Science vs white supremacists

Yssup Rider's Avatar
This is interesting in light of recent protracted discussions about Sen. Warren.

Surprised Trump didn’t demand she take the lactose challenge?

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/19/u...-genetics.html

Geneticists Criticize Use of Science by White Nationalists to Justify ‘Racial Purity’
Oct. 19, 2018



An image from a video showing men chugging milk. White nationalists are using genetic research — like the ability to digest lactose in milk as adults — as a sign of racial identity.

In an unusual statement on the role of science in the resurgence of white supremacy in America, the American Society of Human Genetics on Friday denounced “attempts to link genetics and racial supremacy.”

The statement, which appears in the November issue of the group’s scientific journal, The American Journal of Human Genetics, said the concept of “racial purity” was scientifically meaningless. The group has about 8,000 members and is the largest professional organization of scientists who study human genetics.

As newly visible and often-virulent groups of white nationalists have invoked genetic research to claim racial superiority, some geneticists have suggested that the field was not doing enough to counter the claims.

Some white nationalists have used research on the ability to digest lactose in milk as adults as a sign of racial identity. And some white nationalist messaging falsely suggests that the existence of genetic markers in people whose ancestors came from different continents mean there are genetic distinctions in behavioral traits like intelligence.

Though science is not much in evidence when white nationalists take to the streets chanting slogans like “You will not replace us,” scholars of racist ideology say contemporary white racism draws on the trope of “natural” racial hierarchy used to justify the enslavement of African-Americans, the American eugenics movement in the early 20th century and Nazi “racial hygiene” laws.

The topic has been much discussed on the side at the group’s annual meeting this week.

“As human geneticists, we cannot ‘just focus on our research,’” one geneticist, Melissa Wilson Sayres of Arizona State University, said Thursday night on social media. “We cannot pretend that our research isn’t being misused. Doing so is being actively complicit with white supremacy/nationalism.”

The statement by the genetics association came after an article in The New York Times examined how scientists who study human genetic diversity were struggling to respond to the racist misuse of science, even as their tools to discover how human populations vary genetically become more powerful.

In a widely read Op-Ed in The New York Times earlier this year, the Harvard geneticist David Reich wrote that “arguing that no substantial differences among human populations are possible will only invite the racist misuse of genetics that we wish to avoid.”

The genetics group’s statement is a step toward trying to equip the public with the tools to understand the evolutionary processes that give rise to patterns of human genetic diversity, geneticists said. It explains that genetic variation between human populations is linked to patterns of migration and the mixing of populations throughout history. Given how much mixing has occurred, it says, the white supremacist notion of racial purity is “scientifically meaningless.”

It also explains a distinction between race and ancestry that geneticists say has been muddled by the rise of commercial ancestry tests.

“Although a person’s genetics influences their phenotypic characteristics, and self-identified race might be influenced by physical appearance,” the statement said, “race itself is a social construct,” meaning it has no biological basis. “Black,” for instance, is a socially defined term that includes many Americans who have a majority of European ancestry.

The statement encourages human geneticists to begin engaging with the public on questions of race, ancestry and genetics.

“In public dialogue, our research community should be clear about genetic knowledge related to ancestry and genomic diversity,” it says. “There can be no genetics-based support of claiming one group as superior to another.”
Resurgence of white nationalism - ha.

Straw manē.

Articles like this are clickbait to energize the leftists against a non existent problem.

There are likely less than one thousand white supremacists left who aren't in jail, and they are being hunted to extinction. You need them to survive so you can promote your false narrative that the government doesn't favor non-white people.
Yssup Rider's Avatar
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

Figured you’d be the first to weigh in on this.

Hunted to extinction? LOL!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

Figured you’d be the first to weigh in on this.

Hunted to extinction? LOL! Originally Posted by Yssup Rider
I feel it is important to place the matter of the white supremicists in perspective. While a few are left, the greater aim of the left is to ignore their impotence and blow them up into a huge punching bag in order to justify leftist causes and raise money.

Soros doesn't want to pay for everything.

The geneticists, well aware of the history of the misuse of geneticism, get free publicity and get to virtue signal about their work, which insures their funding, and they can continue to feel that they are better than everyone else.
lustylad's Avatar
I don't understand what the geneticists (or at least the author, who may be explaining it poorly) are trying to say.

It makes no sense to say "race... has no biological basis." Surely there are genomes or DNA markers or whatever that determine every person's skin pigmentation, right?
Good grief, a bunch of ass clowns who probably never made it out of Jr High.

They no more representative of the Conservative Republicans than Senator Joe Manchin is of the Democrats.
WTF's Avatar
  • WTF
  • 10-21-2018, 01:02 PM
What is a conserative Republican?

Haven't seen one of those budget hawks in a couple of years!
I don't understand what the geneticists (or at least the author, who may be explaining it poorly) are trying to say.

It makes no sense to say "race... has no biological basis." Surely there are genomes or DNA markers or whatever that determine every person's skin pigmentation, right? Originally Posted by lustylad
Not really, skin pigmentation is an adaptation for your environment. Aboriginal in Australia are actually of Southeastern Asian descent.
lustylad's Avatar
Not really, skin pigmentation is an adaptation for your environment. Aboriginal in Australia are actually of Southeastern Asian descent. Originally Posted by theotherguy1
That adaptation occurs over thousands of years. From one generation to the next, it is DNA that determines a newborn's skin color.
TryWeakly's Avatar
What is a conservative Republican?

Haven't seen one of those budget hawks in a couple of years! Originally Posted by WTF
FTFY



MAGA.... it's worth repeating.
dilbert firestorm's Avatar
Not really, skin pigmentation is an adaptation for your environment. Aboriginal in Australia are actually of Southeastern Asian descent. Originally Posted by theotherguy1

I think its more like from south asia (southern India) than southeastern asia. basically, they're classed as Australoids.
That adaptation occurs over thousands of years. From one generation to the next, it is DNA that determines a newborn's skin color. Originally Posted by lustylad
Alteration of skin pigmentation can be caused by Ultraviolet radiation penetration. Ultraviolet radiation penetration can cause a Genetic Shift/mutation, which is a somatic mutation. This mutation can become a genetic shift in one generation by way of Hereditary mutation. An extreme shift may take numerous generations but not a thousand years which would be around 30 to 50 generations. The body can adapt quickly to prolong environmental conditions. Those that do not adapt would have difficulty surviving.
I think its more like from south asia (southern India) than southeastern asia. basically, they're classed as Australoids. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm
There is evidence of a Land bridge running from Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, and New Guinea to Australia and this could have been part of a migration which started in Africa which means they would have migrated through India. India was connected to Australia prior to the Continental Drift and it would have been on the Southeastern coast at that time.
dilbert firestorm's Avatar
There is evidence of a Land bridge running from Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, and New Guinea to Australia and this could have been part of a migration which started in Africa which means they would have migrated through India. India was connected to Australia prior to the Continental Drift and it would have been on the Southeastern coast at that time. Originally Posted by theotherguy1

some of the migration no doubt came from the land bridge during the Ice age, but other and later migrations by the Polynesians came by sea. some of them made it to the west coast of South America and Easter Island by way of sea.
I B Hankering's Avatar
That adaptation occurs over thousands of years. From one generation to the next, it is DNA that determines a newborn's skin color. Originally Posted by lustylad
It's theorized that the body's need for vitamin D synthesized from the sun is what dictated the genetic drift in the DNA that produces melanin. In tropical and many subtropical climes, the need for clothing was minimal and the exposed skin of the body produced much of the vitamin D it needed from sunshine. There was so much sunlight in those climes that man's skin remained dark to reflect the unneeded sunlight.

As man moved into cooler climes, there was less intense sunlight and they adapted to cooler weather by wearing more clothing. Less intense sunlight and more clothing blocked the sunlight reaching the skin. As time went by, those men whose skin was lighter, a beneficial trait since light skin absorbed a greater amount of the sunlight that was available, were more genetically predisposed to produce the amount of vitamin D the body needed, and they endured better than those who didn't. As the generations went by, it was precisely this group that came to dominate the gene pool; thus, passing along this altered gene to their offspring. And the genetic drift towards white skin continued as long as the populations remained separated.

That said, white skin doesn't make white skinned people genetically superior to black or dark skinned people. It's wrong headed to believe that it does.