\doc\web\97\04\asgene.txt Discussion from usenet on genetic similarity. I don't take a position on this stuff, make what you want of it. Article 12 of 16 Subject: Re: Asian Manhood V. white monkeyhood From: U Thant Date: 1997/05/27 Message-Id: <338B92CC.7261@cryo.com> Newsgroups: alt.flame.niggers,soc.culture.asian.american,soc.couples.intercultural,alt.flame.whites,soc.culture.african.american [More Headers] triordan@acsu.buffalo.edu wrote: > > > triordan@acsu.buffalo.edu wrote: > > >in other words the struggle yields the rewards > > > > There is no objective realit for humans...we understand a small section of > > the infinite. > > but do we know more now than 1000 years ago?? > Agree. If science is not 100% objective, it will not severely impair its power or usefulness. When C implies the idea of humans someday altering their physical characteristics is a "myth," it is reminiscent of those who once said humans would never reach the moon. > > > > > short, calves like a caucasion... > > > > > > > IS that the best you can do? fuckin calves? > > > > > > hair texture, > > C, give this up. In every major study, Europeans and Asians are more genetically related to each other than to Africans. Africans are the "odd man out." I will cite two: M. Nei, A.K. Roychoudhury Evolutionary Relationships of Human Populations on a Global Scale Molecular Biology and Evolution 10, 927-943 (1993) L. Cavalli-Sforza History and Geography of Human Genes (1994) > > Fijian hair is quite curly even kinky. Actually, it appears that Fijians and Africans are two of the most unrelated populations on the planet. In terms of genetic affinity to West Africans, Melanesian (native Fijians) rank #40 out of 41 major population groups (Cavalli-Sforza, Table 2.3.1B). Only the Eskimos are more genetically unrelated to W. Africans. > and a hell of a lot straiter than black hair > > > > musce structure of the lower body, > > > > Asian have a low fat body like Africans...Europeans are very fatty. > In America, the obesity rate is higher for those of African ancestry than European. Asian is least. U Paul Kekai Manansala wrote: > > In article <33939876.76C@cryo.com>, > U Thant wrote: > >> In article <33903573.4372@cryo.com>, > >> U Thant wrote: > >> >Paul Kekai Manansala wrote: > >> >> > >> >> In article <338EA4D2.1259@cryo.com>, > >> >> U Thant wrote: > >> > > >> >> >The avg. degree of prognathism in Asian groups is intermediate between > >> >> >the European and African average. > > >> Again you are taking basically one characterisitic, the shape, as opposed > >> to three characteristics, the thickness, hardness and color. > >> > > > >Thickness? As I said before, "woolly hair" is not thick. It is flat, > >like a ribbon. > > Again you are in error. All anthropological descriptions of African > hair take note of its thickness. What does being flat have to do > with thickness? > It means African hair is thin in one dimension, and thick in another dimension. "Thickness" as a single attribute does not tell the whole story. My final position is that regardless of "thickness," the typical African hair and Asian hair are as different as you can get in terms of structural characteristics. By contrast, typical Asian and European hairs do have a vague similarity in structure. If you have seen cross-sectional diagrams, etc, and you still disagree, well, you're entitled to your own bizarre opinion. Argue the matter with someone else, because I am done with this topic. And this thread :) > >> > >> Again, if you look at the DSY19 allele, you will find that > >> among YAP haplotype 1, most Africans (besides Khosians and > >> Pgymies) are distinguished by low or zero A allele and C > >> allele in frequencies close to Asians. Europeans have > >> much higher frequencies of A and lower frequencies of > >> C. The other alleles have mixed results in comparison. > >> > >> > >Again I don't know where you get that information. When I look at the > >histogram plot, I see that among YAP 1, every population has a low > >frequency of the A allele except for Native Americans and Pygmies. > >Contrary to your claim, Europeans do *not* have a significantly higher > >1A frequency. You also mention Africans and Asians have a similar C > >frequency among YAP 1. This also is not evident from the histogram. > > > > Wrong. Asians and most Africans have *zero* frequency of A allele. > All European groups have this allele in frequencies from 2 to > 38% with the average around 12-14%. This is not insignificant at > all. This 12-14% stuff refers to the A allele frequency among *all five* YAP haplotypes taken together, not just among YAP 1. Your original claim involved the A allele frequency "AMONG YAP 1." And if you read the histogram, you will discover that the European groups with a high frequency of A allele have it among YAP 4, *NOT* YAP 1. The frequency of *1A* (YAP haplotype 1, allele A) is just as insignificant in Europeans on average as it is in Asians. This is *obvious* from the histogram. *OBVIOUS* > The frequency of 1C among Europeans is significantly lower on > average than that of Africans and Asians. Maybe you should look > at the figures in Table 1, since you obviously don't know how to > read the histogram. > Pail, you CAN NOT determine the 1C frequency from table 1. Table 1 only shows the *total* DYS19 allelic frequencies without regard to associated YAP haplotypes. It does not say how much of allele C is associated with *specific* haplotypes like YAP 1. If you want to find the frequency of 1C, you have to refer to the histogram, which shows that Asians and Africans do not have a similar frequency of 1C. To make this matter clearer, I made quick estimates of the 1A & 1C histogram data in table form, below. The first two columns show 1A and 1C as a percentage of all combination haplotypes. The second two show 1A and 1C as a % of only the YAP 1 haplotypes(1Z,1A,1B,1C,1D,1E). 1A & 1C as 1A & 1C as % of total % of YAP 1 1A 1C 1A 1C khoisan 0 9 0 20 pygmy 7 14 15 30 w africa 0 4 0 40 e africa 0 10 0 90 e bantu 0 27 0 95 w bantu 0 6 0 33 dama 0 3 0 15 lemba 0 4 0 10 e asia 5 35 5 45 s asia 1 55 1 55 w asia 3 30 3 33 s europe 2 27 2 33 n europe 3 22 3 25 Again: (1) 1A frequency is not significantly higher in Europeans than in Asians or Africans, contrary to your claim. (2) The 1C data shows no Asian-African similarity whatsoever. > >According to the Nei/Roychoudhury article I mentioned before, Africans > >diverged from the Europe/Asian group ~115,000 years ago, whereas the > >latter two major ethnic groups diverged ~55,000 years ago. These of > >course are very rough estimates. Fossil records suggest that modern H. > >sapiens existed 100,000 years ago in the Middle East, and it is this > >group that may be the primary ancestors of today's Eurasians. Of course > >there surely may have been other migrations from Africa over the ages, > >but it is the opinion of Nei and Takezaki that the relatively large > >genetic distance between Africans and Eurasians suggest Africans and > >non-Africans have been mostly isolated from each other for the last > >100,000 years. > > This is complete nonsense. Even from history we know this not to > be the case. Europeans, at least, have had continuous interaction > with Africans for thousands of years. > Nobody ever claimed Europeans did not interact with Africans. "Mostly isolated" means that over the last 100,000 years, the genetic isolation of Africans from non-Africans was great *in comparison* to the mutual isolation of those non-African groups which would become todays Europeans, Asians, etc. > But again, all this genetic stuff really does not get to the heart > of the matter. You can't get any closer than Japanese and Koreans, > yet the Y chromosome studies show them to be worlds apart! > But you have to remember YAP is only one small portion of the total genetic code. There are plenty of other data based on other genetic markers that show Koreans & Japanese to be closely related. More data = greater accuracy. Single, limited data sets can be misleading in some instances. For instance, YAP 3 may grow more common in one group and become extinct in another through simple genetic drift, and the 2 groups would appear to be unrelated YAP-wise. But in other measurements they may still have much in common. > In the matter of race by phenotype, Africans and Asians are in > the same boat. Their struggle is the same. Some > Africans and Asians have deluded themselves into believing they > are something they're not. They choose to identify with the > racial hierarchy of the West and make-believe they have some > high position in that system. Fortunately though, it is they that > are the odd ones out. > I hope you are not referring to me. I reject any idea of a racial "hierarchy," unlike your Europhobic buddy "C" ubject: Re: Asian Manhood V. white monkeyhood Date: Thu, 05 Jun 97 03:35:39 GMT From: pmanansala@csus.edu (Paul Kekai Manansala) Organization: California State University Sacramento Newsgroups: soc.culture.asian.american, soc.couples.intercultural, soc.culture.african.american References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 In article <33955885.3DAF@cryo.com>, U Thant wrote: >Paul Kekai Manansala wrote: >> >> >> >> >> Again, if you look at the DSY19 allele, you will find that >> >> among YAP haplotype 1, most Africans (besides Khosians and >> >> Pgymies) are distinguished by low or zero A allele and C >> >> allele in frequencies close to Asians. Europeans have >> >> much higher frequencies of A and lower frequencies of >> >> C. The other alleles have mixed results in comparison. >> >> >> >> >> >Again I don't know where you get that information. When I look at the >> >histogram plot, I see that among YAP 1, every population has a low >> >frequency of the A allele except for Native Americans and Pygmies. >> >Contrary to your claim, Europeans do *not* have a significantly higher >> >1A frequency. You also mention Africans and Asians have a similar C >> >frequency among YAP 1. This also is not evident from the histogram. >> > >> >> Wrong. Asians and most Africans have *zero* frequency of A allele. >> All European groups have this allele in frequencies from 2 to >> 38% with the average around 12-14%. This is not insignificant at >> all. > >This 12-14% stuff refers to the A allele frequency among *all five* YAP >haplotypes taken together, not just among YAP 1. Your original claim >involved the A allele frequency "AMONG YAP 1." And if you read the >histogram, you will discover that the European groups with a high >frequency of A allele have it among YAP 4, *NOT* YAP 1. That's not true. The South European group has nearly 20% frequency of A allele in the histogram. The N. Europeans about 5%, although it's difficult to tell. > The frequency >of *1A* (YAP haplotype 1, allele A) is just as insignificant in >Europeans on average as it is in Asians. This is *obvious* from the >histogram. *OBVIOUS* > Again, most Asian groups have zero 1A allele, as is the case with most African groups. >But you have to remember YAP is only one small portion of the total >genetic code. There are plenty of other data based on other genetic >markers that show Koreans & Japanese to be closely related. More data = >greater accuracy. More data does not always mean more accuracy. In fact, the data is highly mixed regarding racial types. It's is not really any better than earlier data that attempted to prove racial categories by using blood types. The Y chromosome is considered one of the most reliable methods of showing genetic relationship. Another is to use mtDNA. But these have also not been able to correlate ideas of race. Studies using nuclear DNA are very suspect. That's why most geneticists will confirm there is no genetic basis for race at all. Italians come up as closely related to Papuans according to mtDNA studies by Rebecca Cann. It is phenotype that has determined racial history according to the Western construct. Previously, Western science would hardly group Caucasoids with Mongoloids. Indeed, both Negroids and Mongoloids were often classed together as pedomorphic races. The idea was that certain characteristics found in babies of all races characterized Mongoloids and Negroids. Others grouped them according to "passive/feminine" physical features since they were also found more commonly among females of all races. These features were altogether regarded as "primitive." Unfortunately, modern Western racial theorists need only throw a few carrots to attract a throng of white wannabes. Africans and Asians have struggled together against white racism and continue to do so. They both have suffered from the attempt of the West to classify them as primitive/pedomorphic/passive races that were inferior to whites. Regards, Paul Kekai Manansala > >Some SE Asians and Africans look very similar and share some of the same >characteristics...I think Bro. Paul and myself are better qualified to talk >about our people than two white outsiders. > U might do well to read a table found in Vincent Parillo's _Strangers to these Shores_. The table shows surveys of social distance between different ethnic groups in America over many decades. Social distance was calculated by asking respondents questions like 'would you accept a member of race "x" as president', 'as close kin by marriage,' etc., etc. The more negative responses, the higher the social distance of the group in question. Amazingly for all decades, Americans ranked Asians at the bottom of the list. Asian Indians were at the very bottom of the list twice, Koreans twice, and Japanese once (during WWII). That was out of the total surveys! All Asian groups included in the survey (Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Filipinos, Asian Indians) were almost invariably among the ten highest in social distance. Other groups such as Native Amerinds and blacks were able to jump up on the list, and the former were the only non-white group to make to the top ten (in the 70s). Regards, Paul Kekai Manansala Subject: Re: Asian Manhood V. white monkeyhood Date: Wed, 04 Jun 1997 18:34:51 -0700 From: cybersol1@hotmail.com (C) Organization: UNIVERSE Newsgroups: alt.flame.niggers, soc.culture.asian.american, soc.couples.intercultural, alt.flame.whites, soc.culture.african.american References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 > On Mon, 2 Jun 1997, C wrote: > > Whites have always tended see what the wanted in genetic studies. For most > > of Anthropological study of human orgin, white looked to Europe for the > > first "Man." It took a radical thinker to correct this error. I have seen > > studies to support every position depending on how you group people. Whites > > stand alone in there possibility of having interbreed with a non-Homo > > Sapien Sapien creature. triordan@acsu.buffalo.edu wrote: > hey di'C'khead, whites were the ones who > proposed the "out of africa thoery" as > opposed to the "radial" theory of evolutiuon It was one white and he had to go through hell to get it accept despite the MT of supporting data > > Physically many Asians look "negriod." It is a fact. > > NO THEY DONT! that is no fact it your opinion In the opinion of some European race scientist also. There is a even a classification of Asians called "Negrito." You look at eyes, skin complexion, pore size, cheekbones, pigmentation, length and shape of nose, body flexiblity, and even in some cases hair texture (like in Somoa and the Pacific Islands) of many S.E. Asian and you compare with some African groups and Africans are sometimes indistinguishable from Asians. > > > You mean my father. Now quit babbling. > > > > Your father is Asian? > > wow di'C'khead you catch on quick.. You are really a foul mouthed barbarian. Does it anger you that Asian maybe closely related to Africans? -- "The events which transpired five thousand years ago; Five years ago or five minutes ago, have determined what will happen five minutes from now; five years from now or five thousand years from now. All history is a current event"-John Henrik Clarke Celebrate African History. Subject: Re: Asian Manhood V. white monkeyhood Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 12:24:12 -0400 From: triordan@acsu.buffalo.edu Organization: University at Buffalo To: C Newsgroups: alt.flame.niggers, soc.culture.asian.american, soc.couples.intercultural, alt.flame.whites, soc.culture.african.american References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 On Wed, 4 Jun 1997, C wrote: > > > Your father is Asian? > > > > wow di'C'khead you catch on quick.. > > You are really a foul mouthed barbarian. > > Does it anger you that Asian maybe closely related to Africans? i could not care less because weather or not they are related to whom by how much in this way or that THEY ARE STILL ASAIN di'C'khead... -tim Article 12 of 16 Subject: Re: Asian Manhood V. white monkeyhood From: U Thant Date: 1997/05/27 Message-Id: <338B92CC.7261@cryo.com> Newsgroups: alt.flame.niggers,soc.culture.asian.american,soc.couples.intercultural,alt.flame.whites,soc.culture.african.american [More Headers] triordan@acsu.buffalo.edu wrote: > > > triordan@acsu.buffalo.edu wrote: > > >in other words the struggle yields the rewards > > > > There is no objective realit for humans...we understand a small section of > > the infinite. > > but do we know more now than 1000 years ago?? > Agree. If science is not 100% objective, it will not severely impair its power or usefulness. When C implies the idea of humans someday altering their physical characteristics is a "myth," it is reminiscent of those who once said humans would never reach the moon. > > > > > short, calves like a caucasion... > > > > > > > IS that the best you can do? fuckin calves? > > > > > > hair texture, > > C, give this up. In every major study, Europeans and Asians are more genetically related to each other than to Africans. Africans are the "odd man out." I will cite two: M. Nei, A.K. Roychoudhury Evolutionary Relationships of Human Populations on a Global Scale Molecular Biology and Evolution 10, 927-943 (1993) L. Cavalli-Sforza History and Geography of Human Genes (1994) > > Fijian hair is quite curly even kinky. Actually, it appears that Fijians and Africans are two of the most unrelated populations on the planet. In terms of genetic affinity to West Africans, Melanesian (native Fijians) rank #40 out of 41 major population groups (Cavalli-Sforza, Table 2.3.1B). Only the Eskimos are more genetically unrelated to W. Africans. > and a hell of a lot straiter than black hair > > > > musce structure of the lower body, > > > > Asian have a low fat body like Africans...Europeans are very fatty. > In America, the obesity rate is higher for those of African ancestry than European. Asian is least. U Subject: Re: Asian Manhood V. white monkeyhood From: U Thant Date: 1997/05/23 Message-Id: <33863D44.1264@cryo.com> Newsgroups: alt.flame.niggers,soc.culture.asian.american,soc.couples.intercultural,alt.flame.whites,soc.culture.african.american [More Headers] C wrote: > > In article <3384B7B8.809@cryo.com>, phuong@cryo.com wrote: > > > Don't you find it hard to believe that Ancient Egyptians, who some say > > were similar to today's Ethiopians, could evolve into today's Egyptians > > through genetic admixture with what some call a "recessive phenotype." > > Either the Egyptians were not as dark as some people think, or light > > skin is not as "recessive" as some people think. > > After waves and waves of Greek, Persian, Turkish, and British invasion the > ave. Egyptian looks pretty close to the ave. African American. > Average? I'd say there are some Egyptians that look like only the most diluted African Americans, and others that do not look Afr-Am. at all. As a whole the population looks more Arab than "black." > > > classified as caucasian for white supremacist purposes...of which you > > > agree. > > > > > > > I do not agree with white supremacists. > > > > Anyway, white supremacists do not use the Caucasian category. > > As you do... > As a practical term, not a scientific term > >Most of them tend to use a more exclusive race category (such as Nordic) rather > > than the inclusive "Caucasian" category, to distance themselves from > > other so-called-Caucasian groups as Jews, Arabs, and certain "inferior" > > European groups. White inferiorists such as yourself tend to use > > whichever system serves your purposes. > > Whites have defined themselves... > You do just as much "defining" as anyone else. > > On one hand, you embrace the discredited Nazi system, and use it to > distance >Europeans from the veryfirst civilizations. On the other hand, > when you apply >the same highly exclusive standards to your own group, you > realize that your >own group also did not play a part in sowing the seeds > of civilization. > > You nor I know the facts... > > > I don't love whites any more than any other group. > > Is that why you call yourself white? PLEASSSE > I said I am *recognizably* white. Keanu Reeves and Jennifer Tilly are also part Asian, but most consider them white because of their appearance. What I look like is what I look like. > >In fact if world population would become a homogeneous mixed population, > that >would be fine with me. However, my prediction is it will not happen > in the > > forseeable future. Or even in the distant future, once genetic > > engineering techniques can alter physical traits. > > Another devote religious follower of the science myth. > What are you talking about? > > > BTW, Asians are non-white. > > > > > That depends... > > It does not depend Asians are *always* non-white and many even look quite > "negro" > Asians do not look white or negro. However an Asian mixed enough to look like another ethnic group is often considered as a member of that group. > > Not that many want to be jet-black either. > > Nobody is jet-black anyway... > > -- > "The events which transpired five thousand years ago; Five years ago or > five minutes ago, have determined what will happen five minutes from now; > five years from now or five thousand years from now. All history is a > current event"-John Henrik Clarke > > Celebrate African History. Article 10 of 16 Subject: Re: Asian Manhood V. white monkeyhood From: U Thant Date: 1997/05/30 Message-Id: <338EA4D2.1259@cryo.com> Newsgroups: soc.culture.asian.american,soc.couples.intercultural,soc.culture.african.american [More Headers] Paul Kekai Manansala wrote: > > In article <338B92CC.7261@cryo.com>, > U Thant wrote: > >C, give this up. In every major study, Europeans and Asians are more > >genetically related to each other than to Africans. > > I believe C was discussing physical characteristics in which > case he is more probably correct. Africans and Asians are both > prognathic (to differing degrees), and if you take the mean, we > have broad noses, wide faces, wide orbits and less body hair. Of > course, Asians and Africans have a range of variation comparable > to any other people. Both Africans and Asians have significant > quantities of melanin and carotin in their skin, which helps > protect against ultraviolet radiation. Europeans have very little > of either. > The avg. degree of prognathism in Asian groups is intermediate between the European and African average. You mention melanin concentration, but many Asians are closer to the European mean than to the African mean. There are plenty of characteristics, in which E. Asian groups are in general less similar to the avg African than to the avg European/W.Asian. Like limb elongation, head size relative to body size, skeletal weight/muscle build, hair texture, buttocks size, etc. It seems as though you and C are "picking and choosing" certain characteristics just to claim Asians are physically closer to Africans. > Africans are the > >"odd man out." I will cite two: > > > >M. Nei, A.K. Roychoudhury > >Evolutionary Relationships of Human Populations on a Global Scale > >Molecular Biology and Evolution 10, 927-943 (1993) > > > >L. Cavalli-Sforza > >History and Geography of Human Genes (1994) > > > > Most of this work is based on nuclear DNA and not newer more > reliable mtDNA and Y chromosome studies. It doesn't matter. Africans are the odd man out even when you use mtDNA and Y chromosome data. Even the _Genetics_ reference you cited agrees with this. > These latter studies > have had some interesting results. For example in the article > of Hammer et al., in the Mar. 97 issue of _Genetics_, a genetic > marker called YAP haplotype 3 is found in high frequencies > among Japanese (42%) and Tibetans (47%), but not at all among > Northern Europeans or West Asians. Among Southern Europeans > it was also absent among most groups except Italians (1%). > However, among certain African groups YAP haplotype > 3 was found in fairly high frequencies, Xhosa (25%), > Gambians (17%), Mbuti Pgymies (14%), Zulu (18%), Nguni > (15%), Kenyans (11%), etc. > But YAP 3 is only one genetic marker. If you consider all the YAP haplotypes, or the YAP/DYS19 combination haplotype frequencies, as did the authors of the _Genetics_ article, you get a clear dichotomy between sub-Saharan African populations and everyone else. Previous studies have involved many different data sets and have reached the same conclusion. > However, it is highly likely that certain > groups in Africa would be more closely related to either > Europeans or Asians, than either of the latter two are to each > other. Examples? > The reason for this is that there were at least several > major human migrations out of Africa going in different > directions towards Asia and/or Europe. > Leonard Jeffries wrote: > > > > Using statistical methods and current population expectations (birth rates > > > and the rate of "racial" mixture...something you should know about) we can > > > chart a date when the white phenotype will be non existent. > > population years ago population today ____________________ ________________ Portugal caucasian, negroid caucasian Spain caucasian, negroid caucasian Sicily caucasian, negroid caucasian Egypt negroid (some say) caucasian Morocco negroid " " caucasian Algeria negroid " " caucasian Historically, the white phenotype has not been wiped out simply by mixing with a minority. If you want whites to be eliminated, you have to hope that black birthrates continue to exceed white birthrates. And of course you know what this means: blacks must continue to be uneducated and poor. What's worse, we're less than 100 years away from the capability of modifying our skin, hair, and eye color using genetic engineering techniques. That is where your utopian dream will end. Black women will then choose to become naturally white instead of having to do it cosmetically. I hear you're a Civilization II player. Now go treat yourself to a game of CivII, use the Zulus and pretend to exterminate the French, Germans, British, Romans, Celts, Greeks, or Russians. It's not going to happen in real life. (And don't tell me you haven't done it before.) -- U Thant Subject: Re: Asian Manhood V. white monkeyhood From: U Thant Date: 1997/05/22 Message-Id: <3384B7B8.809@cryo.com> Article Segment 2 of 2 (Get Previous Segment) (Get All 2 Segments) Actually, the association between income/education and birth rate holds true everywhere in the world. Can you name any high-income nations which have high birthrates? Can you name any low-income nations with low birthrates? Even in the US, middle- and upper-income blacks have a fertility rate similar to that of other middle-class ethnic groups, not like the much higher rate of low-income blacks. > > What's worse, we're less than 100 years away from the capability of > > modifying our skin, hair, and eye color using genetic engineering > > techniques. That is where your utopian dream will end. Black women > > will then choose to become naturally white instead of having to do it > > cosmetically. > > You don't know African American culture...nobody wants to be pale. > Not that many want to be jet-black either. > > I hear you're a Civilization II player. Now go treat yourself to a game > > of CivII, use the Zulus and pretend to exterminate the French, Germans, > > British, Romans, Celts, Greeks, or Russians. It's not going to happen > > in real life. (And don't tell me you haven't done it before.) > > Actually, I have never played Civilization II...I found the first poorly > made and easily solved...the addition of bells and whistles don't appeal to > me. > Good for you. > -- > "The events which transpired five thousand years ago; Five years ago or > five minutes ago, have determined what will happen five minutes from now; > five years from now or five thousand years from now. All history is a > current event"-John Henrik Clarke > > Celebrate African History. Subject: Re: Asian Manhood V. white monkeyhood From: U Thant Date: 1997/05/22 Message-Id: <3384B7B8.809@cryo.com> Newsgroups: alt.flame.niggers,soc.culture.asian.american,soc.couples.intercultural,alt.flame.whites,soc.culture.african.american [More Headers] C wrote: > > In article <3383A445.3E6B@cryo.com>, phuong@cryo.com wrote: > population years ago population today > > ____________________ ________________ > > > > Portugal caucasian, negroid caucasian > > Some are indistinguishable from some African Americans. That is completely irrelevant to the point. My point was that in certain countries, such as Portugal, there are people who are recognizably white after 1000 years of mixture with non-white populations. The occurrence of a "white" appearance was never eliminated. And there is no reason to believe it will be eliminated in the next 1000 years. > The problem with your classifications is that they are wholly subjective Even though there is not much scientific merit in racial classifications, I use the terms in their popular usage to describe general appearances, as do most others. And if you don't like racial classifications, then stop using them yourself. It seems that your modus operandi on these newsgroups is to classify white Europeans into a monolithic group, and then argue that they are inferior. > and very simplistic. All of the places you have mention above actually > break easy race classification...did Sadat look more like Kirk Douglass or > Louis Gospett Jr? Anybody with eyesight would say the latter...but he is Sadat was half Sudanese. Most Egyptians look more like Hosni Mubarak or Boutros Ghali than Louis Gossett Jr. Don't you find it hard to believe that Ancient Egyptians, who some say were similar to today's Ethiopians, could evolve into today's Egyptians through genetic admixture with what some call a "recessive phenotype." Either the Egyptians were not as dark as some people think, or light skin is not as "recessive" as some people think. > classified as caucasian for white supremacist purposes...of which you > agree. > I do not agree with white supremacists. Anyway, white supremacists do not use the Caucasian category. Most of them tend to use a more exclusive race category (such as Nordic) rather than the inclusive "Caucasian" category, to distance themselves from other so-called-Caucasian groups as Jews, Arabs, and certain "inferior" European groups. White inferiorists such as yourself tend to use whichever system serves your purposes. On one hand, you embrace the discredited Nazi system, and use it to distance Europeans from the very first civilizations. On the other hand, when you apply the same highly exclusive standards to your own group, you realize that your own group also did not play a part in sowing the seeds of civilization. > > Historically, the white phenotype has not been wiped out simply by > > mixing with a minority. > > Past performance is not proof of future returns. > Then on what are you predicting future returns? > > If you want whites to be eliminated, you have to hope that black > > birthrates continue to exceed white birthrates. > > This is the scientific fact...I know you love whites some much you don't > want it to be true but get a fucking grip! > I don't love whites any more than any other group. In fact if world population would become a homogeneous mixed population, that would be fine with me. However, my prediction is it will not happen in the forseeable future. Or even in the distant future, once genetic engineering techniques can alter physical traits. > BTW, Asians are non-white. > That depends... Even though I am part Burmese I am recognized as "white." But didn't you imply terms like Asian and white are "subjective" and "simplistic" ? > >And of course you know what this means: blacks must continue to be > uneducated >and poor. > > Not necessarily true... > Actually, the association between income/education and birth rate holds true everywhere in the world. Can you name any high-income nations which have high birthrates? Can you name any low-income nations with low birthrates? Even in the US, middle- and upper-income blacks have a fertility rate similar to that of other middle-class ethnic groups, not like the much higher rate of low-income blacks. > > What's worse, we're less than 100 years away from the capability of > > modifying our skin, hair, and eye color using genetic engineering > > techniques. That is where your utopian dream will end. Black women > > will then choose to become naturally white instead of having to do it > > cosmetically. > > You don't know African American culture...nobody wants to be pale. > Not that many want to be jet-black either. > > I hear you're a Civilization II player. Now go treat yourself to a game > > of CivII, use the Zulus and pretend to exterminate the French, Germans, > > British, Romans, Celts, Greeks, or Russians. It's not going to happen > > in real life. (And don't tell me you haven't done it before.) > > Actually, I have never played Civilization II...I found the first poorly > made and easily solved...the addition of bells and whistles don't appeal to > me. > Good for you. > -- > "The events which transpired five thousand years ago; Five years ago or > five minutes ago, have determined what will happen five minutes from now; > five years from now or five thousand years from now. All history is a > current event"-John Henrik Clar ubject: Re: Asian Manhood V. white monkeyhood From: U Thant Date: 1997/05/30 Message-Id: <338EA4EE.FD4@cryo.com> Newsgroups: alt.flame.niggers,soc.culture.asian.american,soc.couples.intercultural,alt.flame.whites,soc.culture.african.american [More Headers] C wrote: > > In article <338B92CC.7261@cryo.com>, phuong@cryo.com wrote: > > > triordan@acsu.buffalo.edu wrote: > > > > > > > triordan@acsu.buffalo.edu wrote: > > > > >in other words the struggle yields the rewards > > > > > > > > There is no objective realit for humans...we understand a small section of > > > > the infinite. > > > > > > but do we know more now than 1000 years ago?? > > > > > Agree. If science is not 100% objective, it will not severely impair > > its power or usefulness. When C implies the idea of humans someday > > altering their physical characteristics is a "myth," > > It damned sure ain't reality. > How short-sighted. > > C, give this up. In every major study, Europeans and Asians are more > > genetically related to each other than to Africans. Africans are the > > "odd man out." > > There is nothing more pernacious than a non or near white trying to be > white. The will do and say ANYTHING to secure the ever allusive whiteness. Or am I a near-white trying to secure my Asianness? > >I will cite two: > > > M. Nei, A.K. Roychoudhury > > Evolutionary Relationships of Human Populations on a Global Scale > > Molecular Biology and Evolution 10, 927-943 (1993) > > L. Cavalli-Sforza > > History and Geography of Human Genes (1994) > > Read Paul's post...I find his sources quite credible. Other things that If you find his source (the _Genetics_ article) credible, then you also agree that Europeans and Asians are genetically more similar to each other than either is to Africans. That is one of the findings mentioned in the article. > > Actually, it appears that Fijians and Africans are two of the most > > unrelated populations on the planet. In terms of genetic affinity to > > West Africans, Melanesian (native Fijians) rank #40 out of 41 major > > population groups (Cavalli-Sforza, Table 2.3.1B). Only the Eskimos are > > more genetically unrelated to W. Africans. > > I would have to read this source and its criticism to make a > judgement...but on face value it doesn't make much sense...a Fijian is > physically similar to and African in all respects When I took Anthropology > I found source that still used long discredited anthropometric methods. > I cited sources that use DNA comparisons, not anthropometric data. I agree, though, there is an obvious physical similarity of African to Melanesian. I guess looks deceive.