On the Topic of Race-Mixing

[Libertarian California]

WW1 was four generations ago. Unless your from an alternate timeline where Mexico invades American territory and loses again after the Zimmerman Telegram, that land has been part of America as long as my family has been here.

And unless you have another valid argument other than "4 generations ago lol" your argument about making all new citizens prone to deportation doesn't hold jack shit of merit GIVEN THAT your family doesn't even go as far back as even the Civil War.

My family has been here since the 1600s. We colonized Pennsylvania. I'm more native than anyone here claiming "I'm 1/16th Cherokee" or any Mexican immigrant who thinks that coming to America in the 1940s means that their family has lived in California for thousands of years.

[Libertarian California]

You know what I think? I think the solution to this immigration problem is: if your family isn't part of the 13 original colonies you're liable of deportation *nods*

See? I can come with completely arbitrary bullshit legislation too.

Well, I'm safe.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

And unless you have another valid argument other than "4 generations ago lol" your argument about making all new citizens prone to deportation doesn't hold jack shit of merit GIVEN THAT your family doesn't even go as far back as even the Civil War.

My family has been here since the 1600s. We colonized Pennsylvania. I'm more native than anyone here claiming "I'm 1/16th Cherokee" or any Mexican immigrant who thinks that coming to America in the 1940s means that their family has lived in California for thousands of years.

Good thing I never argued that.

[Libertarian California]

My family has been here since the 1600s. We colonized Pennsylvania. I'm more native than anyone here claiming "I'm 1/16th Cherokee" or any Mexican immigrant who thinks that coming to America in the 1940s means that their family has lived in California for thousands of years.

Good thing I never argued that.

No, you haven't. But there are a few people here who do.

[Sun Wukong]

"Epicanthic fold is typical in many peoples of Eastern Asia[1] and is common among Central Asian populations. It is most frequent in northeastern Asia and eastern central Asia, such as Mongolia, Manchuria, Korea, central and northern China, central and eastern Siberia and much of Japan and its prevalence decreases as one moves south and west. It is also noticed among indigenous peoples of the Arctic like Inuits and Aleuts. Epicanthic folds are characteristic of San populations in Southern Africa. It is also found in significant numbers among Indigenous Americans.[6][7][8]"

Proves my point exactly.

All Mongoloid. What is your point?

Southern Africans are Mongoloid? You didn't even read that, did you?

[Avenio]

Again, I stress that it's a somewhat arbitrary categorization, but valid for genetic analysis nonetheless.

It's not, though. There's more genetic variation within Sub-Saharan Africa alone than the entirety of the rest of the world put together. The average Congolese person is more distantly related to a South African than that same Congolese person is to a Briton or Cherokee or Australian Aborigine, and all three of those latter groups are more closely related to each other than the two African groups. This makes sense, when you consider the history of our species; humanity lived in Africa for ~200 000 years before any anatomically-modern humans began to migrate elsewhere, and the amount of time all of non-African humanity has had to diverge is, at the very most, 40 000 years.

A read an article once (I'll never find it) that catagorized all humans into three groups, Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid, and how every one of us fits into one or more of these groups.These groups were based on unique genetic traits that separated them each other. It wasn't something as superficial as skin color (Arabs and Indians were classified as Causasoids) but on these traits.

See above. None of those groupings are accurate. Moreover, they all suffer from the exact same problem of paraphyletic systemics that all races have to deal with. There are exceptions to every rule, and groups that just don't fit into any categorization.

From that aspect, race is a real concept. I'm sure it could be fine-tuned, yes, but claiming the whole idea is based on a falsehood is incorrect. (And it irritates me to no end when some people say that race is purely a political and vindictive concept used to oppress and enslave.)

Not in the least. Race is based on a pre-genetic, pre-evolutionary framework. Try as they might, racialists have simply been unable to stretch or dismember their pre-modern races into anything resembling proper biological phyla.

[Maureteco]

All Mongoloid. What is your point?

Southern Africans are Mongoloid? You didn't even read that, did you?

"The San are one of fourteen known extant 'ancestral population clusters' from which all known modern humans descend."

They passed the trait on to the Mongoloids and the others either didn't carry it or evolved out of it. They're a parent group. It's called evolution.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Good thing I never argued that.

No, you haven't. But there are a few people here who do.

What gets me is who cares about this? I mean you are you, regardless of your heritage you are a person on your own and I respect you for that.

To be fair I didn't even know race tensions existed until I came to the U.S.; heck I didn't even know fully what racism meant until I was 18.

[Libertarian California]

All Mongoloid. What is your point?

Southern Africans are Mongoloid? You didn't even read that, did you?

Which is odd, as all Sub-Saharan Black Africans are pretty distinct from other groups, as by virtue of staying in southern Africa, they did not come into contact with Neanderthals, and therefore lack the traces of Neanderthal DNA found in all other groups.

Epicanthic folds probably originated in Africa then, but the environmental conditions of Asia and the Americas made them more suitable.

[Sun Wukong]

Southern Africans are Mongoloid? You didn't even read that, did you?

"The San are one of fourteen known extant 'ancestral population clusters' from which all known modern humans descend."

They passed the trait on to the Mongoloids and the others either didn't carry it or evolved out of it. They're a parent group. It's called evolution.

Are they Mongoloid?

[Maureteco]

"The San are one of fourteen known extant 'ancestral population clusters' from which all known modern humans descend."

They passed the trait on to the Mongoloids and the others either didn't carry it or evolved out of it. They're a parent group. It's called evolution.

Are they Mongoloid?

By extension, yes. In the way that birds came from reptiles. (Organisms mutate.)

[Soldati Senza Confini]

"The San are one of fourteen known extant 'ancestral population clusters' from which all known modern humans descend."

They passed the trait on to the Mongoloids and the others either didn't carry it or evolved out of it. They're a parent group. It's called evolution.

Are they Mongoloid?

Based on Ashley Montagu (an British anthropologist who wrote a paper in 1989) they are more related to Caucasoids than Mongoloids.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_people ... ntagu_52-0

Also, deja vu. Whoa.

[Sun Wukong]

Southern Africans are Mongoloid? You didn't even read that, did you?

Which is odd, as all Sub-Saharan Black Africans are pretty distinct from other groups, as by virtue of staying in southern Africa, they did not come into contact with Neanderthals, and therefore lack the traces of Neanderthal DNA found in all other groups.

Epicanthic folds probably originated in Africa then, but the environmental conditions of Asia and the Americas made them more suitable.

It's probably the founder effect, actually.

Some people have suggested that it might have been useful in cutting down glare from snow, but there are ways to determine if a trait has been environmentally selected for, and it doesn't appear to have been.

It could have also evolved twice.

[Nazi Flower Power]

I've read theories and stories about how, in the future, 90-95% of humans will look extremely similar.
The theory usually claims we will all have tan-ish skin and black/brown hair.
The extra 5-10% is for people passing down recessive traits like blonde hair and blue eyes as well as isolated tribes/groups.

What do you think, NSG?
Personally, I think it's a great thing.
So much hatred and violence has been caused by racism and it would basically be nonexistent if we were all similar.
I think society would advance at a greater rate if we were all unified as well.

Hopefully, at the current rate of globalization and what-not, it takes less than 300-500 years to happen.

http://livescience.com/34228-will-human ... lians.html

I don't think it's likely to happen, nor is it desirable. Variation in coloring and physique allows us to adapt to a wider variety of environments and lifestyles.

People should just learn not to be assholes about it when they see a different skin color.

I don't think changing people's appearance will fix the problem anyway if you don't fix people's attitudes. Yankees and Southerners are the same race, the same nationality, and speak the same language, and we STILL don't get along. Regional prejudice is so deeply rooted in the South that the federal government had to intervene to stop local authorities from unfairly ticketing cars with Northern license plates. Of course there are religious and cultural differences involved in all this, as well as psychological scars from the Civil War, but removing race from the equation will not fix any of those things. And there are hundreds of other examples from all over the world of groups that hate each other even though they look similar. China and Japan have never entirely gotten over WWII, and a lot of Chinese still believe that the Japanese are "bad people." In Shanghai, I had one student that was ethnically Japanese, and the others would gossip about it like she was some kind of freak -- even though Chinese and Japanese are the same color. And the Irish and English aren't going to suddenly start getting along just because they both have light skin.

If you want people to stop discriminating against each other, you've got to change the way they think about history, group identity, and individuality. Racism is a psychological problem, not a physical one, so it needs a psychological solution.

[Blazedtown]

WW1 was four generations ago. Unless your from an alternate timeline where Mexico invades American territory and loses again after the Zimmerman Telegram, that land has been part of America as long as my family has been here.

And unless you have another valid argument other than "4 generations ago lol" your argument about making all new citizens prone to deportation doesn't hold jack shit of merit GIVEN THAT your family doesn't even go as far back as even the Civil War.

What? I was referring to the land we conquered in the Mexican War, which was 1840s. You said that America defeated you less than four generations ago, but if you take one of your fingers and count it as yourself, another finger for your parents, a third for your grandparents, and a fourth for your great-grandparents, that's four. My Great Grandparents were born in the late 1890s-early 1900s. You see 1848 is a smaller number than 1890. Still following me? This means that events that happened in 1848 happened before that. Not too hard to understand is it?

As to your actual "point".

1st generation immigrants where born and in all probability raised in another country. That means they may have loyalties other than to their new host country. Second generation will still hold dear a good portion of the cultural values and practices of their home country, being raised by people from that country and probably speak the language of their homeland. 3rd generation will hopefully have fully Americanized with only a few traces of their home culture and language still present, while the fourth generation will only have the recipes for the good ethnic foods and the occasional awful delicacies of the home country kept around for torturing in laws.

[Great Empire of Gamilus]

who got the first satellite, man, dog, woman and alot of others into space first? give you in hint...

Based Communism is best Communism

one shitty flag on the moon dosn't say anything

1957: First intercontinental ballistic missile, the R-7 Semyorka
1957: First satellite, Sputnik 1
1957: First animal to enter Earth orbit, the dog Laika on Sputnik 2
1959: First firing of a rocket in Earth orbit, first man-made object to escape Earth's orbit, Luna 1
1959: First data communications, or telemetry, to and from outer space, Luna 1.
1959: First man-made object to pass near the Moon, first artificial satellite in Solar orbit, Luna 1
1959: First probe to impact the Moon, Luna 2
1959: First images of the moon's far side, Luna 3
1960: First animals to safely return from Earth orbit, the dogs Belka and Strelka on Sputnik 5.
1960: First probe launched to Mars, Marsnik 1 (failed to reach target)
1961: First probe launched to Venus, Venera 1
1961: First person in space (International definition) and in Earth orbit, Yuri Gagarin on Vostok 1, Vostok programme
1961: First person to spend over a day in space Gherman Titov, Vostok 2 (also first person to sleep in space).
1962: First dual crewed spaceflight, Vostok 3 and Vostok 4
1963: First woman in space, Valentina Tereshkova, Vostok 6
1964: First multi-person crew (3), Voskhod 1
1965: First EVA, by Aleksei Leonov, Voskhod 2
1965: First probe to hit another planet (Venus), Venera 3
1966: First probe to make a soft landing on and transmit from the surface of the moon, Luna 9
1966: First probe in lunar orbit, Luna 10
1967: First automated, crewless rendezvous and docking, Cosmos 186/Cosmos 188. (Until 2006, this had remained the only major space achievement that the US had not duplicated.)
1969: First docking between two crewed crafts in Earth orbit and exchange of crews, Soyuz 4 and Soyuz 5

And all of this was made possible on both sides using captured Nazi scientists.

I didn't deny it

[Maureteco]

Which is odd, as all Sub-Saharan Black Africans are pretty distinct from other groups, as by virtue of staying in southern Africa, they did not come into contact with Neanderthals, and therefore lack the traces of Neanderthal DNA found in all other groups.

Epicanthic folds probably originated in Africa then, but the environmental conditions of Asia and the Americas made them more suitable.

It's probably the founder effect, actually.

Some people have suggested that it might have been useful in cutting down glare from snow, but there are ways to determine if a trait has been environmentally selected for, and it doesn't appear to have been.

It could have also evolved twice.

Boom. Proved it for me. Anyway, it is not found (the folds) in any other population on Earth. Distinct Mongoloid trait. Even skin color; white people and Asians can have the same pigment, but it was determined through genetic analysis that they are separate on an evolutionary line. (Different causes, different gene, very similar effect.)

[Sun Wukong]

Are they Mongoloid?

By extension, yes. In the way that birds came from reptiles. (Organisms mutate.)

So they're not Negroid then? Because you said all humans fall into one of the three categories.

Moreover not all Mongoloids possess the trait. So it fails there too.

[Maureteco]

I've read theories and stories about how, in the future, 90-95% of humans will look extremely similar.
The theory usually claims we will all have tan-ish skin and black/brown hair.
The extra 5-10% is for people passing down recessive traits like blonde hair and blue eyes as well as isolated tribes/groups.

What do you think, NSG?
Personally, I think it's a great thing.
So much hatred and violence has been caused by racism and it would basically be nonexistent if we were all similar.
I think society would advance at a greater rate if we were all unified as well.

Hopefully, at the current rate of globalization and what-not, it takes less than 300-500 years to happen.

http://livescience.com/34228-will-human ... lians.html

I don't think it's likely to happen, nor is it desirable. Variation in coloring and physique allows us to adapt to a wider variety of environments and lifestyles.

People should just learn not to be assholes about it when they see a different skin color.

I don't think changing people's appearance will fix the problem anyway if you don't fix people's attitudes. Yankees and Southerners are the same race, the same nationality, and speak the same language, and we STILL don't get along. Regional prejudice is so deeply rooted in the South that the federal government had to intervene to stop local authorities from unfairly ticketing cars with Northern license plates. Of course there are religious and cultural differences involved in all this, as well as psychological scars from the Civil War, but removing race from the equation will not fix any of those things. And there are hundreds of other examples from all over the world of groups that hate each other even though they look similar. China and Japan have never entirely gotten over WWII, and a lot of Chinese still believe that the Japanese are "bad people." In Shanghai, I had one student that was ethnically Japanese, and the others would gossip about it like she was some kind of freak -- even though Chinese and Japanese are the same color. And the Irish and English aren't going to suddenly start getting along just because they both have light skin.

If you want people to stop discriminating against each other, you've got to change the way they think about history, group identity, and individuality. Racism is a psychological problem, not a physical one, so it needs a psychological solution.

Boom. ^^^

[Maureteco]

By extension, yes. In the way that birds came from reptiles. (Organisms mutate.)

So they're not Negroid then? Because you said all humans fall into one of the three categories.

Moreover not all Mongoloids possess the trait. So it fails there too.

Yes, they do. Which Mongoloid group doesn't???

And a group like the San are a mixture, like some could say Latin Americans are. They possess qualities of multiple groups. A guy with a white mom and a black dad is considered both, not one or the other.

[Sun Wukong]

It's probably the founder effect, actually.

Some people have suggested that it might have been useful in cutting down glare from snow, but there are ways to determine if a trait has been environmentally selected for, and it doesn't appear to have been.

It could have also evolved twice.

Boom. Proved it for me. Anyway, it is not found (the folds) in any other population on Earth. Distinct Mongoloid trait. Even skin color; white people and Asians can have the same pigment, but it was determined through genetic analysis that they are separate on an evolutionary line. (Different causes, different gene, very similar effect.)

Except it is. And it's not found in all mongoloids. And there's no clear line of division between mongoloids and non-mongoloids based on this criteria (many populations have the trait only in some individuals, Scandinavians for instance.)

But, again, you're pointing to absolutely arbitrary and unimportant distinctions as though they meant something. They don't.

[Idzequitch]

I have absolutely nothing against race mixing, however, I do think uniqueness is important too. That said, race mixing should not be discouraged only for the sake of maintaining uniqueness. If the article is right, so be it. If it's not, that's cool too. I don't see what the big deal would be.

If it does happen though, I don't think it will be as soon as the article predicts, only because I think the majority of people are attracted to people who look somewhat like them.

[Maureteco]

Boom. Proved it for me. Anyway, it is not found (the folds) in any other population on Earth. Distinct Mongoloid trait. Even skin color; white people and Asians can have the same pigment, but it was determined through genetic analysis that they are separate on an evolutionary line. (Different causes, different gene, very similar effect.)

Except it is. And it's not found in all mongoloids. And there's no clear line of division between mongoloids and non-mongoloids based on this criteria (many populations have the trait only in some individuals, Scandinavians for instance.)

But, again, you're pointing to absolutely arbitrary and unimportant distinctions as though they meant something. They don't.

Once again, I'll take your word for it.

Give me one example of a Mongoloid group without that trait.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

1st generation immigrants where born and in all probability raised in another country. That means they may have loyalties other than to their new host country. Second generation will still hold dear a good portion of the cultural values and practices of their home country, being raised by people from that country and probably speak the language of their homeland. 3rd generation will hopefully have fully Americanized with only a few traces of their home culture and language still present, while the fourth generation will only have the recipes for the good ethnic foods and the occasional awful delicacies of the home country kept around for torturing in laws.

As a 1st generation Citizen I find that a little inaccurate. I'm sorry but if you think I hold any loyalties to the country where I was born or to the one my mother is from you are dead wrong and are completely making ignorant arguments without ever knowing an immigrant yourself. So let me enlighten you how we people in the citizenship process think (the vast majority of us anyways, I am sure there are exceptions).

We don't think "oh we're going to fuck over America"; we think "you know? We actually want to have a life and children in this land and contribute to this country which is our land now by choice." Yes, we hold our heritage and culture, but only the good values of said culture. I'm an Americanized Latino basically except for certain beliefs and cultural differences that I still have that I have found beneficial to retain because they make me a better person and gives me an advantage (such as my language and work ethics as well as racial indifference).

The truth is I have also learned how to coexist with all other cultures around me, and if that isn't what an American is supposed to do then you can kiss my ass because I learned your constitution and I know, better than you do, how I feel about America and which country I hold more loyalty to - which is the country I hold my citizenship right now. So for you to say "oh immigrants have other loyalties" is extremely dishonest and ignorant of you given that those of us who come here expect a better life and people like you just like to shit all over it by flaunting your so-called "American Heritage" at us while we prove we're much better than you and we have the self-respect not to lower ourselves to discriminate you.

[Sun Wukong]

So they're not Negroid then? Because you said all humans fall into one of the three categories.

Moreover not all Mongoloids possess the trait. So it fails there too.

Yes, they do. Which Mongoloid group doesn't???

And a group like the San are a mixture, like some could say Latin Americans are. They possess qualities of multiple groups. A guy with a white mom and a black dad is considered both, not one or the other.

How can it be a mixture if it's progenic?

Anyway, a fair number of Japanese people don't, as well as fair number of Amerindians, Siberians, Central Asians, etc, etc.