tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post4406416092719751252..comments2024-03-27T18:24:19.683-07:00Comments on Steve Sailer: iSteve: The Race FAQUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger24125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-83622602730035317932017-07-08T22:42:32.342-07:002017-07-08T22:42:32.342-07:00I couldn't agree more.I couldn't agree more.Christoph Dollishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08419938664333559498noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-83608789842117210472014-05-23T07:59:05.186-07:002014-05-23T07:59:05.186-07:00The word race came about because of a perceived, v...The word race came about because of a perceived, visual, difference, surely?<br />That visual difference is genetic and is definable quite easily.<br />Liberals do not want to use visual difference as a means of grouping people.<br />So, the AAA came up with the term geographic ancestry to explain why some people look alike and others don't.<br />Forensic anthropologists have adapted to this shift by using the term continental populations.<br />So, the environment selected, the genes adapted, and geographic populations were created.<br /><br />Of all the arguments I've read in the Wade debate, I think the best is Steve's line about New Hampshire and, instead of getting drawn into what are essentially politically-motivated words games ('I see no patterns'), pro-racers could simply yet in solidarity, keep repeating that one line about New Hampshire?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-56856474804276006682014-05-07T23:21:39.837-07:002014-05-07T23:21:39.837-07:00What I was getting at is that Steve is absolutely ...What I was getting at is that Steve is absolutely correct. Race is NOT your skin color. It is your extended family group. Your skin color is determined by where your extended family group has lived (latitude-wise in the world) for the last hundred thousand years or so (in very round numbers).<br /><br />Kurt (I'm only anonymous because I don't have a google account, or openID, or want to publish my email address since I get too much junk email as it is now.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-27687104314676103602014-05-07T21:24:10.287-07:002014-05-07T21:24:10.287-07:00ALL of this skin color changing takes MANY hundred...<i>ALL of this skin color changing takes MANY hundreds of generations, but it simply works by natural selection and random mutations.</i><br /><br />And of course it's not just skin color changing, it's lots of things.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-61425751911271712702014-05-07T20:55:29.941-07:002014-05-07T20:55:29.941-07:00Everybody's ancestor was black if you go back ...Everybody's ancestor was black if you go back far enough because mankind EVOLVED in Africa from some clever chimpanzee strain. And if our skin had been white, the sunlight would make too much vitamin D in our skin and that is toxic. So MANKIND evolved with a dark skin.<br /><br />What turned some of us white is that our ancestors migrated out of Africa into northern latitudes and ran smack into an ice age. And then the skin needed to be lighter so the weaker sunlight of northern latitudes would make enough vitamin D, because too little is just as bad as too much.<br /><br />If we whites NOW moved back to tropical Africa and lived a 'native life' i.e. no clothes on and living outside all the time, eventually our progeny's skin would turn black again.<br /><br />ALL of this skin color changing takes MANY hundreds of generations, but it simply works by natural selection and random mutations.<br /><br />KurtAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-11496508625439246422014-05-07T20:39:44.999-07:002014-05-07T20:39:44.999-07:00My question is where did Steve find someone to ask...My question is where did Steve find someone to ask intelligent questions and listen to the answers without getting all hot under the collar about it and calling him names????<br /><br />Such people are very rare in the United States!!!<br /><br />KurtAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-12426095856895320872014-05-07T20:35:25.738-07:002014-05-07T20:35:25.738-07:00"1) Do you believe in segregating races?"...<i>"1) Do you believe in segregating races?"</i><br /><br />I have questions for you. Walk around any college campus in California, most especially the UCs, and you will probably find groups like <a href="http://www.nationalmecha.org/about.html" rel="nofollow">MECHa</a>, a hispanic student organization (<i>"for the liberation of our people"</i>). Often these groups do commendable things like sponsor study groups for students who need remedial help. Take a look inside the lab space or classroom in which they met and they will, in fact, be all hispanic. Not that they necessarily have anything against anybody else. <br /><br />Here's a link to <a href="http://mecha.stanford.edu/blog/" rel="nofollow">MECHa at Stanford</a>. Here's another group, the <a href="http://national.shpe.org/" rel="nofollow">Society of Hispanic Engineers</a>. The whole point of these organizations is to enable self segregation of people of a particular group (a group that in California is very near equivalent to race).<br /><br />So what's your definition of segregation? Is this segregation? Or does segregation only happen when white people do something like have the Society for White Engineers? If non-whites do it, is it all okay, even all good, even worthy of state support (the <a href="http://www2.ucsc.edu/raza/orgs.shtml" rel="nofollow">Chicano Latino Resource Center</a> doesn't fund itself)?<br /><br />Are you pro--non-white voluntary self segregation, like MECHa and the Society of Hispanic Engineers?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-58235682685593456702014-05-07T19:14:32.198-07:002014-05-07T19:14:32.198-07:00"Despite the obvious sub-Saharan ancestry of ..."Despite the obvious sub-Saharan ancestry of Sadat, Egyptians were outraged at any suggestion that they are related to blacks. Note also that American black elites love to claim that the ANCIENT Egyptians were "black," but are careful not to insult the modern Egyptians by claiming them."<br /><br />-Showing once again that their views are bass-ackwards from reality. The ancient Egyptians were Caucasians, while the modern Egyptians are the ones hybridized with sub-saharan Africans.<br />Pochinkonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-4392860583370810352014-05-07T10:23:38.692-07:002014-05-07T10:23:38.692-07:00"1) Do you believe in segregating races?
2) ..."1) Do you believe in segregating races?<br /><br />2) When people come to the realisation that races exist, how should that change the way we view other races such as blacks and Asians, even whites?" -<br /><br />1)Why no, instead we support freedom of association, which everyone will promptly use to segregate themselves.<br /><br />2)well for one, all those racial groups exist, whereas before you had to pretend that those distinct and separate groups of whites, blacks, asians, et al were not separate and distinct.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-51849724835218300842014-05-07T04:22:02.539-07:002014-05-07T04:22:02.539-07:00"It seems you are using the 19th century defi..."It seems you are using the 19th century definition of race, which includes shared ethnicity, culture, and geography. For example, Brits and Boers considered themselves separate races in South Africa until about a 100 years ago."<br /><br />I think someone might have been telling you porkies. Or to paraphrase our porcine friend: " Yes, all separate, but some more separate than others."<br /><br />Gilbert PAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-44688715288894474862014-05-07T02:42:52.379-07:002014-05-07T02:42:52.379-07:00"Aren't Indians sometimes referred to as ..."Aren't Indians sometimes referred to as Aryans?"<br /><br />Nobody today calls Indians "Aryans". The Aryans were a distinct Persian-speaking people who have been extinct for centuries.Bertnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-59418761300636153122014-05-07T01:41:58.248-07:002014-05-07T01:41:58.248-07:00It seems you are using the 19th century definition...It seems you are using the 19th century definition of race, which includes shared ethnicity, culture, and geography. For example, Brits and Boers considered themselves separate races in South Africa until about a 100 years ago.<br /><br />My understanding of the race-as-a-social-concept issue was that people resisted the associations of complex behaviors with broad racial categories (in other words, stereotypes). Like intelligence, trustworthiness, honesty, work culture, thrift, etc. I think the jury is still out on that one, notwithstanding Wade's book, because these characteristics are so dependent on the surrounding environment and the people who inhabit that environment that it would be very hard to separate the variables. I don't think anyone (even the most left-wing person) denies that racial groupings exist based on common descent and endogamy over multiple generations.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-44722493635080602012014-05-06T22:46:40.506-07:002014-05-06T22:46:40.506-07:00Where are you getting your definition of ethnic gr...Where are you getting your definition of ethnic group? I'd always understood it to include shared ancestry as well as the non-genetic traits you list. "Race" is a less precise (and I'd say less meaningful) and purely biological concept and usually only distinguishes between white, blacks, Asians. For example, Irish and Swedish would both be of the white/Caucasoid/etc race but of Irish and Swedish ethnic groups. Your example of an adopted Armenian as being of Icelandic ethnicity isn't the common usage of the term, at least not as I've seen the term defined anywhere or how it is used in the census.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-51228347049840640652014-05-06T22:38:33.682-07:002014-05-06T22:38:33.682-07:00The terms "black" and "white" ...The terms "black" and "white" are used in the US as ethnic terms, not racial ones. Black=descendants of slaves, mixture of West African and white southerner. White=Old Stock white, northern European Protestant. Quaint terms from before the US became a multiethnic, culturally sterile cesspool. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-15434961508102276262014-05-06T21:53:58.464-07:002014-05-06T21:53:58.464-07:00"When people come to the realisation that rac...<i>"When people come to the realisation that races exist...."</i><br /><br />Seems to me that everyone, perhaps with the exception of a few Nice Old White Ladies of both sexes, is already completely aware that races exist; that it's all about the getting while getting is good; and about solemnly and piously intoning the proscribed religious mantras (make that "lies").Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-47387286333271157272014-05-06T21:20:34.558-07:002014-05-06T21:20:34.558-07:00This FAQ is so incredibly helpful. Most Americans ...This FAQ is so incredibly helpful. Most Americans today do not understand these basic ideas about race. It's like we have these politically correct blinders on. I don't get it.Fred Mokhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02106747406381079106noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-82849623116482478012014-05-06T20:30:53.076-07:002014-05-06T20:30:53.076-07:00@anon 5:39
1) there is no reason to segregate by ...@anon 5:39<br /><br />1) there is no reason to segregate by fiat when races, per my brother steve's definition, segregate themselves on the basis of shared culture. all of the fiat race laws haven't changed this. see chicago for data.<br /><br />2)the logical thing would be to immediately cease government subsidies with racial determination.Jingo Starrnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-37857804776578730142014-05-06T20:26:20.859-07:002014-05-06T20:26:20.859-07:00"""""The narrow american/..."""""The narrow american/new world concept of black = subsaharan african only, cannot survive for much longer.""""""""<br /><br /><br />Way way way way wait. Hold it a second. Sub Saharan Africa = Negroid as opposed to Caucausoid or Australiasoid or Asian (or US Indian, for that matter), so where exactly should these darker skinned folks be placed?<br /><br />Aren't Indians sometimes referred to as Aryans? As in, Aryan? And Aryans are not biologically racially related to Subsaharan Africa.<br /><br />Aborigines are part of Australiasoid, which is in fact a distinctive race of its own and not a part of SubSaharan Africa.<br /><br />West/Central Asia = part of Asian race.<br /><br />There are of course differing degrees within each race, there are more to whites than just the Albinos.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-46148902474799324252014-05-06T20:13:14.756-07:002014-05-06T20:13:14.756-07:00"Singh is at least as dark as the average Afr..."Singh is at least as dark as the average African-American. Yet, nobody in America ever thinks of Singh as black or African-American"<br /><br />The narrow american/new world concept of black = subsaharan african only, cannot survive for much longer. In Malaysia the indian tamils are correctly called blacks. In Australia the aborigines are called the same. And so on. India's neighbours in west and central asia historically called its inhabitants black. Within India itself south indians, tribals etc are called black by their fellow hindus who themselves would be seen as black if they traveled to say east asia.<br /><br />Btw, your faq on race is very lucid and informative....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-48228754954298345392014-05-06T19:25:14.294-07:002014-05-06T19:25:14.294-07:00This reminds me of the science fiction movie The ...This reminds me of the science fiction movie The Lathe of Heaven, a PBS movie from about 1980. In the movie the protagonist has a fantasy that comes true - that all humans are of the same race and ethnicity. A strong bit of Utopian fantasy thinking by liberals.<br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lathe_of_Heaven_%28film%29" rel="nofollow">The Lathe of Heaven</a> Tenfort Williamsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-88950474671448154052014-05-06T18:19:01.274-07:002014-05-06T18:19:01.274-07:00I once lived in a town that was foolish enough to ...I once lived in a town that was foolish enough to offer refuge to scummy Cubans from the Mariel Boatlift. The Cubans got into regular fights with the native African American underclass. However, the local media always used to word "black" to refer to Americans alone. Cubans were never "black," no matter how purely sub-Saharan African they looked.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-86969593128079334962014-05-06T18:10:23.789-07:002014-05-06T18:10:23.789-07:00You had me at "Random House Webster's Col...You had me at "Random House Webster's College Dictionary"-- the best college dictionary in America, and currently, it seems, lapsed from print. The "Random House Webster's Unabridged" is still available, a gorgeous and erudite blockbuster.<br /><br />The underpowered and comparatively pedestrian "New Oxford American Dictionary" (which boasts photos of such luminaries as Kofi Annan and Betty Friedan, and a longer biographical notice on Hubert Humphrey than Gottfried Wilhelm Von Leibniz) includes two sententious blocks of added text, set off in gray, around the entry for "race":<br /><br />[I]"Although ideas of race are centuries old, it was not until the 19th century that attempts to systematize racial divisions were made. Ideas of supposed racial superiority and social Darwinism reached their culmination in Nazi ideology of the 1930s and gave pseudoscientific justification to policies and attitudes of discrimination, exploitation, slavery, and extermination. Theories of race asserting a link between racial type and intelligence are now discredited. Scientifically it is accepted as obvious that there are subdivisions of the human species, but it is also clear that genetic variation between individuals of the same race can be as great as that between members of different races."<br /><br />--I'll spare the second block. Granted, Random House accrued its jots of PC here and there; but unlike the Oxford dictionary, which includes entries for "bootylicious" and the ludicrous-- dare I say, RACISS-- whitewashed Black English term "babymother" (da wordz BABYMOMMA, cracka muthaf**kas!), Random House Webster's College Dictionary includes definitions both for "bump" and "grind", each in their respective denotations for the act known as a "bump n' grind". All Oxford can tell you is that the verb "grind" can include:<br /><br />"3 [no obj.] informal (of a dancer) rotate the hips: *go-go girls grinding to blaring disco.*"<br /><br />--I guess I could've got off to that when I was twelve, but as a grown-up I demand a lot more from an unabridged dictionary.Lucius Somesuchhttp://luciussomesuch.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-51904105752674941482014-05-06T18:05:17.889-07:002014-05-06T18:05:17.889-07:00"""""""A. Yes. ..."""""""A. Yes. It’s mathematically certain. There just weren’t enough unique individuals alive.""""""""<br /><br /><br />Are there enough unique individuals in this day and age?<br /><br />Really?<br /><br />Seriously?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-15872481254279333662014-05-06T17:39:43.311-07:002014-05-06T17:39:43.311-07:00Few questions for Steve:
1) Do you believe in seg...Few questions for Steve:<br /><br />1) Do you believe in segregating races?<br /><br />2) When people come to the realisation that races exist, how should that change the way we view other races such as blacks and Asians, even whites?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com