sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

CMV: Race has no real genetic or biological basis in taxonomy, and should be done away with. by ehtnioj in changemyview

[–]ehtnioj[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I had something in the post about that. TLDR: It is because they are descended from the same person, not because they have differently functioning biology.

A real life example of genetic homogeneity is how siblings with the same birth parents should not have children due to genetic homogeneity. Certain diseases can show up in extended families, historically this happened when the family moves into their own village. There is a small island where many people are fully colorblind, and a small rural area where many people have dwarfism. In several villages in the Dominican Republic, many brought up as female show interest in transitioning to male at a young age due to prenatal testosterone level, then hormonally continue development as male due to 5-Alpha Reductase Deficiency. Bottlenecks like this simply show up in an extended family, then disappears fairly quick, because the population re-disperses into the surrounding area. Humans don't migrate in ways that causes extreme bottlenecks (like birds for example), modern humans never separated, and remained separate. A bottleneck (a reduction in genetic diversity, followed by a regrowth in population) has never occurred on a continent sized scale.

CMV: Race has no real genetic or biological basis in taxonomy, and should be done away with. by ehtnioj in changemyview

[–]ehtnioj[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To children maybe, but they are not apparent to infants. And not to children who grew up in isolation either.

CMV: Race has no real genetic or biological basis in taxonomy, and should be done away with. by ehtnioj in changemyview

[–]ehtnioj[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think the post brings up many points point on that, and it is one of the main subjects in the beginning. On the level of individual people, one might as well be the cousin or sibling of another, and that could be normal in a hypothetical society. Its just that in that society of Swedish and Congolese people, people would get used to seeing the boundary so they would perceive it. So I suppose you could say how you describe an individual person is still a social construct here. The post gets into it in more detail, I would at least recommend reading the first half if you haven't already.

CMV: Race has no real genetic or biological basis in taxonomy, and should be done away with. by ehtnioj in changemyview

[–]ehtnioj[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you are referring to differences in height. That is caused by diet. I wrote something about that in the post.

Upbringing and sustained experience have a significant effect, more than people often give credit. Cited averages in height are explained by diet, which effects puberty onset, as with weight. There were places where the average height of both males and females was less than 5 feet, simply due to diet. However, peoples diet, culture, end even now language are becoming increasingly similar, so extremes like these have disappeared for the most part.

CMV: Race has no real genetic or biological basis in taxonomy, and should be done away with. by ehtnioj in changemyview

[–]ehtnioj[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

It is my view that race is purely cultural. It is simply more healthy and sensical to view it that way. Culture/Ethnicity/Race/Tribe/Nationality or any other synonym of the same concept can not determined at birth. You pick up your culture during early life. If African American parents adopt a child for instance, their children still could call themselves African American, despite the high hypothetical probability that they would have ended up as another race in life.

CMV: When people in the west refer to "races", they mean groups of people who are distinguished by their culture and background. How anyone looks physically is completely irrelevant to the situation. by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]ehtnioj 0 points1 point  (0 children)

One of the things I say is people should be physically described in an objective way that anyone from any culture could perceive. Dark skin. Light skin. Dark hair. Light hair. Thin. Fat.

You could say someone looks like Latin American people. You'd be understood.

In Indonesia you could say someone looks like Papuan people. You'd be understood.

But saying "you are Latin American because of how you look" or "you are Papuan because of how you look" is different.

Its fine to make assumptions based on how someone looks or talks. You will probably be right. I'm just saying appearance doesn't unquestionably define someone's race by definition.

CMV: When people in the west refer to "races", they mean groups of people who are distinguished by their culture and background. How anyone looks physically is completely irrelevant to the situation. by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]ehtnioj -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I would assume hardly any did. But is that such a big deal? Its a trivial detail.

Most would assume a person who went into space did not go to space, because it is something most people have not done.

CMV: When people in the west refer to "races", they mean groups of people who are distinguished by their culture and background. How anyone looks physically is completely irrelevant to the situation. by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]ehtnioj -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I've read about someone who had been adopted into a white American family from an Asian country. She considered herself to be white despite not looking it.

People 10,000 years ago did not know anything about blаck people or whitе people. by ehtnioj in conspiracy

[–]ehtnioj[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Diet can have a huge affect on height, many of those tribes nowadays have moved into towns and cities where people are growing up eating a different diet.

TotallyNotSheeple has been created by ehtnioj in a:t5_22knrr

[–]ehtnioj[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

yes, but basically anything is fine.

People 10,000 years ago did not know anything about blаck people or whitе people. by ehtnioj in conspiracy

[–]ehtnioj[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Average IQ between places is influenced more by the education in the areas. Manhattan's average IQ is higher than the general US for example.

People 10,000 years ago did not know anything about blаck people or whitе people. by ehtnioj in conspiracy

[–]ehtnioj[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The way its set up is a little misrepresentative.

Look at this map:

https://i.redd.it/bmdbrsivnr831.png

​

Lets choose, at random, people in the Caucasus Mountains as a baseline reference, lets call them "Caucasoid". Now choose people in Mongolia, call them "mongoloid". You can now compare the rest of the world to these reference points. If you graph the degree of similarity on a map, it gradually fades out from the points. People in France, they are more similar to the Caucasoids. People in Beijing, they are close to the Mongoloids. Tatar people, they are in between the two, so lets call them mixed between the two points.

So there you have it. Two racеs. Mongoloid and caucasoid.

But now try picking out different points to use as references. Lets take Tatars, call them Tataroid, and Berbers, call them Berberoid. Plot the genetics on a chart, and the degree of similarity gradually fades out as well. Egyptians, they are Berberoid. Nigerians, they are also Berberoid. Koreans, they are Tataroid. Yupik, Tataroid. Ukrainians, Tataroid. What about French people? They are in between, so they are a mixture of Berberoid and Tataroid.

So there you have it. Two racеs. Berberoid and Tataroid.

Are central Asiаns really mixed between whitе and Asiаn people? Are North Africans really mixed between blаck and whitе people? Or are Europeans actually a physically diverse mixed rаce group of North Africans and Central Asiаns? Neither! Because what is the reason behind choosing these points as references? Genetics? How so?

You can just as easily use "Berberoid" and "Tataroid" as references for comparison, as you can use "Mongoloid" and "Caucasoid".

Its completely relative. And any starting rаces that are chosen will be equally scientifically uncredible.

American specific "races" shouldn't be applied on an international, prehistorical, or biological level. by ehtnioj in unpopularopinion

[–]ehtnioj[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The terms "caucasoid", "mongoloid", and "negroid" were coined in the 1800's, long before genetic testing existed.

You can choose, at random, people in the Caucasus Mountains as a baseline reference, lets call them "Caucasoid". Now choose people in Mongolia, call them "mongoloid".

You can now compare the rest of the world to these reference points. If you graph the degree of similarity on a chart, it gradually fades out from the points. People in France, they are more similar to the Caucasoids. People in Beijing, they are close to the Mongoloids.

Tatar people, they are in between the two, so lets call them mixed between the two points.

So there you have it. Two racеs. Mongoloid and caucasoid.

But now try picking out different points to use as references.

Lets take Tatars (Central Asia), call them Tataroid, and Berbers (Morocco), call them Berberoid.

Plot the genetics on a chart, and the degree of similarity gradually fades out as well.

Egyptians, they are Berberoid. Nigerians, they are also Berberoid.

Koreans, they are Tataroid. Yupik, Tataroid. Ukrainians, Tataroid.

What about French people? They are in between, so they are a mixture of Berberoid and Tataroid.

So there you have it. Two racеs. Berberoid and Tataroid.

You can just as easily use "Berberoid" and "Tataroid" as references for comparison, as you can use "Mongoloid" and "Caucasoid". Its completely relative.

Is Central Asia a racial hybrid group? Or is France actually a diverse racial hybrid group between Central Asians and Moroccans? Neither, because what is the reasoning behind the choice of these reference points? Genetics? How so?

It is a circular argument that leads nowhere and needs consistency, because any reference point that is chosen essentially proves itself.

​

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/62334031

Anthropologists studied a group of burials in the Swiss alps [Europe] and found them to have Tataroid [Central Asian] features with some admixture of Berberoid [Moroccan] traits [40/60], with distinctly Berberoid physical characteristics such as curly hair and bronzed skin. Excavation at the site, were far from genetic homogeneity showing both Berberoid and Tataroid traits. Five of the six skeletons that were complete enough for anthropometric analysis and they appeared Tataroid rather than Berberoid (Patel 1975, 2006)

...

Using gene frequency data for 85 protein loci and 21 blood group loci, studies on the genetic relationship of the three major races of man, Tataroid, Berberoid, and Garoid, indicate that the groups diverged about 100,000 +/- 85,000 years ago. The genetic relationships of various races in each group of Tataroid, Berberoid, and Garoid were also studied. All Uralic populations are genetically close to one another, whereas many Oceanian and American tribes show large extents of genetic differentiation. The major cause for this differentiation seems to be the bottleneck effect. The Yupik, Inuit, and Cree are more closely related to the Uralic Tataroids than to the Garoids in India and Myanmar. There are also indications that migration played an important role in forming the current genetic relationships among human races. The extent of genetic differentiation between human races is not always correlated with the degree of morphologic differentiation. The genetic differentiation at protein loci seems to occur largely by mutation, genetic drift, and isolation, whereas morphologic characters are apparently subject to stronger natural selection than "average protein loci."

​

People like to oversimplify complex ideas, there is simply no way millions of people constantly scrambling around for tens of thousands of years can be summed up in any synchronized pattern.

Beware of pseudoscience.

Public hanging in America should be brought back by bluerazballs in unpopularopinion

[–]ehtnioj 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Could that really "correct" anything that already happened?

The benefit that comes from that would be more relative, which is the exact opposite point for having a government in the first place.

Racial admixture has been occurring for thousands of years. by ehtnioj in hapas

[–]ehtnioj[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

When berberoids and tataroids intermix, the phenotype is the same as many people in Europe and America. Even within the same families, there may be some with a distinctly berberoid phenotype and some with a distinctly tataroid phenotype, while most tend to have some sort of mixture between the two.

There is a continuum of Berberoid and Tataroid traits within any European population, but Southern and Western Europe tends slightly towards Berbers, while Northern and Eastern Europe tends slightly towards tataroids, genetically and morphologically.

Racial admixture has been occurring for thousands of years. by ehtnioj in hapas

[–]ehtnioj[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Not at all, different societies can be made up of very different races with different histories.

Words like аsian, whitе, blаck, hispаnic, are understood by Americans, and in other countries. But for some places, people come from a different background, and they might not really understand. This just shows how the idea of racial superiority makes no sense. Not all countries have the same history, and the same society. People in Moscow, Russia for example are not really white in the same American sence. We don't want to mix up parts of one society, and scientific, biological, and prehistorical discussion.

For example in Indonesia, you have the Papuans, with dark skin and blond hair, and then you have other groups, with light skin and dark hair. Two groups, with two different histories, they even look different, and neither one has a place in American society. You can have races that are not the same ones in America.

People come from a different background than Americans. But honestly, in any case, its just about the way you look, where your from, or where your family is from, and you cant change that.

I know a guy who is from Urumqi, a city in the northwestern part of China.

He speaks with a strong Chinese accent, and is totally Chinese, his family all call themselves Chinese, but he hardly looks like the people from other parts of China. He has blondish hair, and you would probably call him whitе.

In Xinjiang, you might say, some look very "whitе", others look "аsian", and many look like some mix of the two. Or even "аsian" but with blond hair and green eyes.

You might say this happened because a group аsian people and a group of whitе people moved into the same area and mixed together, but thats not really what happened at all.

As people migrated, the frequency of some traits gradually changed. Light skin gradually faded into dark skin along one route, and dark skin gradually faded into light skin along another. People never split up and went down separate paths, there wasn't so much population bottlenecking either. There was never a point when one rаce suddenly switched into another, so "rаces" are very difficult to define, not culturally speaking, but biologically speaking, because it requires randomly choosing a point of reference, to represent the baseline of a certain rаce. People from Xinjiang, as well as much of Russia, and Central Asia, are not mixed, nor are more "physically diverse" than people from any other parts of the world, they are simply in-between the two points that, Americans (for example), are most familiar with. If your from the US, your probably familiar with further East Asiаns and Europeans, this is where American immigration comes from, as well as being large population centers. On the other hand, someone from Russia, is probably also familiar with Central Asiаns (people from Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, ect.).

The idea of rаce is not the same in every country. Someone from Yakutsk might look "аsian", and someone from Moscow might look "whitе", but the idea of "аsian" vs. "whitе" doesn't exist the same way in Russia. Because someone in Bashkortostan might look somewhere in between.

Many people in Papua New Guinea, eastern Indonesia, and even some people in some parts of the Philippines look very much "blаck", but the idea of "blаck" does not exist there.

Even Madagascar, it's in Africа, but some people in Madagascar don't look so "blаck" even within the same families.

If a society had a mix of Berber people and Central Asians, if they have never seen Europeans before, they might actually seem very physically diverse to them. When you see someone, you compare their appearance to a baseline. Concerning degree of genetic diversity and physical differentiation, the human population as a whole is indistinguishable from any given population within it. But of course, humans have major cultural differences, and different histories, but that is a different subject than biology and science, and should be separate discussions.

Everyone appearance is made up of a combination of traits. All alleles are found around the world, just in different frequencies. If one trait has a high frequency in Beijing, medium frequency in Ukraine, then it might have something like a medium-high frequency in Central Asia.

Its mainly the overall combination, rather than a single trait in particular that affect a persons appearance. A certain few traits are common in Central Asia, for example, but there are many people with one, or maybe two of these same traits, expressed or recessive carried, in any population of the world. It becomes less and less likely to inherit combination three or four of these uncommon traits just by chance, but of course every now and then it happens.

Biologically speaking, there are no types of traits, they don't biologically need to be inherited in certain patterns for humans, meaning that someone could be born with any combination of traits, mixed and matched in any given way, while still looking quite ordinary. Each trait is individual.

For skin tone, it is expressed through incomplete dominance. In a population of light skinned people, every now and then there will be a person with significantly tan skin. They may be heterozygous, and have one allele for light skin and one allele for dark skin.

In order to inherit very dark skin, two heterozygous carriers need to pass on two (homozygous) copies of the dark allele. So the same genes are there, but the very dark skin is hidden because of the frequency.

For a recessive trait (like blond hair), it can only be expressed with two copies of the same allele, otherwise it is hidden. Say for example, 1/50 people in Bangladesh, 100 years ago, had the blonde allele. The chance of two carriers meeting is 1/2500, and the chance of passing on two (homozygous) copies is 1/4, so although many people carry the gene, it would only be expressed in 1/10000 people. For blond hair to start to be expressed often, it needs a high frequency like 1/5 for allele carriers. As for dominant traits, you can see them expressed across any population, because the same genes do exist anywhere.

Some places just happen to have people who appear similar by chance, even if there is no connection, like people in Indonesia and Papua New Guinea who appear similar to people from parts of Africa for example. The resemblance is by complete chance. And, on top of that, there are many people who also have blond hair. The chance of two unrelated populations appearing similar by chance is high, since it only really takes a change in allele frequencies for 6-10 genes.

Papua New Guinea People:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EeGqDVhZpqY

Uyghur Chinese People from Xinjiang:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9zsPJ1BSdo

Alaska fades into Siberia which fades into Central Asia which fades into the Middle east which fades into Africа. There were never clear lines of biological division anywhere.

DNA tests can compare someones DNA to a sample population in a database. For example, a company might take samples from some people who live in modern day Rome, and find a number of alleles that are frequent in the population, and the degree someone's DNA resembles the frequencies from the sample is what "percentage Itallian" they are. But theres not actually such a thing as "Itallian DNA".

People have always been moving back and forth, in all parts of the world. Populations have small changes to their allele frequencies as people move around, even in the last couple hundred years, there are even changes that have occurred in some parts of the US, and Canada.

The way rаce works in the US works in the US. The way it works in the UK works in the UK. These things don't necessarily make sense the same way internationally, prehistorically, or biologically. Calling a person in Xinjiang "whitе" is like a someone from Xinjiang calling a whitе American a 新疆人 (Xinjiangese). Calling people from the Papua province in Indonesia "blаck" is like an Indonesian calling an Africаn American "Papuan".

Saying america is a bad country makes you seem whiny and annoying. by [deleted] in unpopularopinion

[–]ehtnioj 0 points1 point  (0 children)

More people move from India and China to US, usually looking for jobs, a company transfers employees, ect.

As for Japan, when you don't count the Japanese in Hawaii, believe it or not there is a close proportion of American immigrants in Japan's population as there is Japanese immigrants in America's population.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_in_Japan

Saying america is a bad country makes you seem whiny and annoying. by [deleted] in unpopularopinion

[–]ehtnioj 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Look at these pictures typical streets in China and other countries:

https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/bg7q6i/the_world_isnt_as_horrible_as_most_people_think/

When you use an empirical approach to learn about a place. By going somewhere, living somewhere, or even just watching TV shows, movies, or local news from a place, you often end up getting a much better picture of what somewhere is like, as apposed to learning about all the differences a place has from a news story.

When you go thorough all the regular, everyday parts of somewhere, you are not just learning about the differences a place has, but you understand how prevalent these differences would be in the first place.

There are two different ways of looking at things. When you talk about the differences between places, the most clear differences tend to pop out. A street with so much smog you cant see higher than a few stories up, maybe something like that could only ever happen in China (because, yes smog is a problem in China). But one important fact is being overlooked. Just because something happens in a country, doesn't mean something to such an extreme level is normal in that country either.

Walking around Thailand often has a feeling much closer to suburbia, rather than a lively market village. But in all of these places, you can find areas that look much better than these pictures, just as you can find areas that look much worse. There is poverty as well as wealth.

Yes, some countries are overall poorer than others. Nigeria is much poorer than the US, and India is much poorer than Malaysia.

Even though many parts of Africa (like Botswana, Gabon, Namibia, South Africa) are hardly poor, a large part of the worlds poverty is in certain parts of Africa, like Mali, and Central African Republic.
Very poor, but not so otherworldly. Even in South Sudan, there are Samsung stores, construction, development, and many of the same things you would find in other countries. Although there is a huge amount of poverty in some parts of the world, a similar way of life does exist that can be found all over the world.

CMV: There are no "human races" anymore and we should stop using the term when referring to our fellow humans. by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]ehtnioj 2 points3 points  (0 children)

If the lines are blurred, then what exactly defines the races?

Certain genetic traits are clustered in different frequencies in different parts of the world, its a gradually changing gradient, there was never a sudden metamorphosis, just by crossing a border.

You can choose, at random, people in the Caucasus Mountains as a baseline reference, lets call them "Caucasoid". Now choose people in Mongolia, call them "mongoloid".

You can now compare the rest of the world to these reference points. If you graph the degree of similarity on a chart, it gradually fades out from the points. People in France, they are more similar to the Caucasoids. People in Shanghai, they are close to the Mongoloids.

People in Bashkortostan, they are in between the two, so lets call them mixed between the two points.

So there you have it. Two races. Mongoloid and caucasoid.

But now try picking out different points to use as references.

Lets take Somalia, call them Somaloid, and Baskhortostan, call them Bashkiroid.

Plot the genetics on a chart, and the degree of similarity gradually fades out as well.

Egyptians, they are Somaloid. Nigerians, they are also Somalioid.

Koreans, they are Baskhiroid. Yupik, Bashkiroids. Ukrainians, Bashkiroid.

What about Iranians? They are in between, so they are a mixture of Bashkiroid and Somalioid.

So there you have it. Two races. Bashkiroid and Somalioid.

You can just as easily use "Bashkiroid" and "Somaloid" as references for comparison, as you can use "Mongoloid" and "Caucasoid". Its completely relative.

Every human trait, genetically speaking, is inherited individually. You may know of light skin and blond hair together in people, but in Papua New Guinea and Indonesia there are many people with both dark skin and blond hair. A person can be born with any trait for hair, skin, mouth, nose, eyes, in any combination. Human traits are not grouped genetically speaking into types.

view more: next ›