Do you have arguments against "there is no such a thing as a pure ethnic/racial group, no such a thing as a pure korean, japanese, chinese, vietnamese, german, etc, because everyone is mixed" and "there is no such a thing as a race/ethnic group"?

submitted by [deleted] from (self.debatealtright)

[deleted]

all 8 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–][deleted]  (3 children)

[deleted]

    [–]CuteAsDuck 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    The color analogy is very interesting to me. If we mix red and yellow, we get orange. In the context of race, orange would be considered descending from red and yellow. It could share 50% of its material with red, while 50% with yellow, perhaps 40% with red, while 60% with yellow. But nobody would say that means orange is not fully/pure orange (though I'd like to know why, why is it that we consider it fully/pure orange despite it descending from two different colors? Do you know why?)

    What about, e.g. a korean that has a percentage of siberian gene because they descend from siberian ancestors? Would it be correct to say this individual is still fully korean, and not partly korean/partly siberian/not fully korean, because the mixture of these genes creates the full/pure korean ethnicity?

    Or what about a german, italian, australian, etc that have a percentage of african genes, because everyone essentially descends from african ancestors? Would it be correct to consider these individuals fully german, fully italian, fully australian, etc?

    In here, a geneticist claims no race can be pure, because of these genetic mixings: https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/02/harvard-geneticist-no-populations-dna-is-pure/

    What are your thoughts on that?

    [–]president_camacho 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    None of this matters much from a practical point of view. What matters is that in North America and the broader west there is one group-whites that is continuously portrayed negatively by media, government, academia and hollywood. They are the evil group we must all work to abolish, and this group can never defend themselves or advocate for themselves. This situation exists because another group-jews-have a near monopoly on the media, and has a long running current of hostility towards whites.

    Whites exist. They are a thing, regardless of what you believe that thing actually is. Dont believe me turn on the tv and watch how this group is portrayed. Tgey never shut up about us and continually demand we criticize ourselves just to keep a job or appear in the media they own.

    That is what matters.

    [–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    First of all 'purity' is not a prerequisite for ethnic or racial group advocacy. I've actually never heard any serious Nationalist figure make this argument and the idea is itself absurd. Actually the only people I hear who mention the idea of 'purity' are leftists. I'm Anglo but also with broadly Northwest European genes but that does not mean a person like me -- or any other Englishman for that matter -- has no right to to claim autochthony in the British isles. If you've been misled and think our argument for Nationalism is based around some claim to purity then you should actually read what we say and not what our malicious critics claim we say.

    Also that there would not be differential evolution in human groups and that clusters/races/sub-species or whatever you want to label them as wouldn't form and that those differences wouldn't be profound IS AN EXTREME CLAIM that runs against any basic theory of evolution. It is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary proof and all the dogmatic egalitarians offer -- they're also denialists in the true sense of that word -- is petty bickering over terms and definitions.

    The bottom line for me in any racial argument with a person who claims race 'isn't real' is that you actually need to prove why by some magic evolution did not impact humanity the exact same way it has affected other mammals and show me why. The burden of proof is on you, not me.

    If you're looking for data though there's many intelligent people here who have it on mental speed dial.

    In here, Collin Spears on Quora argues koreans descended from Han Chinese, and other groups, so they are a mix: https://www.quora.com/Genetically-which-is-closer-to-Korean-Chinese-or-Japanese-Are-Koreans-descended-from-a-Chinese-ethnic-group/answer/Collin-Spears-1

    So do the Tibetans and the Han. They share a common ancestor as little as 3000 years ago -- don't quote me on that I'm going from memory -- and then they diverged and evolved both genetically and culturally in completely different directions -- one potent example is the much studied gene that allows most ethnic Tibetans to process oxygen more efficiently at high altitudes. This fact does not remove the right of the Tibetans to maintain their own ethnic group and their own culture. Such an idea is obscene and people only really forcefully impose such rules upon different White groups around the world.

    This idea that there are blends of people and that people, culture and language -- among other things -- being somewhat eclectic proves ultimately that no one has a right to preserve, promote and sustain their own peoplehood and culture is absurd on its face. Just think about it for five seconds.

    After you've thought about it for five seconds then ask yourself why the rule is only applied to the people of Europe and their diaspora in the New World.

    [–]GConly 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    On reddit, I have been told if someone identifies as japanese, then they become japanese, or if they identify as black then they become black,

    So, if I say I'm black I can apply for minority only grants and college scholarships? Sweet.

    Seriously though, all our population groups genetically fuzz into each other at the borders. The Japanese were derived from two distinct groups that mixed, the Jomon and the later immigrant Yayoi, who came from Korea. Doesn't mean they can't be told apart but you need a good DNA study to do it.

    Not commonly known, but the fst distance between east Asians and Africans is far enough that its the same or greater as we observe in different large mammal species. Red and grey wolves are an example.

    [–]EuropeanAwakening14 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    You could use this same order of logic to argue that there are no true different species of life.

    Most White Americans have no detectable trace of non European ancestry, which would be racial purity. So, there are racially pure people. Most people in the world are racially pure.

    [–]Girondin 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    The Stanford population geneticist Luigi cavalli-sforza (one of the most prominent population geneticist) mapped the genetic distance between populations and found they correspond roughly to race you can see it in the book "The History and Geography of Human Genes" or you can find the chart "cavalli-sforza genetic distance charts". Also read the essay "The Bird in the Gilded Cage" as to why he would defend absurd race denialist priors when his works literally refute it (he had to cover up his history of developing bio weapons for the axis Powers).

    See also Human genetic variation, Fst and Lewontin's fallacy in pictures

    Population mixtures do not deny race, it affirms the existence of race, how can you tell differences.

    See "Human Diversity" by Charles Murray for a much deeper coverage of the existence of race. Or Edward Dutton's new book on race.

    [–]Girondin 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    It's gonna take a lot of time to debunk specifically those videos and articles, however I will post the list I keep on typical race denialist objections. Some of this is copy pasted from other peoples words.

    Definition of race: "Any population whose genetics makes them different enough to give a shit about." ~ Gregory Cochran "breeding populations separated in prehistory and adapted to different environments." ~ Edward Dutton

    • race is skin deep: Can be detected with some degree of accuracy with fingerprints, MRI scans, gait how you walk, genetics, anatomy (using multivariate statistic with different morphological markers), spit
    • western concept: actually it's a ancient & universally recognized concept. Even if it is, modern chemistry & physics are western concepts and have insane predictive validity and correctly represent the real world.
    • race can mean different things: In most cases we know what we are talking about. Also words change meaning (like the word "meaning") does that mean you can't use that word?. Formally: breeding populations separated in prehistory and adapted to different environments.
    • bad consequences: actually can save lives. If people are susceptiable to diseases in different ways and different extremities (like indians & diabetes, flu & east asians, lactose intolerance among non-whites, blacks & sickle cell anemia, alchohol & native americans) then knowing race can adequely deal with this problem effectily, with most benefits & lead cost.
    • 99% the same: we are 98% similar to gorilla, can you identify a gorilla from a human? The genetic difference between male human & female human is greater then that of a chimpanzee. small differences can have dramatic physical, psychological, and behavioral effects. And no one is willing to assert that since humans and chimpanzees are “98% the same,” we should not make distinctions between the two.
    • makes us uncomfortable: "facts don't care about your feelings", If being told that you have a rare blood disorder makes you feel unhappy, does that mean that it is not true or that you shouldn’t be told about it?.
    • lewontin's arguement: formally debunked by AWF Edwards "Lewontin's fallacy". predictivly meaningless, if you believe the arguement you can't identify trucks from cars, colors of the rainbow, pongids & hominids & a variety of other things. According to Rober Trivers he faked his data for political motives
    • templeton's arguement: based on a false criteria that races must be a subspecies in order to be legitimate or meaningful. The historical and scientific observations of “man-like” groups was established regardless if the specifics of said racial theories were different: that races simply meant different populations was confirmed by people like Charles Darwin.
    • livingtone's arguement: this gives a consession unlike the other arguements, but the fact that their is continous variation, doesn't make race not real, only that that is probably not the case that the different races are different species (again it depends on how you define it aswell). Humboldt & Darwin (race realist), saw contionous variation as evidence for one human species, not as evidence against the concept of race.

    [–]DisgustResponse 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Pure gaslighting. Everyone knows what race is.