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 ...
"Stop perpetuating ignorance. Fakebook is not privately owned. It is a publicly traded company."
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The Constitutional provisions for 'Free Speech' apply to Congress, not rules established by non-governmental entities.
As a layman, not a scientist, I wonder if “race” is sort of a subset of tribalism. For 10,000 years in the pre-Columbian Americas, the people there all looked very much alike, yet they feared others and fought others not of their tribe or extended family group. I know it was over territory or hunting rights but it was sort of a deep-rooted or instinctive fear of strangers. Maybe the modern race term is part of the stranger fear of old set off by skin color triggering the fear of “he’s not like me and I just encountered him.” If we can get past prejudices and stereotypes with education [not imposed indoctrination] and learn to be open-minded, racism may subside.
Yes, the four groups were:
The Blue Man Group: Recessive genes so didn’t pass blue skin on. However, the stiff, non-funky dancing methods were passed on to all white people, ultimately.
Whitesnake: Powerful vocals and hot chicks on cars. Who wouldn’t want to get it on with that?
Great White: The Talking Heads did “Burning Down the House”, but maybe this group should have. Anyway, as they say about their prehistoric breeding habits, “Once bitten, twice shy”.
KISS: While originally black, more and more white was used to the extend that all members had two-tone skin designs in black and white before they even became popular.
Are you kidding me?!
That picture was removed; here?!
Why???
I thought it was honest and direct.
I guess the truth hurts.
And even then, it’s continental, not racial.
An African-American, after all, can be a person living in America who has a heritage that might be:
1. Boer, White, South African.
2. A Berber from Morocco.
3. An Egyptian from Cairo.
4. A Negro from Nigeria.
If they want to say they’re black, than Negro-American is the best description.
I want to know what was posted. Not fair. There needs to be a show banned comment function for those of us who wish to see what was deemed not acceptable. Ok curiosity is killing this cat.
Facebook is private in that it is not Government.
The First Amendment states what the Government shall not do.
It is NOT owned by the govt
Public trading does not make it covered by first amendment.
I’m a strict constructionist
What part of Congress shall make no law don’t you understand?
Thank you.
Some of the responses make me fear for my country
Being responsive to customers is NOT a first amendment issue which is what started this nonsense
Because someone thinks their grotesque sense of humor is acceptable anywhere does not mean it won’t get pulled
The poster was complaining about Facebook suspending them for posting what was not funny and very unChristian under any viewing. He then tried to complain first amendment rights on face book.
None of it flies
Be offensive and then trying to blow it off by saying just kidding is what the left usually does
Some speculate that Trump announced early for 2020 so that Twat, et al would be forced to allow balanced access, otherwise they might fall under FEC like-kind contribution rules.
Regardless, the issue of the article Matt posted was whether race is a social or biological construct. If IQ correlates with race - which it does - then it doesn't really matter the cause since the effect is what impacts society.
Research in gene therapy is on course to (re)solve many diseases and social ills. I would expect that within 20 years, limb regeneration & organ growth will be commonplace. The true impact, however, is when these processes are applied to cognitive functions.
Imagine the impact widely diverse societies like the USA would have if the great mass average of people - regardless of race - became more like Japan/China. How many millions of people will elect to have their hair/eye/skin color genetically altered to conform with whatever standards of beauty are then prevalent?
DNA - it's where all the action is.
Must've been too much truth and/or reality for someone 'behind the curtain' :-\
In the meantime, watch his one hour talk from last year titled, "Who We Are and How We Got Here: Ancient DNA and the New Science of the Human Past"
Broad Institute Midsummer Nights' Science Eliana Hechter Memorial Lecture - 2017
There may not be any such thing as race, but any honest geneticist will tell you that different populations sharing common genetic origins will tend to have higher or lower occurrences of various traits.
What’s your point? Truth must be ignored? How does that improve character exactly? And what do you think you have gleaned from my post that gives you insight into my character? Zero.
Well Facebook are a bunch of fascists so I don’t think negatively about someone getting kicked off. Honestly the fascists on the left are making coexistence impossible. Now if the comment was true but politically incorrect then it should stand because we keep refusing to fight for truth. Facebook, Reddit, YouTube and the rest are at war with the constitution of this country.
Oh well, I won’t see the comment so I can’t judge it.
The comment was purposely offensive and obscene
One can make ones point in other ways
Again the first amendment protects against government making laws that abridge the right
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.