Help with race debate

[graffic]

I am in debate with a friend who is adamant that race exists. I have presented evidence that race does not exist but I can't find any reliable scientific evidence online. The argument that race does exist has been argued using this http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/050128_racefrm.htm

I need some good evidence to prove this guy wrong!

Any input is much appreciated, thankyou

[IcarusAngel]

These racists conservatives and Libertarians use 'race' as a way to divide people up, and then blame the shortcomings of certain groups on the race factor through books like the bell curve. Show the inherent flaws of the bell curve reasoning and there are tons of articles and studies online that do this.

[Robert]

Not all race baiters are conservatives and libertarians. I don't consider proponents of affirmative action to fall into either camp.

[Havet]

I made a thread (http://www.***************/forum/showthread.php?t=633927) in Stormfront and it eventually got to that topic. Here are my points:


There is no scientific consensus of a list of the human races, and some anthropologists even question the notion of human "race". [92] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_race#cite_note-91)

Hmm..let's look at what forensic anthropology really does, shall we?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forensic_anthropology

Forensic anthropological techniques can be used to assist in the recovery of remains, assess age, sex (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex), stature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stature), ancestry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancestry), and analyze trauma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_trauma) and disease (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disease). Forensic anthropologists frequently work in conjunction with forensic pathologists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forensic_pathology), odontologists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forensic_odontology), and homicide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homicide) investigators (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investigator) to identify a decedent, discover evidence of trauma, and determine the postmortem interval. Though they typically lack the legal authority to declare the official cause of death (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cause_of_death), their opinions are taken into consideration by the medical examiner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coroner). They may also testify in court as expert witness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expert_witnesses). Data from some infrequently used techniques, such as forensic facial reconstruction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forensic_facial_reconstruction),are inadmissible as forensic evidence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daubert_Standard).

Now i'll even help you out by looking into craniofacial anthropometry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craniofacial_anthropometry

A forensic anthropologist can assist in the identification of a decedent through various skeletal analyses that produce a "biological profile". One part to a biological profile is a person's racial/ancestral affinity.
Caucasians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian_race) generally have no prognathism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prognathism); a notable size prominence of the cranium and forehead region; a narrow, tear-shaped nasal cavity; a "silled" nasal aperture; tower-shaped nasal bones; a triangular-shaped palate; and an angular and sloping eye orbit shape.
Blacks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_people) typically have 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; and a square or rectangular eye orbit shape.
Asians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_people) are often characterized by relatively no prognathism; no nasal sill or dam; an oval-shaped nasal cavity; tent-shaped nasal bones; a horseshoe-shaped palate; and a rounded and non-sloping eye orbit shape.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craniofacial_anthropometry#cite_note-3)
It is important to note that many of these characteristics only have a higher frequency among particular races and the presence or absence of one or more does not automatically classify an individual into a racial group. Forensic Anthropologists utilize the Fordisc (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fordisc) program to help in the interpretation of craniofacial measurements in regards to ancestry/race determination.


While this method produces useful results for the population of the United States, it is likely that it would not be reliable for populations from other countries[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craniofacial_anthropometry#cite_note-6) or historical periods.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craniofacial_anthropometry#cite_note-7) This is because the United States has traditionally had groups whose ancestries came from geographically distant locations, and which have generally remained endogamous (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endogamy) in this country, for social reasons. As more immigrants from in between regions and as Americans become more racially mixed, such craniofacial identification is problematic.


Classification by craniofacial anthropometry does not necessarily coincide with genetic ancestry or social self-identification. For example, about one-third of so-called "White" Americans have detectable African DNA markers.[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craniofacial_anthropometry#cite_note-8)

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craniofacial_anthropometry#cite_note-8)
And about five percent of so-called "Black" Americans have no detectable "Negroid" traits at all, neither craniofacial nor in their DNA.[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craniofacial_anthropometry#cite_note-9) In short, given three Americans, one who self-identifies and is socially accepted as U.S. White, another one who self-identifies and is socially accepted as U.S. Black, and one who self-identifies and is socially accepted as U.S. Hispanic, and given that they have precisely the same Afro-European mix of ancestries (one "mulatto" grandparent), there is quite literally no objective test that will identify their U.S. endogamous group membership without an interview.[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craniofacial_anthropometry#cite_note-10)

You see morphological traits, and you think you see different races. In fact the concept of race is flawed because the 3 models that were created to try and explain such concept all ran into problems. Like i posted above (which seems you ignored):

"

It is clear that all of the models fail to adequately carry out the entire job. The typological model (http://anthro.palomar.edu/vary/glossary.htm#typological_model) is the most unsound because presumed racial traits are not found exclusively within defined races. In addition, focusing on new sets of traits often results in assigning people to different races, despite the fact that they were lumped into the same race before. The populational model (http://anthro.palomar.edu/vary/glossary.htm#populational_model) makes sense theoretically but fails to account for most of the distribution patterns around the world because we do not limit our breeding to isolated populations. The clinal model (http://anthro.palomar.edu/vary/glossary.htm#clinal_model) comes the closest to grasping the real nature of human variation. However, it is undermined by the occasional discontinuous distribution resulting from migrations and the few remaining small isolated communities. The patterns of human variation around the world are not only highly complex but also are constantly shifting through time. Furthermore, the rate of change in the patterns has been accelerating as our numbers grow and as long distance travel and migration become more routine.


In the final analysis, it is important to keep in mind that all humans around the world today are biologically quite similar despite our superficial differences. In fact, we apparently are 99.9% genetically identical. Most of the differences between us are due to our unique individual traits and being male or female."

Feel free to look around more in my thread for further arguments.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

It depends on how you decide what "race" is, really. You could define people of different hair colors as different races if you wanted.

Race is just a word. There are differences between different "races" of people just like there are different hair colors. The difference is we pay more attention to some arbitrary traits and less attention to others.

Technically, those differences still exist.

[Robert]

Correct. You beat me to it. I doubt Hayenmill disputes that there are more people in China with yellow skin and black hair than there are in Norway. The SF thread (if that's what you are responding to) was about racial pride, which is of course ignorant.

Hayenmill, I read some of the thread in SF. You are trying a little too hard in the references to forensic anthropologists. If eyewitnesses identify a bank robber as being a "blond haired white male," I would hope the police should be permitted to rule out African American/black/dark-skinned (whatever word is permitted) suspects without being called racist.

And if the hunt is on for a missing white female child, an anthropologist and/or coroner should be able to inform police that some random body they have been asked to examine appears Asian or African American, not "white," and that the hunt for the child should continue. Of course there will be other identifiers, but race isn't always an invalid starting point.

BTW, did you ever post your argument in one of those other ethnic pride sites as your ... acquaintances on SF challenged you to do? I didn't see where they suggested one, but ... how about this one? http://www.topix.com/forum/afam. (http://www.topix.com/forum/afam)

And how do you write "this one" so that clicking on "this one" goes to the link?

Or this one: http://www.brownpride.us/forum/

[Plagueround]

And how do you write "this one" so that clicking on "this one" goes to the link?


Easiest way to do that is copy the link name, write the text you want it to represent the link, then click the little button at the top of the message box that looks like a globe with a chainlink on it. Like this. (http://revleft.com)

[Havet]

Hayenmill, I read some of the thread in SF. You are trying a little too hard in the references to forensic anthropologists. If eyewitnesses identify a bank robber as being a "blond haired white male," I would hope the police should be permitted to rule out African American/black/dark-skinned (whatever word is permitted) suspects without being called racist.

Of course, there is a higher probability of phenotypical characteristics. The point is there is no objective categories, nor should one judge someone by those characteristics


And if the hunt is on for a missing white female child, an anthropologist and/or coroner should be able to inform police that some random body they have been asked to examine appears Asian or African American, not "white," and that the hunt for the child should continue. Of course there will be other identifiers, but race isn't always an invalid starting point.

Of course. The point was to explain why there are no objective boundaries.


BTW, did you ever post your argument in one of those other ethnic pride sites as your ... acquaintances on SF challenged you to do? I didn't see where they suggested one, but ... how about this one? http://www.topix.com/forum/afam. (http://www.topix.com/forum/afam)

I wrote in two. I was banned from one and restricted in the other without any proper response. All things considered, seems SF is a tiny bit more open than those other forums.

Here were the threads:

http://www.assatashakur.org/forum/op...tml#post170556 (http://www.assatashakur.org/forum/open-forum/39410-racial-pride-idiotic.html#post170556)

http://www.cocoalounge.org/viewthrea...=52382&page=1# (http://www.cocoalounge.org/viewthread.php?tid=52382&page=1#)

[Plagueround]

Perhaps you've failed to edit the post to address what causes people of color to band together. There is a huge difference between these groups and stormfront.

I've recently had my racial identity called into question as a matter of racial pride and white hating (which is silly), when the truth of my "racial identity" is that certain aspects of my culture of origin have value to me and I will not tolerate generalization, stereotyping, and belittling of it, even under the guise of bringing about positive race relations or dismantling race as a social construct. There is a lot of anti-racism that fails to recognize the identity of those who are not included in or are not fully a part of the dominate culture, which generally identifies itself as being "above race" (which it isn't). As it stands, by taking the same post to these sights, unedited and unchanged from the stormfront version, it comes off as rather ignorant to people who's ethnicity and "race" have been subverted, marginalized, and brutalized by the dominant culture. You're on the right track, but I think if you want to reach people you need to rethink the approach.

[Robert]

I wrote in two. I was banned from one and restricted in the other without any proper response.Oh my god, I'm sorry Plague but that is laugh out loud funny! Or maybe it was that dead pan way Hayenmill has of saying everything.

Hay-dude, I take it you dutifully reported your chilly reception to the Stormfronters as you promised you would?:lol:

[Havet]

Oh my god is that laugh out loud funny!

I hope you dutifully reported this to the Stormfronters.:lol:

Cocoalounge?????? I'm dying here. I don't want to know what you put in the search engine to come up with that one!

Lol, the funny thing is that SFers thought this was EVIDENCE that black people were intellectually inferior...

Besides the fact that they kept repeating the "you only went there 'cos we told you so" argument. They are never happy.

[Havet]

Perhaps you've failed to edit the post to address what causes people of color to band together. There is a huge difference between these groups and stormfront.

I've recently had my racial identity called into question as a matter of racial pride and white hating (which is silly), when the truth of my "racial identity" is that certain aspects of my culture of origin have value to me and I will not tolerate generalization, stereotyping, and belittling of it, even under the guise of bringing about positive race relations or dismantling race as a social construct. There is a lot of anti-racism that fails to recognize the identity of those who are not included in or are not fully a part of the dominate culture, which generally identifies itself as being "above race" (which it isn't). As it stands, by taking the same post to these sights, unedited and unchanged from the stormfront version, it comes off as rather ignorant to people who's ethnicity and "race" have been subverted, marginalized, and brutalized by the dominant culture. You're on the right track, but I think if you want to reach people you need to rethink the approach.

Thank you for the tip