology, a paper complaining that forensic anthropologists don’t really believe that Race Does Not Exist. Instead, forensic anthropologists have mostly stopped using the word “race” and started using the word “ancestry"...

    Let's be a wee bit more precise, shall we?

    In biological taxonomy, race is an informal rank in the taxonomic hierarchy for which various definitions exist. We have seen that races may be genetically distinct populations of individuals within the same species, or they may be defined in geographical or physiological categories. Forensic anthropologists (and geneticists) are employing the term "genetic ancestry". Genomes from reference populations around the globe have been collected, with the most diversity found in African populations. “There is much more diversity between them than the combined African genome would have between the European genome,” says Nicolas Robine, director of computational biology at the New York Genome Center (NYGC), a nonprofit academic research institution that serves as a collaborative hub for genomic research. “The proportion that is variable is very small, compared to that which is common to everybody.”

    https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/pdf/10.1089/forensic.2021.0004

    http://eknygos.lsmuni.lt/springer/657/281-316.pdf

    Indeed, race is partially based on physical similarities within groups that are patently obvious to the naked eye, but it was assigned by us--human beings--to have an inherent physical or biological meaning. Social conceptions and groupings of races have varied over time.

    --In the 1700's, Carl Linnaeus four “varieties” of humans (Europaeus albus, Americanus rubescens, Asiaticus fuscus, and Africanus niger), even going so far as to specify behavioral characteristics--Americanus as “unyielding, cheerful, free”; Europaeus as “light, wise, inventor”; Asiaticus as “stern, haughty, greedy”; and Africanus as “sly, sluggish, neglectful". Clearly, Linnaeus was basing these characteristics on social conventions.

    --In the early 1800's, Samuel Morton used his collection of human skulls to link the size and shape of them to correlate each with intelligence, and his imagined hierarchy was employed by white Northerners and Southerns to justify slavey.

    --Then there is Louis Agassiz who touted that different races of humanity were of different origins.

    --My personal favorite, however, is Madison Grant.

    Source –> https://www.dartmouth.edu/~hist32/History/White.htm


    “Between 1880 and WWI, the United States experienced large waves of European immigration. These “new immigrants” however did not come from northern Europe and represented a frightening diversity to many. The difference perceived in these immigrants was frequently described as a racial difference in which Europeans were represented as, not one, but many races identified by region (Alpine, Mediterranean, Slavic and Nordic) or by alleged head shape (roundheads, slopeheads). Madison Grant, a biologist and curator for the American Museum of Natural History in New York explained in his book "The Passing of the Great Race that White Americans", the great race, were losing out to hordes of inferior European immigrants. Grant’s book was so popular it experienced 7 reprints before WWII. According to Grant, “These new immigrants were no longer exclusively members of the Nordic race as were the earlier ones…The transportation lines advertised America as a land flowing with milk and honey and the European governments took the opportunity to unload upon careless, wealthy and hospitable America the sweepings of their jails and asylums…Our jails, insane asylums and almshouses are filled with this human flotsam and the whole tone of american life, social, moral and political has been lowered and vulgarized by them.”
     
    So, Mr. Sailer, which taxonomy ought to be the "standard"? Are all somehow on equal intellectual and biological footing, or is one more precise compared to the rest?

    Stated another way, from a psychological standpoint, we have an easier time identifying and sympathizing with people who look like us or who belong to the same in-group as us, even though that grouping ultimately was constructed arbitrarily. Again, in the 1800 and 1900’s race group divisions were based on skin color and physical appearance according to scientists, and then divided into white, black, yellow, and red. Then scientists stated there were more gradient subtypes based on other characteristics.

    So, Mr. Sailer, where is this line drawn between “the races”? Does it not lead to a potential fractioning all the way down to the individual? Think about it. Attempts to divide humanity into race has used as few as three, then up to more than thirty. Humans have been migrating back and forth across the continents for over 200,000 years. Genetic traits have been mixed and remixed over and over. To me, in the end, how many races of humans exist depends on one’s meaning of the word…race.

    Replies: @jamie b., @TWS

    , @Corvinus
    @Steve Sailer

    Of course, the hierarchy of race begs the question: If other, non-white races are inferior to “whites”’, then is there a hierarchy within the “white” race? Would not certain “white” groups be considered superior to others that seem “less white” or “not quite white”?

    Indeed, French philosopher Michel Foucault traces race discourses as far back as the 1600’s. The earliest discussions centered on race as being of lineage, language, and tradition, correlated with religion and personal character. To be a member of the Saxon “race” was to speak and live like a Saxon, as compared to other groups.

    Now, would a Saxon (or an Frank, or a Norman, or a Visogoth) in their heyday have referred to themselves as being “white”? Furthermore, Foucault looks at how the idea of race “mutated”. In the 1700’s, to be a member of a particular race centered on having a specific physical appearance loosely tied to lineage. By the mid to late 1800’s, race morphed into a biological concept based on the theories of Herbert Spencer and Charles Darwin.

    Let us also refer to the Greeks and Romans, the foundation for “Western civilization”. Their ideas resonated during the development of the modern European university in the 1700 and 1800’s. Here, classical texts we know and love collided with the racial markers and attitudes of their day–along with Biblical justifications for slavery–as intellectuals of the time period created racial categories placing Europeans at the top rung when it came to scientific and cultural achievements. This result is other than surprising, given how the earliest charts of racial differences were rooted in racial superiority, as scholars has deemed the ancients as being the quintessential “white civilizations”. Yet, would Greeks and Romans have referred to themselves as being “white”?

    There seems to be this conflation of “Western Civilization” and “whiteness” as embraced by the Alt Right today. To me, they are claiming “Since we have inherited the classics because they are our specific genetic and cultural legacy, we are a superior people by which all other peoples are measured and judged”. So, iSteve (and company), how do you rectify this notion with beliefs from the Good Book? The Bible says, “From one man he made all the nations. We are God’s offspring” (Acts 17:26, 29).

    1) Do you agree or disagree with those Christians consider Europeans to be a “chosen people and Jews to be the cursed offspring of Cain, the ‘serpent hybrid’ (a belief which is known as the two-seedline doctrine)”? Why?

    2) What are your thoughts regarding Wesley A. Swift’s doctrine (he was founder of the Church of Jesus Christ Christian) that non-Caucasian peoples have no souls and therefore can never earn God’s favor or be saved?

    3) How is “race realism” justified from a religious position considering that Christianity’s drive is towards universalism? Just to make it clear, Christian universalism refers to “a school of Christian theology focused around the doctrine of universal reconciliation – the view that all human beings will ultimately be saved and restored to a right relationship with God”.

    Replies: @RonaldB, @TWS

  18. All the authors are white. The lead guy has the sort of face that has kept alive the idea of “physiognomy.”

    Allysha P. Winburn is a crazy looking white woman whose parents gave her a black given name.

  19. What can you do when the crazy creepy crawlies are everywhere and trying to infect everyone with their own special view on reality?

    Whenever the Great Socialisms of History were in the ascendant, this is what could be observed.

    Did it get stopped in any place outside Spain?

  20. @Charlotte
    “virtually no studies considered the possibility that skeletal variation reflected embodied social inequity”

    Seems like evidence of murder would be the ultimate “embodied social inequity.”

    Seriously, forensic archaeologists study class and health through skeletons all the time, and yet, it’s still possible to determine race despite these confounding factors.

    Replies: @El Dato

    “White Radiation causes black skeletons to become bigger but black dicks to shrink as numerous eyewitnesses can attest!”

    This is a case for Black Superman.

  21. @aj54
    @Altai

    race is not a social construct, societies are racial constructs

    Replies: @Anonymous

    race is not a social construct, societies are racial constructs

    Very good!

  22. @Steve Sailer
    @Rob

    I associate "interrogate" with Major Strasser of Hogan's Heroes blustering "We have ways of making you talk."

    I'm guessing Foucault liked the black leather Nazi connotations of "interrogate" so that's why academics use it now.

    Replies: @Corvinus, @Corvinus

    “From Forensic Anthropology, a paper complaining that forensic anthropologists don’t really believe that Race Does Not Exist. Instead, forensic anthropologists have mostly stopped using the word “race” and started using the word “ancestry”…

    Let’s be a wee bit more precise, shall we?

    In biological taxonomy, race is an informal rank in the taxonomic hierarchy for which various definitions exist. We have seen that races may be genetically distinct populations of individuals within the same species, or they may be defined in geographical or physiological categories. Forensic anthropologists (and geneticists) are employing the term “genetic ancestry”. Genomes from reference populations around the globe have been collected, with the most diversity found in African populations. “There is much more diversity between them than the combined African genome would have between the European genome,” says Nicolas Robine, director of computational biology at the New York Genome Center (NYGC), a nonprofit academic research institution that serves as a collaborative hub for genomic research. “The proportion that is variable is very small, compared to that which is common to everybody.”

    https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/pdf/10.1089/forensic.2021.0004

    http://eknygos.lsmuni.lt/springer/657/281-316.pdf

    Indeed, race is partially based on physical similarities within groups that are patently obvious to the naked eye, but it was assigned by us–human beings–to have an inherent physical or biological meaning. Social conceptions and groupings of races have varied over time.

    –In the 1700’s, Carl Linnaeus four “varieties” of humans (Europaeus albus, Americanus rubescens, Asiaticus fuscus, and Africanus niger), even going so far as to specify behavioral characteristics–Americanus as “unyielding, cheerful, free”; Europaeus as “light, wise, inventor”; Asiaticus as “stern, haughty, greedy”; and Africanus as “sly, sluggish, neglectful”. Clearly, Linnaeus was basing these characteristics on social conventions.

    –In the early 1800’s, Samuel Morton used his collection of human skulls to link the size and shape of them to correlate each with intelligence, and his imagined hierarchy was employed by white Northerners and Southerns to justify slavey.

    –Then there is Louis Agassiz who touted that different races of humanity were of different origins.

    –My personal favorite, however, is Madison Grant.

    Source –> https://www.dartmouth.edu/~hist32/History/White.htm

    “Between 1880 and WWI, the United States experienced large waves of European immigration. These “new immigrants” however did not come from northern Europe and represented a frightening diversity to many. The difference perceived in these immigrants was frequently described as a racial difference in which Europeans were represented as, not one, but many races identified by region (Alpine, Mediterranean, Slavic and Nordic) or by alleged head shape (roundheads, slopeheads). Madison Grant, a biologist and curator for the American Museum of Natural History in New York explained in his book “The Passing of the Great Race that White Americans”, the great race, were losing out to hordes of inferior European immigrants. Grant’s book was so popular it experienced 7 reprints before WWII. According to Grant, “These new immigrants were no longer exclusively members of the Nordic race as were the earlier ones…The transportation lines advertised America as a land flowing with milk and honey and the European governments took the opportunity to unload upon careless, wealthy and hospitable America the sweepings of their jails and asylums…Our jails, insane asylums and almshouses are filled with this human flotsam and the whole tone of american life, social, moral and political has been lowered and vulgarized by them.”

    So, Mr. Sailer, which taxonomy ought to be the “standard”? Are all somehow on equal intellectual and biological footing, or is one more precise compared to the rest?

    Stated another way, from a psychological standpoint, we have an easier time identifying and sympathizing with people who look like us or who belong to the same in-group as us, even though that grouping ultimately was constructed arbitrarily. Again, in the 1800 and 1900’s race group divisions were based on skin color and physical appearance according to scientists, and then divided into white, black, yellow, and red. Then scientists stated there were more gradient subtypes based on other characteristics.

    So, Mr. Sailer, where is this line drawn between “the races”? Does it not lead to a potential fractioning all the way down to the individual? Think about it. Attempts to divide humanity into race has used as few as three, then up to more than thirty. Humans have been migrating back and forth across the continents for over 200,000 years. Genetic traits have been mixed and remixed over and over. To me, in the end, how many races of humans exist depends on one’s meaning of the word…race.

    • Replies: @jamie b.
    @Corvinus


    So, Mr. Sailer, which taxonomy ought to be the “standard”?
     
    Cluster (distance based) analysis is a reasonably objective tool for identifying races: It is not model based, and brings no preconceptions to how a computer defines the clusters. Regardless of cluster number, the clustering is invariably consistent with geographic boundaries.

    If we set the number of cluster ('K') at 5, we have something rather nearly identical to Blumenbach’s classification. Any increase in the number of clusters results in a splitting of clusters previously identified. IOW, increasing K will invariably augment previously determined clusters, rather than form a new pattern.
    , @TWS
    @Corvinus

    It depends on the definition of, 'is', is a painfully stupid argument. Steve has meticulously explained his definition of race, his reasoning behind it and why it's useful.

    Polar bears have diverged from brown bears in the last two hundred thousand years, yet no one would say they are the same.

  23. @Steve Sailer
    @Rob

    I associate "interrogate" with Major Strasser of Hogan's Heroes blustering "We have ways of making you talk."

    I'm guessing Foucault liked the black leather Nazi connotations of "interrogate" so that's why academics use it now.

    Replies: @Corvinus, @Corvinus

    Of course, the hierarchy of race begs the question: If other, non-white races are inferior to “whites”’, then is there a hierarchy within the “white” race? Would not certain “white” groups be considered superior to others that seem “less white” or “not quite white”?

    Indeed, French philosopher Michel Foucault traces race discourses as far back as the 1600’s. The earliest discussions centered on race as being of lineage, language, and tradition, correlated with religion and personal character. To be a member of the Saxon “race” was to speak and live like a Saxon, as compared to other groups.

    Now, would a Saxon (or an Frank, or a Norman, or a Visogoth) in their heyday have referred to themselves as being “white”? Furthermore, Foucault looks at how the idea of race “mutated”. In the 1700’s, to be a member of a particular race centered on having a specific physical appearance loosely tied to lineage. By the mid to late 1800’s, race morphed into a biological concept based on the theories of Herbert Spencer and Charles Darwin.

    Let us also refer to the Greeks and Romans, the foundation for “Western civilization”. Their ideas resonated during the development of the modern European university in the 1700 and 1800’s. Here, classical texts we know and love collided with the racial markers and attitudes of their day–along with Biblical justifications for slavery–as intellectuals of the time period created racial categories placing Europeans at the top rung when it came to scientific and cultural achievements. This result is other than surprising, given how the earliest charts of racial differences were rooted in racial superiority, as scholars has deemed the ancients as being the quintessential “white civilizations”. Yet, would Greeks and Romans have referred to themselves as being “white”?

    There seems to be this conflation of “Western Civilization” and “whiteness” as embraced by the Alt Right today. To me, they are claiming “Since we have inherited the classics because they are our specific genetic and cultural legacy, we are a superior people by which all other peoples are measured and judged”. So, iSteve (and company), how do you rectify this notion with beliefs from the Good Book? The Bible says, “From one man he made all the nations. We are God’s offspring” (Acts 17:26, 29).

    1) Do you agree or disagree with those Christians consider Europeans to be a “chosen people and Jews to be the cursed offspring of Cain, the ‘serpent hybrid’ (a belief which is known as the two-seedline doctrine)”? Why?

    2) What are your thoughts regarding Wesley A. Swift’s doctrine (he was founder of the Church of Jesus Christ Christian) that non-Caucasian peoples have no souls and therefore can never earn God’s favor or be saved?

    3) How is “race realism” justified from a religious position considering that Christianity’s drive is towards universalism? Just to make it clear, Christian universalism refers to “a school of Christian theology focused around the doctrine of universal reconciliation – the view that all human beings will ultimately be saved and restored to a right relationship with God”.

    • Replies: @RonaldB
    @Corvinus

    Races are genetic or anatomical clusters that can be derived from observation, cluster analysis, factor analysis or other systematic approaches. There is variation within clusters, but the general concept is broadly descriptive. Knowledge of racial clusters is vital in medicine.

    It's actually the critics of race who use the race concept most strongly. For instance, the far higher incident of crime with blacks is cited as an example of social definition. Similarly, for the lower incidence of academic achievement among blacks as a population.

    Once you bring all description down to the level of the individual, you can make a prescription, or judgement, strictly tailored to the individual. Someone commits a crime and get incarcerated. It's irrelevant that the proportion of people identified as black in prison far exceeds the proportion of blacks in the general population. Once one brings in the concept of social justice or injustice, it's necessary to use the concept of race and clusters.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    , @TWS
    @Corvinus

    Jesus Christ, do you always squirt squid ink? Yes races are both real and useful. No one brought up superiority except you. More ink. It begs no questions, raises no concerns except among those obsessed with race.

    Are races real, undoubtedly, is it important? Ask a guy with sickle cell anemia. Or ask an old ID detective from before the days we started to use, 'forensic'. Awful hard to work up an ID of a skeleton as it is. Be even harder if you didn't ID the race for whatever reason. And you can almost always if you have enough bones.

    Replies: @anon, @Corvinus

  24. @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    Ok, an observation. If science is deemed to be an objective field of study, is it at least possible that the interpretation of scientific consensus based "facts" can contain an element of subjectivity? In other words, perhaps the science itself may indeed follow along objective lines, but the interpretation of the research, the data, and the findings will nearly always be subjective?

    Example: Race and IQ. This topic has been studied for at least a half century, with some aspects appearing to be fairly settled on the matter (that race and IQ definitely has a genetic basis, although how large that basis is remains anyone's best educated guestimate). But whenever the various findings are displayed in the public forum, various interpretations abound. Why? What is it that draws the lightening rod around the subject of race and IQ?

    And, why is it automatically assumed that a particular group must be masters of every single field that they put their hands to do? Why can't it be publicly acknowledged that while a race might be good at say, sporting events, that doesn't also mean that they're automatically geniuses in the field of quantum physics, molecular biology, and The Ringel-Kotzig conjecture?

    At the risk of being controversial, I would posit a basic common sense noticing observation. When one says quantum physics, and advanced mathematics, one doesn't automatically say "Oh yeah, Shantavius and Shaniqua definitely have those fields covered, they're all over it. Let's ask them for the answers." Whereas one would ask Lee Jin Jong or Mark Chang for the answers.

    Contrary to Malcolm Gladwell's 10k hrs of practice, whenever one thinks of advanced mathematicians and physicians, one simply doesn't associate those fields with black people, whether they're African born or African-American. And blacks have been around whites in the US for nearly half a millennium so its not as if they shouldn't have started to pick up a few things by this point in time. Instead one has to rely on subjective responses such as "racism", "white privilege" etc. So basically, verbal, scientific, and mathematical adroitness are now considered to be acting white, or privileged information accessible only to whites. Whereas making the jump shot or rushing for 200 yrds in a game is considered to be a sport gene, and innate skill.

    And that's the rub. One simply can't have it both ways, if one desires to live in a reality based world.

    I mean, just because one's an alpha in making the jump shot, the three pointer, and rushing for 200 yrds per game, doesn't mean that they're great at everything. Perhaps it would help a nation to stop pretending that that is the case. But that would mean relinquishing one's hold on subjective interpretation of the data and the facts. More and more in the 21st century the Alice and Wonderland quote about believing six fantastic things before breakfast seems apt.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    Contrary to Malcolm Gladwell’s 10k hrs of practice, whenever one thinks of advanced mathematicians and physicians, one simply doesn’t associate those fields with black people, whether they’re African born or African-American.

    I think of Neal deGrasse Tyson.

  25. @Reg Cæsar
    Forensic anthropology = Ooh, flaying a torn corpse!

    Replies: @jamie b.

    Goof in harlot necropsy

    Pro fancying torso hole

    Of holy entropic organs

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @jamie b.

    If you're going to do this, the secret is to cull, cull, cull.

  26. @Corvinus
    @Steve Sailer

    "From Forensic Anthropology, a paper complaining that forensic anthropologists don’t really believe that Race Does Not Exist. Instead, forensic anthropologists have mostly stopped using the word “race” and started using the word “ancestry"...

    Let's be a wee bit more precise, shall we?

    In biological taxonomy, race is an informal rank in the taxonomic hierarchy for which various definitions exist. We have seen that races may be genetically distinct populations of individuals within the same species, or they may be defined in geographical or physiological categories. Forensic anthropologists (and geneticists) are employing the term "genetic ancestry". Genomes from reference populations around the globe have been collected, with the most diversity found in African populations. “There is much more diversity between them than the combined African genome would have between the European genome,” says Nicolas Robine, director of computational biology at the New York Genome Center (NYGC), a nonprofit academic research institution that serves as a collaborative hub for genomic research. “The proportion that is variable is very small, compared to that which is common to everybody.”

    https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/pdf/10.1089/forensic.2021.0004

    http://eknygos.lsmuni.lt/springer/657/281-316.pdf

    Indeed, race is partially based on physical similarities within groups that are patently obvious to the naked eye, but it was assigned by us--human beings--to have an inherent physical or biological meaning. Social conceptions and groupings of races have varied over time.

    --In the 1700's, Carl Linnaeus four “varieties” of humans (Europaeus albus, Americanus rubescens, Asiaticus fuscus, and Africanus niger), even going so far as to specify behavioral characteristics--Americanus as “unyielding, cheerful, free”; Europaeus as “light, wise, inventor”; Asiaticus as “stern, haughty, greedy”; and Africanus as “sly, sluggish, neglectful". Clearly, Linnaeus was basing these characteristics on social conventions.

    --In the early 1800's, Samuel Morton used his collection of human skulls to link the size and shape of them to correlate each with intelligence, and his imagined hierarchy was employed by white Northerners and Southerns to justify slavey.

    --Then there is Louis Agassiz who touted that different races of humanity were of different origins.

    --My personal favorite, however, is Madison Grant.

    Source –> https://www.dartmouth.edu/~hist32/History/White.htm


    “Between 1880 and WWI, the United States experienced large waves of European immigration. These “new immigrants” however did not come from northern Europe and represented a frightening diversity to many. The difference perceived in these immigrants was frequently described as a racial difference in which Europeans were represented as, not one, but many races identified by region (Alpine, Mediterranean, Slavic and Nordic) or by alleged head shape (roundheads, slopeheads). Madison Grant, a biologist and curator for the American Museum of Natural History in New York explained in his book "The Passing of the Great Race that White Americans", the great race, were losing out to hordes of inferior European immigrants. Grant’s book was so popular it experienced 7 reprints before WWII. According to Grant, “These new immigrants were no longer exclusively members of the Nordic race as were the earlier ones…The transportation lines advertised America as a land flowing with milk and honey and the European governments took the opportunity to unload upon careless, wealthy and hospitable America the sweepings of their jails and asylums…Our jails, insane asylums and almshouses are filled with this human flotsam and the whole tone of american life, social, moral and political has been lowered and vulgarized by them.”
     
    So, Mr. Sailer, which taxonomy ought to be the "standard"? Are all somehow on equal intellectual and biological footing, or is one more precise compared to the rest?

    Stated another way, from a psychological standpoint, we have an easier time identifying and sympathizing with people who look like us or who belong to the same in-group as us, even though that grouping ultimately was constructed arbitrarily. Again, in the 1800 and 1900’s race group divisions were based on skin color and physical appearance according to scientists, and then divided into white, black, yellow, and red. Then scientists stated there were more gradient subtypes based on other characteristics.

    So, Mr. Sailer, where is this line drawn between “the races”? Does it not lead to a potential fractioning all the way down to the individual? Think about it. Attempts to divide humanity into race has used as few as three, then up to more than thirty. Humans have been migrating back and forth across the continents for over 200,000 years. Genetic traits have been mixed and remixed over and over. To me, in the end, how many races of humans exist depends on one’s meaning of the word…race.

    Replies: @jamie b., @TWS

    So, Mr. Sailer, which taxonomy ought to be the “standard”?

    Cluster (distance based) analysis is a reasonably objective tool for identifying races: It is not model based, and brings no preconceptions to how a computer defines the clusters. Regardless of cluster number, the clustering is invariably consistent with geographic boundaries.

    If we set the number of cluster (‘K’) at 5, we have something rather nearly identical to Blumenbach’s classification. Any increase in the number of clusters results in a splitting of clusters previously identified. IOW, increasing K will invariably augment previously determined clusters, rather than form a new pattern.

  27. @Corvinus
    @Steve Sailer

    Of course, the hierarchy of race begs the question: If other, non-white races are inferior to “whites”’, then is there a hierarchy within the “white” race? Would not certain “white” groups be considered superior to others that seem “less white” or “not quite white”?

    Indeed, French philosopher Michel Foucault traces race discourses as far back as the 1600’s. The earliest discussions centered on race as being of lineage, language, and tradition, correlated with religion and personal character. To be a member of the Saxon “race” was to speak and live like a Saxon, as compared to other groups.

    Now, would a Saxon (or an Frank, or a Norman, or a Visogoth) in their heyday have referred to themselves as being “white”? Furthermore, Foucault looks at how the idea of race “mutated”. In the 1700’s, to be a member of a particular race centered on having a specific physical appearance loosely tied to lineage. By the mid to late 1800’s, race morphed into a biological concept based on the theories of Herbert Spencer and Charles Darwin.

    Let us also refer to the Greeks and Romans, the foundation for “Western civilization”. Their ideas resonated during the development of the modern European university in the 1700 and 1800’s. Here, classical texts we know and love collided with the racial markers and attitudes of their day–along with Biblical justifications for slavery–as intellectuals of the time period created racial categories placing Europeans at the top rung when it came to scientific and cultural achievements. This result is other than surprising, given how the earliest charts of racial differences were rooted in racial superiority, as scholars has deemed the ancients as being the quintessential “white civilizations”. Yet, would Greeks and Romans have referred to themselves as being “white”?

    There seems to be this conflation of “Western Civilization” and “whiteness” as embraced by the Alt Right today. To me, they are claiming “Since we have inherited the classics because they are our specific genetic and cultural legacy, we are a superior people by which all other peoples are measured and judged”. So, iSteve (and company), how do you rectify this notion with beliefs from the Good Book? The Bible says, “From one man he made all the nations. We are God’s offspring” (Acts 17:26, 29).

    1) Do you agree or disagree with those Christians consider Europeans to be a “chosen people and Jews to be the cursed offspring of Cain, the ‘serpent hybrid’ (a belief which is known as the two-seedline doctrine)”? Why?

    2) What are your thoughts regarding Wesley A. Swift’s doctrine (he was founder of the Church of Jesus Christ Christian) that non-Caucasian peoples have no souls and therefore can never earn God’s favor or be saved?

    3) How is “race realism” justified from a religious position considering that Christianity’s drive is towards universalism? Just to make it clear, Christian universalism refers to “a school of Christian theology focused around the doctrine of universal reconciliation – the view that all human beings will ultimately be saved and restored to a right relationship with God”.

    Replies: @RonaldB, @TWS

    Races are genetic or anatomical clusters that can be derived from observation, cluster analysis, factor analysis or other systematic approaches. There is variation within clusters, but the general concept is broadly descriptive. Knowledge of racial clusters is vital in medicine.

    It’s actually the critics of race who use the race concept most strongly. For instance, the far higher incident of crime with blacks is cited as an example of social definition. Similarly, for the lower incidence of academic achievement among blacks as a population.

    Once you bring all description down to the level of the individual, you can make a prescription, or judgement, strictly tailored to the individual. Someone commits a crime and get incarcerated. It’s irrelevant that the proportion of people identified as black in prison far exceeds the proportion of blacks in the general population. Once one brings in the concept of social justice or injustice, it’s necessary to use the concept of race and clusters.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @RonaldB

    "Races are genetic or anatomical clusters that can be derived from observation, cluster analysis, factor analysis or other systematic approaches. There is variation within clusters, but the general concept is broadly descriptive."

    How did these observations and analysis come about? What say you about the conclusions drawn by the historical figures I listed?

    "Knowledge of racial clusters is vital in medicine."

    And that is being re-examined among today's professionals.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3167748

    https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/what-role-should-race-play-in-medicine

    https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2775794

    "It’s actually the critics of race who use the race concept most strongly".

    I would say it's both sides of the ideological coin.

    "Once one brings in the concept of social justice or injustice, it’s necessary to use the concept of race and clusters."

    Which goes back to how race and clusters originated in the first place from a historical and biological perspective.

  28. @Corvinus
    @Steve Sailer

    "From Forensic Anthropology, a paper complaining that forensic anthropologists don’t really believe that Race Does Not Exist. Instead, forensic anthropologists have mostly stopped using the word “race” and started using the word “ancestry"...

    Let's be a wee bit more precise, shall we?

    In biological taxonomy, race is an informal rank in the taxonomic hierarchy for which various definitions exist. We have seen that races may be genetically distinct populations of individuals within the same species, or they may be defined in geographical or physiological categories. Forensic anthropologists (and geneticists) are employing the term "genetic ancestry". Genomes from reference populations around the globe have been collected, with the most diversity found in African populations. “There is much more diversity between them than the combined African genome would have between the European genome,” says Nicolas Robine, director of computational biology at the New York Genome Center (NYGC), a nonprofit academic research institution that serves as a collaborative hub for genomic research. “The proportion that is variable is very small, compared to that which is common to everybody.”

    https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/pdf/10.1089/forensic.2021.0004

    http://eknygos.lsmuni.lt/springer/657/281-316.pdf

    Indeed, race is partially based on physical similarities within groups that are patently obvious to the naked eye, but it was assigned by us--human beings--to have an inherent physical or biological meaning. Social conceptions and groupings of races have varied over time.

    --In the 1700's, Carl Linnaeus four “varieties” of humans (Europaeus albus, Americanus rubescens, Asiaticus fuscus, and Africanus niger), even going so far as to specify behavioral characteristics--Americanus as “unyielding, cheerful, free”; Europaeus as “light, wise, inventor”; Asiaticus as “stern, haughty, greedy”; and Africanus as “sly, sluggish, neglectful". Clearly, Linnaeus was basing these characteristics on social conventions.

    --In the early 1800's, Samuel Morton used his collection of human skulls to link the size and shape of them to correlate each with intelligence, and his imagined hierarchy was employed by white Northerners and Southerns to justify slavey.

    --Then there is Louis Agassiz who touted that different races of humanity were of different origins.

    --My personal favorite, however, is Madison Grant.

    Source –> https://www.dartmouth.edu/~hist32/History/White.htm


    “Between 1880 and WWI, the United States experienced large waves of European immigration. These “new immigrants” however did not come from northern Europe and represented a frightening diversity to many. The difference perceived in these immigrants was frequently described as a racial difference in which Europeans were represented as, not one, but many races identified by region (Alpine, Mediterranean, Slavic and Nordic) or by alleged head shape (roundheads, slopeheads). Madison Grant, a biologist and curator for the American Museum of Natural History in New York explained in his book "The Passing of the Great Race that White Americans", the great race, were losing out to hordes of inferior European immigrants. Grant’s book was so popular it experienced 7 reprints before WWII. According to Grant, “These new immigrants were no longer exclusively members of the Nordic race as were the earlier ones…The transportation lines advertised America as a land flowing with milk and honey and the European governments took the opportunity to unload upon careless, wealthy and hospitable America the sweepings of their jails and asylums…Our jails, insane asylums and almshouses are filled with this human flotsam and the whole tone of american life, social, moral and political has been lowered and vulgarized by them.”
     
    So, Mr. Sailer, which taxonomy ought to be the "standard"? Are all somehow on equal intellectual and biological footing, or is one more precise compared to the rest?

    Stated another way, from a psychological standpoint, we have an easier time identifying and sympathizing with people who look like us or who belong to the same in-group as us, even though that grouping ultimately was constructed arbitrarily. Again, in the 1800 and 1900’s race group divisions were based on skin color and physical appearance according to scientists, and then divided into white, black, yellow, and red. Then scientists stated there were more gradient subtypes based on other characteristics.

    So, Mr. Sailer, where is this line drawn between “the races”? Does it not lead to a potential fractioning all the way down to the individual? Think about it. Attempts to divide humanity into race has used as few as three, then up to more than thirty. Humans have been migrating back and forth across the continents for over 200,000 years. Genetic traits have been mixed and remixed over and over. To me, in the end, how many races of humans exist depends on one’s meaning of the word…race.

    Replies: @jamie b., @TWS

    It depends on the definition of, ‘is’, is a painfully stupid argument. Steve has meticulously explained his definition of race, his reasoning behind it and why it’s useful.

    Polar bears have diverged from brown bears in the last two hundred thousand years, yet no one would say they are the same.

  29. @Corvinus
    @Steve Sailer

    Of course, the hierarchy of race begs the question: If other, non-white races are inferior to “whites”’, then is there a hierarchy within the “white” race? Would not certain “white” groups be considered superior to others that seem “less white” or “not quite white”?

    Indeed, French philosopher Michel Foucault traces race discourses as far back as the 1600’s. The earliest discussions centered on race as being of lineage, language, and tradition, correlated with religion and personal character. To be a member of the Saxon “race” was to speak and live like a Saxon, as compared to other groups.

    Now, would a Saxon (or an Frank, or a Norman, or a Visogoth) in their heyday have referred to themselves as being “white”? Furthermore, Foucault looks at how the idea of race “mutated”. In the 1700’s, to be a member of a particular race centered on having a specific physical appearance loosely tied to lineage. By the mid to late 1800’s, race morphed into a biological concept based on the theories of Herbert Spencer and Charles Darwin.

    Let us also refer to the Greeks and Romans, the foundation for “Western civilization”. Their ideas resonated during the development of the modern European university in the 1700 and 1800’s. Here, classical texts we know and love collided with the racial markers and attitudes of their day–along with Biblical justifications for slavery–as intellectuals of the time period created racial categories placing Europeans at the top rung when it came to scientific and cultural achievements. This result is other than surprising, given how the earliest charts of racial differences were rooted in racial superiority, as scholars has deemed the ancients as being the quintessential “white civilizations”. Yet, would Greeks and Romans have referred to themselves as being “white”?

    There seems to be this conflation of “Western Civilization” and “whiteness” as embraced by the Alt Right today. To me, they are claiming “Since we have inherited the classics because they are our specific genetic and cultural legacy, we are a superior people by which all other peoples are measured and judged”. So, iSteve (and company), how do you rectify this notion with beliefs from the Good Book? The Bible says, “From one man he made all the nations. We are God’s offspring” (Acts 17:26, 29).

    1) Do you agree or disagree with those Christians consider Europeans to be a “chosen people and Jews to be the cursed offspring of Cain, the ‘serpent hybrid’ (a belief which is known as the two-seedline doctrine)”? Why?

    2) What are your thoughts regarding Wesley A. Swift’s doctrine (he was founder of the Church of Jesus Christ Christian) that non-Caucasian peoples have no souls and therefore can never earn God’s favor or be saved?

    3) How is “race realism” justified from a religious position considering that Christianity’s drive is towards universalism? Just to make it clear, Christian universalism refers to “a school of Christian theology focused around the doctrine of universal reconciliation – the view that all human beings will ultimately be saved and restored to a right relationship with God”.

    Replies: @RonaldB, @TWS

    Jesus Christ, do you always squirt squid ink? Yes races are both real and useful. No one brought up superiority except you. More ink. It begs no questions, raises no concerns except among those obsessed with race.

    Are races real, undoubtedly, is it important? Ask a guy with sickle cell anemia. Or ask an old ID detective from before the days we started to use, ‘forensic’. Awful hard to work up an ID of a skeleton as it is. Be even harder if you didn’t ID the race for whatever reason. And you can almost always if you have enough bones.

    • Replies: @anon
    @TWS

    Jesus Christ, do you always squirt squid ink?

    It is what he is paid to do.

    , @Corvinus
    @TWS

    "Jesus Christ, do you always squirt squid ink?"

    It's called analysis. Try it sometime.

    "Yes races are both real and useful."

    According to Who/Whom?

    "No one brought up superiority except you. More ink."

    To the contrary, there are a number of posters on this fine opinion webzine who believe whites are on top, as well as historical figures I noted. Do you think the white race is "superior" or "inherently better" than other races?

    "It begs no questions, raises no concerns except among those obsessed with race."

    Isn't iSteve obsessed with race?

    "Ask a guy with sickle cell anemia".

    About that. In historically malaria-infested areas, people without the gene were likely to die of malaria, while those with two copies of the gene were likely to die of sickle cell disease. Over time, an equilibrium was reached, so that an optimal percentage of the population carried the gene. West Africa, the main historical source of American slaves, had a lot of malaria, and the sickle cell gene was and still is widespread there. However, the gene can also be found in other areas of the world, including Southern Europe (Corsica, Greece, Portugal, Sardinia, Southern Italy, Sicily, and Spain). In addition, the gene is absent in much of southern and eastern Africa. It would seem to me that the gene is not necessarily associated with a biological race, but rather with a biological disease, malaria, which afflicts certain groups--in this case, a race--more often.

    https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/703533?journalCode=isis


    Historical accounts of sickle cell disease tend to emphasize either its theoretical role in catalyzing the field of medical genetics or its clinical and social significance in representing the health-care disparities experienced by African Americans. This essay bridges these narratives by focusing on the discovery of sickle cells in marginalized Arabic-speaking communities of Yemen and Turkey in the 1950s. As in North America, sickle cell research in the Middle East unfolded along the social fractures of race. The essay analyzes how British, Turkish, and Arab geneticists attempted to create evolutionary hypotheses that reconciled historical and sociological boundaries between white and African, Arab and Turk. As the parameters of Turkish and Arab nationalism shifted in the Cold War–era Middle East, so did the favored explanatory narratives for the presence of sickle cells in different communities, which assigned different degrees of importance to African ancestry, socially enforced endogamy, and evolutionary adaptations to malaria.
     
    "It depends on the definition of, ‘is’, is a painfully stupid argument. Steve has meticulously explained his definition of race, his reasoning behind it and why it’s useful."

    You mean according to who/whom. In essence, it's a matter of personal opinion. To what extent would the historical figures I listed, as well as today's leading anthropologists and geneticists, agree with Mr. Sailer's definition?

  30. @TWS
    @Corvinus

    Jesus Christ, do you always squirt squid ink? Yes races are both real and useful. No one brought up superiority except you. More ink. It begs no questions, raises no concerns except among those obsessed with race.

    Are races real, undoubtedly, is it important? Ask a guy with sickle cell anemia. Or ask an old ID detective from before the days we started to use, 'forensic'. Awful hard to work up an ID of a skeleton as it is. Be even harder if you didn't ID the race for whatever reason. And you can almost always if you have enough bones.

    Replies: @anon, @Corvinus

    Jesus Christ, do you always squirt squid ink?

    It is what he is paid to do.

    • Troll: Corvinus
  31. @TWS
    @Corvinus

    Jesus Christ, do you always squirt squid ink? Yes races are both real and useful. No one brought up superiority except you. More ink. It begs no questions, raises no concerns except among those obsessed with race.

    Are races real, undoubtedly, is it important? Ask a guy with sickle cell anemia. Or ask an old ID detective from before the days we started to use, 'forensic'. Awful hard to work up an ID of a skeleton as it is. Be even harder if you didn't ID the race for whatever reason. And you can almost always if you have enough bones.

    Replies: @anon, @Corvinus

    “Jesus Christ, do you always squirt squid ink?”

    It’s called analysis. Try it sometime.

    “Yes races are both real and useful.”

    According to Who/Whom?

    “No one brought up superiority except you. More ink.”

    To the contrary, there are a number of posters on this fine opinion webzine who believe whites are on top, as well as historical figures I noted. Do you think the white race is “superior” or “inherently better” than other races?

    “It begs no questions, raises no concerns except among those obsessed with race.”

    Isn’t iSteve obsessed with race?

    “Ask a guy with sickle cell anemia”.

    About that. In historically malaria-infested areas, people without the gene were likely to die of malaria, while those with two copies of the gene were likely to die of sickle cell disease. Over time, an equilibrium was reached, so that an optimal percentage of the population carried the gene. West Africa, the main historical source of American slaves, had a lot of malaria, and the sickle cell gene was and still is widespread there. However, the gene can also be found in other areas of the world, including Southern Europe (Corsica, Greece, Portugal, Sardinia, Southern Italy, Sicily, and Spain). In addition, the gene is absent in much of southern and eastern Africa. It would seem to me that the gene is not necessarily associated with a biological race, but rather with a biological disease, malaria, which afflicts certain groups–in this case, a race–more often.

    https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/703533?journalCode=isis

    Historical accounts of sickle cell disease tend to emphasize either its theoretical role in catalyzing the field of medical genetics or its clinical and social significance in representing the health-care disparities experienced by African Americans. This essay bridges these narratives by focusing on the discovery of sickle cells in marginalized Arabic-speaking communities of Yemen and Turkey in the 1950s. As in North America, sickle cell research in the Middle East unfolded along the social fractures of race. The essay analyzes how British, Turkish, and Arab geneticists attempted to create evolutionary hypotheses that reconciled historical and sociological boundaries between white and African, Arab and Turk. As the parameters of Turkish and Arab nationalism shifted in the Cold War–era Middle East, so did the favored explanatory narratives for the presence of sickle cells in different communities, which assigned different degrees of importance to African ancestry, socially enforced endogamy, and evolutionary adaptations to malaria.

    “It depends on the definition of, ‘is’, is a painfully stupid argument. Steve has meticulously explained his definition of race, his reasoning behind it and why it’s useful.”

    You mean according to who/whom. In essence, it’s a matter of personal opinion. To what extent would the historical figures I listed, as well as today’s leading anthropologists and geneticists, agree with Mr. Sailer’s definition?

  32. @RonaldB
    @Corvinus

    Races are genetic or anatomical clusters that can be derived from observation, cluster analysis, factor analysis or other systematic approaches. There is variation within clusters, but the general concept is broadly descriptive. Knowledge of racial clusters is vital in medicine.

    It's actually the critics of race who use the race concept most strongly. For instance, the far higher incident of crime with blacks is cited as an example of social definition. Similarly, for the lower incidence of academic achievement among blacks as a population.

    Once you bring all description down to the level of the individual, you can make a prescription, or judgement, strictly tailored to the individual. Someone commits a crime and get incarcerated. It's irrelevant that the proportion of people identified as black in prison far exceeds the proportion of blacks in the general population. Once one brings in the concept of social justice or injustice, it's necessary to use the concept of race and clusters.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    “Races are genetic or anatomical clusters that can be derived from observation, cluster analysis, factor analysis or other systematic approaches. There is variation within clusters, but the general concept is broadly descriptive.”

    How did these observations and analysis come about? What say you about the conclusions drawn by the historical figures I listed?

    “Knowledge of racial clusters is vital in medicine.”

    And that is being re-examined among today’s professionals.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3167748

    https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/what-role-should-race-play-in-medicine

    https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2775794

    “It’s actually the critics of race who use the race concept most strongly”.

    I would say it’s both sides of the ideological coin.

    “Once one brings in the concept of social justice or injustice, it’s necessary to use the concept of race and clusters.”

    Which goes back to how race and clusters originated in the first place from a historical and biological perspective.

  33. @jamie b.
    @Reg Cæsar

    Goof in harlot necropsy

    Pro fancying torso hole

    Of holy entropic organs

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    If you’re going to do this, the secret is to cull, cull, cull.

  34. Race believers,race deniers,incessant verbal diarrhea…

    “The Dogs bark, but the Caravan moves on.” (An old Arab proverb)

    For those scientifically pre-disposed:

    FORDISC 3.1 is an interactive computer program that runs under Windows for classifying adults by ancestry and sex using any combination of standard measurements. New features of FORDISC 3.1 include more measurements, more groups, including Howells’ worldwide cranial data, the ability to import data for analysis, outlier checks, and an improved pictorial guide to measurements.

    Race is equivalent to:
    1.Ancestry(PC Newspeak)
    2.Subspecies(animals)
    3.Variety(plants)
    4.Breed(domesticated animals)

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @John1955

    Thanks for shilling a product.

    "Race is equivalent to:
    1.Ancestry(PC Newspeak)
    2.Subspecies(animals)
    3.Variety(plants)
    4.Breed(domesticated animals)"

    I am interested in how you arrive at your conclusions.

    Replies: @John1955

  35. @John1955
    Race believers,race deniers,incessant verbal diarrhea...

    “The Dogs bark, but the Caravan moves on.” (An old Arab proverb)

    For those scientifically pre-disposed:

    FORDISC 3.1 is an interactive computer program that runs under Windows for classifying adults by ancestry and sex using any combination of standard measurements. New features of FORDISC 3.1 include more measurements, more groups, including Howells' worldwide cranial data, the ability to import data for analysis, outlier checks, and an improved pictorial guide to measurements.

    Race is equivalent to:
    1.Ancestry(PC Newspeak)
    2.Subspecies(animals)
    3.Variety(plants)
    4.Breed(domesticated animals)

    Replies: @Corvinus

    Thanks for shilling a product.

    “Race is equivalent to:
    1.Ancestry(PC Newspeak)
    2.Subspecies(animals)
    3.Variety(plants)
    4.Breed(domesticated animals)”

    I am interested in how you arrive at your conclusions.

    • Replies: @John1955
    @Corvinus

    This product was developed and is maintained by the University of Tennessee.Customers are large Police Departments or companies which provide expert witness services.

    After reading your comments I saw the Light and came to the conclusion that races,breeds,varieties,subspecies do not exist.They are just social constructs,tools of oppression.

    UTenn is ray-cisss

    Thanks for enlightening me.

    Replies: @Corvinus

  36. @Corvinus
    @John1955

    Thanks for shilling a product.

    "Race is equivalent to:
    1.Ancestry(PC Newspeak)
    2.Subspecies(animals)
    3.Variety(plants)
    4.Breed(domesticated animals)"

    I am interested in how you arrive at your conclusions.

    Replies: @John1955

    This product was developed and is maintained by the University of Tennessee.Customers are large Police Departments or companies which provide expert witness services.

    After reading your comments I saw the Light and came to the conclusion that races,breeds,varieties,subspecies do not exist.They are just social constructs,tools of oppression.

    UTenn is ray-cisss

    Thanks for enlightening me.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @John1955

    "This product was developed and is maintained by the University of Tennessee.Customers are large Police Departments or companies which provide expert witness services.'

    That's fine, but I thought we are not to trust anything related to Deep State institutions.

    Regardless, as I suspected, you are other than serious in offering insight into how you arrived at those conclusions, nor address the points I made.

    Replies: @John1955

  37. @John1955
    @Corvinus

    This product was developed and is maintained by the University of Tennessee.Customers are large Police Departments or companies which provide expert witness services.

    After reading your comments I saw the Light and came to the conclusion that races,breeds,varieties,subspecies do not exist.They are just social constructs,tools of oppression.

    UTenn is ray-cisss

    Thanks for enlightening me.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    “This product was developed and is maintained by the University of Tennessee.Customers are large Police Departments or companies which provide expert witness services.’

    That’s fine, but I thought we are not to trust anything related to Deep State institutions.

    Regardless, as I suspected, you are other than serious in offering insight into how you arrived at those conclusions, nor address the points I made.

    • Replies: @John1955
    @Corvinus

    =how you arrived at those conclusions=

    By studying the monumental book "Race"(John Randall Baker,Oxford University Press,1974) long time ago.Not under duress but out of the idle scientific curiosity.

    This book is also mentioned on Ron Unz website:

    https://www.unz.com/print/BakerJohn-1974/

    Replies: @Corvinus

  38. @Corvinus
    @John1955

    "This product was developed and is maintained by the University of Tennessee.Customers are large Police Departments or companies which provide expert witness services.'

    That's fine, but I thought we are not to trust anything related to Deep State institutions.

    Regardless, as I suspected, you are other than serious in offering insight into how you arrived at those conclusions, nor address the points I made.

    Replies: @John1955

    =how you arrived at those conclusions=

    By studying the monumental book “Race”(John Randall Baker,Oxford University Press,1974) long time ago.Not under duress but out of the idle scientific curiosity.

    This book is also mentioned on Ron Unz website:

    https://www.unz.com/print/BakerJohn-1974/

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @John1955

    The book is outdated. Of course, on data analysis for the physical sciences, we are warned about avoiding three major pitfalls; assuming our conclusions, throwing out data, and making our metrics so hazy that we can change them at will (making them "untestable").

  39. @John1955
    @Corvinus

    =how you arrived at those conclusions=

    By studying the monumental book "Race"(John Randall Baker,Oxford University Press,1974) long time ago.Not under duress but out of the idle scientific curiosity.

    This book is also mentioned on Ron Unz website:

    https://www.unz.com/print/BakerJohn-1974/

    Replies: @Corvinus

    The book is outdated. Of course, on data analysis for the physical sciences, we are warned about avoiding three major pitfalls; assuming our conclusions, throwing out data, and making our metrics so hazy that we can change them at will (making them “untestable”).

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
How America was neoconned into World War IV
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement
“America’s strategic and economic interests in the Mideast and Muslim world are being threatened by the agony in...