Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

ethnicity


  • Please log in to reply
34 replies to this topic

#16    me-wonders

me-wonders

    Remote Viewer

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 557 posts
  • Joined:30 May 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 08 December 2012 - 06:18 PM

View Postredhen, on 08 December 2012 - 04:32 PM, said:

Ok, I'm not going to play equivocation all day, but from your working definition of ethnicity, what you really mean is culture. Thank you for your elucidation.



Not so. From the same article; "Slightly over half of all biological/physical anthropologists today believe in the traditional view that human races are biologically valid and real. Furthermore, they tend to see nothing wrong in defining and naming the different populations of Homo sapiens"

Hum, I think I detect hostility?  I thought I noticed hostility before and thought no, I am just being too sensitive, but this time you were not replying to me, and I think I see hostility.

Ethnicity does involve all those things, and I do question, because my great grandson has dark skin, should we make a point of exposing him to the food, music and customs of Africa?  Should we teach him his heritage is from Africa?  Or is it okay if we stick with what we know, and to stay with the meaning of living a democracy and the culture of the land of his birth?   He is also part native American, and how much of a deal should make of this being his heritage.  Should we be sure to take him to Pow Wows and dress in the clothes of the tribe of his great father?  Just how do we explain to him who is and what his heritage is?

When I was a child and the school teacher talked about us coming from different countries in Europe, I asked my mother what I was.  She told me I am Hinez 57 varieties.  That means, I am a citizen of the US and citizens of the US are a mix of different peoples.

Edited by me-wonders, 08 December 2012 - 06:23 PM.


#17    redhen

redhen

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,825 posts
  • Joined:14 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Samsara

Posted 08 December 2012 - 08:55 PM

View Postme-wonders, on 08 December 2012 - 06:09 PM, said:

Hum I thought questions of logic were philosophical in nature?

I suppose everything can be reduced to a philosophical question, but your original question was how to determine race, which is a scientific question.

Quote

And if a child is 3/4 White and 1/4 Black, what is the logic of determining the child's race is Black.  The formula for determining if a child is a native American is better than that.

Context is everything. If it's to determine a demographic poll, simple self-identification is sufficient. If it's to prove the ancestry of  skeletal remains, a forensic anthropologist can do the job.

Quote

How well diverse people get along is sociology, politics, philosophical and psychological isn't it?  

Quite so. I think maybe I distilled your OP into just one question, which is my habit. I apologize.

Quote

Yes, you do fight racism by denying race.  We are suppose to live in a democracy, and the best way to fight racism is to teach for democracy.

I have supplied a reliable source that states that the majority of physical anthropologists believe in race. Look, I am not a racist, I am pro science. I seek the truth without bias, wherever it leads. The idea that race is a social construct is part of Cultural Marxism. The idea that gender is also a social construct is part of the same agenda. Cultural Marxism is also known as political correctness.

I took a few physical anthropology semesters at college and from day one the prof hammered home this same Cultural Marxist propaganda, there's no such thing as race. They showed us a video one day in which they sampled dna from a high school class. They made much of the fact that one apparently white kid was more closely related to a specific black kid in the class, "see, we're all the same" . But what the unstated assumption was that there were specific genetic markers that enabled them to compare these differences. These genetic markers are called Haplogroups.The wiki entry will explain the different markers and their ancestral geographic locations. These are the same tools that popular ancestry companies use for commercial purposes.

If you still deny race, would you also say that the myriad breeds of dogs don't really exist? They are merely a social construct and there is only one race of dog, the dog race. Sounds preposterous doesn't it?

And no, I am not being hostile. I'm just frustrated at having to constantly defend science from Cultural Marxist academics and their stranglehold on education.


#18    Jessica Christ

Jessica Christ

    jeanne d'arc, je te suivrai

  • Member
  • 3,610 posts
  • Joined:27 May 2011
  • Location:Currently entering

  • It seems so important now but you will get over.

Posted 08 December 2012 - 09:48 PM

View Postredhen, on 08 December 2012 - 08:55 PM, said:

I suppose everything can be reduced to a philosophical question, but your original question was how to determine race, which is a scientific question.



Context is everything. If it's to determine a demographic poll, simple self-identification is sufficient. If it's to prove the ancestry of  skeletal remains, a forensic anthropologist can do the job.



Quite so. I think maybe I distilled your OP into just one question, which is my habit. I apologize.



I have supplied a reliable source that states that the majority of physical anthropologists believe in race. Look, I am not a racist, I am pro science. I seek the truth without bias, wherever it leads. The idea that race is a social construct is part of Cultural Marxism. The idea that gender is also a social construct is part of the same agenda. Cultural Marxism is also known as political correctness.

I took a few physical anthropology semesters at college and from day one the prof hammered home this same Cultural Marxist propaganda, there's no such thing as race. They showed us a video one day in which they sampled dna from a high school class. They made much of the fact that one apparently white kid was more closely related to a specific black kid in the class, "see, we're all the same" . But what the unstated assumption was that there were specific genetic markers that enabled them to compare these differences. These genetic markers are called Haplogroups.The wiki entry will explain the different markers and their ancestral geographic locations. These are the same tools that popular ancestry companies use for commercial purposes.

If you still deny race, would you also say that the myriad breeds of dogs don't really exist? They are merely a social construct and there is only one race of dog, the dog race. Sounds preposterous doesn't it?

And no, I am not being hostile. I'm just frustrated at having to constantly defend science from Cultural Marxist academics and their stranglehold on education.

The current consensus and for some time has been that of social constructionism. Your view redhen is a minority view.

The current view is that the human race is one species and that the biological classification of subspecies in other animals cannot be applied to humans.

In fact your view is described as a "racialist tenet".

Quote

Thus, the racialist tenet that skin color and other skin-deep properties pick up different biological groups has been assumed to be false.

http://www.pitt.edu/...ucher_ 2005.pdf


#19    redhen

redhen

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,825 posts
  • Joined:14 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Samsara

Posted 08 December 2012 - 10:16 PM

View PostI believe you, on 08 December 2012 - 09:48 PM, said:

The current consensus and for some time has been that of social constructionism. Your view redhen is a minority view.

The link you provided is from a social scientist (History and Philosophy of Science). In it he describes his theory of how racial concepts historically came about, i.e. "folk biology". Can you provide some scientific evidence instead please?

Quote

The current view is that the human race is one species and that the biological classification of subspecies in other animals cannot be applied to humans.

And why not? Zoologists do it for every other species, and are remarkably accurate in their assessments. Are we not naked apes? Or are humans somehow outside of nature?


Quote

In fact your view is described as a "racialist tenet".

Sigh, I knew this was coming. This has nothing to do with racialism, racism, bigotry, or any ideology for that matter. This is a simple matter of taxonomy. Racial traits are not Mendelian, they are clinal. Which is most easily seen by skin, hair and eye pigmentation. There are no "pure races". However, genetic markers are reliable tools to ascertain the different ancestral geographic locations for any individual. These are the facts and they are indisputable.


#20    Imaginarynumber1

Imaginarynumber1

    I am not an irrational number

  • Member
  • 4,870 posts
  • Joined:22 Mar 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 08 December 2012 - 10:22 PM

View Postredhen, on 08 December 2012 - 10:16 PM, said:



Sigh, I knew this was coming. This has nothing to do with racialism, racism, bigotry, or any ideology for that matter. This is a simple matter of taxonomy. Racial traits are not Mendelian, they are clinal. Which is most easily seen by skin, hair and eye pigmentation. There are no "pure races". However, genetic markers are reliable tools to ascertain the different ancestral geographic locations for any individual. These are the facts and they are indisputable.

You are talking about heritage, not race. There are no biological markers of any sort that can be found in any one "race".
Ethnicity is essentially culture, though heritage can also play a roll. The point is that it is malleable.

And no, the majority of anthropologists do not believe that different human races are valid and true. That is a completely false statement.

Edited by Imaginarynumber1, 08 December 2012 - 10:23 PM.

"A cat has nine lives. For three he plays, for three he strays, and for the last three he stays."


July 17th, 2008 (Full moon the next night)

RAPTORS! http://www.unexplain...pic=233151&st=0


#21    redhen

redhen

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,825 posts
  • Joined:14 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Samsara

Posted 08 December 2012 - 10:49 PM

View PostImaginarynumber1, on 08 December 2012 - 10:22 PM, said:

You are talking about heritage, not race. There are no biological markers of any sort that can be found in any one "race".
Ethnicity is essentially culture, though heritage can also play a roll. The point is that it is malleable.

Here's one sample of recent work (posted Dec 5) Reading History through genetics. (from a peer reviewed journal). "He and his team are now doing just that, and have already begun to analyze a first group of about 150 Ashkenazi genomes." Ashkenazi Jews are a favourite study population because of their insular culture.

Quote

And no, the majority of anthropologists do not believe that different human races are valid and true. That is a completely false statement.

Source please.

Another link jumped out at from that same scientific journal;
"Dr. Ostrer noted, "The study supports the idea of a Jewish people linked by a shared genetic history. Yet the admixture with European people explains why so many European and Syrian Jews have blue eyes and blonde hair.""

Edited by redhen, 08 December 2012 - 10:54 PM.


#22    Imaginarynumber1

Imaginarynumber1

    I am not an irrational number

  • Member
  • 4,870 posts
  • Joined:22 Mar 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 08 December 2012 - 11:06 PM

View Postredhen, on 08 December 2012 - 10:49 PM, said:

Here's one sample of recent work (posted Dec 5) Reading History through genetics. (from a peer reviewed journal). "He and his team are now doing just that, and have already begun to analyze a first group of about 150 Ashkenazi genomes." Ashkenazi Jews are a favourite study population because of their insular culture.

There is more genetic variation within on group than between two separate ones. Name one consistent feature from any "race".


Quote

Source please.

My degree in Anthropological Sciences.
Oh and there are these:

http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm
http://aabss.org/Per...er2001.jmm.html
http://faculty.platt...ific_racism.htm
http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/race.htm
http://www.thesubver...-are-there.html
http://onlinelibrary...v139:1/issuetoc
http://onlinelibrary...0164.x/abstract
http://www.pearsonhi.../0205064477.pdf
http://science.jrank...Difference.html

Quote

Another link jumped out at from that same scientific journal;
"Dr. Ostrer noted, "The study supports the idea of a Jewish people linked by a shared genetic history. Yet the admixture with European people explains why so many European and Syrian Jews have blue eyes and blonde hair.""  http://www.scienceda...00603123707.htm

Again, ancestry and heritage, not race. Do all Europeans have blond hair and blue eyes?

"A cat has nine lives. For three he plays, for three he strays, and for the last three he stays."


July 17th, 2008 (Full moon the next night)

RAPTORS! http://www.unexplain...pic=233151&st=0


#23    redhen

redhen

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,825 posts
  • Joined:14 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Samsara

Posted 09 December 2012 - 12:42 AM

View PostImaginarynumber1, on 08 December 2012 - 11:06 PM, said:

There is more genetic variation within on group than between two separate ones. Name one consistent feature from any "race".

From your first link "Conventional geographic "racial" groupings differ from one another only in about 6% of their genes".
Right, and that shows how little variation is needed to effect a change. I've read that we also share something like 98% of our dna with chimps, and we share 50% of our dna with bananas. Does that mean we're half bananas?

Quote

My degree in Anthropological Sciences.
Oh and there are these:

thanks, I'll check 'em out.


Quote

Again, ancestry and heritage, not race.

they all mean the same thing to me.

Quote

Do all Europeans have blond hair and blue eyes?

Obviously not. Again, skin, hair and eye pigmentation are the least useful traits for discerning ancestry. I'm guessing you were never taught racial skeletal characteristics ? Just through that term into Google (Scholarly articles) .


#24    Jessica Christ

Jessica Christ

    jeanne d'arc, je te suivrai

  • Member
  • 3,610 posts
  • Joined:27 May 2011
  • Location:Currently entering

  • It seems so important now but you will get over.

Posted 09 December 2012 - 12:47 AM

View Postredhen, on 09 December 2012 - 12:42 AM, said:

From your first link "Conventional geographic "racial" groupings differ from one another only in about 6% of their genes".
Right, and that shows how little variation is needed to effect a change. I've read that we also share something like 98% of our dna with chimps, and we share 50% of our dna with bananas. Does that mean we're half bananas?



thanks, I'll check 'em out.




they all mean the same thing to me.



Obviously not. Again, skin, hair and eye pigmentation are the least useful traits for discerning ancestry. I'm guessing you were never taught racial skeletal characteristics ? Just through that term into Google (Scholarly articles) .

All living things have common ancestry.

There is a difference between race, ancestry and heritage even if not everyone is able to differentiate.

As for racial skeletal characteristics:

Quote

I have a respected colleague, the skeletal biologist C. Loring Brace, who is as skilled as any of the leading forensic anthropologists at assessing ancestry from bones, yet he does not subscribe to the concept of race. [Read Brace's position on the concept of race.] Neither does Norman Sauer, a board-certified forensic anthropologist. My students ask, "How can this be? They can identify skeletons as to racial origins but do not believe in race!" My answer is that we can often function within systems that we do not believe in.

http://www.pbs.org/w...race-exist.html


#25    Imaginarynumber1

Imaginarynumber1

    I am not an irrational number

  • Member
  • 4,870 posts
  • Joined:22 Mar 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 09 December 2012 - 01:22 AM

View Postredhen, on 09 December 2012 - 12:42 AM, said:

From your first link "Conventional geographic "racial" groupings differ from one another only in about 6% of their genes".

Exactly.Now read that quote in contect with the one that comes before it. Here is the whole passage:

Quote

Evidence from the analysis of genetics (e.g., DNA) indicates that most physical variation, about 94%, lies within so-called racial groups. Conventional geographic "racial" groupings differ from one another only in about 6% of their genes. This means that there is greater variation within "racial" groups than between them. In neighboring populations there is much overlapping of genes and their phenotypic (physical) expressions. Throughout history whenever different groups have come into contact, they have interbred. The continued sharing of genetic materials has maintained all of humankind as a single species.


Quote


Right, and that shows how little variation is needed to effect a change. I've read that we also share something like 98% of our dna with chimps, and we share 50% of our dna with bananas. Does that mean we're half bananas?
You're not seriously going to pull that creationist claptrap, are you? All living organism on Earth (that we know about) share a common ancestor. We're talking about genetic variation between homo sapiens, not how similar our DNA is to that of other organisms.

Quote

they all mean the same thing to me.

They may be to you, but academically and in practice, they are very different things.

Quote

Obviously not. Again, skin, hair and eye pigmentation are the least useful traits for discerning ancestry. I'm guessing you were never taught racial skeletal characteristics ? Just through that term into Google (Scholarly articles) .

Those are traits of ancestry, not race. You can have a skull from a european that has similar traits to the skull from an african american, etc.

Edited by Imaginarynumber1, 09 December 2012 - 01:22 AM.

"A cat has nine lives. For three he plays, for three he strays, and for the last three he stays."


July 17th, 2008 (Full moon the next night)

RAPTORS! http://www.unexplain...pic=233151&st=0


#26    Beany

Beany

    Government Agent

  • 3,343 posts
  • Joined:26 Jul 2011
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:California

  • If music is the most universal language just think of me as one whole note. Nikki Giovanni

Posted 09 December 2012 - 05:33 AM

Ethnicity & skin color are two different things that are often perceived as being the same.


#27    redhen

redhen

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,825 posts
  • Joined:14 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Samsara

Posted 09 December 2012 - 12:32 PM

View PostI believe you, on 09 December 2012 - 12:47 AM, said:

All living things have common ancestry.

Agreed. However, here's a claim of yours I challenged for which I am still waiting an answer to.

I believe you said:

The current view is that the human race is one species and that the biological classification of subspecies in other animals cannot be applied to humans.

And my questioning;  "And why not? Zoologists do it for every other species, and are remarkably accurate in their assessments. Are we not naked apes? Or are humans somehow outside of nature?"

This is a Philosophy forum. If you have no support for your claim above then it is an unwarranted claim, or a simple uniformed opinion.

Or are you claiming a priori knowledge?

Anyways, my counter-question still stands.


#28    redhen

redhen

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,825 posts
  • Joined:14 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Samsara

Posted 09 December 2012 - 01:14 PM

View PostImaginarynumber1, on 09 December 2012 - 01:22 AM, said:

Exactly.Now read that quote in contect with the one that comes before it. Here is the whole passage:
"Throughout history whenever different groups have come into contact, they have interbred. The continued sharing of genetic materials has maintained all of humankind as a single species."


Correct. However there are still sub-groups, breeds or races if you will. By this I mean population groups that have consistent, identifiable physical traits, just like many other species for which there seems to be no problems with classifying sub-groups. Heck even within "humankind" which your quote mentions there are sub-species, i.e. homo sapiens sapiens and homo sapiens neanderthalis. These kinds of claims are not scientific, they are philosophical or political arguments. Why are humans exempt from this kind of trivial classification system? If you were a theist and laid claim to special creation I could understand, but we're supposed to be rational here on this philosophy forum.

Quote

You're not seriously going to pull that creationist claptrap, are you? All living organism on Earth (that we know about) share a common ancestor. We're talking about genetic variation between homo sapiens, not how similar our DNA is to that of other organisms.

Yes that was a rhetorical argument. But the point is not how little we all vary genetically, but rather how little change is needed to see a noticeable affect.

Quote

They may be to you, but academically and in practice, they are very different things.

I see all kinds of euphemisms for race used by academics to be politically correct; heritage, ancestry,  ethnicity, "peoples", etc.

Quote

Those are traits of ancestry, not race. You can have a skull from a european that has similar traits to the skull from an african american, etc.

From wiki; "In modern craniofacial anthropometry, Negroid describes features that typify skulls of Black people. These include a broad and round nasal cavity; no dam or nasal sill; Quonset hut-shaped nasal bones; notable facial projection in the jaw and mouth area (prognathism); a rectangular-shaped palate; a square or rectangular eye orbit shape;[22] and large, megadontic teeth"

Sure there are exceptions, but there are standard features which in wiki's phraseology "typify skulls of Black people.".

Did you search for "racial skeletal characteristics" in Google (Scholarly articles) like I suggested? What do you make of all those articles? Are all these scientists wasting their time on a delusion? I think you agree that this is valid science, you just disagree on the nomenclature. You really despise the word race, so you choose to use ancestry instead. That's fine, call it what you will, it refers to the same thing; population sub-groups that have discernible, consistent traits that have specific geographical markers.

And what about genetic haplogroups, how do you explain these markers and their usefulness in determining ancestry?


#29    me-wonders

me-wonders

    Remote Viewer

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 557 posts
  • Joined:30 May 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 09 December 2012 - 05:19 PM

View Postredhen, on 08 December 2012 - 08:55 PM, said:

I suppose everything can be reduced to a philosophical question, but your original question was how to determine race, which is a scientific question.



Context is everything. If it's to determine a demographic poll, simple self-identification is sufficient. If it's to prove the ancestry of  skeletal remains, a forensic anthropologist can do the job.



Quite so. I think maybe I distilled your OP into just one question, which is my habit. I apologize.



I have supplied a reliable source that states that the majority of physical anthropologists believe in race. Look, I am not a racist, I am pro science. I seek the truth without bias, wherever it leads. The idea that race is a social construct is part of Cultural Marxism. The idea that gender is also a social construct is part of the same agenda. Cultural Marxism is also known as political correctness.

I took a few physical anthropology semesters at college and from day one the prof hammered home this same Cultural Marxist propaganda, there's no such thing as race. They showed us a video one day in which they sampled dna from a high school class. They made much of the fact that one apparently white kid was more closely related to a specific black kid in the class, "see, we're all the same" . But what the unstated assumption was that there were specific genetic markers that enabled them to compare these differences. These genetic markers are called Haplogroups.The wiki entry will explain the different markers and their ancestral geographic locations. These are the same tools that popular ancestry companies use for commercial purposes.

If you still deny race, would you also say that the myriad breeds of dogs don't really exist? They are merely a social construct and there is only one race of dog, the dog race. Sounds preposterous doesn't it?

And no, I am not being hostile. I'm just frustrated at having to constantly defend science from Cultural Marxist academics and their stranglehold on education.

Thank you for noticing this subject can be explored from many different points of view.  This is far, far  different from what someone else is doing in another thread, whom I have chosen to ignore.  I think education for technology has programmed people to do exactly what you first did, because that is the way science works.  Liberal education was more about how people work, and I am glad could make that shift.

When we determine what race a person is, this is not as simple as a person deciding for him or her self, because it involves how others identify the person as well.   Yesterday a friend took me to an east Indian place for lunch, and I learned some east Indians do not consider themselves to be White.  I feel quite amazed by this.  Perhaps this is a good thing, because they clearly are not Mexican or Black.  They have a different ethnicity, although their skin color may be as the color of someone we call Black, who isn't that Black.   Perhaps as we expand our understanding of persons of color, to mean of African decent, Mexican, east Indian, and some native Americans, it will decrease the craziness of racism.

The difference between our races in the US and Mexicans and the east Indian race, is the age of these civilizations.  Science says we all come out of Africa, and somehow diverge into different races.  But people also moved around and around and mixed, and this mixing continues.   Some people with dark skin are 78% White.  It can not be scientific to label them as Black and ignore the 78% White.   So this is not just about science, but about being human and how we use science.  Should we DNA test babies when they are born, and list their mix of races on their birth certificates, to be scientifically correct and not prejudice?    Why would do this?  It might perhaps make us aware of how silly our present racism is.  

Also, exactly what does it mean to be of this race or that race?  Why do we care?  Racism is full of myths that are not true, and if we want to be scientific we need to clarify why race matters.    May I suggest, it isn't race that matters but culture?   Black people from Africa, Brazil, Hatti, the southern states of the US, Atlanta, Georgia and L.A., California are not all the same.  Each is the product of economic and social status within different cultures.   However, if you are Irish we know you get drunk  and get into fights, because that is what the Irish do, and this is why we best discriminate against them.  The difference between being  Irish, or Chinese, or African is one to two generations in the US.   This would be the science of human behavior and sociology, right?

My goodness no it doesn't sound preposterous to say all dogs come from one dog race because they do.  The great variety of dogs we have today, are the result of selective breeding.  This could make for a very interesting discussion, because it was discovered if breeders selected for one characteristic, say brown hair, they got a dog with changed specific personality traits as well.   The book "The Brave New World' explains growing babies in tubes and preparing them for the job they will do as adults.   Perhaps we will be able to breed humans with the precession of breeding dogs, but is this desirable?    Do different races of humans have different character traits.  Was Hitler right in his goal for a superior race?  I have an old eugenics book that speculates in the future we can prevent the birth of humans with undesirable traits, and for sure science is taking us in this direction.  Is this a good thing?  It is sad, but often pure bred dogs have health problems, and it is the mutt that is the most healthy.   Nature seems to want us to interbreed.

Your belief that you are defending science from Marxist is most interesting.  Are you perhaps Fascist?   Your political concern seems to go outside the purely scientific realm, but I don't think a fascist would be aware of this, because of the education that created a blindness and instilled a sense of superiority.


#30    me-wonders

me-wonders

    Remote Viewer

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 557 posts
  • Joined:30 May 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 09 December 2012 - 05:56 PM

Here is a theory, just for fun.  All dark skinned people are humans.  White people, however, are humans mixed with aliens, and this is why they are better suited to rule the earth.   You know, as in Chariots of the Gods.  The people of Mu and Atlantis had to be White, and civilizations are the result of these aliens attempting to evolve humans.   This is clearly why African Egypt had White pharaohs.  Pat Robertson, the TV evangelist, thinks it possible the limited the number of people to go to heaven are the number of people who fit in the space craft that will return.  You know, the space craft that the heads on Easter Island are looking for.  The evidence is there.  It is all a matter of how it is interpreted.

Am I saying this politically correctly?  I mean humans are the sub species right, and those with the purest alien blood, are superior.  For this reason, in Egypt it was okay for a sister to marry a brother, to keep the blood pure.  Historically, the importance of a pure blood line has been known, although mixing with humans caused weakness, and therefore failure.  Gods, chosen people the Hebrews, did a pretty job of keeping their race pure, so they remained a minority and didn't get assimilated into other cultures.  Hum, are these Semitic people as White as they should be?

This might be helpful in understanding race and character traits.  http://www.stowiki.org/Trait

Our understanding of race is not just science, and I used the word ethnic because of being interested in the social issues.  However, as the thread progresses it is like when I was a kid and stuck 10 pieces of bubble gum in my mouth at the same time.  The more I chewed the bigger the wad of bubble gun got.

http://en.wikipedia....classification)

Posted Image

Edited by me-wonders, 09 December 2012 - 06:54 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users