Race: Social Construct or Science?

[Rojava Free State]

Except it's disrupted whether those people are white or not. No one can agree on what race an Uzbek or a turkmen are because their history is full of diverse groups, hence why racial categories are ridiculous.

Well... I’d say mixed between white, brown, and Asian. That’s another problem, several people groups, especially where continents meet or trade routes traditionally were are mixed.

Who even is brown? Because for some reason in my area an Italian is white and an Albanian is brown. Albanian's don't genetically differ much from Italians, but because they're newer immigrants, speak an exotic language, have dark skin (many italians do too, so this really shouldn't mean anything but it does) and are mainly muslim, people think they're brown.

Meanwhile in my family, phenotype varies so greatly that I reslly can't even get started with why race is crap. I have dark brown hair and olive brown skin, but my second cousin has red hair, green eyes and pale skin with freckles, and my cousin Richard looked almost Polynesian. My family range on a spectrum of phenotypes, with the average being dark brown hair, light olive skin, and hazel eyes, and people sometimes skewing in one direction or another. My second cousin is on one side of the spectrum and looks indistinguishable from an Irish woman. My mom is in the middle and looks like a light skinned Italian or Lebanese woman. I, my cousin Nick and my cousin Freddy looked more stereotypically Mediterranean with brown skin, darker hair and finer features (I say looked because Freddy is dead), and Richard looked full on non-European with kinky black hair, dark brown skin, a wide nose and epicanthic eye folds (looked because he also is dead, you're probably seeing a common theme by this point). Literally Nick and his daughter (remember the second cousin I mentioned?) look like completely different ethnic groups from thousands of miles across Europe.

[Rojava Free State]

Johann Friedrich Blumenbach was a disciple of Linnaeus. He created the concept of five races as part of the beginnings of physical anthropology to describe where people were located in the world. It is more than a little mixed up with lots of discredited 19th century ideas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Fr ... Blumenbach

I find it to be a little more than discredited.

Why are Ethiopian and Mongolian being used as racial terms? That's like when Stan in American dad talks about the sun giving a salute to the American race.

[Insaanistan]

Johann Friedrich Blumenbach was a disciple of Linnaeus. He created the concept of five races as part of the beginnings of physical anthropology to describe where people were located in the world. It is more than a little mixed up with lots of discredited 19th century ideas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Fr ... Blumenbach

I find it to be a little more than discredited.

Why are Ethiopian and Mongolian being used as racial terms? That's like when Stan in American dad talks about the sun giving a salute to the American race.

He was really wrong. Only the usage of Caucasian for white people actual stuck.

[Rojava Free State]

Why are Ethiopian and Mongolian being used as racial terms? That's like when Stan in American dad talks about the sun giving a salute to the American race.

He was really wrong. Only the usage of Caucasian for white people actual stuck.

Even caucasian is kind of a dumb term. Most so called caucasians are not from the caucus mountains, and only Armenians, Ossetians, Chechens, Georgians and Azeris originate there.

[New haven america]

You disregarded my passage about Urals and Turanic subrace. White race protrudes in Asia in two places - under Himalayas and over Kazakh steppes, just under Yamal, Taymır and Yakutia.

Except it's disrupted whether those people are white or not. No one can agree on what race an Uzbek or a turkmen are because their history is full of diverse groups, hence why racial categories are ridiculous.

In America at least, Turkic peoples are considered Asian while Arabs are considered White.

So figure it out.

[UniversalCommons]

The term is Eurasian of mixed ancestry between Asian and European, or in the area between Europe and Asia, Kazkhstan etc. Europe is not a distinct continent. Europe and Asia are part of the continent of Eurasia and there is a mixed boundary between the two. This is why race is such an arbitrary thing.

[Grahnol]

The way I see it, race is nothing but a total social construct. The thing is, race is one of those things where our mind makes categories for groups of people because it's convenient and natural for us to assume that people fall into categories. Categories based on physical traits and supposed characteristics tied to that are no exception. Like, the idea of race being a thing makes sense when you think about it, but then when you really get into the sciences behind it in order to 'prove' that these people are bounded by their race and can't be detached from them you find that the boundaries of race are a lot more loose and vague than you think. It doesn't help that overall genetics also does not dictate how a person would physically look since physical appearance is handled by a very small portion of the total human genome.

Turkish and Hungarian people are great examples of this. Hungarians are said to be descended from the Magyars who migrated to the Carpathian basin, which is true. Considering the polyethnic origins of these Magyars, it might be safe to assume the Magyar tribes are part of either some Euro-Mongoloid or Caucasian race, right? It's far more complicated than that, especially when you look modern Hungarians, who are a mixture of a whole slew of Slavic, Germanic and Magyar roots. This makes sense as the Magyars assimilated the Slavic and Germanic tribes who already lived there and integrated them into their own fold. Now the real pain comes when defining them, who are Caucasoid in physical traits and features but their culture and identity comes from a whole mix of things with their claimed ancestry ultimately coming from Asia.

Turks are a very different story but they prove my point. Typically, it can be said that their ethnogenesis came from the Turkic tribes that were relocated to Anatolia back in the times of the Seljuk Turks, but in reality, these Seljuk Turks make up far less of the genetic makeup of these modern Turks. Modern Turks are actually part of a similar genetic group with Greeks and other previous Anatolian populations than they are to those Seljuk Turks. At most, they have inherited their culture and traditions and even then it's been pretty heavily influenced by the outside. The reason why this is the case is because the Ottomans at times encouraged the Greeks of Anatolia to convert to Islam, which is often the first in a slippery path to Turkification in Anatolia. Can you really call Turks non-whites if they have similar genetic compositions to Greeks and others considered white? But at the same time, can you really consider them white if their culture and traditions are very different and derived from a source that is 'non-white'

And don't get me started with African people, the whole idea of them being a single 'African' people genetically and categorically is flawed and only exists as a social construct. I recently had a mini-assignment where I was to 'list off the characteristics of Africans' and I had to go about how they only thing they share is their black skin and how the genetic gap between an East and West African can often be even wider than that of a European and Asian. Their culture is also often radically different from each other.

In conclusion, while as a concept and identity it's kind of okay, I think 'race' as a solid, objective concept is a flawed and incorrect idea that's incredibly inconsistent and relies heavily on history and consensus than any actual categorisation based on the traits that make a race a race. In the whole objective concept department, I think it should at best be split off into multiple other categories grounded in science like cultural groups, genetic groups, ethnicities, rather than have a vague concept with vague borders be treated as an absolute solid concept.

And anyway, it's not like the whole concept of race gave us much good anyways. A whole racial category and its supposed characteristics is often the mistargeted target of racists who define their prejudice against a foolish vague concept. Also, seriously have you seen the seemingly arbitrary classifications the US Census Bureau has been giving to entire categories of people based on a vague concept? Talk about a government trying to classify us as people to give meaning to a meaningless idea. I'm all for a post-racial society where someone's supposed race and racial identity does not matter in their daily lives and their characteristics as an individual person are given far more importance by people and institutions than their supposed racial origins and characteristics and such. Racial identity is completely fine, I'm not going to tell you to stop a part of your identity, but I think institutions and people should stop putting so much importance on someone's 'race' and that they should bother more about what they are as a person and what merits and characteristics they hold as an individual person.

[Rojava Free State]

The way I see it, race is nothing but a total social construct. The thing is, race is one of those things where our mind makes categories for groups of people because it's convenient and natural for us to assume that people fall into categories. Categories based on physical traits and supposed characteristics tied to that are no exception. Like, the idea of race being a thing makes sense when you think about it, but then when you really get into the sciences behind it in order to 'prove' that these people are bounded by their race and can't be detached from them you find that the boundaries of race are a lot more loose and vague than you think. It doesn't help that overall genetics also does not dictate how a person would physically look since physical appearance is handled by a very small portion of the total human genome.

Turkish and Hungarian people are great examples of this. Hungarians are said to be descended from the Magyars who migrated to the Carpathian basin, which is true. Considering the polyethnic origins of these Magyars, it might be safe to assume the Magyar tribes are part of either some Euro-Mongoloid or Caucasian race, right? It's far more complicated than that, especially when you look modern Hungarians, who are a mixture of a whole slew of Slavic, Germanic and Magyar roots. This makes sense as the Magyars assimilated the Slavic and Germanic tribes who already lived there and integrated them into their own fold. Now the real pain comes when defining them, who are Caucasoid in physical traits and features but their culture and identity comes from a whole mix of things with their claimed ancestry ultimately coming from Asia.

Turks are a very different story but they prove my point. Typically, it can be said that their ethnogenesis came from the Turkic tribes that were relocated to Anatolia back in the times of the Seljuk Turks, but in reality, these Seljuk Turks make up far less of the genetic makeup of these modern Turks. Modern Turks are actually part of a similar genetic group with Greeks and other previous Anatolian populations than they are to those Seljuk Turks. At most, they have inherited their culture and traditions and even then it's been pretty heavily influenced by the outside. The reason why this is the case is because the Ottomans at times encouraged the Greeks of Anatolia to convert to Islam, which is often the first in a slippery path to Turkification in Anatolia. Can you really call Turks non-whites if they have similar genetic compositions to Greeks and others considered white? But at the same time, can you really consider them white if their culture and traditions are very different and derived from a source that is 'non-white'

And don't get me started with African people, the whole idea of them being a single 'African' people genetically and categorically is flawed and only exists as a social construct. I recently had a mini-assignment where I was to 'list off the characteristics of Africans' and I had to go about how they only thing they share is their black skin and how the genetic gap between an East and West African can often be even wider than that of a European and Asian. Their culture is also often radically different from each other.

In conclusion, while as a concept and identity it's kind of okay, I think 'race' as a solid, objective concept is a flawed and incorrect idea that's incredibly inconsistent and relies heavily on history and consensus than any actual categorisation based on the traits that make a race a race. In the whole objective concept department, I think it should at best be split off into multiple other categories grounded in science like cultural groups, genetic groups, ethnicities, rather than have a vague concept with vague borders be treated as an absolute solid concept.

And anyway, it's not like the whole concept of race gave us much good anyways. A whole racial category and its supposed characteristics is often the mistargeted target of racists who define their prejudice against a foolish vague concept. Also, seriously have you seen the seemingly arbitrary classifications the US Census Bureau has been giving to entire categories of people based on a vague concept? Talk about a government trying to classify us as people to give meaning to a meaningless idea. I'm all for a post-racial society where someone's supposed race and racial identity does not matter in their daily lives and their characteristics as an individual person are given far more importance by people and institutions than their supposed racial origins and characteristics and such. Racial identity is completely fine, I'm not going to tell you to stop a part of your identity, but I think institutions and people should stop putting so much importance on someone's 'race' and that they should bother more about what they are as a person and what merits and characteristics they hold as an individual person.

Yeah, I think it's funny how when we think of the stereotypical white American, we don't take into account how different diverse groups of so called white people are.

In what clown world is a Moldovan and a Norwegian anywhere near the same thing?

[Ayytaly]

It's not unlike an Altaic question. Guess what? I'm pro-altaic, partly because i'm actually learning both Tatar and Japanese now, and there are a huge ton of similarities in grammar, for example, in word order, lack of sex divisions in language, in cases and sometimes lacking multiple number. But westerners reject this theory just because it is invented in Moscow.
Returning to our topic:
I think, that in, for example, wired pottery era borders were more solid and there were clear distinct subraces. Yet, again, the humanity lives only about 300 years in a society when you can freely travel to another end of the world. So too small amount of time has passed, and we cannot completely say that "race is a construct", at least, until 50% of population lives in China and India (and neighboring countries) - one is too conservative and self-isolated, and other is too poor to travel.

Different genetic clusters exist, but they aren't races as defined by science, and the boxes we draw that we call race are different depending on where you go.

I'm a brown man in America but a white man in the philippines. I can't be both at once.

Read about the Negritos genocide in the Philippines someday. Maybe they see Euro factions in you and say "well, he ain't black."

[Ankenland]

It's not unlike an Altaic question. Guess what? I'm pro-altaic, partly because i'm actually learning both Tatar and Japanese now, and there are a huge ton of similarities in grammar, for example, in word order, lack of sex divisions in language, in cases and sometimes lacking multiple number. But westerners reject this theory just because it is invented in Moscow.

Fill me in on this.

[Qyrym]

It's not unlike an Altaic question. Guess what? I'm pro-altaic, partly because i'm actually learning both Tatar and Japanese now, and there are a huge ton of similarities in grammar, for example, in word order, lack of sex divisions in language, in cases and sometimes lacking multiple number. But westerners reject this theory just because it is invented in Moscow.

Fill me in on this.

For example, the anti-altaic propagandist video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0zkHH6ZOEk

[The Grims]

Considering that other people have completely different definitions of race from you, I think it is safe to say race is a construct

Genetics exist, but are two diverse and mixed to categorize into such broad groups.

It's not unlike an Altaic question. Guess what? I'm pro-altaic, partly because i'm actually learning both Tatar and Japanese now, and there are a huge ton of similarities in grammar, for example, in word order, lack of sex divisions in language, in cases and sometimes lacking multiple number. But westerners reject this theory just because it is invented in Moscow.
Returning to our topic:
I think, that in, for example, wired pottery era borders were more solid and there were clear distinct subraces. Yet, again, the humanity lives only about 300 years in a society when you can freely travel to another end of the world. So too small amount of time has passed, and we cannot completely say that "race is a construct", at least, until 50% of population lives in China and India (and neighboring countries) - one is too conservative and self-isolated, and other is too poor to travel.

The Altaic hypothesis was invented in Sweden and Finland, not Moscow.

[Qyrym]

It's not unlike an Altaic question. Guess what? I'm pro-altaic, partly because i'm actually learning both Tatar and Japanese now, and there are a huge ton of similarities in grammar, for example, in word order, lack of sex divisions in language, in cases and sometimes lacking multiple number. But westerners reject this theory just because it is invented in Moscow.
Returning to our topic:
I think, that in, for example, wired pottery era borders were more solid and there were clear distinct subraces. Yet, again, the humanity lives only about 300 years in a society when you can freely travel to another end of the world. So too small amount of time has passed, and we cannot completely say that "race is a construct", at least, until 50% of population lives in China and India (and neighboring countries) - one is too conservative and self-isolated, and other is too poor to travel.

The Altaic hypothesis was invented in Sweden and Finland, not Moscow.

OK, i think it can be said more accurately, that most of altaic research was done in USSR pre1937.

[Insaanistan]

The term is Eurasian of mixed ancestry between Asian and European, or in the area between Europe and Asia, Kazkhstan etc. Europe is not a distinct continent. Europe and Asia are part of the continent of Eurasia and there is a mixed boundary between the two. This is why race is such an arbitrary thing.

There is actually some calls for it to be referred to as Afrasia or Euroafrasia because of the cultural and geographical connection of the Old World.

[Rojava Free State]

Different genetic clusters exist, but they aren't races as defined by science, and the boxes we draw that we call race are different depending on where you go.

I'm a brown man in America but a white man in the philippines. I can't be both at once.

Read about the Negritos genocide in the Philippines someday. Maybe they see Euro factions in you and say "well, he ain't black."

Filipinos believe heavily a concept that exists in latin america known as "improving the race." They think the closer something is to white, the better.

Their self imposed white supremacy leads them to kowtow before peoples such as Americans, Australians, Koreans and Japanese while hating themselves and hating other people as dark skinned as they.

Some attributes filipinos attribute to white people are:

•Brave
•friendly
•smart
•attractive
•wealthy

Whereas the attributes they often attribute to blacks are:

•Criminal
•Angry
•Stupid
•Hypersexual

I find these descriptions to be hilarious considering that there's a shit ton of cowardly, unfriendly, stupid, ugly and poor white people everywhere and there are law abiding, non hostile, intelligent and conservative black people. Also how are you gonna stereotype black people as criminal when your country has the highest homicide rate in Southeast Asia? But I forgot, Filipinos hate themselves too and wish they were white, a category that bestows no advantages unless you live in a racist country that is mostly white.

Compared to the filipinos I am white (I'm not as dark colored as some of them and my features are "caucasian") although while I am brave, friendly, smart and attractive, I am surely not wealthy, so at day's end all i can say is seriously what the hell? Why must your views of the world be so simplistic and racist?

[Rojava Free State]

The term is Eurasian of mixed ancestry between Asian and European, or in the area between Europe and Asia, Kazkhstan etc. Europe is not a distinct continent. Europe and Asia are part of the continent of Eurasia and there is a mixed boundary between the two. This is why race is such an arbitrary thing.

There is actually some calls for it to be referred to as Afrasia or Euroafrasia because of the cultural and geographical connection of the Old World.

Yeah it somewhat makes sense that Africa and Europe may be different continents but seriously how is Asia not the same continent as Europe? If a mountain range is all it takes to divide a landmass into two continents then shouldn't India be a continent too, and not a subcontinent?

[Novus America]

It's not unlike an Altaic question. Guess what? I'm pro-altaic, partly because i'm actually learning both Tatar and Japanese now, and there are a huge ton of similarities in grammar, for example, in word order, lack of sex divisions in language, in cases and sometimes lacking multiple number. But westerners reject this theory just because it is invented in Moscow.
Returning to our topic:
I think, that in, for example, wired pottery era borders were more solid and there were clear distinct subraces. Yet, again, the humanity lives only about 300 years in a society when you can freely travel to another end of the world. So too small amount of time has passed, and we cannot completely say that "race is a construct", at least, until 50% of population lives in China and India (and neighboring countries) - one is too conservative and self-isolated, and other is too poor to travel.

The Altaic hypothesis was invented in Sweden and Finland, not Moscow.

Also it is largely considered discredited pseudoscience.

It is not rejected because much of the research was done in the Soviet Union (although Soviet research on many subjects, especially but not exclusively social sciences in that era was notoriously poor, see the Lysenkoism controversy, as it had to be appeal to state ideology) as rocket research from the Soviet Union is not rejected.

Rather because it is a politicized theory without good supporting evidence.

[White Christian Nationalists]

I’ll trust the actual scientists, thanks.

Sorry, could you provide some non-Jewish sources?

How about the bell curve or kavali sforza's genetic distance map?

America has spent billions to bridge the racial test score gap between blacks, whties, asians, and hispanics and has been doing so for 30+ years with NO CHANGE.

The reason this is denied so quickly and harshly is because it destroys leftists egalitarian world views.


Equality doesn't exist in nature.

[Rojava Free State]

I’ll trust the actual scientists, thanks.

Sorry, could you provide some non-Jewish sources?

How about the bell curve or kavali sforza's genetic distance map?

America has spent billions to bridge the racial test score gap between blacks, whties, asians, and hispanics and has been doing so for 30+ years with NO CHANGE.

The reason this is denied so quickly and harshly is because it destroys leftists egalitarian world views.


Equality doesn't exist in nature.

Kinda funny that the average IQ differs greatly between Indians and Indian Americans or between Irish and Irish Americans. The average IQ in Ireland is 93, which is actually an increase from the 20th century when it was in the 80s. Irish Americans meanwhile have an IQ of about 101. Serbia's average is still 89 and yet it is definitely a "white country." Meanwhile the average IQ of Far East Asian Americans in the US is above 100 while the average for southeast asians is maybe the 90s at best. Your "genetic bell curve" theory hasn't been proven with science, and the little evidence that exists suggests IQ does not differ between races by genetics.

Also the average IQ of people who identify on the census as American is about 87, which is the same as the average in poor black neighborhoods. Funny that 99% of people who write that in as their ethnicity are white, and are usually your classic redneck. White nationalists such as yourself are constantly desperately grasping for straws to prove your theory and the worst thing is that your straws can easily be snapped in two. You really think the average IQ of black and white students is gonna be the same after hundreds of years of slavery and segregation and inner city poverty? Schools that are poorly funded? A broken home? You're being ridiculous if you think the IQ difference has everything to do with genes and nothing to do with the environment. Oh, and while you're looking for actual proof of the real difference between races, go find some evidence that the millions of sources that say "newsflash, your racial theories are bullcrap" are "Jewish sources" and not just "sources from people who know what they're talking about."

[Crockerland]

I’ll trust the actual scientists, thanks.

Sorry, could you provide some non-Jewish sources?

lol

[White Christian Nationalists]

Sorry, could you provide some non-Jewish sources?

How about the bell curve or kavali sforza's genetic distance map?

America has spent billions to bridge the racial test score gap between blacks, whties, asians, and hispanics and has been doing so for 30+ years with NO CHANGE.

The reason this is denied so quickly and harshly is because it destroys leftists egalitarian world views.


Equality doesn't exist in nature.

Kinda funny that the average IQ differs greatly between Indians and Indian Americans or between Irish and Irish Americans. The average IQ in Ireland is 93, which is actually an increase from the 20th century when it was in the 80s. Irish Americans meanwhile have an IQ of about 101. Serbia's average is still 89 and yet it is definitely a "white country." Meanwhile the average IQ of Far East Asian Americans in the US is above 100 while the average for southeast asians is maybe the 90s at best. Your "genetic bell curve" theory hasn't been proven with science, and the little evidence that exists suggests IQ does not differ between races by genetics.

Also the average IQ of people who identify on the census as American is about 87, which is the same as the average in poor black neighborhoods. Funny that 99% of people who write that in as their ethnicity are white, and are usually your classic redneck. White nationalists such as yourself are constantly desperately grasping for straws to prove your theory and the worst thing is that your straws can easily be snapped in two. You really think the average IQ of black and white students is gonna be the same after hundreds of years of slavery and segregation and inner city poverty? Schools that are poorly funded? A broken home? You're being ridiculous if you think the IQ difference has everything to do with genes and nothing to do with the environment. Oh, and while you're looking for actual proof of the real difference between races, go find some evidence that the millions of sources that say "newsflash, your racial theories are bullcrap" are "Jewish sources" and not just "sources from people who know what they're talking about."

The top paragraph can be debated for quite a long time, most of the data I've studied shows different numbers than you claim here. I don't believe in differences in average intelligence would be 100% genetic, you'd have to be an idiot. However, there is a strong case that it is likely 40-60%. It is widely accepted that intelligence is inherited by parents, people who developed for hundreds of thousands of years in different environments completely different are only different from the neck down? Come on. I could go into how before europeans arrived, Africans had no advanced form of a written language, how they had domesticated no beast of burden, ect.

Compared to Blacks, Whites' brains:

* are 7% larger (1438cc versus 1343cc)
* are 100 grams heavier
* have deeper fissuration in the frontal and occipital regions
* have more complex convolutions and larger frontal lobes
* have more pyramidal neurons
* have 16% thicker supra-grandular layer
* react faster on mental chronometry tests
* have 600 million more neurons (each carries about 600 billion synapses, which each carry one bit of cortical information)
Genes contribute to about 90% of the individual variation of brain size.

Blacks are the only racial group with no DNA from the large-brained Neanderthals, and also the only race without the derived form of MCPH1 microcephalin called haplogroup D which produces increased brain volume.

Black-White IQ Distribution (Google: racial IQ bell curve):

Blacks:

5% above 110 IQ
16% above 100 IQ
40% above 90 IQ
70% above 80 IQ
30% below 80 IQ
18% below 75 IQ
10% below 70 IQ
Whites:

10% above 120 IQ
18% above 115 IQ
27% above 110 IQ
40% above 105 IQ
50% above 100 IQ
60% below 105 IQ
35% below 95 IQ
15% below 85 IQ
So, the top 16% of Black intellectual elites are only as intelligent as the top 50% of Whites


The genetic distance between H.Sapien and H.Erectus is only 0.17, while the genetic distance between Blacks and Eurasians is 0.23. Therefore Blacks are more genetically proximate to archaic humans than to modern man (Whites and Asians).

For comparison, the genetic distance between Blacks and modern man is greater than the genetic distance between the common chimpanzee and the bonobo (0.103, or half the Black-White distance) and between the Gorilla gorilla and the Gorilla beringei (0.04, or 1/6 the Black-White distance). Thus, Whites and Blacks are more genetically distant than two different chimpanzee species, two different gorilla species, Eurasians and Neanderthals, and Eurasians and H.Erectus.

IQ distribution by race/ethnicity:

* Ashkenazi Jews = 115
* East Asians = 106
* Whites = 100
* South East Asians = 87
* Non-White Hispanics = 86
* American Blacks = 85 (average 24% White admixture)
* Middle East and North Africans = 84
* Sub-Saharan Blacks = 67 (Only 2% of Whites score this low)
* Australian Aborigines = 62
Sub-Saharan Africans never even created a written language. It was the White colonialists who gave the gift of literacy to them.

[Samudera Darussalam]

Kinda funny that the average IQ differs greatly between Indians and Indian Americans or between Irish and Irish Americans. The average IQ in Ireland is 93, which is actually an increase from the 20th century when it was in the 80s. Irish Americans meanwhile have an IQ of about 101. Serbia's average is still 89 and yet it is definitely a "white country." Meanwhile the average IQ of Far East Asian Americans in the US is above 100 while the average for southeast asians is maybe the 90s at best. Your "genetic bell curve" theory hasn't been proven with science, and the little evidence that exists suggests IQ does not differ between races by genetics.

Also the average IQ of people who identify on the census as American is about 87, which is the same as the average in poor black neighborhoods. Funny that 99% of people who write that in as their ethnicity are white, and are usually your classic redneck. White nationalists such as yourself are constantly desperately grasping for straws to prove your theory and the worst thing is that your straws can easily be snapped in two. You really think the average IQ of black and white students is gonna be the same after hundreds of years of slavery and segregation and inner city poverty? Schools that are poorly funded? A broken home? You're being ridiculous if you think the IQ difference has everything to do with genes and nothing to do with the environment. Oh, and while you're looking for actual proof of the real difference between races, go find some evidence that the millions of sources that say "newsflash, your racial theories are bullcrap" are "Jewish sources" and not just "sources from people who know what they're talking about."

The top paragraph can be debated for quite a long time, most of the data I've studied shows different numbers than you claim here. I don't believe in differences in average intelligence would be 100% genetic, you'd have to be an idiot. However, there is a strong case that it is likely 40-60%. It is widely accepted that intelligence is inherited by parents, people who developed for hundreds of thousands of years in different environments completely different are only different from the neck down? Come on. I could go into how before europeans arrived, Africans had no advanced form of a written language, how they had domesticated no beast of burden, ect.

Compared to Blacks, Whites' brains:

* are 7% larger (1438cc versus 1343cc)
* are 100 grams heavier
* have deeper fissuration in the frontal and occipital regions
* have more complex convolutions and larger frontal lobes
* have more pyramidal neurons
* have 16% thicker supra-grandular layer
* react faster on mental chronometry tests
* have 600 million more neurons (each carries about 600 billion synapses, which each carry one bit of cortical information)
Genes contribute to about 90% of the individual variation of brain size.

Blacks are the only racial group with no DNA from the large-brained Neanderthals, and also the only race without the derived form of MCPH1 microcephalin called haplogroup D which produces increased brain volume.

Black-White IQ Distribution (Google: racial IQ bell curve):

Blacks:

5% above 110 IQ
16% above 100 IQ
40% above 90 IQ
70% above 80 IQ
30% below 80 IQ
18% below 75 IQ
10% below 70 IQ
Whites:

10% above 120 IQ
18% above 115 IQ
27% above 110 IQ
40% above 105 IQ
50% above 100 IQ
60% below 105 IQ
35% below 95 IQ
15% below 85 IQ
So, the top 16% of Black intellectual elites are only as intelligent as the top 50% of Whites


The genetic distance between H.Sapien and H.Erectus is only 0.17, while the genetic distance between Blacks and Eurasians is 0.23. Therefore Blacks are more genetically proximate to archaic humans than to modern man (Whites and Asians).

For comparison, the genetic distance between Blacks and modern man is greater than the genetic distance between the common chimpanzee and the bonobo (0.103, or half the Black-White distance) and between the Gorilla gorilla and the Gorilla beringei (0.04, or 1/6 the Black-White distance). Thus, Whites and Blacks are more genetically distant than two different chimpanzee species, two different gorilla species, Eurasians and Neanderthals, and Eurasians and H.Erectus.

IQ distribution by race/ethnicity:

* Ashkenazi Jews = 115
* East Asians = 106
* Whites = 100
* South East Asians = 87
* Non-White Hispanics = 86
* American Blacks = 85 (average 24% White admixture)
* Middle East and North Africans = 84
* Sub-Saharan Blacks = 67 (Only 2% of Whites score this low)
* Australian Aborigines = 62
Sub-Saharan Africans never even created a written language. It was the White colonialists who gave the gift of literacy to them.

So fuck the Arabs, right?

[White Christian Nationalists]

The top paragraph can be debated for quite a long time, most of the data I've studied shows different numbers than you claim here. I don't believe in differences in average intelligence would be 100% genetic, you'd have to be an idiot. However, there is a strong case that it is likely 40-60%. It is widely accepted that intelligence is inherited by parents, people who developed for hundreds of thousands of years in different environments completely different are only different from the neck down? Come on. I could go into how before europeans arrived, Africans had no advanced form of a written language, how they had domesticated no beast of burden, ect.

Compared to Blacks, Whites' brains:

* are 7% larger (1438cc versus 1343cc)
* are 100 grams heavier
* have deeper fissuration in the frontal and occipital regions
* have more complex convolutions and larger frontal lobes
* have more pyramidal neurons
* have 16% thicker supra-grandular layer
* react faster on mental chronometry tests
* have 600 million more neurons (each carries about 600 billion synapses, which each carry one bit of cortical information)
Genes contribute to about 90% of the individual variation of brain size.

Blacks are the only racial group with no DNA from the large-brained Neanderthals, and also the only race without the derived form of MCPH1 microcephalin called haplogroup D which produces increased brain volume.

Black-White IQ Distribution (Google: racial IQ bell curve):

Blacks:

5% above 110 IQ
16% above 100 IQ
40% above 90 IQ
70% above 80 IQ
30% below 80 IQ
18% below 75 IQ
10% below 70 IQ
Whites:

10% above 120 IQ
18% above 115 IQ
27% above 110 IQ
40% above 105 IQ
50% above 100 IQ
60% below 105 IQ
35% below 95 IQ
15% below 85 IQ
So, the top 16% of Black intellectual elites are only as intelligent as the top 50% of Whites


The genetic distance between H.Sapien and H.Erectus is only 0.17, while the genetic distance between Blacks and Eurasians is 0.23. Therefore Blacks are more genetically proximate to archaic humans than to modern man (Whites and Asians).

For comparison, the genetic distance between Blacks and modern man is greater than the genetic distance between the common chimpanzee and the bonobo (0.103, or half the Black-White distance) and between the Gorilla gorilla and the Gorilla beringei (0.04, or 1/6 the Black-White distance). Thus, Whites and Blacks are more genetically distant than two different chimpanzee species, two different gorilla species, Eurasians and Neanderthals, and Eurasians and H.Erectus.

IQ distribution by race/ethnicity:

* Ashkenazi Jews = 115
* East Asians = 106
* Whites = 100
* South East Asians = 87
* Non-White Hispanics = 86
* American Blacks = 85 (average 24% White admixture)
* Middle East and North Africans = 84
* Sub-Saharan Blacks = 67 (Only 2% of Whites score this low)
* Australian Aborigines = 62
Sub-Saharan Africans never even created a written language. It was the White colonialists who gave the gift of literacy to them.

So fuck the Arabs, right?

My guy, it says right there in the wiki that is was part of islam coming into africa. bottom text.

[Samudera Darussalam]

So fuck the Arabs, right?

My guy, it says right there in the wiki that is was part of islam coming into africa. bottom text.

Yeah, I was arguing the part where you said that the Whites are the one who gave the gift of literacy to Subsaharan Africans. As part of the Islamization of the region, Arabic script is also introduced, so no. Though perhaps, literacy with Arabic script is not as widespread as under European colonialization, merely saying that they are not literate until the Europeans rule their countries is not true.

[Rojava Free State]

Kinda funny that the average IQ differs greatly between Indians and Indian Americans or between Irish and Irish Americans. The average IQ in Ireland is 93, which is actually an increase from the 20th century when it was in the 80s. Irish Americans meanwhile have an IQ of about 101. Serbia's average is still 89 and yet it is definitely a "white country." Meanwhile the average IQ of Far East Asian Americans in the US is above 100 while the average for southeast asians is maybe the 90s at best. Your "genetic bell curve" theory hasn't been proven with science, and the little evidence that exists suggests IQ does not differ between races by genetics.

Also the average IQ of people who identify on the census as American is about 87, which is the same as the average in poor black neighborhoods. Funny that 99% of people who write that in as their ethnicity are white, and are usually your classic redneck. White nationalists such as yourself are constantly desperately grasping for straws to prove your theory and the worst thing is that your straws can easily be snapped in two. You really think the average IQ of black and white students is gonna be the same after hundreds of years of slavery and segregation and inner city poverty? Schools that are poorly funded? A broken home? You're being ridiculous if you think the IQ difference has everything to do with genes and nothing to do with the environment. Oh, and while you're looking for actual proof of the real difference between races, go find some evidence that the millions of sources that say "newsflash, your racial theories are bullcrap" are "Jewish sources" and not just "sources from people who know what they're talking about."

The top paragraph can be debated for quite a long time, most of the data I've studied shows different numbers than you claim here. I don't believe in differences in average intelligence would be 100% genetic, you'd have to be an idiot. However, there is a strong case that it is likely 40-60%. It is widely accepted that intelligence is inherited by parents, people who developed for hundreds of thousands of years in different environments completely different are only different from the neck down? Come on. I could go into how before europeans arrived, Africans had no advanced form of a written language, how they had domesticated no beast of burden, ect.

Compared to Blacks, Whites' brains:

* are 7% larger (1438cc versus 1343cc)
* are 100 grams heavier
* have deeper fissuration in the frontal and occipital regions
* have more complex convolutions and larger frontal lobes
* have more pyramidal neurons
* have 16% thicker supra-grandular layer
* react faster on mental chronometry tests
* have 600 million more neurons (each carries about 600 billion synapses, which each carry one bit of cortical information)
Genes contribute to about 90% of the individual variation of brain size.

Blacks are the only racial group with no DNA from the large-brained Neanderthals, and also the only race without the derived form of MCPH1 microcephalin called haplogroup D which produces increased brain volume.

Black-White IQ Distribution (Google: racial IQ bell curve):

Blacks:

5% above 110 IQ
16% above 100 IQ
40% above 90 IQ
70% above 80 IQ
30% below 80 IQ
18% below 75 IQ
10% below 70 IQ
Whites:

10% above 120 IQ
18% above 115 IQ
27% above 110 IQ
40% above 105 IQ
50% above 100 IQ
60% below 105 IQ
35% below 95 IQ
15% below 85 IQ
So, the top 16% of Black intellectual elites are only as intelligent as the top 50% of Whites


The genetic distance between H.Sapien and H.Erectus is only 0.17, while the genetic distance between Blacks and Eurasians is 0.23. Therefore Blacks are more genetically proximate to archaic humans than to modern man (Whites and Asians).

For comparison, the genetic distance between Blacks and modern man is greater than the genetic distance between the common chimpanzee and the bonobo (0.103, or half the Black-White distance) and between the Gorilla gorilla and the Gorilla beringei (0.04, or 1/6 the Black-White distance). Thus, Whites and Blacks are more genetically distant than two different chimpanzee species, two different gorilla species, Eurasians and Neanderthals, and Eurasians and H.Erectus.

IQ distribution by race/ethnicity:

* Ashkenazi Jews = 115
* East Asians = 106
* Whites = 100
* South East Asians = 87
* Non-White Hispanics = 86
* American Blacks = 85 (average 24% White admixture)
* Middle East and North Africans = 84
* Sub-Saharan Blacks = 67 (Only 2% of Whites score this low)
* Australian Aborigines = 62
Sub-Saharan Africans never even created a written language. It was the White colonialists who gave the gift of literacy to them.

https://mattsjunk.com/blog/2017/5/12/wr ... -of-africa

Yeah first we gonna start with that bolded sentence right there, cause that's just a lie. I shouldn't expect much better though from a guy whose pride lies in his skin color, something he had no control over.

As for everything else you listed, you didnt prove that IQ is genetic. You only proved that there is a difference in IQ between different ethnic groups. People like myself argue that it is a result of social conditions and not genes. Some evidence of that is the existence of surprisingly low IQ scores in certain white populations. Under your theory, the average IQ in Serbia should not be 89. It should be at lowest in the upper 90s. And yet that isn't the case. Congrats on not proving your argument at all.

As for brain size, can you prove this affects black intelligence or are you grasping for straws again? And as for the number of neurons that you listed, I would suggest you read this study on environmental factors and neuron development: http://www.urbanchildinstitute.org/arti ... evelopment