Liberal Creationism, or: Yippee, It’s Bell-Curve Time Again!

[Mr. Tea]

Look, I've already explained and repeated in many posts here why the belief in 'race' is the very definition of racism; its simple to comprehend, but - for racists - impossible to acknowledge.

This is categorically untrue. Racism is the belief that people of one racial origin are inherently superior or inferior to others. Recognising that race exists - which it clearly does - no more makes one racist than recognising that some people are male and some female makes you sexist.

 

[vimothy]

This is categorically untrue. Racism is the belief that people of one racial origin are inherently superior or inferior to others. Recognising that race exists - which it clearly does - no more makes one racist than recognising that some people are male and some female makes you sexist.

Indeed:

3. Whitey does not come out on top. If you came here looking for material for your Aryan supremacy Web site, sorry. Stratifying the world by racial IQ will leave your volk in the dust. You might want to think about marrying a nice Jewish girl from Hong Kong. Or maybe reconsider that whole stratification idea.​

 

[Guybrush]

ive recently heard that a recent historical study shows that merely 500 years ago europeans were much darker than now. that it was some fluke of a mutation which made their pigment as pale as it is today. anyone know more about this?

Interesting passage on skin colour:

Hairiness is the default state of most mammals, though a few have lost much of their hair for a variety of reasons. They include many aquatic mammals such as dolphins and hippopotami, the naked mole rat and humans. Most non-human primates have lightly pigmented skin covered by fur. Scientists believe that early protohominids resembled our closest relative, the chimpanzee, with white skin covered by dark hair. The hominids began to walk upright and left the shade of the trees for the open savannah and therefore required a more efficient cooling system. The brain uses significant amounts of energy but is very sensitive to heat, so the increased brain power of the early hominids also required a finer thermoregulatory system. As a result humans evolved more sweat glands, especially on the face, which required the loss of hair for more effective evaporation. Sexual selection by a preference for naked skin may have played a secondary role as well. Though naked skin is advantageous for thermoregulation, it exposes the epidermis to destructive levels of UV radiation that can cause sunburn, skin cancer and birth defects resulting from the destruction of the essential vitamin B folate. To protect the epidermis natural selection favored increased levels of melanin in the skin.

The general consensus among scholars is therefore that the first modern humans would have been dark skinned. When humans migrated to less sun intensive regions in the north, the dark skin that was adapted to blocking out much of the UV radiation in the tropics would block even the minimum amount of radiation required for cells under the skin to produce Vitamin D. This is essential for bone growth, as deficiencies in vitamin D cause rickets. Thus skin color would revert back to its default form present before the process of hair loss began, but this time without the hair. Whilst the timing of this change from dark to light skin has not yet been established it is possible that the early settlers of Europe and Asia were dark skinned. Aside from skin color however, which despite the above could also arguably be included, the majority of apparent difference in human physical appearance around the world, or what may also be called racial features, can also be explained through the process of regional sexual selection of relatively recent evolutionary origin.​

 

[hundredmillionlifetimes]

This is categorically untrue. Racism is the belief that people of one racial origin are inherently superior or inferior to others. Recognising that race exists - which it clearly does.

This is hopeless. Recognizing that race 'exists' precisely entails accepting the racist agenda, it is constitutive of it, despite what anyone 'believes.'

Recognising that racism exists - which it clearly does, is the issue; indeed, it is so institutionalized in Western societies as to be unconscious. Simply seeing it as some rarefied, abstract 'belief' (which, of course, can always be simply denied) is to spirit away its political reality as a ritualized practice, as a form of behaviour (including the publishing of racist tracts like The Bell Curve).

'Microaggressions are subtle insults (verbal, nonverbal, and/or visual) directed toward people of color, often automatically or unconsciously. In and of itself a microaggression may seem harmless, but the cumulative burden of a lifetime of microaggressions can theoretically contribute to diminished mortality, augmented morbidity, and flattened confidence. Little is known about microaggressions, and yet this subtle form of racism has a dramatic impact on the lives of African Americans. Pierce and his colleagues have defined racial microaggressions as "subtle, stunning, often automatic, and nonverbal exchanges which are 'put downs' of blacks by offenders" (Pierce, Carew, Pierce-Gonzalez, & Wills, 1978, p. 66). They further maintain that these "offensive mechanisms used against blacks often are innocuous" and that the "cumulative weight of their never-ending burden is the major ingredient in black-white interactions" (p. 66). Additionally, Davis (1989) defined racial microaggressions as "stunning, automatic acts of disregard that stem from unconscious attitudes of white superiority and constitute a verification of black inferiority."'

Critical race theory, racial microaggressions, and campus racial climate: The experiences of African American college students ​

 

[Mr. Tea]

This is hopeless.

You've got that right, for once.

Recognizing that race 'exists' precisely entails accepting the racist agenda, it is constitutive of it, despite what anyone 'believes.'

This is just the highest level of delusional bullshit.

It doesn't even make sense for there to be such a thing as racism, unless you acknowledge race. Why might a dark-skinned person experience prejudice? Because of societal racism, of course - I'm pretty sure no-one here is denying that it exists. But why does that person have dark skin in the first place? Because they've inherited it from their ancestors, just as everyone inherits skin colour, hair colour, facial features, etc. etc. from their ancestors. This is what race means.

 

[zhao]

WTF are you going on about?

that at a time (not that long ago) when europe was under developed, when europeans were filthy savages that shat in the streets and tortured each other, when the IslamIC African Moors who ruled Spain were pursuing art, music, philosophy, and science --- that at a time like this, i would have liked to see the results of a similar study comparing the average mental capacity of different racial groups.

my point being, just in case anyone a bit thick in the head has any problems figuring it out (or more likely intentionally misinterpret the above), that europeans would have undoubtedly scored much lower in such a test during that time period.

and this demonstrates that

1. the results of such tests have no bearing what so EVER on any geneticist model, and

2. has everything to do with environment, culture, circumstance, and the conceit/prejudice of those who happen to have the upper hand (just so happens those conducting the tests).

500 years ago most Europeans were agricultural labourers, so of course they were bound to be darker-skinned than modern Europeans.

surely that is one factor. but the study i heard about had to do with a particular freakish mutation which made europeans so pale, besides the effects of the sun.

 

[Slothrop]

surely that is one factor. but the study i heard about had to do with a particular freakish mutation which made europeans so pale, besides the effects of the sun.

Did it make us shit at dancing too?

 

[zhao]

and according to the study which sparked this thread I'M SMARTER THAN ALL OF YOU SO SHUT THE FUCK UP.

lol

(note: taking the piss. again, for those unfortunates who could not have figured it out)

 

[Mr. Tea]

surely that is one factor. but the study i heard about had to do with a particular freakish mutation which made europeans so pale, besides the effects of the sun.

You just want to think of white people as 'mutants', don't you?

I dunno, I've seen Roman portraits which look pretty similar to modern-day Mediterraneans, in both skin tone and facial features. Bear in mind that any 'mutation' would have to confer an evolutionary advantage in order to spread through a population, and 500 years is next to nothing in evolutionary terms.

For a long time in Europe it was fashionable to have very pale skin, as it marked the aristocracy from the commoners (most of whom, as I said, worked outside), but this difference arose simply from their different lifestyles. In the 20th century this was reversed as most people worked indoors and a tan showed you could afford to holiday somewhere hot and sunny.

 

[vimothy]

that at a time (not that long ago) when europe was under developed, when europeans were filthy savages that shat in the streets and tortured each other, when the IslamIC African Moors who ruled Spain were pursuing art, music, philosophy, and science --- that at a time like this, i would have liked to see the results of a similar study comparing the average mental capacity of different racial groups.

Well, it just seems as though implicit in your argument is the idea that Muslim rule of Spain was the time when the "boot was on the other foot" so to speak (which is obviously why you brought it up), and therefore whitey was the "filthy savage" shitting in the street, i.e. the positions were reversed, i.e. Europeans were then, but Africans are currently filthy savages who shit in the street.

my point being, just in case anyone a bit thick in the head has any problems figuring it out (or more likely intentionally misinterpret the above), that europeans would have undoubtedly scored much lower in such a test during that time period.

I'm not intentionally misinterpreting what you said -- you are trying to racially slur white Europeans to score some sort of point against imaginary racists and manage to racially slur black Africans as well.

and this demonstrates that

1. the results of such tests have no bearing what so EVER on any geneticist model, and

2. has everything to do with environment, culture, circumstance, and the conceit/prejudice of those who happen to have the upper hand (just so happens those conducting the tests).

In fact, this is both entirely plausible and furthermore entirely hypothetical and backed up by nothing more than your opinion of an imaginary situation.

It also (point 2) doesn't take into account the fact that white people (as the dominant racial group in the racist society carrying out this research) don't come out on top -- SE Asians and Jews do.

 

[zhao]

Europeans were then, but Africans are currently filthy savages who shit in the street.

you are trying to racially slur white Europeans to score some sort of point against imaginary racists and manage to racially slur black Africans as well.

Africans are disadvantaged and under-developed now just like Europeans were back then. yes.

you got a problem with that? i dare you to try to say that this is somehow "racist".

ive seen this trick before. its like the one who farted accusing others of having broken wind. no vimothy, it will not hide who is the racist here how ever you pathetically try to slander and mud-sling.

entirely hypothetical and backed up by nothing more than your opinion of an imaginary situation.

the situation of europe being under developed a mere 500 years ago is not imaginary. (only sad that so many people are afflicted with such painfully short memory span - more likely they choose not to remember) only the "if such a study was conducted back then" part is hypothetical. and that hypothesis is not very far fetched at all.

 

[hundredmillionlifetimes]

You've got that right, for once.

This is just the highest level of delusional bullshit.

It is those who believe in race who are delusional

It doesn't even make sense for there to be such a thing as racism, unless you acknowledge race.

This is analogous to saying that it makes no sense for there to have been Nazi anti-Semitism unless you acknowledge the 'racial inferiority' of Jews.

Why might a dark-skinned person experience prejudice?

Because of idiots like some of those posting here who believe in 'race' as an empirical reality, so perpetuating such prejudice.

But why does that person have dark skin in the first place?

So that racists can 'justify' their racial delirium, numbnut.

Because they've inherited it from their ancestors, just as everyone inherits skin colour, hair colour, facial features, etc. etc. from their ancestors. This is what race means.

No, race MEANS using such arbitrary features of a population to justify a racist agenda, as we have been witnessing on a massive scale for hundreds of years, not that you're familiar with any such history.

 

[Mr. Tea]

This:

This is analogous to saying that it makes no sense for there to have been Nazi anti-Semitism unless you acknowledge the 'racial inferiority' of Jews.

is nonsense. What I've been trying to say is that (to used this example) the concept of anti-Semitism is meaningless unless you consider Jews as a distinct group (which Jews themselves certainly tend to do).
Otherwise, what does it meant to call someone 'Jewish'? You've just denied their very existence. How's that for anti-semetic?

To put it another way, if a kid with glasses gets bullied for it at school, pretending that he does not wear glasses - which is what you're trying to do by denying the idea of race - is not going to help matters for him. What you need to do is make his bullies realise that there is nothing wrong with wearing glasses, and that bullying on any grounds is unacceptable.

 

[vimothy]

Africans are disadvantaged and under-developed now just like Europeans were back then. yes.

you got a problem with that? i dare you to try to say that this is somehow "racist".

I don't have a problem with that. In fact I agree with it. However, it's obviously very different to saying "Africans are filthy savages who shit in the street" or "Europeans are filthy savages who shit in the street".

ive seen this trick before. its like the one who farted accusing others of having broken wind. no vimothy, it will not hide who is the racist here how ever you pathetically try to slander and mud-sling.

What trick? Sorry but they were your words, Zhao. And I didn't accuse you of being a racist (though apparently you agree with hmlt that I am somehow "categorically racist" - a racist regardless of how I think I might feel about other races - basically on the basis of not agreeing with your stupid teenage leftist nihilism, tedious psychoanalytical nonsense and new age fantasies), I accused you of racially slurring people. "Black Africans are savages who shit in the street" sounds like racism to be. I don't see why it should be any different for white Europeans.

 

[zhao]

yes ok. i apologize for my colorful choice of words employed to illustrate racism toward disadvantaged people, and how they are seen by those who have the upper hand. i can see how that could have been offensive to some.

 

[vimothy]

the situation of europe being under developed a mere 500 years ago is not imaginary. (only sad that so many people are afflicted with such painfully short memory span - more likely they choose not to remember) only the "if such a study was conducted back then" part is hypothetical. and that hypothesis is not very far fetched at all.

And this you should be able to figure out for yourself. I was not claiming that there was no Islamic Golden Age. Of course there was. No doubt they also had people like you there who wanted to destroy it and return everbody to a life berry eating and early death.

Anyway -- you said "imagine a study comparing mean IQs across different racial groups in Moorish Spain".

Er, ok.

"Look, the results clearly show that the Moors were a lot more intelligent than the filthy savages in the rest of Europe".

They do? Er, ok....

"This demonstrates that the whole genetics angle on IQ is wrong, that everything is nurture and the environment, and, while we're at it, it confirms the racist underpinnings of the contemporary research into IQ and race."

It does? Isn't this IQ testing in Moorish Spain just imaginary, though? Isn't it more the case that, it might prove that, if the research had actually been carried out, but it hasn't been carried out and so you'd be pretty hard pushed to justify drawing those conclusions from an evidence base that only exists hypothetically?

 

[zhao]

apparently you agree with hmlt that I am somehow "categorically racist"

do you or do you not at least partially agree with a geneticist explanation of inequality?

if you don't, at all, I apologize, and you are not racist. but anyone who believes that shit is racist scum.

your stupid (blah blah blah -ed)

HEY!! LET'S NOT FORGET WHO IS THE SMARTER ONE HERE!!

 

[vimothy]

do you or do you not at least partially agree with a geneticist explanation of inequality?

if you don't, at all, I apologize, and you are not racist. but anyone who believes that shit is racist scum.

I had no position on this prior to Guybrush starting this thread. I think that families of people developed differently around the world accroding to geography, and can be described as "races" (or by another proxy, according to taste). I wouldn't have thought a fan of Jared Diamond like yourself would disagree with that. And I do think that hmlt disliking something is a pretty reliable indicator that it is of value. In fact I wasn't previously interested in this at all, but there's actually lots of fascinating stuff to read about it over the internet. I'm not sure what you mean by "inequality". (Sub-Saharan Africa is poor because the people there have low IQs)? I think African states are poor because they have terrible governments. I leave science to the scientists, but I certainly don't think that drawing conclusions from your research that you believe to be true is reprehensible. The opposite is true surely. It's quite out of our hands -- just as I have no choice over whether the earth is round or flat (or flat but with bumps), whether god exists or whether we evolved from apes, so I have no choice over whether my genes predetermine to an extent my IQ. It does or it doesn't, regardless of what I want.

HEY!! LET'S NOT FORGET WHO IS THE SMARTER ONE HERE!!

No danger of that....

 

[hundredmillionlifetimes]

This:

is nonsense. What I've been trying to say is that (to used this example) the concept of anti-Semitism is meaningless unless you consider Jews as a distinct group (which Jews themselves certainly tend to do).
Otherwise, what does it meant to call someone 'Jewish'? You've just denied their very existence. How's that for anti-semetic?

Denied the Nazi notion of their existence, which was pure racism. You still don't see the conceptual error here? The claim that anti-Semitism had an empirical basis, a result of 'factual' observations about Jews? But Nazi anti-Semitism had nothing to do with actual Jews, but rather with a racialized delirium that attributed (displaced) blame for the social traumas of Germany on to a phantasmatic other labelled 'Jew'. If it was such a distinct group, then why were Jews required to wear identifying tags, among many other perverse indignities? Because the racializing imaginary designated it so, as a distinct group that could be so obsessively designated by 'empirical' means in order to 'prove' their Nazi pre-assigned status.

The real question to ask, and the true enigma, is why did the Nazis so desperately, so pathologically need the figure of the Jew for their paranoid ideology to function, constructing it in such an obscenely racialized way that it bore no relation to any empirical social reality? Why is it that when you take away their - phantasmatic - figure of the Jew the whole Nazi edifice disintegrates? Just as when you remove the 'barbaric negro' from the slave trade, that whole system also collapses?

And, more relevantly, why does today's West require it's equally paranoid 'war on terror' [again racialized] for its ideology to function?

 

[zhao]

HMLT what you are doing is this: