Race and Racism in The United States

[Theo Roosevelt]

A country founded in white nationalist beliefs that had a 90% white population at the peak of its racist sentiment not many decades ago has major problems of white supremacist portions of populace oppressing the disadvantaged minorities? Color me shocked!

Be more careful with the language that you're using, even when you're right.

[The Cobalt Sky]

A country founded in white nationalist beliefs that had a 90% white population at the peak of its racist sentiment not many decades ago has major problems of white supremacist portions of populace oppressing the disadvantaged minorities? Color me shocked!

For those of us who see things more clearly on issues like this, it's a no brainer. But I think we don't make up all of America, or all of NS. Just wait, I'm sure someone will come along and refute all this.

[Scomagia]

You're in the majority of the US, of course your happy.

I'm not going to be happy for long, being apart of White America in my view is like being an official of South Vietnam, you know that your home is in terminal decline and that one of these days your group is going to collapse. I fear that I won't have an escape plan when the time comes.

The "White Population" is not in "terminal decline".

[New haven america]

You're in the majority of the US, of course your happy.

I'm not going to be happy for long, being apart of White America in my view is like being an official of South Vietnam, you know that your home is in terminal decline and that one of these days your group is going to collapse. I fear that I won't have an escape plan when the time comes.

Guessing you got that from Stormfront? Because we're not in "Terminal Decline".

[Benuty]

I'm not going to be happy for long, being apart of White America in my view is like being an official of South Vietnam, you know that your home is in terminal decline and that one of these days your group is going to collapse. I fear that I won't have an escape plan when the time comes.

The "White Population" is not in "terminal decline".

It actually is...since it doesn't exist in reality to begin with.

[The Conez Imperium]

You're in the majority of the US, of course your happy.

I'm not going to be happy for long, being apart of White America in my view is like being an official of South Vietnam, you know that your home is in terminal decline and that one of these days your group is going to collapse. I fear that I won't have an escape plan when the time comes.

Oh my gosh, the black, Asian and middle-eastern people will over run my suburb. Quick ! We must defend our culture from their barbaric ways. It's that type of thinking that is messed up.

[Scomagia]

The "White Population" is not in "terminal decline".

It actually is...since it doesn't exist in reality to begin with.

That's why I put White Population in quotes.

[The Cobalt Sky]

You're in the majority of the US, of course your happy.

I'm not going to be happy for long, being apart of White America in my view is like being an official of South Vietnam, you know that your home is in terminal decline and that one of these days your group is going to collapse. I fear that I won't have an escape plan when the time comes.

I think I just proved black people are hurt by the criminal justice system a lot more than whites. How are you still that concerned with white people? Are you saying we should be jailed even more frequently and for even lesser infractions?

[Nuwe Suid Afrika]

A problem, but how serious a problem?

Not a serious problem at all. It can be fixed by the black population putting in more effort to moving away from the discriminatory profiles that they hate so much. I've seen blacks yell about how much they hate getting stereotyped for this and that, yet proceed to do that same thing then minutes later.

Who do you think is its source?

Their community. It's nothing that 'we' as a society can do to fix it. It's entirely up to them.

How ingrained is it?

Define 'ingrained'.

Are you a racist?

Yes. I'm racist because of the facts that are presented. The scientific backings which I have used in this thread details it. These are the scientific facts.

[Scomagia]

I'm not going to be happy for long, being apart of White America in my view is like being an official of South Vietnam, you know that your home is in terminal decline and that one of these days your group is going to collapse. I fear that I won't have an escape plan when the time comes.

I think I just proved black people are hurt by the criminal justice system a lot more than whites. How are you still that concerned with white people? Are you saying we should be jailed even more frequently and for even lesser infractions?

He's operating on flawed logic. First, he believes that race exists. Second, he believes that his "race", i.e. "White People" is going to lose it's place as a numerical majority. Finally, he believe that a numerical majority is required for a group to have a dominant position in society, which is wrong.

All in all, as usual, his post is based on complete nonsense. I'd caution against trying to argue against him, unless you have a lot of patience.

[Saiwania]

I think I just proved black people are hurt by the criminal justice system a lot more than whites. How are you still that concerned with white people? Are you saying we should be jailed even more frequently and for even lesser infractions?

If I was Black, I might be worried. But since I'm White, I don't see it as my problem. I'm a segregationist that keeps to my own and doesn't want to bother with other races beyond what is necessary. I doubt the situation of Black America will be much improved when Hispanics are the majority.

[Anglo-California]

The solution to your problem of course, isn't to fight against racism but rather- to accept it as what is natural and true. Learn what racial/ethnic group you belong to and do not feel any shame in embracing that. I choose to keep to my own as much as possible and couldn't be happier.

Sometimes I think we should just cut our losses and Balkanize.

[Kelinfort]

The solution to your problem of course, isn't to fight against racism but rather- to accept it as what is natural and true. Learn what racial/ethnic group you belong to and do not feel any shame in embracing that. I choose to keep to my own as much as possible and couldn't be happier.

Sometimes I think we should just cut our losses and Balkanize.

For what reason?

The US has assimilated different groups with ease. Why are you worriedly? nationalism shows no sign of ebbing.

[Anglo-California]

A country founded in white nationalist beliefs that had a 90% white population at the peak...

The glory days...

*sigh*

[Independent Republic of Not My Problem]

So, what you're statistics are telling me is that blacks and latinos commit crimes at a higher rate than white people. I already knew that.

...Or just get searched, convicted, and sentenced more often. And when they do get sentenced, it's for longer.
http://upw-prod-images.global.ssl.fastl ... 9fff46.png
http://upw-prod-images.global.ssl.fastl ... 89c87a.png

The DOJ has run through this crap numerous times.
Riddle me this mr stats man:
Of those arrests, who and how many resisted without violence? With violence?
Do they have prior run ins with the law?
Prior convictions? Plea bargains?
What were the extenuating circumstances?
What led to the initial contact with the officers?
Once in custody, were they cooperative?
Were they on parole or have pending charges?

All these, and more, have a significant impact in how your case gets handled by the system. Compounding issues of repeat arrests and convictions also tend to skew statistics done by lazy statisticians as they frequently, sometimes intentionally, ignore the number of unique events, in favor of bulk numbers.

[Anglo-California]

Sometimes I think we should just cut our losses and Balkanize.

For what reason?

The US has assimilated different groups with ease. Why are you worriedly? nationalism shows no sign of ebbing.

Well, you see-

Ah fuck it. I'm not in the mood to do this. It's not you. I'm just gonna log out of NS right now. I need a beer.

[Saiwania]

My advice to minorities is to either keep their identity and remain separate from the larger society or integrate and lose what culture they have in favor of conforming to the culture of the majority in place.

For example, if there is a Hispanic majority and you're Black, to minimize being treated differently, you'll want to move away from Black sounding names like Cleavon, Darius, or Andre and instead go with Spanish ones like Carlos, Diego, or Alejandro.

[Kelinfort]

My advice to minorities is to either keep their identity and remain separate from the larger society or integrate and lose what culture they have in favor of conforming to the culture of the majority in place.

For example, if there is a Hispanic majority and you're Black, to minimize being treated differently, you'll want to move away from Black sounding names like Cleavon, Darius, or Andre and instead go with Spanish ones like Carlos, Diego, or Alejandro.

Ah yes, because the Latino menace will overcome all white defenses.

[New Hampshire Republic]

Racism is still rampant in the US. Those who do not think it exists or embrace it are equal in their betrayal of the truth.

Rampant? Are you basing your view on the US with Cousinf*ck County, Mississippi?

[Kelinfort]

Racism is still rampant in the US. Those who do not think it exists or embrace it are equal in their betrayal of the truth.

Rampant? Are you basing your view on the US with Cousinf*ck County, Mississippi?

Just take a look at this thread.

But seriously, the dog whistle language used by politicians to describe immigrants and the, "black on welfare," image is clearly thinly veiled racism.

[Edgy Opinions]

My advice to minorities is to either keep their identity and remain separate from the larger society or integrate and lose what culture they have in favor of conforming to the culture of the majority in place.

For example, if there is a Hispanic majority and you're Black, to minimize being treated differently, you'll want to move away from Black sounding names like Cleavon, Darius, or Andre and instead go with Spanish ones like Carlos, Diego, or Alejandro.

Darius and Andre are perfectly Hispanic.

[New Hampshire Republic]

Rampant? Are you basing your view on the US with Cousinf*ck County, Mississippi?

Just take a look at this thread.

But seriously, the dog whistle language used by politicians to describe immigrants and the, "black on welfare," image is clearly thinly veiled racism.

By "dog-whistle language," you mean...?

I did take a look. I'm still not convinced that the U.S. is a backwards cesspool of racists and hicks.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

...Or just get searched, convicted, and sentenced more often. And when they do get sentenced, it's for longer.
http://upw-prod-images.global.ssl.fastl ... 9fff46.png
http://upw-prod-images.global.ssl.fastl ... 89c87a.png

The DOJ has run through this crap numerous times.
Riddle me this mr stats man:
Of those arrests, who and how many resisted without violence? With violence?
Do they have prior run ins with the law?
Prior convictions? Plea bargains?
What were the extenuating circumstances?
What led to the initial contact with the officers?
Once in custody, were they cooperative?
Were they on parole or have pending charges?

All these, and more, have a significant impact in how your case gets handled by the system. Compounding issues of repeat arrests and convictions also tend to skew statistics done by lazy statisticians as they frequently, sometimes intentionally, ignore the number of unique events, in favor of bulk numbers.

There seems to be an implication that the answers to these questions would somehow support your point. Rather than have others do your research to make your arguments for you, how about you find out the information, and present it to us with an explanation of how it reinforces whatever you're trying to say?

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Just take a look at this thread.

But seriously, the dog whistle language used by politicians to describe immigrants and the, "black on welfare," image is clearly thinly veiled racism.

By "dog-whistle language," you mean...?

I did take a look. I'm still not convinced that the U.S. is a backwards cesspool of racists and hicks.

No, we're a highly advanced cesspool of people who would never, ever consider themselves racists or hicks because they have black friends, and think that it's okay to say the most horribly racist things if you start off a sentence with "I'm not racist, but...."

[Mavorpen]

Not a serious problem at all.

Source?

It can be fixed by the black population putting in more effort to moving away from the discriminatory profiles that they hate so much.

This is nonsensical gibberish.

I've seen blacks yell about how much they hate getting stereotyped for this and that, yet proceed to do that same thing then minutes later.

And of course, no actual evidence for this, I notice.

Their community. It's nothing that 'we' as a society can do to fix it. It's entirely up to them.

Given that you've yet to identify a single problem that has its origins in the "community" rather than racism, this is bullshit.

Yes. I'm racist because of the facts that are presented.

HAHAHAHAHA.

The scientific backings which I have used in this thread details it.

Races don't biologically exist. Any attempt to back up racism with science is laughably stupid.

These are the scientific facts.

Aw, how cute, you think it's wise to cite a psychologist on a matter that is inherently biological, meanwhile here's what actual scientists involved in the field have to say:

So now we get down to the real fucking crux of the problem here. You accuse me of attacking straw men? This a fucking joke. Show one single quote of mine where I said this is entirely genetic. Seriously.

So you've been tilting at windmills, essentially. Fantastic.

---

Rushton, Jensen. "The rise and fall of the Flynn Effect as a reason to expect a narrowing of the Black-White IQ gap" 2010. (Also in the same year "Race and IQ: A Theory Based Review of the Research in Richard Nisbett’s Intelligence and How to Get It", the studies involving malnourished and disadvantaged yet above average Asians are interesting.)

Rushton, Jensen. "Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability" 2005.

Rushton. "Secular gains in IQ not related to the g factor and inbreeding depression -- unlike Black-White differences: A reply to Flynn" 1999.

One source by the same person is enough. Though, I'm not sure why you would want to source a man who headed an organization that has been associated with scientific racism, eugenics, and white supremacy:

---

Wroe, Andrew (2008). The Republican Party and Immigration Politics: from Proposition 187 to George W. Bush. Macmillan. p. 294.

Falk, Avner (2008). Anti-semitism: a history and psychoanalysis of contemporary hatred. Praeger. p. 312.

Tucker, William H (2002). The Funding of Scientific Racism: Wickliffe Draper and the Pioneer Fund. University of Illinois Press.

---

Regardless, here's a source that directly refute Rushton:

Rouvroy, Antoinette (2008). Human genes and neoliberal governance: a Foucauldian critique. Routledge. p. 86.

By the way, Intelligence and How to Get It: Why Schools and Cultures Count is a source that actually refutes Rushton. Nice job contradicting yourself.

Lynn. "Race Difference in Intelligence" 2006.

Refuted.

Mackintosh, N.J. (January–February 2007). "Book review - Race differences in intelligence: An evolutionary hypothesis". Intelligence 35 (1): 94–96.

Daley et al., 2003 T. Daley, S. Whaley, M.D. Sigman, M.P. Espinosa and C. Neumann, IQ on the rise: The Flynn effect in rural Kenyan children, Psychological Science 14 (5) (2003), pp. 215–219.

Lynn, Vanhanen. "IQ and the Wealth of Nations" 2002, "IQ and Global Inequality" 2006.

Refuted.

Barnett, Susan M. and Williams, Wendy (August 2004). "National Intelligence and the Emperor's New Clothes". Contemporary Psychology: APA Review of Books 49 (4): 389–396.

Mackintosh, N.J. (January–February 2007). "Book review - Race differences in intelligence: An evolutionary hypothesis". Intelligence 35 (1): 94–96.

Book Review: IQ and the Wealth of Nations Heredity April 2004, Volume 92, Number 4, Pages 359–360. K Richardson.

American Psychological Association. "Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns" 1995. (Remains largely neutral on the issue but argue against socioeconomic factors as an explanation of the black-white gap)

And yet, it also doesn't support your claim that the answer is genetics.

"The cause of that differential is not known; it is apparently not due to any simple form of bias in the content or administration of the tests themselves. The Flynn effect shows that environmental factors can produce differences of at least this magnitude, but that effect is mysterious in its own right. Several culturally based explanations of the Black/ White IQ differential have been proposed; some are plausible, but so far none has been conclusively supported. There is even less empirical support for a genetic interpretation. In short, no adequate explanation of the differential between the IQ means of Blacks and Whites is presently available."

Furthermore:

The genetic hypothesis. It is sometimes suggested that the Black/White differential in psychometric
intelligence is partly due to genetic differences (Jensen,
1972). There is not much direct evidence on this point,
but what little there is fails to support the genetic hypothesis. (American Psychologist 95

So this was basically a worthless source.

Scarr, Weinberg, Waldman. The Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study, 1976, 1992.

What? The authors don't even interpret their own data as supporting the genetic hypothesis, as shown in a later paper.

Waldman, I. D., Weinberg, R. A., & Scarr, S. (1994). Racial-group differences in IQ in the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study: A reply to Levin and Lynn. Intelligence, 19, 29-44.

They had this to say:

"...contrary to Levin's and Lynn's assertions, results from the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study provide little or no conclusive evidence for genetic influences underlying racial differences in intelligence and achievement,"

Probably should have actually done research on your own source, eh?

Sailer. "The Stereotype Threat scientific scandal" 2010.

...What? This isn't even a scholarly source. This is from a blog. Not only that, but here's a description about him from from a website in which his blog post was hosted:

[Steve Sailer (email him) is movie critic for The American Conservative. His website http://www.iSteve.blogspot.com features his daily blog. His new book, AMERICA'S HALF-BLOOD PRINCE: BARACK OBAMA'S "STORY OF RACE AND INHERITANCE", is available here.]

Did you just give up halfway through this list?

Murray. "The Inequality Taboo" 2005. (And of course "the Bell Curve" 1994.)

Ironically, this is refuted by the APA source that you presented earlier (Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns).

Wicherts, de Haan, International Society for Intelligence Research, 10th Annual Conference "Stereotype threat and the cognitive test performance of African Americans" 2009.

...What? Did you even read this source? This source doesn't support the genetic hypothesis and instead investigates the Stereotype thread, concluding that it has a significant affect on the results.

Barg, Crane. "Do Early Childhood Intervention Programs Really Work?" 2003.

This wasn't published in a peer reviewed journal, and is thus not on equal footing with my sources.

Regardless, this source is also not evidence for the genetic hypothesis.

When early intervention programs were originally developed in the sixties, their primary objective was to raise the intellectual achievement of disadvantaged children. There is little doubt that these programs can increase test scores in the near term. Unfortunately, there is a definite tendency for these gains to fade out over time. The evidence is mixed on the question of whether it is possible to make them permanent. However, there is a growing body of evidence that early intervention programs can generate permanent changes in social behavior. Five major studies have shown that these programs reduce the incidence of social problems by large amounts when the children reach adolescence and adulthood. The effects seem to be larger for more severe problems.

Bacharach, Baumeister. "Early Generic Educational Intervention Has No Enduring Effect On Intelligence and Does Not Prevent Mental Retardation: The Infant Health and Development Program" 2000.

This also does not support your genetic hypothesis. At most, it supports a biological explanation, which still has an origin in (you guessed it), environmental factors. In fact, some sources have argued that these biological explanations can be found in situations such as nutrition.

Colom, R., Lluis-Font, J. M., & Andres-Pueyo, A. (2005). The general intelligence gains are caused by decreasing variance in the lower half of the distribution: Supporting evidence for the nutrition hypothesis. Intelligence, 33, 83-91.

Plus, it's also been refuted.

Blair, C. & Wahlsten, D (2002). Why early intervention works: A reply to Baumeister and Bacharach. Intelligence, 30(2).

I could also go on and on, and we can continue to wave our referencing dicks around as much as we like but it clearly isn't going to convince either of us that we're wrong. But my all means, if you want to continue going around in this circle then we can continue.

Sure, let's.

But this time, try to find sources that aren't outdated garbage that has been thoroughly refuted several times over. Also, make sure you read them so you don't make the silly mistake of sourcing something that refutes your own claim.

viewtopic.php?p=20141055#p20141055

Hey illiterate, the study was over the notion of biological races, not taxonomic races. They agreed with the notion that there are taxonomic races, but they disagreed with the notion that "There are biological races in the species Homo sapiens". So again no, race is still scientifically applicable and is indeed applied by scientists.

Stop lying. Differentiating between "biological race" and "taxonomic race" is nonsensical gibberish that the source does not do. Please quote it differentiating between the two and then please quote it explicitly stating that that statistic is EXCLUSIVELY concerning biological race rather than taxonomic race, otherwise you're pulling shit out of your ass.

So then we're at a stalemate; your sources claim one thing, my sources claim another.

Wrong, both yours AND mine disagree with you.

Uh-- no. The first source's results show that most anthropologists are not of the belief that "There are biological races in the species Homo sapiens", but there are taxonomic races.

Wrong. The first source does not even mention anything such as "taxonomic race." Don't believe me? Here, have a screenshot.

Please don't pretend as though we don't have the ability to quickly fact check your nonsense. The only thing we can conclude is that you're literally making up terms to draw some arbitrary distinction that doesn't exist.

The second source states that both biologists and developmental psychologists are of the belief that there are races in both the biological and taxonomical sense, and follows up the first source concerning anthropologists on their belief that races exist in the taxonomical sense but that they reject their existence in the biological sense.

Except, once again, NEITHER source makes ANY differentiation between these mythical terms and distinctions that YOU'VE made up. Again, have a screenshot.

It's obvious that not only have you NOT actually read your sources, but you're downright LYING about what they've concluded. NEITHER one of them even MENTION the term "taxonomic race" and neither do either of them conclude that it exists.

If you have evidence otherwise, please provide a screenshot or quote the sources directly that they a)differentiate between "taxonomic race" and "biological race" and conclude that biological race does nto exist while taxonomic race does.

Geneticists like Cavalli-Sforza and Edwards are not of the same opinion as anthropologists are; there's division over whether or not it's valid biologically or taxonomically, or valid in both ways simultaneously-- not over whether or not races exist in one form or the other.

Again, this is a bold faced, blatant fucking lie and is nonsensical gibberish. If it exists taxonomically, then it exists biologically. Taxonomy is a field WITHIN biology. It's like arguing that X exists within quantum theory, but does not exist in physics. It makes NO sense whatsoever when you actually understand what you're talking about.

Like yours originally was?



Nice massive dose of hypocrisy right there.

Only if you don't actually understand what argumentum ad populum means. Argumentum ad populum is when you present a claim as true simply because a majority says so. I never said that. My evidence were the two sources that actually showed FACTS and evidence that my position is true. If it were ACTUALLY an argumentum ad populum, I would have cited a poll and then said, "LOOK, I'M RIGHT!"

You know it's funny, because I notice that you haven't once attempted to go after either of my geneticist sources. Not Cavalli-Sforza, and not Edwards. You attempted to go after Edwards with some off-the-wall study that had nothing to do with him

Bullshit, that source specifically addressed several scientists and their studies, including Edwards.

and was just claiming that races altogether and were nothing more than a social construct. Yes, that's nice, but it doesn't refute any of the research work he's done, not by himself and certainly not between him and Cavalli-Sforza.

Well if you REALLY want to understand how much of a joke using Edwards' article is, I'll gladly oblige. Here is a paper that Kaplan also authored (along with another researcher Rasmus Grønfeldt Winther). Like the source I posted earlier that was authored by Kaplan, this one directly addresses Edwards' paper:

[...]Edwards’ 2003 response ‘‘Human Genetic Diversity:
Lewontin’s Fallacy.’’ Lewontin’s paper was essentially a
statistical meta-study that analyzed the structure of genetic
heterozygosity in humans, using a Shannon entropy measure
(see below). In this analysis, Lewontin found that
85.4 % of genetic variation is found within-populations,
8.3 % is found between those populations that exist within
races, and (only) 6.3 % is found across races. From this
averaging of the global patterns of heterozygosity structure,
Lewontin concluded:
It is clear that our perception of relatively large differences
between human races and subgroups, as
compared to the variation within these groups, is
indeed a biased perception and that, based on randomly
chosen genetic differences, human races and
populations are remarkably similar to each other….
Human racial classification is of no social value and
is positively destructive of social and human relations.
Since such racial classification is now seen to
be of virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance
either, no justification can be offered for its continuance.
(1972, p. 397)
Edwards takes issue with this conclusion; he claims that
‘‘[t]here is nothing wrong with Lewontin’s statistical
analysis of variation, only with the belief that it is relevant
to classification’’ (pp. 800–801). Edwards argues that the
data cited by Lewontin cannot support the claim that ‘‘the
division of Homo sapiens into these groups [i.e., races] is
not justified by the genetic data’’ (2003, p. 798). While
population structure is not revealed by the total, averaged
variation, it can be identified by the correlations among the
individual variations in allele frequencies. Even small
differences in, e.g., allele frequencies between populations
can be used to reveal population structure, given sufficient
loci (2003, p. 801). Edwards interprets Lewontin as denying
the existence of population structure in humans,2 and
provides a statistical critique of that interpretation—a critique
he suggests is borne out by the recent successful work
in genetic clustering analysis (e.g., Pritchard et al. 2000;
Rosenberg et al. 2002, both cited by Edwards 2003[...]

And this source comes to the conclusion that

So, can the biological data support any particular racial
ontology? We argue that it cannot. At one extreme, if there
was no population structure at all in humans, if all loci
varied strictly independently from one another, it would be
difficult to defend a racial realist position12 as Mills defines
it (see above and Fig. 1). But no one has ever seriously
suggested that there is no population structure at all in
humans, or that all (genetic) traits vary strictly independently
from each other across our species. And if there is
any structure at all, there is room for a racialist to argue
that it is that structure that makes races ‘‘real.’’ Lewontin’s
result that only about 6 % (whatever this number means,
see above) of the variation in the species occurs between
the races is insufficient to make racialism impossible; 6 %,
after all, is not zero.
But the biology usually cited is of no use to the realist,
either. The ability to use clustering software to recapitulate
racial categories based on ancestral continent of origin, or
to find tree-like relationships among populations, does not
make the clusters found biologically real races, or the
branches of the trees found clades (nor, pace Andreasen
(2000, 2004) would a population’s being a clade make that
population into a race). At the very least, the full-blown
racial realist ought to be able to provide a consistent and
clear biological justification for treating some clusters (or
branching points on a tree) and not others as races and
assigning to those clusters (but not others) a particular kind
of biological meaning. After all, the same formal techniques—
indeed, the same software packages—can (and
do) identify populations that are not generally considered
races within the context of contemporary U.S. discourse
(‘‘the Dutch’’ for example; see Novembre et al. 2008; see
Kaplan 2010 for discussion; Kitcher 2007 makes a similar
point, pp. 304–306). Certainly nothing in the techniques
that use genetic variation to explore population structure
can provide that justification, and it is vanishingly unlikely
that anything in biology can.

Both authors agree that Edwards is correct to an extent. However, they explain that his conclusion that therefore races biologically exist because of "genetic clusters" does not necessarily follow. They aren't alone, either. There are SEVERAL studies that refute such a conclusion:

For example, this study by the anthropologists Kenneth Weiss and Brian Lambert concludes:

The reason structure analysis can
give an illusion of classical types and
admixture is that, like hilly topography, the geographic pattern of allele
frequency change is continuous, but
does not change smoothly like an
inclined plane. Structure analysis
detects these irregularities on the allele-
frequency surface and treats
them as-if they were discrete parental
populations. But like geological
hills, historically these irregularities
arose in a continuous process.
Here we are discussing the realities
of human variation, not making
politically correct statements of any
kind. In fact, in opposing racist
typology it is often said that any two
copies of the human genome are
more than 99% alike, and that hence
we are all effectively alike. As a single
species, we are obviously all
pretty much alike, morphologically
as well as genetically. Racial typologists
knew this, but their focus was
on the differences. Structure analysis
is also a study of differences, though
its authors do not use terms like
‘type,’ ‘race,’ or ‘pure,’ and we are not
imputing to them any social racism
whatsoever. However, it is likely that
few users of the programs or readers
of the results realize that they are
still employing the typological
approaches of our once and properly
rejected past. Ironically, by ignoring
the way population history actually
works as one process from a common
origin rather than as a string of
creation events, structure analysis
that seems to present variation in
Darwinian evolutionary terms is fundamentally
non-Darwinian.14

This publication demonstrates that most studies concerning "genetic clusters" such as the one by Edwards are invalid because of sampling bias.

In the 1970s and 1980s, it became increasingly common to use multilocus genotypes to distinguish different human groups13, and in the 1990s, to allocate individuals to groups14. Repeatedly, it was shown that restriction site polymorphisms15, short tandem repeat polymorphisms (STRs)16, SNPs17 or Alu insertion polymorphisms18 could be used to delimit groups and to assign individuals to specific groups. They also showed that groups that live on the same continent were typically more similar to each other than groups from different continents. However, in all of these studies, the identities of groups and individuals were assigned a priori. In other words, ancestry information such as race, ethnicity or geographical origin was used in conjunction with genetic data to infer group boundaries and allocate individuals to groups. If individuals were stripped of all prior information about ancestry (such as geographical location of origin, race, ethnic group) and assigned to groups a posteriori using only genetic data, it was less clear that geographical origin or racial categories provided reliable information about population structure

A study by David Serre and Svante Pääbo also demonstrate how invalid it is to conclude races exist from "genetic clusters." It demonstrates that without the selection bias of choosing samples with the presumption that race exists, the existence of clines lead to a different conclusion than the existence of races and it concludes:

That clines are a more adequate representation of human
genetic diversity than clades is not unexpected in view of earlier
works that show that most genetic variation is found among
individuals rather than among continents (e.g., Boyd 1950; Livingstone
1962; Lewontin 1972; Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994). In fact,
also in the current data set, 87.6% percent of the total diversity is
found among individuals and only 9.2% among continents (Excoffier
and Hamilton 2003), in agreement with many previous
studies (e.g. Lewontin 1972; Owens and King 1999; but see also
Edwards 2003).

[...]

The absence of strong continental
clustering in the human gene pool is of
practical importance. It has recently been
claimed that “the greatest genetic structure
that exists in the human population occurs
at the racial level” (Risch et al. 2002). Our
results show that this is not the case, and
we see no reason to assume that “races” represent
any units of relevance for understanding
human genetic history.

Even individuals who have been at the forefront of promoting the existence of observable genetic clusters such as Rosenberg et al. agree that it does not in any way support the existence of "biological race." The funny part here is that Rosenberg was one of the authors Edwards cited to make his argument.One such study by Rosenberg concludes:

Our evidence for clustering should not be taken as evidence of our support of any particular concept of “biological race.” In general, representations of human genetic diversity are evaluated based on their ability to facilitate further research into such topics as human evolutionary history and the identification of medically important genotypes that vary in frequency across populations. Both clines and clusters are among the constructs that meet this standard of usefulness: for example, clines of allele frequency variation have proven important for inference about the genetic history of Europe [15], and clusters have been shown to be valuable for avoidance of the false positive associations that result from population structure in genetic association studies [16]. The arguments about the existence or nonexistence of “biological races” in the absence of a specific context are largely orthogonal to the question of scientific utility, and they should not obscure the fact that, ultimately, the primary goals for studies of genetic variation in humans are to make inferences about human evolutionary history, human biology, and the genetic causes of disease.

I could literally go on and on with this, because the evidence that your conclusion is completely wrong is overwhelming, but I think I've demonstrated to everyone that your "evidence" should not be taken with a grain of salt.

I noticed you're also not attempting to debate any of the genetic aspects that prove races exist, or at least have useful scientific applications as a concept.

That's because you first have to understand the difference between the existence of higher allele frequencies within a population and the existence of race. And that requires a basic understanding of cladistics that you do not seem to have.

Because you can't. As has already been pointed out:

1) Humans are all basically the same, but at the same time, they're different. Fact.
2) Different frequencies of alleles tend to cluster differently within different populations. Fact.
3) In point of 2, this is where races enter the picture.

This is nothing more than a lazy non sequitur. No one is arguing against the existence of populations, nor do we argue against there being higher allele frequencies within said populations. We dispute the conclusion that you draw from the existence of populations, a conclusion you've repeatedly refused to connect with your claim.

You don't understand how to formulate an argument. When you make an argument, it's not enough to make a claim, present evidence, and then conclude that your initial claim is correct. You need to warrant the evidence and the claim. Explain WHY the fact that populations exist demonstrates that races exist. You have not done so. You have only given me studies that make the same mistake as you: concludes that because there are genetic clusters (I've already addressed that there's a large body of research disputing even this), races must exist. The problem here is that you rely on the ASSUMPTION that races exist to reach your conclusion that they exist.

As with the skin color example I gave previously, the SNPs SLC24A5 and Thr111Ala are present throughout 99% of the European population and are responsible for the paler skin tone found in them. Although the original alleles are found in the populations of both Asia and Africa, the mutated forms (SNPs) which are found here in Europeans are not, so that's how we can tell that a person with these genes is of European ancestry or not.

This is just plain factually wrong. SLC24A5 is found in South Asians and in fact it has been demonstrated that they share this trait with Europeans via common descent.


Furthermore, this source ALSO demonstrates the existence of SNP alleles in not only Asians, but in Africans:

Calculation of allele and haplotype frequencies for each SNPs are listed respectively in Tables ​11-​-22. Heterozygosity of the three SNPs is strongly decreased in Italian population, being only one chromosome carrying the 1 allele of the rs2555364. The other two SNPs were monomorphic in all Italian chromosomes tested. Heterozygosity of rs2555364 and rs1426654 is dissimilar in African population, with 68% of chromosomes carrying the 1 allele in the rs2555364 and 96% carrying the 2 allele of rs1426654.

And before you shout, "BUT TEH MUTATED FORM!!!" I urge you to make sure you actually read those sources. Those sources are EXPLICITLY referring to the allele of SLC24A5 and its derived threonine Thr111 allele that is associated with the light skin found in Europeans.

And they do this on a regular basis, whether you like it or not.

What I "like" is irrelevant.

What IS relevant is that you've demonstrated a complete and utter failure to understand this subject. You've cherry picked research that only conveniently supports you while ignored the vast amount of criticism not only for your specific source, but also for the methodology and the conclusions drawn from your source in general. Not only this, but you've made downright FALSE statements about sources that proved you wrong, choosing to literally insert terms into the studies that are NOT actually found in them, and pretend as though the sources agree that what these terms refer to exists. You've also been completely and utterly mistaken about the existence of the mutated SLC24A5 responsible for light skin in Europeans in Asia and Africa. You've therefore FAILED to provide a SINGLE gene and subsequent trait that is found only in one "racial group" and does not exist in any other.

You have, if I may, been g-checked.

Have fun reading some actual science.