so the sickle cell is just prejudice then... is that itCool. No race, no affirmative action, no quotas, no reparations.
I’m in.
So many contradictions.
Huge funding is going for studying how different races are impacted by anything and everything.
It’s where the money is in grants.
Money. There is zero science to support it. Control.. if you make people stay indide a man made box, they will submit their health, wealth and every aspect of their lives to the box maker.
And yet, if you are looking for tendencies towards Sickle Cell Anemia, Tay Sachs, or lack of enzymes that process alcohol, it is a great way to get a running start.
Why do people stubbornly believe that Pit Bulls and Golden Retrievers have any important differences?
After all, they’re just both dogs.
Genetics is science. At some level, genetics is science at it’s most profound level.
Race is the direct observation of a myraid of genetic differences. It is not necessary to be a high level geneticist to recognize by casual observation the results of those complex genetic differences.
The irony is that the wacko leftists worship at the alter of diversity and then refuse to recognize difference when it stands and breathes before them.
With today’s DNA, they CAN indeed tell what race you are from your saliva or skin cells.
We ahve whole neighborhoods of Polish, Italian, Irish and Africans. What is the problem?
That would be because it is a scientific concept? Refusal to acknowledge that there are racial differences is simply subordinating science to ideology. But of course, Slate would embrace Lysenkoism wholeheartedly.
This is a ludicrous political article.
Discredits itself in biased premise and polemic.
“In the 16 years since the anthropologist made her observations, scientists have still not found any meaningful biological definition of race. All human genomes are 99.5 percent identical, and although it’s true that the remaining 0.5 percent can vary in ways that correlate with geographical ancestry, these correlations do not strictly map to racial categories.”
The above is very true and well-stated, so it’s not as if the author needs to be biased.
“Saini’s book comes at a time when race science is making a startling comeback. Ethno-nationalists like Steve Bannon channel race science when alluding to the “naturally aggressive and violent” tendencies of black people. White nationalists chug milk as an ...”
It moves in to liberal lefty fantasy land - make stuff up land - and never comes back.
To liberals everything is about race, even race.
If you don’t rake race in to account, you are racist and an oppressor . If you take race in to account you are racist.
It’s all such a hodge podge.
“Scientists today tend to think of themselves as experts who deal only in scientific fact, rather than as unwitting agents of political ideologies.”
Slate ultra liberal news source.
Sociologists are lecturing us on biology.
If they define race by skin color alone then they are merely determining if melatonin genes have an impact.
Instead what they should do is define various genetic features - including melatonin genes, eye shape, ear lobes, bone structure, etc and do their regressions on the unique features.
Don’t they already know that sickle cell is more prominent among Africans and linked to specific genes? Yet some non-africans still have the gene as well and get the disease.
They should forget about race and investigate specific genes. Then when therapies are being constructed they can check for those genes.... just like they check women with breast cancer for BRAC1 and BRAC2.
Liberia is a $hitho!e because of the Democrats!! Just like Detroit and Zimbabwe!!
The author invents a conservative fixation with race that does not exist. Most conservatives would be very happy to leave the concept of race in the dustbin and move forward. But liberals cling to their race fixation like “cauliflower is racist” lunatics. Today’s liberal America is the most race obsessed culture since the fall of Nazi germany.
Why do so many researchers treat differences between Wolves and Chihuahuas being owed to the genetics of the two breeds of canines as a Scientific Concept? Don’t they know that the concept of dog breeds is simply a SOCIAL CONSTRUCT? Dog breeds don’t exist.
By the way FReepers, check your FReeper privilege while you’re at it. /s
"Ethno-nationalists like Steve Bannon channel race science when alluding to the “naturally aggressive and violent” tendencies of black people. "
And guess what I found?
No such correlation. Here's the quote from Bannon: "There are, after all, in this world, some people who are naturally aggressive and violent."
"Some" people. Not "black" people.
And here's the context: he writing about a guy who pulled out a gun and aimed it as police officers, and ended up getting shot by said police officers. Maybe guys who point guns as police officers are, on an average, guys who are naturally more aggressive and violent?
An author who makes up insinuations about Bannon's alleged racism, based on this kind of quote, is not to be trusted in the field of facts.
Maybe she's just naturally so biased against conservatives that she can't even see it.
so the sickle cell is just prejudice then... is that itAnybody? . . . ANYbody? . . . Bueller?
Because it is, and always has been. Within bird species, there are difference "races," and they are described that way. No pity-party CNN segment required.
Regional isolation of any creature that successfully reproduces is going to get more homogeneous with itself over many generations. Forty or more generations on, more of the individuals in the group are going to share more genes with each other than they will with members of the same species outside the isolated group.
But if you're a devout Lefty, you don't believe in genetics at all. Genetics makes it harder to lie. Just ask Lysenko.
Jazz people have the same problem.