Why do we strive for sameness? Why do we not celebrate the differences between the Races?

Carrying on with the Egyptian theme just for a moment ..

Here is an image of the Egyptians crushing there usual enemies, who were Nubians (blacks) and Syrians (Arabs)



So what race were the Egyptians?

It doesn't take much brain-work to work out who they were and the mummies strangely have blond and red hair ... gee I wonder who it could have been?

DNA has apparently proved this now but the Egyptian government didn't want to release the findings, wonder why?

The rich array of objects found in Tutankhamun's tomb speak to the opulence of the Egyptian court and the young king's pampered life. But other items, including numerous throw-sticks (sort of non-returning boomerangs), spears, bows and arrows, and chariots--many inscribed with his name and clearly used--attest his athleticism and youthful energy. Today, new evidence of Tutankhamun's reign has emerged that shows he was much more active than was thought, and may have led military campaigns against the Syrians and Nubians before he died.

www.archaeology.org...

reply to post by AprilSky

Why do we not celebrate the differences between the Races?

It's perfectly fine to celebrate all races and their differences. All except the Caucasian race.

reply to post by AprilSky


Aprilsky, I just want to get a grasp on what it is exactly that you're afraid of? Do you somehow think or believe that Helter Skelter is coming? Do you think or were you taught that white people are being overrun and are going to disappear?

If you celebrate Christmas, you're still free to do so. I don't really understand why you feel the way you do.

reply to post by AprilSky


Hey April Sky,
What country are you from?> Just curious and all, being that this is your thread.

Originally posted by Gorman91In addition, the racial differences are just skin deep....

We are all different, but we are not different in groups. We are different by individual.

We actually know very little about human DNA in general and even less about how it may influence behavior especially when combined with certain outside influences. However, as we do know there are differences in DNA that determine physical traits; skin and hair color, eye color, shape of the nose etc. All those things that were traditionally associated with racial division of the singular species Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

Now if we are expected to readily believe that DNA and certain genetic traits can determine physical characteristics why is it that we are to blindly have the absurd belief that the same DNA that makes us appear different from one another would have zero influence on how we behave? Here are some things that we do know:

Behavioral Genetics

What indications are there that behavior has a biological basis?

Behavior often is species specific. (snip for brevity)

Behaviors often breed true. (snip for brevity)

Behaviors change in response to alterations in biological structures or processes. For example, a brain injury can turn a polite, mild-mannered person into a foul-mouthed, aggressive boor, and we routinely modify the behavioral manifestations of mental illnesses with drugs that alter brain chemistry. More recently, geneticists have created or extinguished specific mouse behaviors—ranging from nurturing of pups to continuous circling in a strain called "twirler"— by inserting or disabling specific genes.

In humans, some behaviors run in families. For example, there is a clear familial aggregation of mental illness.

It is clear to anyone that physical traits are passed from generation to generation and that some in combination cause serious physical impairment and disease. However, why is it so hard to believe that the same could be true for inheriting and passing on genes for predisposition to violent behavior or say promiscuity and avoiding social responsibility, etc.?

Dogs are animals as are humans… not only do two breeds look different they behave different but are we saying that the same DNA that determines physical traits has little effect on their intelligence and predisposition to certain behavior? Dogs are one species but have different breeds – they look sometimes very different but they also exhibit very different behaviors from herding to retrieval. These behaviors are natural not learned.

Are we a different kind of animal so much so the same biological laws don't apply?

Why do we know very little about the subject especially as it relates to biological differences between the different races of humans and their mental and behavioral traits? Because it is not politically correct to investigate the matter from that perspective.

Any scientist, who even hinted at a hypothesis of that kind would be shunned at least, defunded certainly, unemployed and black listed before the ink on his hypothesis and grant proposal was dry. No one will hear it; it is a taboo subject.

We are simply expected to believe – evidence to the contrary, that while physically the differences are glaring and obvious intellect and any behavioral differences are not biological but rather social and influenced solely by outside factors. Personally, I find that to be hogwash and unlikely.

More likely like the source I cited indicates the matter is a complicated one involving many different genes in combination and then those genes in conjunction with certain outside influences make certain breeds in canines and races in humans predisposed to certain self destructive behaviors - like those we see in Sub Saharan African and American inner cities.

Any work into the differences of the intelligence of the different races is met with swift and terrible resistance regardless of the merit and soundness of the study. See the controversy surrounding The Bell Curve.

Why? Primarily because any discussion of race and intelligence or social behavior is too controversial to even discuss let alone generate enough interest to garner objective research and get the real facts. I doubt we ever will know the truth of the matter….

Originally posted by AprilSky
Carrying on with the Egyptian theme just for a moment ..

To answer your previous question of why the Egyptians went to war with the Nubians, it's really rather simple; they were different kingdoms that wanted each others' territory. That Egypt sometimes conquered Nubia and Nubia sometimes conquered egypt doesn't really point to any significant ethnic differences, any more than the constant warfare between France, England, and Germany over the last thousand years does.

So what race were the Egyptians?

Egyptian, to put it simply. Egypt was a major empire, and conducted trade - including extensive human trade - with all corners of the known world, from southwestern Europe to Persia and Western India. And the basic fact is, well, everyone slept with everyone. Basically Egypt ended up with your nightmare scenario; it was a nation of mulatto peoples to varying degrees. Even the Egyptian nobility came from all genetic corners. Which brings us to your next point...

It doesn't take much brain-work to work out who they were and the mummies strangely have blond and red hair ... gee I wonder who it could have been?

Did you know that as dark hair decays, it turns a reddish-brown and becomes very fine? It's something to do with the protiens in hair oxidizing.

Did you know that reddish hair and hazel eyes are frequently seen in places where ethnicity overlap? Central Asia has a lot of redheads with hazel eyes... who otherwise look totally oriental. The Middle East has plenty as well. As do many Latin American countries. The "ginger" look is rather definitively north-European, though.

Did you know that blonde hair is not isolated to caucasians, nor is it indicative of caucasian ancestry? A sizable number of Australian Aborigines are born with and spend their youth towheaded. THis is the case among hte San people of Southern Africa as well. Polynesians sometimes have the same trait, only with reddish tones (strawberry blonde). The hair tends to darken with age, though. it seems "blonde" is a pretty ancient trait for our species, that simply got bottlenecked and as a result became more common in Europe than elsewhere back in the mammoth-hunting days.

DNA has apparently proved this now but the Egyptian government didn't want to release the findings, wonder why?

I'm more curious how you knowwhat the results are if they haven't been released.

The rich array of objects found in Tutankhamun's tomb speak to the opulence of the Egyptian court and the young king's pampered life. But other items, including numerous throw-sticks (sort of non-returning boomerangs), spears, bows and arrows, and chariots--many inscribed with his name and clearly used--attest his athleticism and youthful energy. Today, new evidence of Tutankhamun's reign has emerged that shows he was much more active than was thought, and may have led military campaigns against the Syrians and Nubians before he died.

www.archaeology.org...

He was 15 years old, had a club foot, and died after a rather sickly two-year reign after his father was murdered. I think that the authors of the article are forgetting how much "liberty" Egyptian tomb artists were forced to undertake when depicting the royalty.

reply to post by AprilSky


The fact that whites and Asians have a shred of neanderthal dna, and not even all of them just the ones that interbred, has no relationship to being miles apart.

The rate of mutation in male y chromosomes still quite clearly shows an out of Africa idea.

What do you ave? Shreds of neanderthal dna from a few one night stands 30,000 years ago?

Fact is that the presence of neanderthal dna does not indicate a separate evolution. It could very well indicate a brutal war of genocide and rape against neanderthals.

reply to post by Golf66


Dogs were bred, forcefully evolved, yo certain traits. Humans were not.

In addition, DNA is not the be all and end all. DNA forms proteins, which in turn interacts with entirely separate DNA typologies within mitochondria and elsewhere. The fact that the DNA is different or same does not equate to different or same behavior. It can equate to a great deal, but not entirely.

All humans are born intrinsically the same, other than their ability to resist skin cancer and disease from their specific background. 50,000 years is not enough to allow for changes in behavior. It can change small details. Every gene has a different rate of change and variability. Older genes, like the fact you have legs, change far less often than newer genes, like the fact your hair is red. Newer genes are less adapted to, and thus more likely to evolve. Older genes that have functioned since before humans were humans do not change or change very little. For instance, barrel chested animals have existed since before dinosaurs have. The chances of a mutation in the human population within those traits is incredibly rare Occasionally a human loses 1 or 2 rib bones, which themselves being newer mutations to adjust to the pelvic bone's changes.

Ergo, humans are born the same, aside from a few different traits that affect gender, behavior, etc etc. And of these, humans have evolved to the extent that they can even choose to listen to, or ignore, these tendencies.

Thus the honest truth is, we are all the same, but develop differently and become different people.

reply to post by AprilSky


You show me a picture of clearly tan people slaughtering blacks and expect me to believe they were white because they have red and blond genes in their mummies.

You're own proof doesn't even prove that.

Did you know some greeks have red hair, but still very dark skin? It's because of their encounters with rape and pillage from vikings.

Everyone knows every civilization around the Mediterranean were mongrels. And I am a proud mongrel from that race. Even I myself have quite dark skin in the summer, and white skin in the winter, and have a few here and there red hairs along my black and brown ones.

reply to post by Golf66


Well, thereare some problems with your comparison to dogs.

Dogs have been specifically selected for the traits they show. Someone, somewhere, wanted pointers to point, and bread to emphasize that characteristic. That person, and others who made pointers point, kept the pointing dogs and culled the others. Similarly pit dogs were bred for animal-aggressiveness and human-docility and strong forequarters. Lap dogs were bread to be tiny and generally useless. In most cases it took very focused breeding for singular traits for them to become common; this included killing the animals that did not show the traits, and extensive inbreeding to "fix" those traits.

Nobody has actually done the same with regards to humans. It's, in theory, possible to specifically breed humans for certain traits just like any other animal; there's no reason it wouldn't work, really. If you wanted to create a breed of human with a full-body woolly pelt, or one who jumps up and down when he sees something he wants to eat, there's no reason that it couldn't be done. However doing so would take direct effort. You'd have to find the particular trait you're looking for, and then isolate it reproductively; you'd have to breed this person back to their own relatives, most likely, and prevent those who did not show the trait from reproducing.

it takes many generations to get these results in our varieties of livestock - most of which are fertile when they're around 3 years old. Humans are not sexually mature until they're about 16, so our generations needed for this effort would be vastly longer. We're looking at a line of work that could take over a thousand years of intensive breeding just to "fix" a simple trait like hair color and texture.

Of course, humans have never been subject to this (silly alien-influence claims notwithstanding). Rather than having a breeder specifically choosing for specific evidenced traits, we've been subject to natural selection; which takes a far longer time and tends to only favor those traits which are useful for a particular environment. We're also subject to sexual selection, where individual humans pass on their genes with partners they find appealing in one way or another; of course, individual tastes vary greatly (though this is why our females have prominent breasts, and or males have the largest penises of any primate... and why chimpanzees have gigantic vulvas / scrotums... and why neither species finds the sexual characteristics of the other appealing)

Further compounding the issue is the fact that humans are a highly adaptable generalist species; Basically put, there are very few environments or niches that we can't thrive in; the highest mountains, worst deserts, and furthest oceans are pretty daunting, but the Kalahari, Tibet, and Polynesia all prove they're not too challenging. In practical terms, this means that if a human wishes to travel, there's really very little that can stand in his way; he does not depend on a single environment, food source, or season to exist. Our only limits for expansion and travel are our relatively fragile bodies; a weakness shared by the rest of the animal kingdom, which, ultimately, makes us champion migrators.

Humans from Area A often moved to Area B. Sometimes people from Area C would move to Area B as well, marry the locals, and their kids would wander off to Area Q, or wherever. essentially the global human population is a large cauldron at a slow boil; people are constantly moving around, meeting, mating, moving again, meeting more, mating more. The only reason we have even the illusion of distinct races is that the world is a VERY big place and people can only walk so far in their lifetimes.

Now, take this rampant interbreeding, and apply it to your initial examples; dogs. If you put a couple hundred different pure-bred dogs in a preserve for a hundred years, say at a male-female ratio of 1:3... Are they going to segregate, with pointers only mating other pointers, dalmatians only doing dalmations, and english bulldogs going extinct becuase htye can't actually mate with one another? Hell no, those animals are going to make puppies with each other no matter what. Humans are the same way. And what happens when you brreed a pointer/collie mix to a pekingese / great dane mix? You get a dog. A completely functional dog. It doesn't point or herd, but it can probably breathe and doesn't have heart problems, either.

it's the lemming principle. that and people fear anything that's different from themselves.

Oh god not another caveman/we came from apes thread or whatever they are called....EVOLUTION DOES NOT EXIST IN THE HUMAN REALM

except for non humans of course

reply to post by Evanzsayz


Evolution definable exists in humans. But we stopped evolving cause we maxed out our niche... if we even have one anymore.

I'm fully in agreement with the wole celebrate differences thing, why would someone want to be exactly the same as the next? not just race, but as individuals, diversity's a good thing, uniformity is not



you did lose me on seperate species though, seperate species can't really interbreed with each other too well, the occasions it does happen, the offspring are usually sterile, while humans have multiracial offspring all the time

Originally posted by spinalremain
reply to post by AprilSky

 

Aprilsky, I just want to get a grasp on what it is exactly that you're afraid of? Do you somehow think or believe that Helter Skelter is coming? Do you think or were you taught that white people are being overrun and are going to disappear?

If you celebrate Christmas, you're still free to do so. I don't really understand why you feel the way you do.

In simple language I am very worried our race is about to deleted from the planet (all of our lands have been invaded we are being swamped) and with our decline will go everything we value, as in human rights and being kind to each other etc etc

I see the Muslim invasion as a very dangerous thing ... them and the Chinese for example have appalling human rights anyway I have been going on and on about what I am scared of, just read this thread, it is full of it.

Very soon I think war will break out and we will be lucky if we manage to win it because we have allowed so many in and then if we lose, we will become slaves and sex slaves and on and on, actually these things are happening already ... read this thread and you will see.

Originally posted by Golf66

*snip*

Why do we know very little about the subject especially as it relates to biological differences between the different races of humans and their mental and behavioral traits? Because it is not politically correct to investigate the matter from that perspective.

Any scientist, who even hinted at a hypothesis of that kind would be shunned at least, defunded certainly, unemployed and black listed before the ink on his hypothesis and grant proposal was dry. No one will hear it; it is a taboo subject.

We are simply expected to believe – evidence to the contrary, that while physically the differences are glaring and obvious intellect and any behavioral differences are not biological but rather social and influenced solely by outside factors. Personally, I find that to be hogwash and unlikely.

*snip*

Again a wonderful post.

I have found articles were scientists have published and proven a violence gene exists and of course one can guess who is least likely to have it or to have only the most mild version of it.

But for fear that this site is far too PC for that sort of revelation, just believe me when I tell you this info is out there ...

Check out who is filling our prisons, what are they in for, it makes very interesting reading.

There are also other differences, it might surprise some here to know that some males on this planet have testosterone levels at 30% higher than other males.

This is a racial difference by the way.

As you might guess this leads to certain types of behaviors and much higher levels of aggression.

We are most definitely NOT all the SAME.

Originally posted by ozmaoz47
it's the lemming principle. that and people fear anything that's different from themselves.

Sometimes what is different to us,

deserves respect and sometimes,

there really IS something to fear.

reply to post by AprilSky


Yes but we also celebrate males with high testosterone levels viz Films, sport etc. The problem is one of tolerance versus supremacy. If said males and their acolytes preach a doctrine of testosterone supremacy then there will be social problems. The same has happened to race>