"Jesus was a Black man who was oppressed by White men"

what i meant to say was Caucasians and East Asians have common ancestor.

 

This is correct.

 

That's because race is a major part of one's identity since the concept is ingrained in our culture.

Scientifically speaking there are no biological races (sub-species).

Race is a social construct. Racial Identification is based on real biological differences but just because we can identify some geographically based genetic variation doesn't mean that those populations have diverged enough to be considered races which is outlined in the link I provided you.

Most people would regard Barack Obama as the first Black President based on his aesthetics and known ancestry. Ancestrally he has one parent of European descent and one of African descent. This ancestry affects his personal identity and life experience so most people in America would say that Obama is genetically and culturally Black. Some people claim him as biracial because of his parentage and don't want him to be recognized as 100% Black. Bill Clinton has two parents of European descent and aesthetically looks like a native European people we commonly call White. His declaration as the first Black President wasn't meant to be literal. At the time many people couldn't fathom having a Black President.

I have no problem identifying people with different skin color and using interracial pornography as a psychological weapon against my internet enemies. I can do this while maintaining the position that there are no biological races. Racism still exists and one can attack racists by posting images they know are offensive without subscribing to racial thinking.

 

yeh, its called Israel, a blackman who gave you your laws.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink

- - - Updated - - -

This appears to have literally no relevance to what was being discussed.

 

You are a riot.. You think that 2,000 years ago Jesus was black? LOLOL

Education might help.

- - - Updated - - -

You are a riot.. You think that 2,000 years ago Jesus was black? LOLOL

Education might help.

 

All living humans have a common ancestor going back about 200,000 years.

http://www.nature.com/news/genetic-adam-and-eve-did-not-live-too-far-apart-in-time-1.13478

All those with european ancestry, and this includes many American blacks, are related going back 1000 years.

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/scie...-are-related-if-you-go-back-just-1-f6C9826523
A genetic survey concludes that all Europeans living today are related to the same set of ancestors who lived 1,000 years ago. And you wouldn't have to go back much further to find that everyone in the world is related to each other.

 

Psychology and Sociology are sciences. Disagreed about biology, but I do agree the old categorizations of Aboriginoid, Caucasoid, Mongloid and Negroid are over simplified and do not represent a clear picture of human genetic groupings and diversity as the earlier map indicates.

 

They diverged by 12% which is not far from the 18% humans and chimps diverged and much more than the 1% some other animal subspecies diverged.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Genetic_Diversity:_Lewontin's_Fallacy

- - - Updated - - -

Sure, it's a first level approximation. But it absolutely captures the most variation with that caveat and is a valid taxonomy.

The earlier map is pretty weak and we don't know what the colors used even mean. Since a major discontinuity is found between Burma and Bangladesh using similar colors misrepresents the scale of the discontinuity. This gives a much better handle on the situation:
http://www.scs.illinois.edu/~mcdonald/PCA84pops.html (use Firefox)

 

Israel is mostly Jews, not Christians.

and Jews don't give a flying (*)(*)(*)(*) what color Yeshua was.

 

The vid is 12 minutes long, you only watched 3 minutes and then responded. show some respect to an israeli's opinion maybe why dont you. are you afraid of what he states in the whole 12 minutes? you should watch the rest, respectfully...

 

lol...you saying a so-called black man would attack me for using that word?

 

Lol yeah, if you call a so-called a Negroid a Negroid they'll attack you...because there's no such thing as Negroids!

 

How can you be attacked by something that doesn't exist?

 

its idiotic to say yeshua ben yosef was a so-called "black" man.

 

You can't. I was highlighting the absurdity.

 

Sure we can. It's an observed cluster of concordant genetic variation which comprises Europeans (Whites), South Asians as far as Bangladesh, Middle Easterners and North Africans. It's very distinct on genetic plots. It was also defined phenotypically by Blumenbach from various metric and non-metric skull traits. And of course it's because these races share ancestry vis a vis other races, and can be grouped into a wider race.

 

observed by who and what barometer? Where are the samples of north afrikan data? Provide the primary sources otherwise it's just bluster and hearsay. Where is the defining border of this mythical race in terms of afrikan geography, nation names please and no, not your opinion but the data providing nations on the borders, every nation every border from east to west Africa please let's see the source data, the research

 

Of course I could provide the data. But that would be a waste of time if you think my reasoning is unsound. So I take it, since you are asking for the data, that you agree that if the disparate variation among humans is highly correlated, that would justify a taxonomic distinction, and are simply unaware (or claiming to be unaware) of the data that shows that? If you can agree the reasoning is sound, I will present the data.

 

If the source data is corrupted every conclusion thereafter would be entirely inaccurate. Lets say for example that your data from Sudan categorise the northern region as Caucasian. It labels the whole study redundant

 

No that would be you labelling the study "redundant" based on evidence free a priori assertions. If a study found North Sudanese clustered with Caucasians, then North Sudanese are Caucasian, and what political forum poster "Jonah" asserts is irrelevant. I dont know off-hand about the North Sudanese BTW, but Ethiopians are a mixed race. And you didn't really answer my question. I can repeat it:

So I take it, since you are asking for the data, that you agree that if the disparate variation among humans is highly correlated, that would justify a taxonomic distinction, and are simply unaware (or claiming to be unaware) of the data that shows that?

 

In my humble point of view, we're all human beings. As soon as we make contact with an alien race, another intelligent species, a lot of this happy horse-pucky squabbling will go away.

The racists will continue to point out the superiority of one race over another, but reasonable people recognize that as the road apples too. Human beings have genetic variance. Groups of human beings have variances. One group may say a particular quality is superior to all others, but another group may disagree.

Example. We, including me, put a lot of emphasis on IQ. Is that really what all of life is about? Those how have the highest IQ are superior? What about compassion? Heart? Love? All that falls to those with the best tech?

I think we have genetic variance for a reason. It's our variety which makes us strong because, without knowing what threats face our species, it's best to have a wide enough variance to cover as many contingencies as possible.

Example. An alien race arrives in orbit. They are obviously technologically superior by their simple arrival, but lack the ability to communicate effectively with us. Their instinct is to destroy our tech as a threat and put us in the stone age to render us threatless. What they do respect is music and, as the situation turns out, our variety of music stays their hand over our destruction allowing us time to negotiate a mutually satisfactory solution.

 

I agree with some of this. For example Jews have a high IQ (with some exceptions, sometimes very close to home, even posting here) but they tend to be extremely immoral by my standards of morality. I think the world would be a better place if they were all dead. But the Jews think they are ubermenschen. So it is subjective.

But I don't agree that "all diversity is good". Some diversity is good, but taking that to a ridiculous extreme essentially denies evolution. Your "justification" for diversity, an alien race which likes music, obviously pandering to Negroes, is laughable.

 

Disagreed with both your assumptions and disregard for those different to you.

I like music and find great pleasure in it. It speaks things to me that cannot always be put into words and is not always logical. It's a different form of experience. A different view of existence. The fact you jump to the conclusion this is only a Negro thing says lot about your own views. Views that, IMO, show you to be narrowly focused and lacking acuity in the greater wonder of our Universe. A Universe that is, IMHO, a gift.

 

LMAO. My view that some organisms are superior or inferior is normal evolutionary thinking and deriving from that that I'm "narrowly focused and lacking acuity in the greater wonder of our Universe", especially via subjective judgements via vulgar recreational art, is just mindless abuse.

Obviously you are making this a Negro thing. Why did you choose "musical diversity" as your benchmark of value? Why not 100m sprinting?