you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Thanks for the thorough explanation!

Im not up on the details of the out-of-eurasia models that some white nationalists are advocating.

I find it funny that White and Black "Nationalists" argue back and forth about whether humans came from Europe or Africa, as if it somehow makes them superior, even though both sides are descended from that ancestor either way.

But even the OOA theory is sort of a very messy theory in which a lot of the evolution of our ancestors takes place outside africa for several million years.

Since evolution ain't instantaneous like in Pokémon, instead being a draw-out process spanning over generations, that makes it quite difficult to pin-point when humanity became humanity, and thus where. Perhaps the correct answer would be multiple continents?

SE Asians and australoids have around 10% admixture from denisovan man who in turn is believed to have had admixture from another homonin species.

I knew the party about Neanderthal DNA, but this is new to me.

And africans seem to have large amounts of admixture from several different “ghost populations” of extinct homonins depending on the african population.

That's really interesting — how there where so many "types" of humans that went extinct. I wonder how society and history would be different had one or more of these species survived to the present day... perhaps that's a question for s/AlternateHistory (a sub I just made).

I believe west africans have up to 20% admixture from other populations according to some studies.

Dang! I wonder why they interbred so much, as opposed to, say, Europeans. Maybe those other populations never went extinct, but simply assimilated into the homo sapien population?

Dumbed down science articles in the MSM desperately want to down play the genetic diversity for political reasons.

Politics should be subservient to science, not the other way around.

And by mathematically analyzing our nucleotide pairs in common we tend to group well in to genetic clusters that correspond with our casual notions of race. So race is pretty real IMO , its just not that exact.

Biological race is obviously real — you can see that with your own eyes — but it ain't as influential or important as nationality. Your culture will always trump your genetics.

[–]InvoluntaryHalibut 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Dang! I wonder why they interbred so much, as opposed to, say, Europeans.

Probably more species in africa due to the fact that it (including the sahara) was a very hospitable place compared with ice age eurasia for most of the last 100,000 years or so. Ice age eurasia was probably a shitty sparsely populated place and you would be less likely to run in to other people. Thats just a guess. Most of it was covered in ice. Periodically it would thaw out and people would move around and bump in to each other

Bonobos and chimpanzees split off from each other 4 million years ago and have lived very close to each other separated by a river. So I imagine something similar was happening with different homo groups in africa until someone crossed a river.

Maybe those other populations never went extinct, but simply assimilated into the homo sapien population?

I read somewhere that you could essentially construct a full neandethal with all the neanderthal genes floating around in various people.

Biological race is obviously real — you can see that with your own eyes — but it ain't as influential or important as nationality. Your culture will always trump your genetics.

Im kind of an evolution nut so I take a different view. Its very hard to tease apart culture and genetics because they are constantly influencing each other.

As ethnic groups have settled in unique environments around the world (after hooking up with the odd denisovan) they have had to adapt to those environments behaviorally. Behaviors that are useful in tropical climates are not useful in cold climates. Maybe it makes sense to have a lot of mates in one environment but only one mate in another climate. Maybe some environments favor risk taking strategies and other environments favor more cautious strategies. Maybe one group of people adopts an agrarian strategy, another group pursues a hunter gatherer lifestyle. The point is, like any other animal, humans start to get very efficient at exploiting a particular environment. These aren’t just learned behaviors, they are genetic innate behaviors that vary between groups.

We tend to observe these behaviors and say “oh that’s culture” but the culture and the genetics of a group of people tend to evolve together. Culture is very driven by genetics. And in turn it can influence genetics. Monogamist societies tend to have certain behavioral traits in common compared to polygamist societies such as lower violence among males, since polygamy causes a lack of available females which causes males to compete physically. In such a case, culture (e.g. religion) can literally change the genetics.

Maybe Im getting too deep in the weeds, but my point is that in evolving to exploit specific niches to survive, different groups of humans have evolved cognitive differences that affect behavior. Culture is very much a function of those differences which makes it hard to assimilate different races in to one culture. It takes hundreds or thousands of years for people to adjust to a new environment.

I think when people say “we need to dismantle whiteness” what they really mean is whiteness is a way of thinking about things, a strategy of life, that Im not comfortable with— it doesn’t fit me. And that is probably due to some real cognitive differences.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

Probably more species in africa due to the fact that it (including the sahara) was a very hospitable place compared with ice age eurasia for most of the last 100,000 years or so.

Oh, yeah, probably.

Bonobos and chimpanzees split off from each other 4 million years ago and have lived very close to each other separated by a river. So I imagine something similar was happening with different homo groups in africa until someone crossed a river.

If I had to guess, I'd say rivers have impacted history more than any other geographic characteristic (or whatever the right term is).

I read somewhere that you could essentially construct a full neandethal with all the neanderthal genes floating around in various people.

Cool.

As ethnic groups have settled in unique environments around the world (after hooking up with the odd denisovan) they have had to adapt to those environments behaviorally.

That's definitely true, but what about groups made up of multiple races that have settled in the same area, and lived there for generations? Dixie, for example, has a large number of Whites, Blacks, Natives, and Latinos all living in about the same area.

I'd say Dixie's harsh climate and geography have made us stronger than our Yankee counterparts, and that applies to all races.

I think when people say “we need to dismantle whiteness” what they really mean is whiteness is a way of thinking about things, a strategy of life, that Im not comfortable with— it doesn’t fit me. And that is probably due to some real cognitive differences.

Ironically, the people saying that are the Whitest folks in the country.

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

That's definitely true, but what about groups made up of multiple races that have settled in the same area, and lived there for generations? Dixie, for example, has a large number of Whites, Blacks, Natives, and Latinos all living in about the same area. I'd say Dixie's harsh climate and geography have made us stronger than our Yankee counterparts, and that applies to all races.

These are interesting points. Non natives (whites and blacks) have lived in the american south for about 400 years. Im not saying that isn’t long enough to see some new behavioral traits in an isolated group. In a unique new environment (from europe or africa) it might happen rapidly but you would need a strong selection process —i.e. A certain portion of “ill-suited” individuals would be removed from the gene pool each generation. This usually looks like death through starvation or war or disease. Evolution is mean. Maybe the Civil War could have been a strong selection event.

But generally southern agrarians of the last few centuries have not had a super harsh climate to contend with. Think of this in the context of hunter gatherers surviving the frozen tundras of Eurasia where there is essentially no food for 6 months out of the year except for big game. People who did’t organize well and didn’t plan ahead died in big numbers every year for around 50,000 years.

The south has had continuous immigration for hundreds of years and the people have generally not intermixed. If they did and remained genetically isolated, and their economy remained the same, you would definitely see a set of unique common behaviors emerge eventually.

I think in a place like the south you have whites and blacks and now latinos still living out old strategies and following different sets of rules which is why they keep clashing. Can you impose a common set of rules (which is part of an environment) and evetually get everyone to evolve to follow those rules and cooperate? Maybe. That is what they tried to do with Christianity. Now they are going to try to do it with communism/ sjw religion. Maybe over a very long period. Is it worth it for each of these groups to live interdependently within the same culture and society? Each will have to sacrifice instrinsic behaviors to their group. What makes us unique as groups is also what makes us not get along.

Im going on too long. But Im reading a lot on the subject lately

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

This usually looks like death through starvation or war or disease.

The South is the poorest region of the US, due to the Yankees plundering out wealth and redistributing it to Wal Street billionaires. Millions of our children starve so some rich Yankee can own five mansions.

We're definitely in a war of propaganda; the Yanks try to slander our culture and way of life by any means they can.

The South is also the region most prone to disease, especially in the wetlands. That's less of an issue now, due to modern technology, but we still have it harder.

Maybe the Civil War could have been a strong selection event.

The civil war, and the genocide that ensued until the present day. We've had to fight an uphill battle not only to preserve our culture, but to survive in a land plundered by our colonial overlords. In Dixie, only the strong survive.

But generally southern agrarians of the last few centuries have not had a super harsh climate to contend with. Think of this in the context of hunter gatherers surviving the frozen tundras of Eurasia where there is essentially no food for 6 months out of the year except for big game. People who did’t organize well and didn’t plan ahead died in big numbers every year for around 50,000 years.

There are very few places left on Earth that are that harsh, relegated to rainforests and deserts — and even they may not be as harsh. Not many people actually live in those areas, anyways.

The south has had continuous immigration for hundreds of years and the people have generally not intermixed.

There's been a lot of mixing between various European groups, and between the Europeans and Natives, but segregation kept Blacks separate from the other races for about a century — which is why they have their own flavor of Dixie culture.

If they did and remained genetically isolated, and their economy remained the same, you would definitely see a set of unique common behaviors emerge eventually.

We do have a lot of common behaviors, like language and food. There are a lot of differences, but there are more similarities — especially when contrasted with the Yankees.

I think in a place like the south you have whites and blacks and now latinos still living out old strategies and following different sets of rules which is why they keep clashing.

Those "different sets of rules" have been unnaturally sustained long after segregation's end, in order to maintain the racial division that has for so long benefited the North.

Can you impose a common set of rules (which is part of an environment) and evetually get everyone to evolve to follow those rules and cooperate

If we can unite against the Yankee empire under the banner of Dixie Nationalism: it can be achieved — but that would be a struggle in of itself, as the mutual animosity between our People has been cultivated for centuries. We'd need a strong leader who can bring us together based on our similarities, instead of dividing us along our differences.

That is what they tried to do with Christianity.

That's an interesting point, as the vast majority of people in Dixie are Baptists, but very few outside of it are. There are currently two currents of Baptism, separated only by race; I see the fusion of these currents as vital to Dixie unification. Don't get me wrong, I ain't some hyper-religious theocrat, but I'd be naive to downplay religion's influence on culture.

Each will have to sacrifice instrinsic behaviors to their group.

Yes, but there are hundreds of different sub-groups in Dixie, each with their own flavor of Southern culture. I see it vital that we allow each group to maintain their way of life, so long as it doesn't interfere with unity.

Im going on too long. But Im reading a lot on the subject lately

Hah, you're fine.

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

The South is the poorest region of the US, due to the Yankees plundering out wealth and redistributing it to Wal Street billionaires.....the Yanks try to slander our culture and way of life by any means they can.

As a yank I don’t really disagree. I just think that the South is a relatively poor part of a rich country. Its hard to say how it compares to the typical conditions of the Eurasian hunter gatherer but realize that was a selection process that took 50,000 years

I see much of today’s conflicts as a urban / rural dichotomy. The cities are mostly bureaucracies — the number of factories continues to fall. The rural and sub-urban “red” areas are constantly having their wealth redistributed to an urban bureaucracy that does not share their values. The urban bureaucracies have an increasingly subjective definition of “work” which they force actual workers to compensate them for through taxes, regulations, universities, insurance.

Those "different sets of rules" have been unnaturally sustained long after segregation's end,

You and I are probably just going to disagree on this. I feel that racial differences are profound and they are genetic and not due to an unnatural systemic racism. Anyone can get used to grits and collard greens— they’re tasty. But there are a set of behavioral differences between southern blacks and whites which I do not think has been caused by segregation or any other imposed rules.

I can see that you are a very strong “culture” person, i.e. You put great emphasis on the shared rules and and a common world view behind those rules, your rural dixie baptist identity. That is important and it does change a population over time to create better rule followers of a particular regime.

I just think you should allow for the possibility that you are overestimating the ability of a cultural regime to unify a group of diverse people over a relatively short period of time (~400 yrs) who have operated within different environments under different cultural rules for thousands and thousands of years. You are underestimating the importance of genetics on behavior.

I do not enjoy pointing out the data but it is overwhelming. If we are too polite to point out the data, then every time an Ahmad Arbery happens, people will say “there they go picking on black people for walking down the street.”

If whites and blacks and any other groups choose to live together it should be with the informed understanding that given an absolutely level playing field within a common culture, we will not perform the same.

Its not fair. Entire groups are not choosing to be bad in school or good at crime. Its just that differences in our history over 150,000 years or so have made us behave differently under identical conditions.