Genes and Race

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
1

Interesting article in the NYT Science section today:

EXCERPT:

[i] At the same time, genetic information is slipping out of the laboratory and into everyday life, carrying with it the inescapable message that people of different races have different DNA. Ancestry tests tell customers what percentage of their genes are from Asia, Europe, Africa and the Americas. The heart-disease drug BiDil is marketed exclusively to African-Americans, who seem genetically predisposed to respond to it. Jews are offered prenatal tests for genetic disorders rarely found in other ethnic groups.

Such developments are providing some of the first tangible benefits of the genetic revolution. Yet some social critics fear they may also be giving long-discredited racial prejudices a new potency. The notion that race is more than skin deep, they fear, could undermine principles of equal treatment and opportunity that have relied on the presumption that we are all fundamentally equal. [/i]

Is race such a taboo subject that differences should not even be discussed?

2

Amazing they can tell me my ancestry from DNA samples, but they have yet to find the gay gene.

But that is neither here, not there.

I think PC bullshit should have no place in science.

3

The proliferation of anti-intellectualism, anti-skepticism, and anti-creativity is too sad for words. Too bad it makes things easier and makes people feel good.

4

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

Is race such a taboo subject that differences should not even be discussed?[/quote]

Apparently it is. Just see the thread about James Watson. There are clearly genetic variations in health, size, athletic ability, and yes, intelligence.

5

[quote]rainjack wrote:
I think PC bullshit should have no place in science. [/quote]

Write your congressman and tell him he has no business legislating science. It’s gotten so bad that we even have to explain to the public why we need radioactive material in our lab and that it seriously poses no threat to them. PC bullshit, indeed, has no business in the lab.

6

Why can’t people accept the fact that some people have better genes when it comes to certain things? Why can’t people accept the fact that these genes can be similar within the same race?

People are just different. That is all.

7

[quote]tedro wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:

Is race such a taboo subject that differences should not even be discussed?

Apparently it is. Just see the thread about James Watson. There are clearly genetic variations in health, size, athletic ability, and yes, intelligence.[/quote]

Or the “how to get asian poon” thread in sex forum.
Some people can’t bear the thought that while we shall all be equal under law, we are different, for numerous reasons.
Look up how many “racist!” remarks etheogenes’ thread has got.

Long live diversity!

8

I think ‘racist’ has become one of the most overused terms in our lexicon.

Statements about race, or about the differences in race is not racist.

What is a “racist remark”, anyhow?

9

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Amazing they can tell me my ancestry from DNA samples, but they have yet to find the gay gene.

But that is neither here, not there.

I think PC bullshit should have no place in science. [/quote]

I think PC bullshit has not place anywhere. Being PC is should be called nice lying because that is precisely what it is.

10

[quote]rainjack wrote:
I think ‘racist’ has become one of the most overused terms in our lexicon.

Statements about race, or about the differences in race is not racist.

What is a “racist remark”, anyhow?

[/quote]
Racism is a collectivist mindset that refuses to distinguish individuals based on individual traits and instead only looks at racial identity.

11

A racist remark might be a sentence which reduces/associates a whole ethnicity to/with a trivial behaviour (which would usually be found in individuals) in a slanderous way, .
Example: dumb niggers.
Interesting here is that the Nword itself is found to be racist nowadays. But if separated from other vulgarities or assumptions, the word itself could be “racist”, wouldn’t that mean racists have a point (as they’d found word to describe a race and it’s unique negative traits)?

I never understood why in America, the land of free speech, this happened to be the case.
Perhaps someone can explain?

12

What is unfortunate is that, due to the intense even hysterical efforts of social “sciences” based academia to promote race as a mere social construct plus the added weight of the ignorant-but-eager-to-be-heard-throwing-their-voice-out-there-media, the term “racism” has come to include the meaning of actually believing that race exists at all. This is ironic because the same proponents of “race doesn’t exist” tend to hold white males responsible for all the world’s ills…

When doing my undergrad work I kept my mind completely open, carefully listened to, read up on and considered the viewpoints of my professors and the “mainstream” college neo-hippie crowd. I also gave the same attention to the taboo and verboten subjects such as gender and sex differences, race, violence, rape from a sociobiological perspective. Several years down the road I must admit that my carefully considered opinion has solidified into a deep skepticism of the “race as construct” crowd, their goals, methods, and honesty. I certainly understand what one Phd, biologist, author and academic outcast had told me: you can’t study these things in anthropology, you need to take up biology to even approach them.

For those interested in reading up on the subject from the NON hysterical-we-all-have-to-be-the-same-in-EVERY-aspect crowd Steve Sailor has a lot of articles with links to further reading: http://isteve.blogspot.com/
also there is lengthy, detailed article on the James Watson affair and the science involved that the media and self serving hysterical academics can’t be bothered to study here: Gene Expression: James Watson Tells the Inconvenient Truth: Faces the Consequences

13

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
I never understood why in America, the land of free speech, this happened to be the case.
Perhaps someone can explain? [/quote]

It’s pretty simple really. For a long time, the Americans practiced racism in its most racist forms (genocide of natives, slavery, Japanese detention camps, etc…)

Just the guilt catching up.

I was discussing this the other day with a friend who had just read a book by Agatha Christie. The title of the edition he bought from the States was “And then there were none” which I had never heard of. As he told me the story, I immediately recognized “Ten little niggers”. We ended up having a discussion on why the French and Spanish versions I knew kept the original title while the Americans chose to change it. It is a shame that one of the cradles of freedom turns out this way, but it’s becomes understandable once you realize that racism is alive and kicking in many parts of the US. Heck, I got censored by a mod on this forum for using the N-word on Jlesk68’s thread about LA.

14

[quote]
Schwarzfahrer wrote:
I never understood why in America, the land of free speech, this happened to be the case.
Perhaps someone can explain?

lixy wrote:
It’s pretty simple really. For a long time, the Americans practiced racism in its most racist forms (genocide of natives, slavery, Japanese detention camps, etc…)

Just the guilt catching up.

I was discussing this the other day with a friend who had just read a book by Agatha Christie. The title of the edition he bought from the States was “And then there were none” which I had never heard of. As he told me the story, I immediately recognized “Ten little niggers”. We ended up having a discussion on why the French and Spanish versions I knew kept the original title while the Americans chose to change it. It is a shame that one of the cradles of freedom turns out this way, but it’s becomes understandable once you realize that racism is alive and kicking in many parts of the US. Heck, I got censored by a mod on this forum for using the N-word on Jlesk68’s thread about LA.[/quote]

Funny, I thought the original title was “Ten Little Indians,” which I think was the original title here in the U.S. for the Agatha Christie play. But checking Wikipedia it looks like you were right on the original UK title: And Then There Were None (play) - Wikipedia

I don’t particularly see why we should have guilt regarding things done hundreds of years ago - or even a couple generations ago - given they weren’t done by us. I’m 33; my ancestors on my mom’s side came over from Finland and Scotland, respectively, in the 1900s, and on my dad’s side from Germany in post Civil War 1800s - I may be sympathetic, but that’s highly different than guilt. How much guilt do the Turks have regarding the Armenian Genocide? The Russians over the the Ukranian “resettlements”? The Italians over Carthage?

I don’t think any purely political considerations should shut off areas of academic inquiry. Setting aside for a moment the questionable nature of the assumption that racism is a strong force in modern American society (which is necessary for any conclusion resulting in politically correct censorship), I think these kind of strictures do active harm to the very people they are supposedly protecting, by keeping information that could be used to help minority populations off limits.

As a related example, just look at how supposedly open-minded liberal professors are attempting to disallow access to bar passage rates in order to stifle research on the effects of affirmative action: Opinion & Reviews - Wall Street Journal

15

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
I don’t particularly see why we should have guilt regarding things done hundreds of years ago - or even a couple generations ago - given they weren’t done by us. [/quote]

Agreed, but that’s the way it is. I merely pointed out to Schwarz why the underlying reasons behind the issue. If you have any better explanations, please share.

Absolutely.

I’d say that is what you get for gradually discarding that brilliant document you call the US constitution. But that’s just me…

edit

16

[quote]rainjack wrote:
What is a “racist remark”, anyhow?
[/quote]

Really good question.

I never really gave it much thought until reading this question, but I cannot even define a racist remark.

What really pisses me off about the way people police speech whenever it’s about race, is that there are people (Sharpton comes to mind) who make it their life’s work to catch someone slipping up and then it makes national news, we saw this with Don Imus. People need to get a fucking life.

17

from pg 72, “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” (PNAC)

18

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
rainjack wrote:
I think ‘racist’ has become one of the most overused terms in our lexicon.

Statements about race, or about the differences in race is not racist.

What is a “racist remark”, anyhow?

Racism is a collectivist mindset that refuses to distinguish individuals based on individual traits and instead only looks at racial identity.[/quote]

Didn’t ask what a racist was. I asked “What is a racist remark?”

19

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:

rainjack wrote:
What is a “racist remark”, anyhow?

A racist remark might be a sentence which reduces/associates a whole ethnicity to/with a trivial behaviour (which would usually be found in individuals) in a slanderous way, .
Example: dumb niggers.
Interesting here is that the Nword itself is found to be racist nowadays. But if separated from other vulgarities or assumptions, the word itself could be “racist”, wouldn’t that mean racists have a point (as they’d found word to describe a race and it’s unique negative traits)? [/quote]

It might be. But sadly - I think it is anything that is said, r referred to that an “affected group” can take exception to.

Can any race other than anglos be considered racist?

[quote]I never understood why in America, the land of free speech, this happened to be the case.
Perhaps someone can explain? [/quote]

For some reason, people love to be the victims. It is the pussification of America that has lead to this.

20

http://genomebiology.com/2002/3/7/comment/2007

This link gives a pretty good breakdown. The section called “Gene-environment correlation and confounding - the real problem” is probably the most interesting for this discussion.

Some important info to keep in mind:

  1. There is 95-98.5% Human-Chimp DNA similarity (though this doesn’t account for the “shuffling” of some chromosomes)
  2. Of this 2-5%, less than 15% varies between “races” or populations, whilst 85% of variation is present in all populations.
  3. Most, but not all, genetic variation is of no biological significance.

I think this is how the “there are no races” concept came about. A geneticist studying Humans (in the same way they might study a fruit fly) probably would conclude that there are no races because there is so little variation between the groups and almost all of it is evolutionarily insignificant.

I think it would be more correct to say that what we call races are in fact mere sub-groups of the sub-Sahara African population, whereby most of the genetic differences are caused by a founder affect/drift.

BUT these small differences are very important if you are focusing especially on the human species (which we probably should ;)). So in terms of something like disease prevention, the concept of race can be a useful tool to group people into risk groups that have higher or lower frequencies of the gene/s in question.