Why Do People Constantly Confuse Race and Culture? This is One of the Reasons Why the Race Conversation is so Weird.

[RolandCuthbert]

I promised someone here that I would try to post more takes and questions about race. So here is my second one.

Those who know me know a bit about my position. Culture is the only meaningful difference between different groups of human beings. Just because some folks are obsessed with skin color means little. Those folks will always point to differences in behavior. And that is how culture is defined (not race), culture is defined in differences in group behavior, group beliefs, traditions, customs, etc.

Race, at least what has been claimed here, is supposedly about genetic differences. But it isn't. It is only about skin color or phenotypical differences which are subjective. These definitions differ from country to country, decade to decade and social group to social group. I have traveled to many places on this planet and in some people have asked how can I be called "Black"? But in America, it isn't a question. In Far East Russia, where I have known a few folks, there are people who look very Asian. They have lived there for generations. They are indigenous to those areas. Contrary to the belief that race is some kind of solid marker for human differences, these people who have very Asian features are Russian.

Of course on the other side of the border in Manchuria, you have Chinese people with very "White" or Westernized features. Like Russell Wong.

Actual genetic differences are defined in the science of genetics and human biology.

Haplogroup;

A haplogroup is a genetic population group of people who share a common ancestor on the patriline or the matriline. Haplogroups are assigned letters of the alphabet, and refinements consist of additional number and letter combinations.

The story of humanity begins in Africa. Scientists think this is because Africa is the continent with the greatest genetic diversity. And in Africa, the greatest genetic diversity is found in the sub-Sahara. Researchers have thought for sometime, that probably in the area of South Africa, is we find the first humans. South Africa is beautiful. I could see how it could be the "Garden of Eden".

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/30502963/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/africans-have-worlds-greatest-genetic-variation/

But I just wanted to post this because the discussion of race and culture always takes place on a lopsided foundation. It is hard to talk about differences, diversity, multiculturalism and if you are for or against these things, if you don't what you are talking about. If you don't know the actual science, facts, and data, the conversation just becomes circular and useless.

[JDavid25]

Good take!.. I agree with you wholeheartedly.. Race is a social construct made by the powers that be for the sole purpose of havin a reason to enslave "Black" people, and because they were afraid of a mass revolt with the "Irish" and the "Blacks"... Lol.. It's outdated although they update it to fit.. Culture is really what makes us different besides a thin veiled physical aspect..

[RolandCuthbert]

Yeah, that's all I am saying. In order to have a proper conversation about human differences, you have to understand what makes your or your group different from other groups. And if you think it is the idiocy of race, we are all going to have a very long day.

[JDavid25]

Yeah, too bad race is an idea that is deeply ingrained into society, and will take a very long time to turn the tables on how people think and see it..

[JDavid25]

Thanks For MHO Lawrence!.. 8)

[cherryphi82]

Because the connotation of race is that it's biological and therefore immutable, and culture is societal/taught, which makes some people more comfortable to talk about naming people by their culture instead of their race.

[RolandCuthbert]

I guess I could understand that if people didn't constantly use race to talk about similarities or differences in behavior. And when you question a raciologist. sooner or later, they simply start contradicting themselves. Then of course, nothing they say is based upon facts or science.

Even the two guys who tried to engage me in this thread never forwarded anything scientific or factual about their stances. Their reasoning was that race was common sense to them.

Which of course is the argument that their "cultural bias" should matter over all other cultural perspectives.

Thanks for posting Cherry!

[ladsin]

Before I say anything else I'll warn you that when you write a myTake you may want to refrain from the title being a question. Most people won't read the take and just respond when you do this.

I'd disagree slightly about the value of "race." I agree that it is hard to define race, and that many people hold to much value in it, and this has led to atrocities throughout time, but there still appears to be some non-negligible differences amongst the "races" that I think are important to note.

I would point out things like the prevalence of sickle-cell among blacks, lack of certain enzymes in Asian populations (lactase and alcohol), and skin cancer in whites.

[RolandCuthbert]

Noted.

I think we have always had a different view on this topic. I am not here talking about atrocities or wrongdoings. I am here trying to shine light on a subject that is difficult to talk about. And one of the reasons why is when we talk about groups, we don't know the very way we define groups is subjective. It depends a lot on our cultural upbringing. Different societies define group identity in different ways.

As for these diseases like sickle-cell anemia or skin cancer, while those appear to correlate to some vague concept of "race", any detailed analysis of genetics would yield actual answers rather than mythology.

The sickle cell trait while appears in certain "Black" populations would seem to be a mutation arising because malaria. And as you know, mutations that help the with the survival rate of a given population are the ones most successfully passed down to next generation.

www.idph.state.il.us/healthwellness/sicklecell.htm

[ladsin]

We tend to disagree, but I enjoy discussing with you because I think that you do so well.

Although your last point has admittedly befuddled me. These differences arose over time. The argument isn't that, "blacks and whites are magically different because ______." The argument is simply that certain things are more prevalent among certain people groups because of the differences of the past several millenia of evolution. Over time it will certainly change more depending on how populations continue to develop. It is likely that over time these differences will reduce into almost non-existence as has been noted with the Asian community in America in which (for example) the enzyme that catalizes the breakdown of alcohol has been rising.

[RolandCuthbert]

I guess I am not understanding you. What differences arose over time? I am not sure which genetic differences do not arise over time.

The point is this, is race valid in discussions about differences in group behavior, beliefs, perceptions, or histories?

I mean, should you and I navigate the mythological race construct to understand each other? Or should we be trying to understand each others culture and individual uniqueness?

That's the question.

We can debate the significance of "race" in medicine anytime. Not that I am conceding anything there.

[ladsin]

I think it's most likely that we agree, but are using terms in slightly different ways. This is the problem of course because it's the ideas that actually matter. All of these differences arose over time, and are the result mostly of isolation. This is why I said that many of these trends/ differences will diminish over time.

"group behavior, beliefs, perceptions" I think I agree with you here in that these things are largely (if not solely) the result of cultural factors and not "race". Am I right?

[RolandCuthbert]

If "isolation" is the reason why did the trait develop in South America, Indian, and the Middle East? Even some Southern Europeans have it.

Back to the real discussion, yes. . . cultural upbringing is a real factor in bridging human differences and trying to understand each other. Of course, we are all individuals too. But if you have to use some type of mechanism for grouping people, why not use their group identity from a cultural perspective?

I am not saying "White" is not a culture. But generally people who id as being "White" are different from people who id as being Polish.

Like one of the guys whom I had a contract with. The first thing out of his mouth about his identity was "I am Italian." Yet he was born and raised in this country.

[ladsin]

Changes in genetics come about from genetic isolation. The same trait can come about in several places for the same reason, because it is beneficial.

When I use "race" I am talking about traits that have occurred over a longer period of relative isolation. Skin tone is one easy way to note these differences. I contrast this with culture in which I'm referencing a smaller time scale. For example I'd be talking about different things if we talked about "Asian culture today" as opposed to antiquity. We then further get into an issue with these "race" definitions being overly broad. "Asians" "blacks" or "whites" as you pointed out apply to a wide array of peoples and is actually quite poor. This is the case with defining any groups.

[RolandCuthbert]

That is what I am driving at. If you know that traits can become popular in isolated populations that have similar environments, what is the fascination with race?

What can it tell you in these situations that the science of genetics cannot?

Is it similar to the issues in physics, where we use Newton's laws of gravity in most situations because they are simpler than Einstein's?

When I talk about culture, I simply do not care about phenotypical differences. They simply do not interest me. And I don't understand yet. . . why they should? I don't understand the argument anymore. Long ago, when I thought race and genetics had something to do with each other, I thought I did.

[ladsin]

Uhh. Well that's the point I'm addressing. When discussing these genetic differences that arose due to genetic isolation for at least a few millennia that is what I define as, or am talking about, when discussing race.

I wouldn't say it is simply because it is simpler, but perhaps it's because it's a generalization. I don't think generalizations are bad in and of themselves and so long as they are utilized properly.

Ie, "It's important that white people use sun block when they go out into the sun for extended periods of time." This is a statement about a "race" and is a generalization about their inherently greater risk for skin cancer.

[RolandCuthbert]

Wait. Are you actually claiming that race has anything to do with genetic commonality beyond the subjective classification of a person's phenotype?

Maybe I have misunderstood you this entire time.

As for "White" people using sunblock, again what does that have to do with human differences both genetic and cultural beyond. . .

"phenotype"?

"the set of observable characteristics of an individual resulting from the interaction of its genotype with the environment."

[ladsin]

I think it is some confusion with how we are utilizing terms. by the way, I'd enjoy hearing your opinion on more of myTakes and questions because I find you to be intelligent and enjoy discussing things with you. I think I've talked with you on a few things, but would enjoy more discourse.

I'll also try to always give this qualifier when I'm drinking. "I've had a few drinks. Be aware of that."

It is the case that white people are predisposed to skin cancer BECAUSE of their genetics. These genetics are a result of genetic isolation over millennia. These "genotypes" are acted upon by social factors to result in differences amongst "races".

To give an example that I think is quite germane is whether or not "black" people are more prone to violence (violent crime) than their white peers? We know that a certain variation of an MAOA enzyme is linked to violent behaviors. Black fellows, FOR WHATEVER REASON (we don't know why) have this variation at higher rates than their white peers. --

[ladsin]

BUT this actually does not mean that blacks are inherently more violent than whites because this variation is only linked with violent behaviors when it is present and certain social factors are also present. Part of the reason in which the violent rates are higher among the black community in America (besides the social factors) is because they have higher rates of this mutation along with being more likely to have the negative social factors.

I don't know if I described this well, so I'll to try and clarify I'll point out that certain Asian groups (I think the Japanese) have a higher prevalence of this MAOA mutation, but don't have as big a problem with violence.

So genetically, it may be the case that blacks and japanese have a predisposition towards violence, but along with your mention of phenotype this is only based upon cultural norms against particular groups. Blacks in America are disadvantaged when compared to their non-black peers. This needs to be addressed, but the --

[ladsin]

fact that genetics are different is an important thing to note so that we can take measures to ensure that we act appropriately. I would point out here myTake about brain deficits and murder. The point that we need to promote things like fish oil in our youth, particularly those who have a predisposition towards violence (perhaps we should have an fmri for children?) to attempt to prevent these things.

I don't see this as any different than a "white" person utilizing sunscreen to prevent the negative consequence of skin cancer.

Hopefully that clarified a little. I know it went a little long XD

[RolandCuthbert]

I don't know. . . perhaps. But I think that's my point actually. These terms are subjective. So why use subjective terms when we have terms for describing human differences that defined by science?

Cultural Anthropology - culture

Genetics - haplogroup

Skin cancer, of course is not "isolated" to "White" people. My sister has skin cancer. She must go in for treatments once a week. I am not sure how an analysis based on race could have saved her life.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nyiIh73Mf0

[ladsin]

Oh of course. That's why I pointed out that there is only an "increase prevalence." That's why I understand your point. Many people don't understand population dynamics and the like. That's why I was attempting to point out that race/ genetics have an important place in educational discussions, but it has to be done properly.

To my MAOA example, it is the case that these two "races" Asians and blacks have higher prevalence, but we need to work on the social factors involved in promoting violence.

[RolandCuthbert]

And this is where culture can help out. African-Americans may have more issues with violence. Why would we note race when culture is the thing we should study? We should study African-American Culture and the different sub-cultures. Why include other people in such an analysis when they are obviously not African-American. Even you have used the phrase "Blacks in America", so you know that African, Caribbean Immigrants should not be included in such an analysis.

Yet, "race" is still significant to you when you speak about groups. It is still confusing as to why.

[RolandCuthbert]

I guess that's the issue. Race and genetics are two different things. Race is the societal grouping of people based on a subjective interpretation of their phenotype. And phenotype is the observed characteristics resulting from a particular portion of the genotype interacting with the environment.

In one of the most famous race discussions in history, Dr. Phillippe Rushton engaged two geneticists about race. His claim was that he and Winnie Mandela had very little in commmon from a genetic standpoint. Yet the geneticists pointed out to him, that while true, it was entirely probable that Nelson Mandela had more genetically in common with the good doctor than he did his own wife.

Genetic commonality is not defined in the phenotype. It is defined in your overall genetic blueprint.

The Mandelas came from South Africa which is home to the greatest genetic diversity on the planet.

www.nbcnews.com/.../

[ladsin]

Oh, well you and I have discussed this a little before. Why I disagree with the phrase "African-American" I also actually feel some consternation over the phrase "black" but it seems more appropriate to me than the former. Why do I say Asians. indians, etc instead of yellow/ brown etc I really don't know. But in regards to "black" I think they're not African Americans, they're americans. Many of "them" are no more African than I am Irish. In fact it's probably the case that many of these people's families have been in America far longer than my own. We're all Americans. I think that african-american not only gets the order wrong (should be american-african), but the problem is farther compounded when we realize that all of us originated from Africa, yet there are obviously still differences that we need to note that are valuable to point between the "races."

I don't know how to refer to these groups, but black and white seem better than african-american, irish American, italian... etc

[RolandCuthbert]

The only place I think it matters is recognizing how much race still plays into people's thinking.

And we can only get rid of that through education. But for some reason it still is apart of the conversation. I think it is because either we are intellectually lazy or the category "race" still has usefulness in our politics.

But in terms of science or discussion about human differences, where does its usefulness lie?

[ladsin]

I'd point out that he was wrong. In fact it's been claimed that there's far less genetic diversity within the human "race" than within a single troupe of chimpanzees. I'm not sure of the veracity of this statement, but I'm willing to agree with it for rhetorical purposes.

[ladsin]

I tried to explain, albeit apparently poorly. Blacks have a predisposition to certain things. Whites have a predisposition to certain things. Asians have a predisposition towards certain things. I don't think that this is intellectually lazy I think it's a fact and that the extremes of both sides "All people are the exact same!!!" and "Black (etc) are violent by their nature!!!" are both intellectually lazy. It's far more difficult to say, ok, these certain things X, Y, and Z appear to have a genetic predisposition upon these various people groups, but we need to be clear that this doesn't affect their values and in fact it's only a result of sociological factors that these genetic factors are acted upon. Yet this appears to be the actual answer.

[RolandCuthbert]

I don't think we have similar goals. When talking to people, I am trying to understand that particular person's view. My path to that understanding lies primarily in how that person views him or herself. I have no need to find some supposed objective (which is totally subjective) standard for grouping him or her. When I group, I use that person's opinion or view of how they see themselves.

If I wanted some objective standard, I would ask that person for a sample of their hair, etc. Then I would take that in for a genetic analysis which my ex and her co-workers could perform.

And you talked about your own view of who you are. Right! The fact that you id as being "White" says a lot about you. If we didn't know each other assume that you are an American. Or that you were in a non-European nation. I would also assume that you group other people by race and not by culture. I would also assume that you have at least some belief in racial stereotypes.

[ladsin]

I think you and I are slightly off on our comments, so I'll wait for a response. Add in your final one (after this) something like a 1 or "I'm done" so that I know.

Until then I'll ask a question. My heritage is Irish and German. Do you think that as a result I have a predisposition towards alcoholism?

[RolandCuthbert]

I understood you from the beginning. I guess I have not been clear. That whole logic of "Whites" have a predisposition to certain behaviors, etc. . . is wrong. Period.

Now perhaps you think that is my subjective view and that's fine. But I think I have more than ample objective scientific data to dispute that assertion.

And if I think the lack of curiosity in understanding the real reasons why certain groups have certain behaviors or beliefs comes from intellectual laziness. It is easier to say this gigantic group is more prone to these behaviors, etc. It is much harder to understand how people actually view themselves, their cultural identity, their group history, etc. and come up with an analysis that can give you actual objective data.

It is like the biggest thing in the tech field. Predictive analytics. Gathering actual data and being able to make predictions to help with societal or business initiatives.

[RolandCuthbert]

No, that is not where I would go. If you told me that you id as being German and Irish, I would assume that German and Irish cultures mean a lot to you. I would assume you have pride in those two cultures and I would look for cues in your behavior or when I visited your home, I would expect to see artwork, references, etc. showing pride in your culture (s).

For example, the Italian-American guy I had a contract with. In New York there was a big mafia bust over a decade ago. The people at his office thought it would be funny to send around a chain email where they all pretended to have mafia names. People were calling themselves Tommy Two-Times, etc.

He said if he had received that email, he could have kicked the crap out of whomever sent it, then he would have fired him on the spot.

You seem to believe grouping people by race to assess behaviors is more fruitful than grouping them by their opinion of their group identity.

Do I have that right?

[ladsin]

Oh, well that's where I'd disagree. As a result of my ancestors I do have a predisposition towards alcoholism. I think that is valuable information to have so that I can possibly take steps to prevent myself from developing my own problems with alcohol. I think this is VERY valuable. Perhaps this is a result of my understanding/ position that biology is the greatest driving factor of psychology/ actions in general.

I don't agree with your latter assertion though. I think BOTH are important. Back to the MAOA example I think it is BOTH important that certain groups have this genetic predisposition, and that sociological factors are involved. That's why I pointed out that I think that arguing for strictly either position is intellectually lazy (in response to you stating that my position is intellectually lazy).

[RolandCuthbert]

I don't think you understood me. I said, "that's not where I would go". Then you kind of skipped over the actual pertinent information in my post about what I would do.

It is a weird conversation. Do you deny that the vast majority of people who identify as being Irish have pride in Irish culture?

As for Irish people having a predisposition towards alcohol, I don't know. I have not seen any research supporting the notion nor have I taken time to research it.

But the whole issue seems pointless in my quest to understand different cultural perspectives. But again, that is a question of goals.

This is kind of divorced from the notion of race and I am not sure how you are connecting the two.

[ladsin]

Certainly that is possible. My point is simply that their are genetic factors at play that are the result of millennia of genetic isolation that are pertinent. I'm Irish and German, but have no identity or traditions that are based upon those cultural traditions (except perhaps I'll wear green on St Patty's and make a comment about, "kiss me I'm Irish")

I'm growing increasingly worried that I'm completely incoherent because my entire point is that their are genetic differences that are important to be aware of between "the races" that are independent of the particular community that a person currently finds themselves in. Tell me which part of this is confusing so I can attempt to do it better.

[RolandCuthbert]

So are you saying the word Irish denotes a genetic group? As for genetic differences between races. . . again, there are more genetic differences within the supposed races than between them.

I share little genetic commonality with an Ethopian long distance runner. We don't share the same body type. We don't have the same skin color. Yet we are still considered to be "Black" based upon "race".

And I want to reiterate once more. Sub-sahara Africa has the greatest genetic diversity on this planet. Any analysis based upon race cannot lead you to that truth.

upload.wikimedia.org/.../...hon_2015_Runners_6.jpg

[ladsin]

"Irish" in some sense does constitute a racial group. When we're talking about the genetic predispositions of Irish persons we're not talking about "black-irish" or (to point to a funny skittles commercial) "korean-irish" etc. We're talking about a very particular group of group of people who're the product of several millennia of cultural/ genetic isolation.

I suppose my assertion, or understanding of the "epigenetics" (I think, not sure if that's the right word) is that regardless of whether or not you share 100% of the genetic predispositions of you particular group (I presume that you are black based on our conversations) that as a statistical likelihood certain people groups are more prone to certain things. I pointed this out by referencing certain health issues, but see no reason that this wouldn't also continue into psychological issues because psychology is largely based on biology.

[RolandCuthbert]

Hmmm. . . interesting. Well, I would tend to disagree. I think most people using that term use it to refer to a cultural experience. Race is usually meant to denote phenotypical simlarities. So I am to understand that even if a person claimed Irish ancestry, your chief concern would be their "race"?

But again, I understood what you said. It seems like you just want to keep restating your view in different ways. I understand you believe in race. I don't. It can't tell me a single thing about you. In terms of group identity, my only clues come from how you see yourself.

And you see yourself as "White".

[ladsin]

I suppose we just don't agree with this conversation, that's all good. As I've pointed out before though, i understand the complexities of the issue. As I think I pointed out I think that black and white are poor explanations... I just think they're better than "caucasians" and "african Americans" I do think that black and white are better than those, but would also think that "Irish" could be considered a race by my definition. Like I said, it's complex. I don't think the distinction is important so long as we understand the ideas.

[RolandCuthbert]

I guess my point was much, much simpler. I think you were so busy debating and you kind of missed it. I kept trying to come back to this. . ."what method are you using to understand me"? If you are using race, you will never know much about me.

If you use culture, you will get much closer.

The race conversation is messed up because of this weird concept of objectivity. There simply is no "objective" measure for the human experience outside of science. So if you do not wish to practice science to understand genetic commonality, what are you left with?

Culture.

You keep using race, when your very definition is subjective and based upon your own cultural experience. And if you are going to use terms to define the people you are talking to, that are meaningless to those same people, then you have failed to build a bridge of understanding before you ever began.

But again, what is your goal? Do you seek to understand others?

cont'd

[RolandCuthbert]

Or are you trying to define them, define their experience, tell them about what their behaviors are or their beliefs?

It is all dependent upon your goals.

Cultural experiences are precious to me. Because when a person talks about their culture as you have let slip on occasion, it provides a bridge that I can cross and say. . ."I know what you are talking about".

When Sherman Alexie says. . ."You can't be an American Indian unless you went through a time when you didn't want to be an American Indian". I can relate to that experience and share something from my own cultural background that is similar.

But stereotypes about American Indian drinking or surmising about genetic predisposition to being alcoholics doesn't to anything for me.

It brings me no closer to understanding that unique culture (s).

[ladsin]

Alrighty bud.
For whatever reason I'm not able to properly articulate my thoughts. They're quite simple, but after trying multiple times it seems I've failed. Anyway, have a good one.

[RolandCuthbert]

Well, whenever you have that "moment of clarity", come back.

See ya!

:D

[ladsin]

Oh, I don't think I could explicate it anymore. Like I said my point is quite easy.

Biological factors are important. There are biological differences (albeit minimal) between the "races". We should admit these. We also need to be wary of what we do with this information.

That's all. XD

[RolandCuthbert]

But Ladsin, you keep thinking you have to find a better way to communicate your ideals. I fully understand them.

I keep pointing back to your fascination with science.

You don't seem so fascinated anymore. Because the science of genetics has everything you need to understand the biological differences between different genetic groupings.

And you have not talked about those differences based upon genetics one single time in our discussion.

Why?

dnaexplained.files.wordpress.com/.../...orld-y.png

[ladsin]

I did talk about genetics mentioning sickle-cell, lack of certain enzymes, etc.
I went into depth about the MAOA gene that when present among certain social factors greatly increases ones predisposition towards violent behavior. This particular strand of MAOA is noted at differing rates within different racial communities including maori, blacks, Asians (Japanese specifically).

I then talk about how classfying different "races" is difficult, and I am open to different phrases, but don't think that African-American, Asian American, Irish-American etc are the right way to go.

I'm losing interest because I think that both of us have said everything. I say that social factors are more important, but that biological ones are also important. I then give a few examples where there is a noted racial difference, then you respond that I've given no examples.

[RolandCuthbert]

Only in the context of "race". You talk about genetic traits that races may have or not have in common. You don't talk about haplogroups and what they have or do not have in common. I have attempted to guide us away from subjective definitions to objective ones. But you have not been willing to. So I guess the question is, do you really believe your ideas about race to be objective standards that everyone can agree to? I have already submitted a standard. One that science uses.

Haplogroup

On the other front of culture, the term African-American, you feel it inadequate. I never once suggested that the term African-American should be a racial term.

You see Lasdin, I understood you completely.

But you never understood me. I told you once, I told you twice. Please stop confusing race and culture.

I don't think you are very flexible. And all I was trying to do with the conversation about genetics was to talk about genetics.

You kept injecting race.

[RolandCuthbert]

And I think my point is proven. For as long as people confuse race and culture, we will be at an impasse. Race is not an objective standard. It is a subjective grouping that people use. And in their cultural context, it means different things to different groups.

Science is not subjective.

Maybe one day, we can talk about the science independent of race and culture.

lh4.googleusercontent.com/.../mtdnamapworld.jpg

[ladsin]

I had a point in avoiding the term haplogroups because I wanted to get to the idea but that apparently isn't happening in this conversation. When I'm talking about race I'm largely, if not solely talking about haplogroups.
When I'm talking about race I'm talking about a broad, malleable category of persons that are indicative of a certain genetic pattern found within various populations. This is why I pointed out that we're using the term in different ways.
I tried to avoid using the word haplogroup because I wanted to see if I could get the general idea across, I don't care much about linguistics because language changes over time, but the ideas matter.

For whatever reason I failed to do so.

[RolandCuthbert]

Lasdin, you just said two things that seem to be contradictory. Is "race" genetic to you, is it the same as the term "haplogroup" or not?

[ladsin]

I take back everything I said.

I don't know why I didn't think of this before, but I use the term in different ways. I was just remembering an article I read "The Burden of “Acting White”: Do Black Adolescents Disparage Academic Achievement?" by Jens Ludwig, Philip J. Cook. I never thought about race as being a biological one, but a cultural one. I think that there are genetic differences between various people groups (I think this is a fact) but talking about haplogroups may be a better way to distinguish? I don't know. I'll think about it some more.

[RolandCuthbert]

Well, I got tons of stuff. All sent to me by my former girlfriend. She is quite simply. . . a genius. I learned everything I know from her.

You will know her by her cartoon image.

This is basically exactly what she would look like in cartoon form.

:D

i0.wp.com/.../Coqui.jpg

[ladsin]

Cool, cool

[ellewilko]

Well as far as current theory is concerned, we all came from the Great Rift Valley in Africa and all changes from our original Homosapien appearance (that can still be seen in Sub-Saharan Africa) is due to environmental adaption and interbreeding with other hominid species (For examples, it is thought blue eyes and red hair are a Neanderthal trait).

Culture is another thing all together. Seeing the world in terms of Them and Us is a basic human principle. It goes ALL the way back to territorial disputes, after all, cities, states, countries are all based on the territorial/tribal inclination of humanity. You may not know your neighbor if you live in New York but you can be damned sure you have comradery because your from the same city.

Culture is exactly the same, homo Sapien culture was thoroughly different to Neanderthal Culture and what happened to the Neanderthals? Humanity that's what (though I'll fight anyone who says Neanderthals weren't human because they were, just different). Hostility and misunderstanding of culture stem from this base root of them and us and our individual understanding of the world as a community.

[RolandCuthbert]

I am not trying to solve all the world's problems with ethnic conflicts and cultural disputes. I am merely trying to make the race conversation easier. I think people need to understand what they are doing when they project race.

They don't understand they are claiming that an entire race has similar beliefs and behaviors. In other words, they are merely arguing culture.

And cultural disputes have been going on since humans walked the earth.

[ellewilko]

absolutely agree with you

[monkeynutts]

Neanderthals were completely crazy, all of the fossils remains have signs of trauma on their bones, because they pretty much took there prey down with one spear and their bare hands. Super strong people. Unfortunately not smart enough to defeat us.

[ellewilko]

@monkeynutts Their Brains were actually larger. As it is they still exist, many Europeans have up to 4% Neanderthal DNA, we just interbred. Homo sapiens are excellent abstract thinkers though

[RolandCuthbert]

Asians have significant Neanderthal DNA also. In fact, some studies suggest they may have more.

[SportsBrah]

Race or ethnicity is nature while culture is nurture, both nurture and nature compliment one another in the quest for survival on this planet. Simply put culture is just a survival mechanism and since distinct ethnic groups have completely different natural habitats in which they have to survive ethno-cultural groups for short are more often than not simply not compatible with each other. We can see that in the United States of America where all ethnic groups must sacrifice some if not all of their own culture and roots to make American society work and it barely works. Some places in the US are worse than third-worlds countries.

[RolandCuthbert]

I agree to some extent, but this explanation sounds very mechanical. People don't really "sacrifice" in so much as they evolve. "Black" people code-switch, I am sure that most ethnic groups that do not identify as being "White" do also. I have seen Jewish people, Italians, etc. do it all the time.

Some people claim this makes them feel like they are not being their true selves all the time. But when you are not a member of culture in question. . . or better yet, you are not identified as a member of it, you must code-switch to a certain extent.

What we find when we talk about cultures interacting is that there is constant evolution especially when cultures come into contact.

Which leads to all kinds of other issues like cultural theft, people who feel left out, or betrayed or there are countless issues.

But I think we have some basic agreement.

[englisc]

I think that they're linked, and I think that differences between races go beyond just skin colour. I think that the different cultures throughout the world emerged as a result of the different temperaments of those people. For example here in the UK many people from other ethnic backgrounds grow up here and identify as British, yet there's still a huge difference in the culture when you visit a predominantly white area vs. an area more heavily populated with black people or middle eastern people.

It's also possible that the Out Of Africa theory is false

www.telegraph.co.uk/.../

www.history.com/.../did-the-first-human-ancestor-emerge-in-europe-not-africa

[RolandCuthbert]

Hey, you can "think" whatever you wish. I am here to explain why the race conversation does not work. Because the people who accept things that are nonsensical want to be apart of the conversation.

I only advocate scientific fact. Could the out of Africa theory origin be wrong? Of course. but the problem is that vast majority of data supports it. I heard about this new finding, but there just isn't enough support in the scientific community to claim that it is viable yet.

But all of that is neither here not there, right? Does mean that humans are not one race? Of course not.

We can never get to a common sense discussion by accepting everyone's mythological beliefs in race and about race. If race was the answer, it would have solved our problems long ago. We would have accepted that the races are clearly demarcated discrete groups with each race having different capacities for intelligence, athletic ability etc. But that didn't happen, did it?

[Cosytoasty]

Spot on. The prefix Americans put before their “race” doesn’t make sense to me. You all eat McDonald’s, use Facebook and drive uncessasirily big vehicles. You all go to the same schools, learn the same subjects and shop at Walmart or target.

You’re not different from one another really in the same way an ACTUAL African or Asian or European would be different to you.

[RolandCuthbert]

Of course, we all participate in the same mainstream culture. After one or two generations, it would be silly to claim there are wide cultural differences. It is stupid to claim people don't learn to speak English. It is silly to pretend, all our children don't listen to popular music.

But racists are weird folks. They imagine things that cannot possibly be true.

Flower Drug Song was an Asian-American film made back before I was even born. They were dealing with this issue of being Chinese and American even back then. And the movie shows traditional first generation, with those who have adopted, and those who were born in America all interacting.

A brilliant film far ahead of its time.

Please watch the video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPwiqmv6Xeo

[MChinesewantfriend]

1. Human are not dead fish so they are mobile;
2. Haplogroup does not tell full story, it's possible a white person have both east haplogroup.
3. y chromosome passed from father to son, mt chromosome pass from mother to son/daughter. so i think you can understand why events in 2. would happen.
4. machurian is basically 5-10%west + 90-95%east.
5. i see modern population as reference of east or west not their ancestors.

[RolandCuthbert]

I think you are confusing a couple of things in my post. I never suggested I knew what Russell Wong's genetic make up was. I pointed to the obvious fact that many people in Northern China have what we consider Westernized features. Similarly people in Far East Russia have many Asian features.

You seem to be talking about a percentage of genetics Manchuria. Is there a study you can point to please?

As for your assertion, are you saying "Russian male/Chinese woman" unions were more prevalent than "Chinese male/Russian female" unions?

But no, I was not talking about ancestry in Manchuria. I was trying to explain that race is gradient. And people arbitrarily pick these racial groups base upon their social conditioning.

arslanmb.org/.../FTDNA-Y-DNAmap-2009.jpg

[MChinesewantfriend]

1. I believe that the butterfly effect can explain why people with distinct difference share much more similarities than we had expected.
2. Some study made by chinese researchers found that machurian share small but significant similarity with the "west" group i have mentioned however the article is a second-hand article also some machurians who tested their dna also found that they are about 5% "west", indeed many nomadic people in china had so called "west" ancestry.
3. race is indeed related to culture but the classical race (white, black,…) is too much a ambiguous concepts which do not appeal to the explanation of culture and race because a group are usually a exclusive system.
4. Mostly the whole things depend on how we view them!

[RolandCuthbert]

Okay, let's start with point 2. So you are talking about genetics at this point. I make the point that the race conversation is weird. I cite three common misconceptions. First, that people don't understand what culture is. Second, people assume folks with the same phenotypical features share similar behaviors and cultural traits. Lastly, that actual genetic research exists. Humanity is grouped by genetic groupings called haplogroups.

So your study does not address my point. Russell Wong has some very western features. But in no way am I saying he is European pr even implying that i know anything about his genetic makeup. He may have 97% in common with other Chinese. Phenotype is only a part of a human's genetic makeup. I am saying that from many social contexts, those features are present. As you say at the end of your post, and which I have said repeatedly, race is subjective. I don't think we are disagreeing. I just worded my position differently.

[MChinesewantfriend]

I think i got it, to my knowledge, people who share similar culture tends to use some concepts and action like intra group reproduction to protect their benefits.
ps:the map in your mytake is based on DNA test and assumption which is waiting to be verified!

[RolandCuthbert]

The map I posted is the y-DNA migration map based upon the best information American geneticists have. I am sure as they acquire more data, they will make modifications. If you go to the site, you can see how the map has changed from year to year.

[Rainie_]

I absolutely cringe at the term Asian/European/African "Culture". THERE IS NO SUCH THING. There may be African "Cultures" but not a single one culture of a continent. Its a common one I hear especially from Americans and annoys me like nothing else, and I find it disrespectful towards all the unique individual cultures out there to be reduced down to especially skin colour.

[RolandCuthbert]

I get you. Those terms, of course, are all race-based. But beyond that, it blocks the ability to understand the differences between actual groups and to appreciate their uniqueness.

Well, if you are into that kind of thing.

:D

[Anonymous]

Goodtake. Just to point out that there are people in Russia with Asian features because they are Asian. The Eurasian Steppes have been home to various nomadic people's and tribes who conquered each other, joined each other, bred with each other and split from on another. Various Caucasian and Asian people's met there. Take the Turkic people's in Siberia who appear more Asian than their Caucasian looking cousins in Turkey. The idea of racial and ethnic purity really only became a thing a few hundred years ago when countries fixed boarders.

[RolandCuthbert]

I am trying to understand what that means. "They are Asian". By what standard are the more Asian than "White". Or does that mean they are less Russian than other Russians?

The problem with injecting race is that there simply is no one standard for deciding who or what is of one race or another.

"Who are Asians

The Russian government census divides the population on the basis of ethnicities, but it is difficult to objectively decide as to which group can be classified as Asian.

The definition of the term Asian varies in different countries. The United Kingdom mainly defines Asians as people of South Asian origin, which mostly includes Indians, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis. "

www.rbth.com/.../why-some-russians-look-asian-759856

www.moesgaardmuseum.dk/media/3808/img_2201.jpg

[Opinion Owner]

Its seems to vary between their proximity to Europe, the middle East and China. Breeding between different ethnicities will either create a new group or absorb the smallest group into the other taking on the color and appearance of the larger group like the pale Jews of Europe, the Eithiopian Jews, Indian Jews and chineese Jews from a 1000 years ago.
Some Finns look like some sibereans and some Mongols look very similar to native Americans. I've seen many Irish people who are naturally very very brown skinned.

[Opinion Owner]

Asking who are Asians is like asking who are Caucasians

[RolandCuthbert]

And that is all I am saying. I am interested in a person's culture. Their supposed race can't tell me anything about them.

I think people should be interested that this tribe in Russia is called the "Chukchis". The fact that they look "Asian", does not tell me a thing about their culture, their history or beliefs. These people have little in common with Korean or Chinese, or any of the other groups in America we consider to be "Asian".

I wanted to share my experience when I traveled in Russia and the surprise I had when I expected people in East Russia to be "Russian-looking". I had fallen into the trap of expecting Russians to all look the same. Beyond that, I learned more about the different ethnic groups and cultures within Russia.

My trip to Russia was one of the greatest cultural experiences in my life.

[Ahsthen]

The title should read not as a question, and a comment, but a statement. "Race and Culture are different things." But then people would be more likely to discount and counter, because they would feel you're telling them how it is, rather than, by your thinking of things, things are like this for you. Of course, command of language, rathern than desire, dictates meaning.

[RolandCuthbert]

But I am asking why do people confuse these two things. The defenders of this concept don't seem to be claiming a factual basis for their beliefs. It is more or less believed because of their view of common sense. They simply have an idea of what races exist and they believe without any evidence that these races have genetic commonality which leads to behavioral/belief commonality.

And one more thing, we must not pretend these people have not been told dozens of times in dozens of different ways the absolute truth.

""Race" thus evolved as a worldview, a body of prejudgments that distorts our ideas about human differences and group behavior. Racial beliefs constitute myths about the diversity in the human species and about the abilities and behavior of people homogenized into "racial" categories."

[Ahsthen]

Dude... What philosopher said the human condition was one of delusion? A remark of the obvious. (meta met meta - and, writing: I answered your question, with reference to a prior answer, mirrored your post, and with economy)

[RolandCuthbert]

That sounds like something George Orwell would say. I have heard it before. Can't think of where at present.

Hey, I understand you. But I wanted to give folks at GaG a glimpse into how nonsensical the position is.

This is a continuing series. One of my "friends" here asked me some questions in pm. I promised them I would put together a series of questions/takes to fully explain my view.

[Ahsthen]

I write for all to transcend their current state. Less makes for more.

[RolandCuthbert]

Well, you can start your own takes. I am pretty sure you have that the same ability that everyone else has.

Unless your web browser is not working correctly.

[Ahsthen]

I've thought lightly about it.

[jacquesvol]

Because there's no universal definition of 'culture'.

[RolandCuthbert]

Well, it is a bit of a paradigm. But you know when you are in the presence of another group identity, right?

[jacquesvol]

When I'm in the presence of white Belgian soccer hooligans, I -'white' Belgian- KNOW I'm in the presence of a group I do NOT share anything with, except the color of skin and model of ID card.

[jacquesvol]

And every idiot thinks he knows all about so called 'race'.

[RolandCuthbert]

Yes, they are idiots and they think they know.

But Jacques, don't you think it is a bit more than that. If it was simply that they had a belief, that would not explain the all the nonsensical conversations we have.

For these people it is more than a belief. It forms the basis for their reality. That's why they fight so hard to keep it in place. Even some non-"Whites". Race actually tells them where they belong, it tells them what they are capable of and helps them to make sense of the world.

So when you reveal that it is fictitious, they rebel. . . as if you were trying to end their lives.

It is sometimes fascinating to witness.

[jacquesvol]

When I'm in the presence of a group of soccer hooligans, I know I don't belong to their kind.
No need to mix race /culture with that.

[YHL6965]

Yes, I don't understand why people can't tell the difference either. I hate some cultures but I have nothing against any skin colour.

[RolandCuthbert]

My goodness, you said what I did in one sentence. It took me like eight paragraphs.

[Jager66]

meh.. lots of debunked and controversial shit in this take. Not based on fact and ignores a great deal of contradictory information to support your position.

[RolandCuthbert]

Haha! Says the guy who does not post one single fact nor any research in rebuttal.

Hilarious!

[Jager66]

meh, I don't care if you disregard me..

The issue is old and tiered, all the information is freely available if you cared to actually seek the truth you would find it. Nothing I say or show you would change your mind on the issue, no matter how strong the evidence you would refuse the truth, so why waste my time trying ice skate uphill.

[RolandCuthbert]

"meh, I don't care if you disregard me"

Good, because I was really concerned that I would hurt your feelings.

www.memebucket.com/.../...e-But-Deep-Down..-26.png

[Jager66]

huh.. I did suspect this was all about what you feel towards the issue, thank you for confirming my suspicion.

that was a surprising turn of events.

[RolandCuthbert]

www.trollomat.com/uploads/memes/ONagF3lCq.jpg

[Jager66]

lol.. *correction*:

https://i.imgflip.com/25a06z.jpg

[RolandCuthbert]

s2.quickmeme.com/.../...1b7c0d27355454ce75642a.jpg

[Jager66]

https://i.imgflip.com/25as2u.jpg

[RolandCuthbert]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6PNc9KN50M

[Jager66]

LOL!!!

This has has turned out to be so full of lulz! that was a great post, I lmfao.

[RolandCuthbert]

s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/.../...eb26472f73.jpg

[Jager66]

eh.. you had the win but now you're just trying to hard.. pathetic. ah well, now I no longer care and will demonstrate what happens when someone actually doesn't care vs. being just sad, by walking away and not giving a fuck.

[RolandCuthbert]

s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/.../...b037d777bc.jpg

[love_conquers_lust]

Skin color and phenotype are not subjective. Blacks sometimes choose to take vitamin D in the winter in northern climates to remedy dietary deficiency. No one denies there's variety within predominant groups. But there ARE predominant groups or sub species.

Race exists. Get over it.

[RolandCuthbert]

Of course they are subjective. And no, race does not exist. It is voo-doo science and you can join your friends at the psychic network, because their profession is as believable as your science.

Raciologists continue to amaze. Steadfastly believing in their nonsense, without one shred of scientific evidence or one single objective fact.

[love_conquers_lust]

sub·jec·tive
səbˈjektiv/Submit
adjective
1. based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

If you can't agree red is red and blue is blue, I can't help you. There are many hues/tints/shades in the continuous color spectrum, but they are still grouped together based on comparative similarity. A rainbow has a minority of color blending at the partitions but still has distinguishable primary and secondary colors (VIBGYOR). It is supposed to be OBJECTIVE, but your're making a weak attempt at making it SUBJECTIVE. If you don't like being distinguished like that, then you shouldn't argue against being indistinguishable from Bonobos.

If race doesn't exist, why is it on job applications, school applications, housing applications, medical history forms, loan applications, or written in law at national and international levels? You're pitting the world against your opinion here, like the voodoo psychic ironically.

Culture is taught. Genes are inherited.

[RolandCuthbert]

I will ask a simple literal question, since you phrased your post so literally.

Am I literally "Black"? You know. . . the color?

As for why race is accepted, race was an invention. Perhaps you don't understand that scientists use terms that lay people do not get. I am sure you have never heard of the term Haplotype before I posted it.

Reading is fundamental.

And again, you have not submitted one scientific fact. You only cite the voo-doo common sense raciology argument. We know the earth is round dude. We trust scientists who know the science.

[love_conquers_lust]

Okay, I want you to think critically for a second. Do you know what would happen if people stopped acknowledging race? The number of Blacks in poverty would shoot up. But in that hypothetical reality, because race no longer exists, no one could even say that verbatim. We'd just say the number of poor people has gone up. No race based exceptions would be made for school admission, grants, public housing, job consideration, etc. Any race based benefits would be gone. What do you suppose would happen to crime? Because there is limited funding for the impoverished, more bodies to the pool with a set amount of funding would mean their population would plummet, and violently.

I'm trying to tell you, you're advocating for something that would do tremendous harm to Blacks and benefit Whites. Your line of reasoning is a disappointing affirmation of why.

[love_conquers_lust]

If you're Black, then I'm on your damn side here. But you continue to argue with me and every one else here.

[RolandCuthbert]

You see this is what I mean about the weirdness. Nothing in your post is based upon anything factual. It is just good old fashioned voo-doo science. Race is a nonsensical weird nutty paradigm. That is scientific fact. Whether or not you or others recognize this will not change its status as a fact.

I offered up in this post as a suggestion. To stop using race to understand each other and use culture. My upbringing, my family, my friends, my social context will tell you much more about me as a person than any weirdness about race. That is the same for any person in any society, nation, or clan.

But that premise made you go bananas.

Haha!!!

That was some funny stuff right there.

[love_conquers_lust]

How do you enforce affirmative action without acknowledging race exists? Answer this question directly. Don't go off on a tangent, answer it.

[RolandCuthbert]

Who said I was a supporter of affirmitive action?

So you have no understanding of what I am posting? You cannot even respond in rationally. You can only post your assumptions about my beliefs based upon my race.

Fascinating!

tos.trekcore.com/.../spock_rarepb.jpg

[love_conquers_lust]

Quit being a pussy and answer the question.

[RolandCuthbert]

And now you namecall, as though it is a reasonable response to my question. Which you have never answered. In fact, you believe you are entitled to an answer to a question that is nonsensical.

I am not a racist. Therefore, I hold no mythological beliefs about the limitations of "Black" people. I don't care for affirmitive action. When I became a Republican, I stopped supporting it. I don't think it benefits the "Black" community as a whole.

It only helped a few privileged "Black" people. Whereas forcing "Black" communities to develop their own engines of education, economy, etc. was wildly successful.

During the 1930, during the most racists times in this nation, "Blacks" had built and maintained 121 institutions for higher learning.

Affirmitive action was no where in sight.

en.wikipedia.org/.../Historically_black_colleges_and_universities

[love_conquers_lust]

Jesus Christ, you still didn't answer the question.

AND, you're putting "Blacks" in quotes implying they don't exist. If that be the case, then there are no Black colleges. There should be no Black History month. There is no racism with cops shooting blacks. There is no Blacks making less than that of Whites. It doesn't exist in your head.

[RolandCuthbert]

So you are so crazy, that you think I am going to have the conversation you want me to have, in a thread that I created.

You didn't start a thread, dude. I did.

When you create a question or a take, I might participate. And if I do, I will respond to you as I am now waiting for you to respond to me here.

As for the reason the word "Black" is in quotes. . . well, I don't have black skin. But I am a "Black" person. But it would seem appropriate that such a simple concept would confuse you. "Black" people in America are culturally bounded together. We have many different phenotypical features.

i2.cdn.turner.com/.../...erica-split-story-top.jpg

[love_conquers_lust]

You're a pussy, dude. Regardless of skin color. I asked was how you enforce affirmative action without acknowledging race, and you won't do it because: you... are... a... pussy.

I already answered your question above. You didn't like the answer. Poor you. Culture is taught. Genes/race is inherited. You will be judged on both. Accept it.

[love_conquers_lust]

And again, I'm still on your side here. I don't support Affirmative Action either because it doesn't benefit anybody in the long run. Blacks will never rise above if they are coddled.

Remember the Titans was a cheesy movie, but this quote was spot on: The world don't give a damn about how sensitive these kids are-- Especially the young black kids. You ain't doing these kids a favor by patronizing them. You're crippling them. You're crippling them for life.

[RolandCuthbert]

Well, I have a standing offer to all raciologists. If I am such a "p-word" as you term it. I would be willing to fly to you for a discussion. You live in the U. S. so it should not be a problem. We should speak in a public forum. Let's choose like a Starbucks or some kind of nice public setting. Then you can say the p-word all you like. And we can discuss the premise I have posed here.

I mean, you should be excited about this opportunity. Here you have the opportunity to really show the intellectual prowess that you have shown here.

:D

Are you up for it, old chap?

[RolandCuthbert]

Well, we disagree on that. I mean again, I am not a racist. So I don't share in your view on "Black" people. But there is much documentation on how AA works.

Like General Colin Powell. It is so funny to see many racists run to embrace Colin Powell as an example "Black" empowerment, when he supports affirmitive action and benefited from it his entire career.

I, personally, don't care if Colin Powell would have ended up being a janitor. I think it can be beneficial in some ways for very qualified "Black" people to get passed over for promotions, etc. Because it forces "Black" people to look at the "Black" community in a different light.

Not because of loyalty, but because they need work in a career where people actually evaluate their performance.

But benefactors of AA are not uneducated poor "Black" folks. They are folks with skills. When I had issues getting contracts in industry, I would simply to go the non-"White" communities and find success.

[love_conquers_lust]

Total bull shit, dude. You can walk right outside from behind your keyboard and have that conversation yourself with ANYONE. Or better yet, fly your ass out to Africa where racism is alive and well. Plenty of "raciologists" running around there. The golden opportunity is right there. 1 billion people in their public forum are waiting to hear your message. Stay the hell out of Libya where "Black" enslavement of other "Blacks" is resurging. Are you up for it chap?

www.cheapoair.com/.../africa

Just make your way south with your message. Good luck, pilgrim.

[love_conquers_lust]

But before you don't go, at least answer: How do you enforce Affirmative Action without acknowledging race?

Can you not do it? You're in a public forum here and now. Can you do it?

[RolandCuthbert]

It is hilarious that you think nonsense makes for a rational discussion. Haha!!

Raciologists in Africa. You mean there great unity in Africa along racial lines?

That's hilarious!

And you don't have to be afraid dude. I just would like to get a raciologist on video in a debate. I would fly to wherever you are. I have everything necessary to setup the video recording. We could post it to youtube and we create a thread here on GaG.

It would be great wouldn't ya think? To be able to debate in a public forum. Sample the opinions of people in attendance. Then post it to youtube and get more more input there and here.

I mean, you think you are right about your insane raciology. So why not find a way to get the heart and courage to talk about your beliefs in public.

You don't have to hide. Step into the light. Let us have a good look at your beliefs.

:D

[RolandCuthbert]

I already answered the question.

I don't believe in AA. I don't like it. I don't want it.

Now answer this question, why do you post your beliefs from anonymous accounts on social media?

Is it because you know your views are intolerable in a work or public setting?

[love_conquers_lust]

www.cnn.com/specials/africa/libya-slave-auctions

Is this the great racial unity you speak of?

[love_conquers_lust]

"How do you enforce Affirmative Action without acknowledging race?"

"I already answered the question.

I don't believe in AA. I don't like it. I don't want it."

You can't even answer a question. You aren't going anywhere. You never will with your attitude.

[RolandCuthbert]

You know, it isn't that you are a raciologist. You are quite simply a person incapable of rational thought.

:D

I don't think you even know. . . what you think. You allude to "Black" racial unity. A myth that I totally dispel. I told you this;

"You mean there great unity in Africa along racial lines? That's hilarious!"

After which, you post to me atrocities committed by Africans against other Africans.

You see, that proves that you are not a rational person and at this point, you will have a tough time convincing me that you are. You posted your beliefs abput the legitimacy of race. My post is up there at the very top. See up there?

I say race is just an illusion. True differences between human groups are culturally defined.

And even when a racist talks. He is merely citing his belief in behavioral differences. He simply correlates skin color in addition.

[RolandCuthbert]

Hey, it isn't not my fault that you are crazy.

Take some medication. Stop blaming people!

Haha!!!

[love_conquers_lust]

I'm going to give you some free advice. You... are creepy... as fuck. You don't tell people you are willing to fly anywhere with equipment and say you'd like to film them. Do you have any... idea... what you sound like?

[RolandCuthbert]

Bye crazy person!!!

[love_conquers_lust]

"Bye crazy person!!!"

Have you ever been a victim of gaslighting? ↗

The Unspoken Lie: Men, Women Are Gaslighting the Sh*t Out of You. ↗

What can you do when someones gaslighting you? ↗

You're not a good person.

[RolandCuthbert]

s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/.../...5ff858e88b.png

[love_conquers_lust]

www.census.gov/topics/population/race/about.html

[RolandCuthbert]

media.makeameme.org/created/you-crazy-but.jpg

[love_conquers_lust]

ucr.fbi.gov/.../table-21

[RolandCuthbert]

https://i.imgflip.com/1159js.jpg

[bubble_tea]

There are more cultures than there are races. Race simplifies things and makes making generalisations easier.

[RolandCuthbert]

I tend to agree. Race is a lazy man's tool.

[bubble_tea]

Absolutely.

[LittleSally]

I agree - also race and ethnicity. Completely different things.

[RolandCuthbert]

Yes. Thanks for posting!

[Anonymous]

I just wasted my 3 minutes reading this take.
Its awful, dude if you don't like being black then get lost. Stop being a bitch and stop blabbing.

[RolandCuthbert]

Haha!

Says the courageous anonymous poster. Dude, you are so pitiful.

[Good_Behavior]

Learned something. Thank you.

[RolandCuthbert]

I am trying. There is so much actual science to cover with respect to genetics. You have to be a real nerd like me to like it though.

[MlleCake]

Thank you for this take.

[RolandCuthbert]

You are very welcome.

[SirRexington]

I still refuse to believe we started from Africa. Genetic diversity? Give me a break.

[SirRexington]

I believe in the multi-regional theory. It makes more sense.

[RolandCuthbert]

You believe in whatever you wish.

Good luck!

[SirRexington]

Race and culture are definitely different though.

[RolandCuthbert]

Yep. Race is mythology.

The culture is actual science.

4.bp.blogspot.com/.../...n-Nancy-9780205685097.jpg

[najekim]

Good take.

[RolandCuthbert]

Thanks!