# What is race?



## 💗Freddie Freaker💗 (Dec 23, 2020)

What is race, in your opinion? The way you look, the way you act, what's in your blood, a combination of all these or something else?

Sometimes things don't seem so clear cut. Take for example Trey Parker's daughter:


Her father is half jewish and half white. Her mother is half black and half white. Result: by blood, that blonde little girl is a black-white-jew. However! Many jews would say she's not a jew because her mother isn't a jew, many whites would say she's not white because she her ancestry is too mixed and most blacks would say she's not black because she doesn't look like it. By culture she's probably upper class Californian, what race that's supposed to represent is up for debate. What is her label supposed to be?

Or Shay Mitchell's kid:

Shay is half white half Fillipina. The father is part white, part black and part native Canadian. By blood, their daughter is white-black-asian-native. By looks, she's white. By culture she'll probably be upper class Californian. What's her label?


----------



## From The Uncanny Valley (Dec 23, 2020)

It's about who is fastest.


The answer is the Kenyans.


----------



## Naidyonov (Dec 23, 2020)

If shaun king is black then so are these.


----------



## Arm Pit Cream (Dec 23, 2020)

One-drop rule, they always turn out as mutts


----------



## Big Bad Wart (Dec 23, 2020)

Uncanny Valley said:


> It's about who is fastest.
> 
> 
> The answer is the Kenyans.


>Kenyas being the fastest


----------



## From The Uncanny Valley (Dec 23, 2020)

Autistic said:


> >Kenyas being the fastest



I need to be more up to date on my stereotypes...


----------



## Yuuichirou Kumada (Dec 23, 2020)

Baby don't lynch me, don't lynch me, no more.


----------



## Unassuming Local Guy (Dec 23, 2020)

Race exists the way color exists.  If I told you to pinpoint exactly where along the electromagnetic spectrum it stops being red and starts being orange, you wouldn't be able to without drawing a completely arbitrary line.  Despite this, you'd have to be a complete idiot to tell me red and orange do not exist.

On a practical level, race truly doesn't matter.  What matters is culture.  Humans are what they're told to be.  Grow up around shit, become shit.  This has been demonstrated many times.  Once you control for culture, we really are basically all the same with some relatively minor variations in IQ.  It just so happens that culture and race correlate perfectly a lot of the time, exacerbated by the way the media encourages everyone to apply as many labels to themselves as possible and then stay in their assigned boxes.


----------



## Desktop User2 (Dec 23, 2020)

First the "Shame the supremistist" thread, now this. You are on a mission, aren´t you?


----------



## 💗Freddie Freaker💗 (Dec 23, 2020)

Autistic said:


> >Kenyas being the fastest


Sonic is Kenyan. We wuz hedgehogs n shiet.



Desktop User2 said:


> First the "Shame the supremistist" thread, now this. You are on a mission, aren´t you?


Of course. I'm trying to destroy the white race, duh. Didn't you know? Kiwifarms is an internet synagogue, everyone here is a jew.

Really, though, I have no problem with the few supremacists who behave respectably. It is possible to believe one race is more likely to have positive traits than others without being autistic about it.


----------



## Pissmaster (Dec 23, 2020)

Science + race = DNA tests where you find out you're 2% black and then you feel empowered to say "nigger" in public until someone gets offended and tells you to shut the fuck up and then you smugly pull out your phone and show him your 23andme results sheet, only to have him rip your phone from your hands, shatter it on the ground, and tell you you're not black.  

Race seems to only really matter as far as whatever your parents were.  Matt Stone's blonde daughter looks white, so she's gonna be called white, treated like she's white, and if she puts down her race as black when applying to colleges, they're probably gonna question her and have to decide if quarter black actually counts as black by whatever committee rule decides exactly how black you have to be to qualify as black.  It's very much a superficially social thing.


----------



## Legoshi (Dec 23, 2020)

Some ethnolinguistic groups such as the Austronesian and Turkic vary greatly in appearance depending on the location, but they all come from a common ancestor and the languages they speak are so similar to each other.






 Tuvan




 Turkish







Filipinos and Merinas


----------



## Feline Supremacist (Dec 23, 2020)

Prince Cuck's baby look white despite his quadroon mother. His mother has done everything possible to physically erase her black ancestry while simultaneously reminding everyone about it every chance she gets. It's just annoying and sad at this point.


----------



## Based Cheeto (Dec 23, 2020)

Race is just a grouping of ethnicities and yes that's genetic. Now let's all have a laugh with Paul Mooney


----------



## 💗Freddie Freaker💗 (Dec 25, 2020)

Feline Supremacist said:


> Prince Cuck's baby look white despite his quadroon mother. His mother has done everything possible to physically erase her black ancestry while simultaneously reminding everyone about it every chance she gets. It's just annoying and sad at this point.
> View attachment 1807214


Who's Prince Cuck?


----------



## Lemmingwise (Dec 25, 2020)

Kids, particularly of mixed parentage often look whiter than they do compared to when they grow up.

European people are more neotenic than other people. Various monkeys have lighter hair in childhood too. You also see this in other traits as is common for neotenic species like dogs: more playful, more curious, less territorial to outgroups (typically other species in animal kingdom, but can relate to biological groups in humans), brain plasticity in adulthood.

Race is really just a placeholder word for genetic groups. Some people exist on the fringe of multiple groups, some people in the center. Some people's phenotypes may have them look more like a group that they are only half part of. Looks have a huge influence on how we are treated depending on prevailing local attitudes. But the underlying moods and personality as codes by genes have a huge and often unexamined effect as well.

Race often becomes a subject fraught with political gerrymandering. At its root it's just giving a name to genetic groups, which you can make as superficial or complex as the level of magnification that is appropriate for what you're examining.

How you're regarded is certainly not unimportant (like a the child of a jewish father not being regarded as jewish), but the genes don't care and will express themselves jewlike. 

For example Bobby Fischer, despite regarding himself as non-jewish both has typical jewish facial features as the higher than average IQ as well as some jewish personality traits. He may be antisemetic, but that doesn't change how his genes express themselves.



Unassuming Local Guy said:


> On a practical level, race truly doesn't matter. What matters is culture. Humans are what they're told to be.



Blank slate has long been disproven. I get that the idea is still percolating, but it has no basis in fact.

What matters may be culture, but culture is only the flower. Biology is the root. You can look at any of the adoption twin studies for that.

The genetics of the biological parents have a much higher predictive value over whether kids are alcoholics, smokers, extraverted or introverted and a number of other studied traits. Much higher than the parents that adopted them, chose their surroundings, school, raised them. You can read the studies or watch documentaries like Hjernevask on youtube where academics are interviewed and things are made easy to follow.

Most parents learn to discard the idea that kids are whatever they're told to be when they have a second kid and discover that a different mix of genes demands a different approach.


----------



## biozeminadae1 (Dec 25, 2020)

God is a Serb said:


> Some ethnolinguistic groups such as the Austronesian and Turkic vary greatly in appearance depending on the location, but they all come from a common ancestor and the languages they speak are so similar to each other.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Most Turkic people are genetically assimilated, their ancestors were East Asian/Mongoloid.

Race serves as an ethno-cultural and phenotypic grouping to me. A greater taxon in which several human "familiae" exist.

To be honest, I don't even consider negroids as Homo Sapiens, they ought to be considered their own species whose closest relatives are Homo Sapiens. And don't give me that bullshit that different species can't produce offspring. Lions and Tigers produce offspring, as do wolves and dogs.


----------



## 💗Freddie Freaker💗 (Dec 25, 2020)

Lemmingwise said:


> Kids, particularly of mixed parentage often look whiter than they do compared to when they grow up.
> 
> European people are more neotenic than other people. Various monkeys have lighter hair in childhood too. You also see this in other traits as is common for neotenic species like dogs: more playful, more curious, less territorial to outgroups (typically other species in animal kingdom, but can relate to biological groups in humans), brain plasticity in adulthood.
> 
> ...


Genes are important and we're definitely not blank slates, but culture still plays a big role in how people turn out. Those raised in good environments are more likely than those raised in garbage bins of being well adapted to society. 

For example if you abuse a kid during their formative years you can turn them into a de facto low functioning autist, regardless of how bright they may have been had they had a normal childhood. https://archive.md/2RqjK



biozeminadae1 said:


> Race serves as an ethno-cultural and phenotypic grouping to me. A greater taxon in which several human "familiae" exist.
> 
> To be honest, I don't even consider negroids as Homo Sapiens, they ought to be considered their own species whose closest relatives are Homo Sapiens. And don't give me that bullshit that different species can't produce offspring. Lions and Tigers produce offspring, as do wolves and dogs.


My response to that has always been "but does it really matter"? If something acts like a human, it should probably be respected like one even if it's a literal bear we're talking about.


----------



## Secret Asshole (Dec 26, 2020)

Whiteness and race are invented concepts postulated by guilty rich people who needed to justify their sociopathy in the early 20th century by social Darwinism. The 'white' race is a modern invention as Europeans had been fucking murdering each other since the dawn of time. Conveniently, all of the people deemed non-white by Social Darwinism and Racial Science of the 20th century were immigrant groups that were being worked to death by the rich in their factories. Irish, Italians and Slavs are notably the people not considered 'white'. Eugenics was an incredibly popular science in America in the 1930s until Hitler.

'Blackness' is uniquely American and defined by African Americans unable to trace their ancestry. It is a foreign concept outside of the United States.

Race is a cultural concept far more than a genetic or phenotypic one. As evidenced by many pictures in this thread, children from mixed families can come out as looking like one race or the other, and it might even be impossible to tell that they are mixed. Race is a cultural phenotype; a grouping of specific cultural characteristics and identifiers that put us into specific groupings. Appearance, dress, language and speaking are part of this cultural phenotype.

This gets more complicated when powers that be want to divide people into races in order to control them and foster hatred of the lower classes. Generally, this has been used as a tool to get races to kill each other in order to stop racial unity and looking to the powers that be as their true oppressors. So race is an incredibly complicated component that has been manipulated by ill-intentioned people throughout history, making defining it an ultimately fruitless task as people tend to have an ulterior motive when doing so.

For all intents and purposes, stripping it of its (HIGHLY) charged nature, race is: A cultural phenotypic indicator based on behavior, appearance, food, political values, speech in which they can be categorized as belonging to a certain region, class, nationality, city or community. Genetics plays a role, but in general, nurture and environment are going to shape the way genetics come out.

We do have inborn behaviors and do share behaviors with our parents, but to the extent to those which are racial are entirely subjective, not objective. Race is not objective and actually does not exist in any meaningful sense besides the one we attribute to it.



biozeminadae1 said:


> Race serves as an ethno-cultural and phenotypic grouping to me. A greater taxon in which several human "familiae" exist.
> 
> To be honest, I don't even consider negroids as Homo Sapiens, they ought to be considered their own species whose closest relatives are Homo Sapiens. And don't give me that bullshit that different species can't produce offspring. Lions and Tigers produce offspring, as do wolves and dogs.



1) Wolves and Dogs are the same species. Dog breeds, much like races, do not actually exist. They are entirely a subjective classification. Genetic dog tests are nearly identical to 23andMe tests. They compile a bunch of genetic data from a region (in this case, breed) that they think is common and compare it against the subject. This doesn't account for the thousands upon thousands of years of genetic drift and free reproductive travel between populations.
2) Male Ligers are sterile.
3) This has been known since 1922 and most species on the planet observe Haldane's rule:  "When in the F1 offspring of two different animal races one sex is absent, rare, or sterile, that sex is the heterozygous sex (heterogametic sex)". This means that in species hybrids, males are sterile, rare or non-existent (XY, heterogametic as opposed to XX, homogametic). This means that it is impossible for hybrids to be their own species. Humans freely reproduce with one another, do not follow Haladane's rule and are not separate species.
4) Reproductive isolation is a huge factor in speciation and differentiation and in fact, in evolution. Humans have not been reproductively isolated from each other for enough of a time to be able to be considered separate species.
5) Genetically, we are 99.9% identical to one another. This is not enough to make a new species. Comparatively, chimps, our closest relative, are 96% identical to us.
6) While lions and tigers are separate species, they belong to the same genus. Much like humans and Neanderthals were different species, but were the same genus. Like tigers and lions, humans and Neanderthals could interbreed as well.
7) Please just say you hate niggers and stop trying to couch it in pseudo-academic language.



💗Bitchstopher Columbitch💗 said:


> My response to that has always been "but does it really matter"? If something acts like a human, it should probably be respected like one even if it's a literal bear we're talking about.


Race is a form of social control, and if someone tells you to care about race, be they a Nazi or a progressive, they're trying to control you for their own ends.


----------



## biozeminadae1 (Dec 26, 2020)

Secret Asshole said:


> 7) Please just say you hate niggers and stop trying to couch it in pseudo-academic language.
> 
> 
> Race is a form of social control, and if someone tells you to care about race, be they a Nazi or a progressive, they're trying to control you for their own ends.


Um, okay? People are either the controllers or the controlled. And if it came across that I'm sugar-coating my racism, I'm sorry. I hate niggers.


----------



## Secret Asshole (Dec 26, 2020)

biozeminadae1 said:


> Um, okay? People are either the controllers or the controlled. And if it came across that I'm sugar-coating my racism, I'm sorry. I hate niggers.


All I ask for is honesty


----------



## Lemmingwise (Dec 26, 2020)

💗Bitchstopher Columbitch💗 said:


> For example if you abuse a kid during their formative years you can turn them into a de facto low functioning autist, regardless of how bright they may have been had they had a normal childhood. https://archive.md/2RqjK


I'd just like to point out that although. People can get absolutely destroyed at the extreme ends of how they're treated, that does not mean that how people are raised on average has a big influence.

We all desperately want to believe it, and the fact that we do means we can go to great lengths to attempt to do well, something I cheer on. But lookimg at the data suggests that this is much smaller than we like it to be.




Secret Asshole said:


> Genetics plays a role, but in general, nurture and environment are going to shape the way genetics come out.



How you square that with twin adoption studies showing that for traits of being frequent drinker/smoker having 0.5-0.6 correlation with both twin and bio parents, but less than 0.1 with adoptive parents?

I'm just picking one of numerous behavioural traits that we expect to be cultural, but which certainly seem to be much more genetic.

Those were the numbers last time I dived into the studies anyways.

It seems to me that barring very unusual situations like being locked in the basement, genetics are much more predictive than environment (although I admit I put epigenetics on genetic side instead of environment for that comparison). I'm curious how you would account for that where nurture and environment seem to play such a large role.


----------



## Str8Bustah (Dec 26, 2020)

Race is not your skin colour, and mixing those two up is what leads to half the retarded, midwit takes on this subject that nearly everyone on the internet seems to have. race is about your ethnicity, specifically, which region of the globe your ancestry stems from, what challenges that group faced on an environmental level that led them to evolve to address said challenges in whatever way that they did, and what impact those evolutionary traits have on the modern generation. to pretend otherwise is just being disingenuous.



Secret Asshole said:


> Wolves and Dogs are the same species. *Dog breeds, much like races, do not actually exist*. They are entirely a subjective classification.


you sneaky, conniving bastard.

'the best way to hide a lie is to place it between two truths.'


----------



## 💗Freddie Freaker💗 (Dec 26, 2020)

Secret Asshole said:


> Whiteness and race are invented concepts postulated by guilty rich people who needed to justify their sociopathy in the early 20th century by social Darwinism. The 'white' race is a modern invention as Europeans had been fucking murdering each other since the dawn of time. Conveniently, all of the people deemed non-white by Social Darwinism and Racial Science of the 20th century were immigrant groups that were being worked to death by the rich in their factories. Irish, Italians and Slavs are notably the people not considered 'white'. Eugenics was an incredibly popular science in America in the 1930s until Hitler.
> 
> 'Blackness' is uniquely American and defined by African Americans unable to trace their ancestry. It is a foreign concept outside of the United States.
> 
> ...


I totally agree about race being commonly used as a tool to control others. Most people don't seem to be able to grasp how nuanced things really are so they revert to thinking "people who look like this good, people who look like this bad" and it leads to petty clan fights that benefit nobody but the ruling class. Coexisting peacefully is possible when opportunists at the top aren't rattling the cage.



Lemmingwise said:


> I'd just like to point out that although. People can get absolutely destroyed at the extreme ends of how they're treated, that does not mean that how people are raised on average has a big influence.
> 
> We all desperately want to believe it, and the fact that we do means we can go to great lengths to attempt to do well, something I cheer on. But lookimg at the data suggests that this is much smaller than we like it to be.
> 
> ...


All I can say is that I've witnessed striking behavioral difference between people of the same race who live in different parts of the world. Maybe the perceived size of the difference was just an illusion, though.


----------



## murdered meat bag (Dec 26, 2020)

race might as well be ethnicity. op's examples have known ethnicities.

its only an issue for westerners and their affiliates like brazil where ethnicity is replaced by nationality.

can a non-chinese be chinese? not really.  you can be xxx-chinese but thats to distinguish you from the real chinese.

same for any other asian country.


----------



## Marshal Mannerheim (Dec 26, 2020)

I know the word ”social construct” gets thrown around a lot, but that's exactly what race is. I have nothing in common with a Bosniak. I speak a Germanic and a Finno-Ugric language, he speaks a Slavic language. I'm a Catholic, he's a Muslim. I'll be able to go to university if I want, while he might not finish secondary school. Yet according to the two sides of the same coin that are white supremacy and critical race theory, we're both the same because we have a similar amount of melanin in our skin.


----------



## Feralcheese (Dec 26, 2020)

I don't mind the Nsscars, but I would forbid my daughter to marry one.


----------



## Legoshi (Dec 26, 2020)

Marshal Mannerheim said:


> I know the word ”social construct” gets thrown around a lot, but that's exactly what race is. I have nothing in common with a Bosniak. I speak a Germanic and a Finno-Ugric language, he speaks a Slavic language. I'm a Catholic, he's a Muslim. I'll be able to go to university if I want, while he might not finish secondary school. Yet according to the two sides of the same coin that are white supremacy and critical race theory, we're both the same because we have a similar amount of melanin in our skin.


In many of parts of Europe and Asia, some peoples were oppressed because of their ethnicity which is what a lot of race activists don't really understand.


----------



## Penis Drager (Dec 26, 2020)

When population geneticists say "race is a social construct," they aren't saying human biodiversity doesn't really exist or that it's completely arbitrary. It just doesn't fall into the neat little boxes we invented long before the field existed. This is why they tend to avoid using the word "race" when studying the phenomenon and instead use the term "population."
Different populations are genetically distinct and this fact is measurable. We can even note variation in genes linked  to intelligence or aggression. But to say "black people are X" is kinda silly. Africa is the most genetically diverse continent in the world. There's no one "black population" but several populations that happen to be black. 
What does happen is that homogeneous groups congregate together and form a culture that reflects the whole of the curve. So a population that typically would have an IQ curve that is only barely left shifted on a genetic basis would form a less intelligently run society. This results in nurture amplifying the small variation in nature to result in a wider IQ gap when measured.


----------



## Marshal Mannerheim (Dec 27, 2020)

God is a Serb said:


> In many of parts of Europe and Asia, some peoples were oppressed because of their ethnicity which is what a lot of race activists don't really understand.


I know. Even better, they pretend that Europeans weren't properly oppressed in America.

I can point to newspaper articles calling southern Italians ”dagoes” and calling for them to be lynched, and essentially treating them in the same way blacks were treated, and I can point to examples of discrimination against most Europeans who aren't WASPs, but when have facts ever mattered to this lot?


----------



## Ahriman (Dec 27, 2020)

"Race" is just a placeholder for _ethnicity_. And they're associated with nationality. You could be ethnically Italian, as in, born and raised, but the moment you moved to Belgium, despite having Belgian nationality and being a legal Belgian citizen, you are still fairly foreign to Belgian culture.

Adi always talked about the German _Volk_, which directly translates to "people", not race. He always talked about the German ethnicity, not their color.

Color being associated with prejudice normally has nothing to do with it, that is a fairly modern social phenomenon, currently being heavily exploited by socialists to keep creating a divide between a nation's population. Matter of fact, the term "racist" was coined by none other than Trotsky in the late '20s as a wedge term to defame anti-socialist slavs.










						Leon Trotsky: The History of the Russian Revolution (1.1 Peculiarities of Russia's Development)
					

Leon Trotsky: The History of the Russian Revolution (1.1 Peculiarities of Russia's Development)



					www.marxists.org
				





> In the second quotation Trotsky says the Slavophiles believe Russians to be inherently democratic, an idea that he rubbishes. He says that also finishes off the claims of the racists. But again he is attacking the idea of racial differences not accusing the Slavophiles of saying racist things. In both cases Trotsky is commenting on an existing ideology of racial superiority/difference, so he therefore did not invent the concept of racism. No more than the person who invented the word ‘cat’ was the inventor of cats! Therefore what was the context Trotsky was using those words in, if he only is attacking the idea of inherent racial differences? In the 1930s the word ‘racism’ meant according to the Oxford English Dictionary, “[t]he theory that distinctive human characteristics and abilities are determined by race”. Which sounds exactly like the way Trotsky was using it. No doubt that applies to his earlier usage of ‘racist’ too. In fact in the 1930s, also according to the OED, the word ‘racialism’ (dating from 1907) meant “belief in the superiority of a particular race; prejudice based on this”.


And before that,









						The Ugly, Fascinating History Of The Word 'Racism'
					

The first recorded utterance of the word was by a man named Richard Henry Pratt, whose legacy among Native Americans and others is deeply contentious. His story illustrates problems with how the word is used today.




					www.npr.org
				





> The Oxford English Dictionary's first recorded utterance of the word racism was by a man named Richard Henry Pratt in 1902. Pratt was railing against the evils of racial segregation.
> 
> "Segregating any class or race of people apart from the rest of the people kills the progress of the segregated people or makes their growth very slow. Association of races and classes is necessary to destroy racism and classism."
> 
> Although Pratt might have been the first person to inveigh against racism and its deleterious effects by name, he is much better-remembered for a very different coinage: Kill the Indian...save the man.


So there you have it, he coined the term but in another context.

The current "modern" interpretation of the word is the one Trotsky pushed.



			https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Henry_Pratt
		



> Pratt's practice of Americanization of Native Americans by cultural assimilation, which he effected both at Fort Marion and Carlisle, was later regarded by some as a form of cultural genocide. He believed that to claim their rightful place as American citizens, Native Americans needed to renounce their tribal way of life, convert to Christianity, abandon their reservations, and seek education and employment among the "best classes" of Americans. In his writings he described his belief that the government must "kill the Indian...to save the man".


So _that_ is what he meant.


> Pratt became an outspoken opponent of tribal segregation on reservations.


Hence, his quote on racism.


----------



## BOLDYSPICY! (Dec 27, 2020)

> What is race


Baby don't hurt me


----------



## Penis Drager (Dec 27, 2020)

BOLDYSPICY! said:


> Baby don't hurt purge me


FTFY


----------



## Lemmingwise (Dec 27, 2020)

Penis Drager said:


> When population geneticists say "race is a social construct," they aren't saying human biodiversity doesn't really exist or that it's completely arbitrary. It just doesn't fall into the neat little boxes we invented long before the field existed. This is why they tend to avoid using the word "race" when studying the phenomenon and instead use the term "population."
> Different populations are genetically distinct and this fact is measurable. We can even note variation in genes linked  to intelligence or aggression. But to say "black people are X" is kinda silly. Africa is the most genetically diverse continent in the world. There's no one "black population" but several populations that happen to be black.
> What does happen is that homogeneous groups congregate together and form a culture that reflects the whole of the curve. So a population that typically would have an IQ curve that is only barely left shifted on a genetic basis would form a less intelligently run society. This results in nurture amplifying the small variation in nature to result in a wider IQ gap when measured.


Any subject gets more complex when you talk about it with an expert.

Geneticists are not the ones who came up with the idea "race is a social construct". That's an idea from the sociology department (and they try to make everything a social cobstruct, including gender).

It's not that race is a useless concept (if a very superficial one for the reasons stated), it's that it is a taboo concept. That is a meaningful distinction.

It's taboo not for any reason related to genetics, but for reasons related to politics, society and so on.

There are a number of "black people are" statements that are broadly true. Black people are less sensitive to sunlight. Black people need more sunlight to get sufficient vitamin D. Even with the wide variety between pygmy's, bantu and somali, each share that characteristic compared to european people, even if they differ wildly on other traits.

This if course is one of the least taboo traits that differ.

The problem that an honest genetic assesment of some of those differences leads to uncomfortable questions relating to such subjects as crime, immigration and even the subject taboo of IQ for taboo squared and that is why the subject must be taboo.

You look at these subjects honestly and with clarity and you immediately become a nazi and must be punched.


----------



## Penis Drager (Dec 27, 2020)

Lemmingwise said:


> Any subject gets more complex when you talk about it with an expert.
> 
> Geneticists are not the ones who came up with the idea "race is a social construct". That's an idea from the sociology department (and they try to make everything a social cobstruct, including gender).
> 
> ...


You're right, and even most population geneticists would agree with you for the most part. Here's a pretty interesting article about two scholars: Charles Murray (the author of "The Bell Curve" which is often decried as a racist screed) and Adam Rutherford (the author of "How to Argue With a Racist" who is known for being a fervent anti-racist). If you don't have the time to read their books, just know that they basically agree 90% of the time. What geneticists tend to take issue with on race is the "wishy-washiness" of the concept. They don't really take much issue with the subsance of the variation, just that the "boxes" we put people in aren't particularly scientific.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Dec 27, 2020)

Penis Drager said:


> You're right, and even most population geneticists would agree with you for the most part. Here's a pretty interesting article about two scholars: Charles Murray (the author of "The Bell Curve" which is often decried as a racist screed) and Adam Rutherford (the author of "How to Argue With a Racist" who is known for being a fervent anti-racist). If you don't have the time to read their books, just know that they basically agree 90% of the time. What geneticists tend to take issue with on race is the "wishy-washiness" of the concept. They don't really take much issue with the subsance of the variation, just that the "boxes" we put people in aren't particularly scientific.


Here's a nice question.

You say they agree on 90%.

If races are meaningless because we are "more similar than we are different"....

Here we have a notorious racist Charles Murray and a very outspoken anti-racist, Adam Rutherford. And their ideas on race are more similar than they are different.

Would that mean that racism is meaningless?

Or is it perhaps possible that a couple of percentage points can result in very meaningful differences?


----------



## Penis Drager (Dec 27, 2020)

Lemmingwise said:


> Here's a nice question.
> 
> You say they agree on 90%.
> 
> ...


"Race is meaningless" is a stretch. It's just that focusing on it is an oversimplification to the point of error. I mean, you'd agree that different white subgroups are easily identifiable, yes? Spaniards, Irish,, and Swedes are pretty distinct even at a superficial level without need for genetic analysis. Well Africa is more genetically diverse than Europe, though the superficial differences are notably harder to spot. 
What I'm getting at here is that conventional notions of "race" aren't particularly helpful in understanding the reality of the situation. Even reducing it to "ethnicity" is only slightly more helpful as subpopulations within an established nation can often be easy to tell apart (see: Uyghurs, Tibetans, and Han Chinese, though this is the extreme) hence why it's been such a worry in recent times that the CCP has taken such an interest in population genetics studies. Nobody's been saying the science is flawed. The worry is they may use the knowledge they acquired in an unethical manner.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Dec 27, 2020)

Penis Drager said:


> "Race is meaningless" is a stretch. It's just that focusing on it is an oversimplification to the point of error. I mean, you'd agree that different white subgroups are easily identifiable, yes? Spaniards, Irish,, and Swedes are pretty distinct even at a superficial level without need for genetic analysis. Well Africa is more genetically diverse than Europe, though the superficial differences are notably harder to spot.
> What I'm getting at here is that conventional notions of "race" aren't particularly helpful in understanding the reality of the situation. Even reducing it to "ethnicity" is only slightly more helpful as subpopulations within an established nation can often be easy to tell apart (see: Uyghurs, Tibetans, and Han Chinese, though this is the extreme) hence why it's been such a worry in recent times that the CCP has taken such an interest in population genetics studies. Nobody's been saying the science is flawed. The worry is they may use the knowledge they acquired in an unethical manner.


I don't think that's what's going on. I think people are trying to find posthoc reasons why it's good that we don't have an intermediary concept.

It's a modern kind of doublethink. We obsess about antiracism and how to equalize things with affirmative actions, even as we deny the concepts themselves that even make that analysis possible in the first place. It's a kafkaesque game without solutions once you engage in it.

Why would variety in a collection of subgroups matter when comparing larger broader groups? Men have larger variety of behavioural traits compared to women on such metrics as criminality and productivity. Does that render comparison between men and women invalid?

Does comparing japanese to australian aboriginal become invalid because one or the other has more genetic variety? You can only say one has more genetic variety by comparing them in the first place. Even as you try to defend abolishing the concept, you have to use the concept to make your point.

---

Look at it another way.

Talking about people as left vs right is also an oversimplification when discussing politics, but it is still a useful building block towards growing understanding.

You need to start at the oversimplifications before you start coloring in the details.

No matter the difference between the irish and spaniards, you're still going to find useful comparisons compared to asians, whether taken broadly as "asians" or selecting a couple specific ethnicities.

In the end it is a question of magnification. Just because race is a broad concept doesn't render it obsolete. It only means that it should be reserved for when that level of magnification is appropriate for the task at hand.


----------



## Penis Drager (Dec 27, 2020)

Lemmingwise said:


> I think people are trying to find posthoc reasons why it's good that we don't have an intermediary concept.


But we do have a concept that's pretty decent in terms of accurately describing the differences we find: populations. It's unfortunate, but understandable, that the general public isn't well versed in the nuance of the discussion here. It's not like our joke of an educational system would care to elaborate on human biodiversity. Hell, it's worth noting that Murray, the "racist," is the one who takes the more nuanced approach to discussing race while Rutherford fixates on essentialist ideas that even the most fervent racist doesn't necessarily subscribe to. When Rutherford does discuss the nuance, he's in agreement with Murray.



Lemmingwise said:


> Why would variety in a collection of subgroups matter when comparing larger broader groups?


It's a fair question. The answer is simply that, when you do subdivide the groups, some of the generalizations disappear in some populations while being more pronounced in others. I agree that the generalizations *can *be useful. But in a hypothetical scenario where two adjacent populations are notably distinct in some factor (let's say intelligence), it's important not to lump them together when discussing that factor. Like if race A tends to be more intelligent than race B, it's not too much of a stretch to apply that generalization when looking for intelligent people. But if population A1 just happened to be intelligent enough to overcome the ineptitude of A2,  we could find that populations B1, B2, and B3 are each more intelligent than A2. So looking for A becomes a flawed strategy despite being a halfway decent rule of thumb.
This doesn't even touch on the fact that there is a lot of overlap involved here. To paraphrase Rutherford: "people move around a lot, and people aren't really picky about who they breed with." You're always going to find cases where groups quite easily can be identified as one "race" but actually are more similar to another race than their own when you study their genetics.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Dec 27, 2020)

Penis Drager said:


> But we do have a concept that's pretty decent in terms of accurately describing the differences we find: populations. It's unfortunate, but understandable, that the general public isn't well versed in the nuance of the discussion here. It's not like our joke of an educational system would care to elaborate on human biodiversity. Hell, it's worth noting that Murray, the "racist," is the one who takes the more nuanced approach to discussing race while Rutherford fixates on essentialist ideas that even the most fervent racist doesn't necessarily subscribe to. When Rutherford does discuss the nuance, he's in agreement with Murray


I mean that's just an idea that someone else wrote about Rutherford, I wouldn't take that at face value without readinhg his own work.

I just watched a video of Rutherford going on and on about jews. I suppose race doesn't exist as a useful concept except for his own group?



Penis Drager said:


> Like if race A tends to be more intelligent than race B, it's not too much of a stretch to apply that generalization when looking for intelligent people.


This actually proves my point. See that there is no argument against the viability of race as a useful concept? It is taboo and fear of results what happens when you open pandora's box.

Take away race for a second.

If intelligence is what you're looking for it is completely sensible to target the group with higher intelligence. For example if one neighborhood has been studied to be significantly more intelligent, it's completely sensible to put your billboards up in that neighborhood.

And then if others are already doing that, it is completely sensible to put a billboard in the less intelligent neighborhood, to target the smaller group, but existing outliers that are missed by your competitors?

Now when you get to race, why would those same strategies suddenly be ineffective?

They wouldn't. It's just taboo.

As for your A2 analogy, targetting A is still a more succesful strategy than not targetting A. It's the same with employers not legally being allowed to ask if a woman is planning to get pregnant.

This devalues the group women as a whole as they are now a potential liability. Because we are not allowed to discern women planning to get pregnant from women who are not.

It's the kind of unfair prejudice that everyone has to deal with one way or another. You don't solve these by avoiding the word race in favor of a less descriptive word like "populations".


----------



## Penis Drager (Dec 27, 2020)

Lemmingwise said:


> I just watched a video of Rutherford going on and on about jews. I suppose race doesn't exist as a useful concept except for his own group?


Lefties are massive hypocrites. Who knew?

More to the point. I think we're pretty much in agreement. The subjective concept of "race" is still useful as a rule of thumb. It's just that population genetics is more focused on rigorous studies that get more specific about how different populations vary. The word "race" is a bit toxic in our culture as well and it is more useful to them to avoid that kind of language than risk mixing their field up with identity politics. It's just a hassle and they can get the same information across either way.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Dec 27, 2020)

Penis Drager said:


> Lefties are massive hypocrites. Who knew?
> 
> More to the point. I think we're pretty much in agreement. The subjective concept of "race" is still useful as a rule of thumb. It's just that population genetics is more focused on rigorous studies that get more specific about how different populations vary. The word "race" is a bit toxic in our culture as well and it is more useful to them to avoid that kind of language than risk mixing their field up with identity politics. It's just a hassle and they can get the same information across either way.


I get the impression that we don't agree at all and that you're simultaneously being (too) nice and also trying to redirect what I said.

Maybe we're more similar than different, lol, but the differences matter quite a bit.


----------



## Penis Drager (Dec 27, 2020)

Lemmingwise said:


> I get the impression that we don't agree at all and that you're simultaneously being (too) nice and also trying to redirect what I said.
> 
> Maybe we're more similar than different, lol, but the differences matter quite a bit.


My stance probably came off a bit stronger than it really is earlier ITT. If I'm not mistaken, the only point of contention is "how reliable is race as an indicator of mental/behavioral traits?" 
You seem to think it's a bigger deal than I think it is. I'm not too worried about who's the right amount of racist as long as we both are more racist than "one race, the human race" and less racist than "I want to commit genocide."


----------



## Large (Dec 29, 2020)

Nigga don't hurt me, don't hurt me


----------



## Samson Pumpkin Jr. (Dec 29, 2020)

I know how race should be classified and everyone else in this thread is retarded. Race is the genetic aggregate of all people who claim to be of that race. For example, if we took a DNA test of everyone in the world who claims to be white and then averaged out the European proportion of their blood we will get the threshold at which somebody can be considered European. Say 74.123% is the number. Everyone above or at 74.123% is European while everyone below is not.

What if somebody doesn't have a clear majority? 
 If somebody is 20% African, 20% Asian, 20% European, 20% Aboriginal, and 20% unknown trying to classify everything is a waste of time. At that point you may as well make a separate category for somebody who's 21% African, 19%, 20% Aboriginal and so on. My solution to the mutt problem is let them choose whichever race they want to be.


----------



## Odnovo (Dec 29, 2020)

Race exists, and it is important, but it isn't everything, and it isn't always the one thing that matters. Plus, a lot of things that people believe are exclusive to a certain race, are not, such as chimping out. For instance, it is a myth that white people do not chimp out; they do, it is simply either in the privacy of their own homes or on an individual basis. White people chimping out en masse is something that you really only see in the Slavic countries; the rest of the white race lost their balls at least 50 years ago, with the partial exception of Ireland and the American South. I don't know whether or not this is a good thing because on one hand, chimping out makes us a bunch of white niggers, but on the other hand, we've become complete cowards.


----------



## DoodooForGoogol (Dec 30, 2020)

Humanity first. 

All aliens are bastards.


----------



## Str8Bustah (Dec 30, 2020)

Odnovo said:


> Race exists, and it is important, but it isn't everything, and it isn't always the one thing that matters. Plus, a lot of things that people believe are exclusive to a certain race, are not, such as chimping out. For instance, it is a myth that white people do not chimp out; they do, it is simply either in the privacy of their own homes or on an individual basis. White people chimping out en masse is something that you really only see in the Slavic countries; the rest of the white race lost their balls at least 50 years ago, with the partial exception of Ireland and the American South. I don't know whether or not this is a good thing because on one hand, chimping out makes us a bunch of white niggers, but on the other hand, we've become complete cowards.


I hate to be the one to say >white people don't chimp out en masse but did you completely forget about the rich white anitifaggot zoomers that burned down half the major city centers across the United States not even half a year ago?

inb4 >lmao mutts aren't white


----------



## Odnovo (Dec 30, 2020)

St8Bustah said:


> I hate to be the one to say >white people don't chimp out en masse but did you completely forget about the rich white anitifaggot zoomers that burned down half the major city centers across the United States not even half a year ago?
> 
> inb4 >lmao mutts aren't white


I was under the impression that it was all colors of the rainbow that were burning the cities down, but yeah I guess you are right.


----------



## VIVIIXI (Dec 31, 2020)

St8Bustah said:


> I hate to be the one to say >white people don't chimp out en masse but did you completely forget about the rich white anitifaggot zoomers that burned down half the major city centers across the United States not even half a year ago?
> 
> inb4 >lmao mutts aren't white





Odnovo said:


> I was under the impression that it was all colors of the rainbow that were burning the cities down, but yeah I guess you are right.


A good example of (mostly) white people chimping out (for no good reason) is the Vans U.S. Open of Surfing competition. For some reason, Huntington Beach got flooded with a hoard of crackers out to land a couple drunken sandy pelicans under the pier, but by the end of the night more cars than beach bimbos wound up on their backs.


----------



## GreenJacket (Dec 31, 2020)

Secret Asshole said:


> Irish, Italians and Slavs are notably the people not considered 'white'.


Jewish lie.


----------



## ZeCommissar (Dec 31, 2020)

Everyone can be a nigger, nigger is a state of mind, not a innate charcteristic.
Infact we are ALL niggers.
All of humanity must fight against the nigger inside.


----------



## ToroidalBoat (Jan 2, 2021)

To me there's only one race of humans on Earth. What people call "races" are more like "sub-races" of Earth people. To me a different race would be something like birdfolk, elves, or merfolk.


----------



## BigNig420 (Jan 2, 2021)

Race (in the modern context) to ethnicity is gender to sex.

Gender is a globohomo construct that obfuscates the actual intended information meant to be conveyed. IE gender is what you "identify as" and sex describes your biological reproductive determination.

Similarly, race is what you are "identified" as based on your physical attributes, but it's just as arbitrary and meaningless. "White" and "black" are not anthropological determinations, just societal categorization of peoples in to wider groups. It's pretty obvious that people from Russia are biologically different from people in Ireland, but they are both considered the same race. This is why I say race is a construct, it is a socially upheld identification of individuals based on their most basic and arbitrary features. This is race in it's current colloquial meaning.

This is good shorthand if I needed to identify to the police who stole my bike, but it does not actually describe anything about an individual in a meaningful way. To say I have any shared biological makeup or culture with someone based on the categorization of "white" is like saying I have shared biological makeup with someone who has the same hair color or because we both have beards or something like that.


----------



## KPLProphetic (Jan 3, 2021)

💗Bitchstopher Columbitch💗 said:


> What is race, in your opinion?


if you need to ask such a question you're a nigger-tier coping retard. very simple.


----------



## 💗Freddie Freaker💗 (Jan 3, 2021)

Odnovo said:


> I was under the impression that it was all colors of the rainbow that were burning the cities down, but yeah I guess you are right.


When it comes to the latest riots, it's usually blacks who loot and whites who vandalize. Antifa is majority white, just look at Portland. It's one of the whitest cities in the USA. 

If Chechens count as white, they've chimped out as well. The latest beheadings in France were done by one of them.


----------



## KPLProphetic (Jan 3, 2021)

BigNig420 said:


> Race (in the modern context) to ethnicity is gender to sex.
> 
> Gender is a globohomo construct that obfuscates the actual intended information meant to be conveyed. IE gender is what you "identify as" and sex describes your biological reproductive determination.
> 
> ...


subhuman nigger cope out of 10 lol. trying to justify his worthless parasitic nigger existence by pretending that his race is some kind of a "construct" and that he's just as human as anyone of the White Race.
no you aren't you dirty stupid nigger piece of shit animal subhuman. if you weren't a nigger and had an actual intellect you'd off yourself immediately after finding out you're in a nigger body. can't even imagine waking up as a big pile of stiking shit and continuing living.. ahahahahah
i mean.. you know what to do faggot. do it.. no body is gonna miss you. quite on the contrary.. if you frag yourself - do a service for the whole of the mankind. the best any nigger can do is to remove himself from existence. it's like 14 words only the opposite. EVERY NIGGER HAD HE A TRIPLE DIGIT IQ SHOULD OFF HIMSELF FOR EVERYONE'S BENEFIT


----------



## Celebidhren (Jan 3, 2021)

> >race
> >jewish


Sometimes degeneracy may seem so deep-rooted to be genetic, but you have to hold out hope that it can be remedied.

But more on topic, I'm a fan of the puddle comparison, you don't need to know the exact dimensions and history of a puddle to differentiate it from a pond.
That being said I am a fan of autistically defining shit that doesn't need to be, so I would say you have to be at least 56% white to count as such.

*edit: colour and artistic => autistic


----------



## AMHOLIO (Jan 3, 2021)

Whenever I read A&H when race and the word "nigger" comes up, it is a fancy way of saying "people who dont act how I like and also not my skin color".  Appending "sand, white," etc. on top of it, followed by "chink" which is it's own 3rd party because the chinese are foregin in mentality but successful and "jew" for white people who are successful but are doing something wrong with jewish ancestory.

There are so many disappointing degenerate white trash people who aren't any of the categories above that it kills me every time someone says "onky a nigger would sell their baby for crack" and if you bring up they were white they'll just say "yes a white sheboon nigger".  You'll see the same with hard black groups calling someone black who acts against them an oreo, a coon, an uncle tom, etc..  

Race has important cultural and genetic stuff tied to it (like sickle cell anemia) but most of the angrier people who talk don't care and are venting their tribal mentality anger.  Sure you can call people whatever you want, but if you're constantly calling people one insult because its the most offensive thing you can think of it changed meaning from "very negative stereotypical black person" to "anyone who disappoints me" (same for "white just means not with me on opinon" hard sjw and black power crowd).  You have to keep your slurs separate from each other for a reason or else they stop being slurs and start being your own go to chimp out words.

Beyond that, race can be very interesting to talk about.  I 90% go with what the person says they are, followed by their actual culture and genetic records and how people treat them, which is the main factor of separating races I feel.  

My take is that its ultimately like the varieties of roses: different colored and different looking with different needs and different ways of occuring, but still a rose.  Humans are just more offensive than roses because we have the capacity of free will and though, and some people will choose to be bastards or group up and become team bastard etc..  But they can also team up and create cool shit and have bomb ass meals and art culturewise.  Hyperfocusing on the race is only important in genetics when determining possible diseases or for tugboat money, which is probably the heart of most racial fighting.  The two examples of children you give will be called white or black or what have you when activist need someone to prop up as X but be forgotten about as soon as money comes into play since the children are well off.  "She's not black she has money" is a hyper retarded line parroted by both sides. 
Follow your instincts, respect other people's choices, laugh at retards regardless of pedigree.  The kiwifarms way!



DoodooForGoogol said:


> Humanity first.
> 
> All aliens are bastards.


Literally the only valid position with the arrival of space force.  Anyone who says otherwise deserves to be shot into space.


----------



## Caesar Augustus (Mar 15, 2021)

There are four primary races, caucasoid, negroid, mongoloid, and australoid. Some argue the existence of a five, austronesians. Of these, there are subgroups, (for example Celtic and Slavic are subgroups of caucasoid) natural overlaps, (Uralics between caucasoid and mongoloid, Afro-Asiatics between negroid and caucasoid.) and artificial overlaps, or "mutts", of various degrees of various degrees. (Mestizos are half native American, half caucasoid, and Octoroons are 3/4 caucasoid and 1/3). The one drop rule is bullshit. The policy of counting anyone of partial non caucasian descent as pure "non-white" is also bullshit, which according to Wikipedia, was invented by certain "civil rights activists" in fear of a rise in multi-racial people "would reduce the size of various racial minorities." 
Though probably not completely accurate, and not covering all mixes, this Mexican casta painting shows many potential mixes. Remember phenotype does not always indicate genotype.


----------



## Johan Schmidt (Mar 15, 2021)

Race is an overarching term that generalises and covers multiple ethnic groups under an umbrella. 

It's useful for rough carving out. E.g. I don't want to be around Blacks; I don't care if they are Eritrean or Basketball America, or Somalian. I don't wanna be around any of them. But if I had to, I'd wanna be around the Basketball Americans the most, and the lightbulb heads the least. 

Likewise, I am white; but within that umbrella term I am a (eternalschemingseething) anglo/celt mix, I am friends with a Germanic white and a russian white. 

It serves a function as an umbrella term, and you can make rough estimations of people based off of it. But they are rough.


----------



## Haim Arlosoroff (Mar 15, 2021)

> Race! It is a feeling, not a reality: ninety-five percent, at least, is a feeling. Nothing will ever make me believe that biologically pure races can be shown to exist today. Amusingly enough, not one of those who have proclaimed the "nobility" of the Teutonic race was himself a Teuton. No such doctrine will ever find wide acceptance here in Italy. . . National pride has no need of the delirium of race.


-Benito Mussolini, As quoted in _Talks with Mussolini_, Emil Ludwig, Boston, MA, Little, Brown and Company (1933) pp. 69-70. Interview between March 23 and April 4, 1932, at the Palazzo di Venezia in Rome ​
Races are just imagined breeding populations with a shared sense of culture and destiny.  To a certain large percentage they even are stable genetically, although they shift like in the White Male Skull differences between Nordic samples and modern measurements (We became less like the women's skulls due to their breeding selections officially or not).

Today I do not feel like 'White' is anything more than 'original' in the way that it is used by people in North America.  In Europe they still use 'European' to mean what the North American mostly refers to.  In truth, I think race will begin to matter more than nationality due to the leftists demoting nationalities and all other population blocs.  But today white is a pathetic holdover from when Americans wanted to at least like themselves more than the entirety of Mankind, or at least value their own children over the immigrant.  Race therefore is weakly definable in modern times.

Mostly race comes to mean, the-race-we-implicitly-identify-with's history and place in world history as opposed to the-others-who-we-implicitly-do-not-identify-with nor place in our histories as 'us'.


----------



## FUTUREMAN (Mar 16, 2021)

Secret Asshole said:


> Haldane's rule





Secret Asshole said:


> Much like humans and Neanderthals were different species, but were the same genus. Like tigers and lions, humans and Neanderthals could interbreed as well.


Wait if Ligers are sterile and thus follow Haldane's rule. Shouldn't the same rule followed by Humthals too? Considering that human Neanderthal hybrids were real
Granted i could be missing something but still, no harm asking right?


----------



## Caesar Augustus (Mar 16, 2021)

FUTUREMAN said:


> Wait if Ligers are sterile and thus follow Haldane's rule. Shouldn't the same rule followed by Humthals too? Considering that human Neanderthal hybrids were real
> Granted i could be missing something but still, no harm asking right?


Most Ligers are sterile, but not all. The same goes for mules. I believe only hybrids of a certain gender could reproduce.


----------



## Save the Loli (Mar 18, 2021)

Race is a biological reality but in most cases culture overrules race. In this day and age, if Thomas Sowell and Enrique Tarrio can be "white supremacists" then I think there's a lot of whites who are straight up niggers or kikes. There's also a lot of blacks and Jews who aren't niggers or kikes. Race =/= culture, I mean your dirt farming Irishman was the same race as the Irishman in a suit and tie ordering him around just like your successful African businessman is the same race as the guys going around the jungle/average European city raping people.

I actually enjoy the diversity of the human species so I love all sorts of anthropology including physical anthropology. It's really too bad the majority of historic races (mostly in the Americas and Australia) have been wiped out in the past 150 years and culturally only exist in a bastardized form like the blond haired, blue eyed "Aboriginals" that get trotted out a lot or the white people allowed to run casinos because they're "totally Indian." I don't even have a problem with cultures and races merging and fusing, because that happens naturally, my problem is the globalist plot to use mass immigration to do this on an unnatural scale with the overall goal to reduce the entire world to mutts who speak bastardized English. Call it a "rainbow coalition against globalism", but it's exactly what we need as a species.

I'd probably stick around my own race if given a choice, but if given the choice between living in a decent neighborhood in Nairobi or Tokyo or living in a trailer park in Appalachia/the South I'd pick the former.


Caesar Augustus said:


> There are four primary races, caucasoid, negroid, mongoloid, and australoid. Some argue the existence of a five, austronesians. Of these, there are subgroups, (for example Celtic and Slavic are subgroups of caucasoid) natural overlaps, (Uralics between caucasoid and mongoloid, Afro-Asiatics between negroid and caucasoid.) and artificial overlaps, or "mutts", of various degrees of various degrees. (Mestizos are half native American, half caucasoid, and Octoroons are 3/4 caucasoid and 1/3). The one drop rule is bullshit. The policy of counting anyone of partial non caucasian descent as pure "non-white" is also bullshit, which according to Wikipedia, was invented by certain "civil rights activists" in fear of a rise in multi-racial people "would reduce the size of various racial minorities."
> Though probably not completely accurate, and not covering all mixes, this Mexican casta painting shows many potential mixes. Remember phenotype does not always indicate genotype.


Capoid is possibly a race too (it divides the Negroids into two races, Congoids and Capoids). Basically the native peoples of southern Africa. "Pure" Capoids are mostly extinct because they blended with the incoming Congoids (Bantus) in the past two thousand years but a lot of black South Africans look as distinct from other Africans as Australian Aboriginals do. Capoid traits are lighter, almost "golden" skin and folds in the eye. I don't think Austronesians are a race and the Negrito peoples (exterminated/assimilated by the Austronesians) are mostly genetically distinct from each other and tend to get lumped under Australoid. I've heard "Australoid" might be a "wastebasket taxon" since it groups a lot of different genetic lineages under one heading that share only a few traits in common (including being very early lineages to leave Africa).


----------

