Posted on 03/24/2018 3:14:29 AM PDT by Altura Ct.
In 1942, the anthropologist Ashley Montagu published “Man’s Most Dangerous Myth: The Fallacy of Race,” an influential book that argued that race is a social concept with no genetic basis. A classic example often cited is the inconsistent definition of “black.” In the United States, historically, a person is “black” if he has any sub-Saharan African ancestry; in Brazil, a person is not “black” if he is known to have any European ancestry. If “black” refers to different people in different contexts, how can there be any genetic basis to it?...
...But over the years this consensus has morphed, seemingly without questioning, into an orthodoxy. The orthodoxy maintains that the average genetic differences among people grouped according to today’s racial terms are so trivial when it comes to any meaningful biological traits that those differences can be ignored.
...Groundbreaking advances in DNA sequencing technology have been made over the last two decades. These advances enable us to measure with exquisite accuracy what fraction of an individual’s genetic ancestry traces back to, say, West Africa 500 years ago — before the mixing in the Americas of the West African and European gene pools that were almost completely isolated for the last 70,000 years. With the help of these tools, we are learning that while race may be a social construct, differences in genetic ancestry that happen to correlate to many of today’s racial constructs are real.
Recent genetic studies have demonstrated differences across populations not just in the genetic determinants of simple traits such as skin color, but also in more complex traits like bodily dimensions and susceptibility to diseases. For example, we now know that genetic factors help explain why northern Europeans are taller on average than southern Europeans, why multiple sclerosis is more common in European-Americans than in African-Americans...
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
You knew when you posted it that you’d be suspended or banned
No I didn’t. I didn’t know you could not make a truthful statement. Free speech, remember?
"For example, my laboratory discovered in 2016, based on our sequencing of ancient human genomes, that 'whites' are not derived from a population that existed from time immemorial, as some people believe.
Instead, 'whites' represent a mixture of four ancient populations that lived 10,000 years ago and were each as different from one another as Europeans and East Asians are today."
Interesting...
I'll buy it.
Don’t be feckless. Of course you knew.
You decided to post something that was sufficiently outrageous and you probably laughed the entire time
Perhaps you thought that the first amendment applied to privately owned places
Changing the narrative with the help of the mentally ill politicians, media and their citizenry hordes, where a white politician can claim to be Indian, where a white NAACP head claims her blackness, where all whites suffer from white privilege. This mental illness hits home when during a transgender seminar at work I was suggested to believe that a man in a women’s bathroom, who looks, sounds and dresses like a man is really not if he claims to be tammy that day and because of its protected class and mental illness I am to believe this and in my protest I can be brought up on charges and arrested. Truly the insane running the insane asylum, how long can this country last?
Social media platforms are privately held forums. They can set their own rules and people that use them must play by them or risk being banned. No need to tell me they can be hypocrites about it.
Any anthropologist will tell you that the word race is just a euphemism for sub-species.
Several years ago, the Minneapolis Star-Tribune ran an entire page about some Univ of MN professor’s “race is a sock construct” lecture. In that same edition of the paper, they ran a story about the finding of a human skeleton along a rural roadway in MN. That story ran a forensic reconstruction of what the person may have looked like. It was a drawing of an obviously Hispanic male. The same in the Metro section of that same edition was an article about a local black guy who was waiting for a kidney transplant. The article went on to say that his wait was a long one, because so few blacks donate organs, and organ transplants have a higher degree of success if the organs are from a person of the same race, and even the same ethnic group. The next story they ran in that exact same edition was about how the Army Identification Lab in Hawaii was able to identify a person based solely on a tooth and a few bone fragments. It stated that the person was a white guy who had previously been listed as MIA.
I found those stories all rather interesting, with the factual stories pretty much discounting the professor’s theory of race being a “social construct.”
BTW, the day after the forensic sketch was released, the person was identified by his relative. Yes, it was a Hispanic male, and a photograph of him proved the sketch to be extremely accurate.
An open discussion of ‘race’ will not happen in our society.
Some could be made to feel uncomfortable.
Never heard that before.
But then, I earned my B A in Anthropology back when people still expected to be judged by the content of their character.
Races are the inevitable consequence of ongoing, concurrent, and independent evolution on isolated populations.
It looks like the author is struggling to write the truths that science has shown about genetics.
The liberal snowflakes run screaming back to their safe space.
Stop perpetuating ignorance. Fakebook is not privately owned. It is a publicly traded company.
YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY 100% WRONG.
It is a publicly traded company, not a "privately held forum" like Free Republic.
You do NOT know of what you speak.
Any honest anthropologist will tell you that, scientifically speaking, there is no such thing as race.
Almost 2000 years ago, the Apostle Paul, nee Saul of Tarsus, said to the men of the Aeropagus, “God hath made from one blood all nations of men.”
As recorded in Acts chapter 17.
What is a statist leftard boot licker doing on a FREE REPUBLIC forum?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.