Government launches “Immigrants, go home” campaign

[SocialistPunk]

I had intended not to bother with this discussion, as I said previously, my energy levels are rather limited these days and Hrothgars reply to me on page 12, or thereabouts, was rather long. I have decided to post this now because this "debate" is no longer that, it seems to have degenerated into a grudge match.Hrothgar is rather fond of accusing people of distorting his words, so in keeping with the spirit of things allow me to continue the tradition. 

Hrothgar wrote:

Regarding your point on the value of 'debate', the interesting thing is that if we both started a new thread on here and went over to JSTOR and what have you and dug out the research, you'd probably win the debate. In fact, I'm sure you'd 'win' (if that's the right way to see a 'debate'). That's because the body of research on this subject is directed in a certain way that is socially-informed. This assumes of course that you have some understanding of the science and that you are willing to make the necessary concession that racial types exist genomically. However, even as the 'victor', you'd still have to acknowledge that what you're not able to do is contradict my core claims that: (a). race exists as a genomic and social reality; and, (b). despite the best efforts of capitalism, most people still align according to socio-racial categories. These points are near-irrefutable and their significance defies anything else of substance you might throw at me (though I admit there is substance against aspects of my position).

The first highlighted sentence speaks the truth. There is no scientific evidence to say that "race" is determined genetically. The most we can say is that geographical ancestry can be demonstrated, but geographical ancestry does not determine so called "race". What I have discovered, after further reading on this subject, is that most genetic scientists think the concept of "race" is unscientific and unhelpful.The most interesting aspect of the first sentence above, is not that Hrothgar admits his ideas are scientifically unsound, but that they are unsound because of the way todays scientists push the research to satisfy a social/political agenda. This is very telling. Supporters of "race" have no problem accepting the old view of "racial" categories that were based on limited scientific understanding and loaded with social and political prejudice. We all have a tendency to dismiss the stuff we disagree with and look for the stuff, however loaded, that supports our opinion. We still see it now with the climate change skeptics.The second highlighted sentence is a little odd. I seem to be all at once the "victor" and at the same time wrong, because despite the lack of scientific proof, "race" is apparently a fact.On this thread and on a previous thread on "race", the socialist view is that "race" is a social and political construct, that is forever fluid and open to social prejudice.So what we have, is Hrothgars idea that "race" is determined ancestrally and socially. Given that geneticists can trace ancestry back many, many generations, it would be difficult to pin down any solid "racial" identity that way. However when we add the social and political aspect of "race", pinning down "racial" ancestors becomes easy, depending on what we want from them. Rather than being despite capitalism's best efforts, it is more a case of, because of capitalism's best efforts, that people huddle together in divisive groups of various different identities, political, financial, religious, "racial". The fact that people still break with those confines, proves that so called human tribal instincts do not work for everyone.

[alanjjohnstone]

This article raises some of the issues brought up on this thread.http://dissidentvoice.org/2013/10/invention-imagination-race-and-nation/

[Hrothgar]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

This article raises some of the issues brought up on this thread.http://dissidentvoice.org/2013/10/invention-imagination-race-and-nation/

And a very good article it is too.  Thank you for linking to it.

[Hrothgar]

SocialistPunk wrote:

The first highlighted sentence speaks the truth. There is no scientific evidence to say that "race" is determined genetically.

But that's not what I said.  In fact, in the very quote you have posted, I explicitly state the very opposite.  

SocialistPunk wrote:

The most we can say is that geographical ancestry can be demonstrated, but geographical ancestry does not determine so called "race".

Yes it does.  In fact, to an extent, geographic ancestry is race.  That is how distinct groups evolved and while I maintain that tribalism is a human impulse, I am not denying that geography is also a critical contributing factor without which the differences might be fewer and lesser.  I see nothing controversial in that point, whereas I would view as odd any argument that concedes there are differences based (in part) on geography but then denies those differences in the same breath!  That is your position and it's ridiculous in that it is blatantly illogical and self-contradictory.  It's an example of the classic double-think that is required when you must allow ideology to intrude on reasoning.  I look different to an East Asian because our respective groups have lived, and sexually-selected, thousands of miles apart.  It doesn't take a great leap of imagination to hypothesise that phenotypical and genotypical differences between the two groups are going to evolve, perhaps slight in statistical terms, but nonetheless of social significance.  That's to say nothing of the inevitable cultural differences.In your worldview, I am 'racist' because I think it might be better if the two groups maintained their identities.  That's fine.  I don't mind being called a racist on those terms.  But you and others like you take it further and maintain that I am somehow a bad or evil person for thinking along these lines.  Why?  I'll tell you why – because you have an agenda, for which you are unable to argue honestly and scientifically, and that's why you need to resort to distortion and abuse.

SocialistPunk wrote:

What I have discovered, after further reading on this subject, is that most genetic scientists think the concept of "race" is unscientific and unhelpful.

Then let's see the supporting material and references to back-up your impressions.  Again, I have little doubt what you say reflects a truthful impression.  Scientists are susceptible to politicisation and anthropology is far from an exact science, especially in recent times.  Even so, to say that something is 'unscientific' or 'unhelpful' doesn't tell us much unless we can see the context within which the remarks were made and who made the remarks.

SocialistPunk wrote:

The most interesting aspect of the first sentence above, is not that Hrothgar admits his ideas are scientifically unsound, but that they are unsound because of the way todays scientists push the research to satisfy a social/political agenda.

Please feel free to re-read my actual words in full which you have helpfully quoted [not just the emboldened parts you want to highlight].  I stated that the scientific work in the area is directed to a social or political agenda, which I think is obvious, but I also stated words to the effect that the underlying scientific basis for racial patterning in the genome remains, a point I have made in this thread repeatedly and which you have done nothing to rebut.When I said you would probably 'win' a debate based on the reference material, I was perhaps being generous (this has been a very mean-spirited discussion, largely due to the behaviour of your side), but I do think it likely that you would be able to come up with research that suggests that while there is racial patterning in the genome, race as a concept has greater social than scientific significance.  So a 'win' on points, but it's a straw man point as it doesn't remove the reality or significance of tribal differentiation among human beings.  In fact, if anything, it reinforces the argument, but on the strict scientific points, any advances you could make in this debate would have to begin with a concession on your part as to the biological reality of race.  It says that in the quote above.  Distort me all you want, but I have not conceded the central point to you.

SocialistPunk wrote:

This is very telling. Supporters of "race" have no problem accepting the old view of "racial" categories that were based on limited scientific understanding and loaded with social and political prejudice. We all have a tendency to dismiss the stuff we disagree with and look for the stuff, however loaded, that supports our opinion.

 Of course, the emboldened part is generally true, but I have yet to see you demonstrate the truth of this observation in relation to my views or views that are similar to mine.  Simply stating that something is old and not true is not enough to demonstrate its incorrectness, untruthfulness or falsity.  When you coin the phrase, 'old view', in relation to racial categories, you are playing a sly semantic trick, perhaps unconsciously.  At a psychological level, people have a tendency to think 'old' is bad and 'new' is good.  This is especially so in relation to discussions on science, where there is a tendency to assume that 'new' science must be better than 'old' science.  In fact, the terms 'newness' and 'oldness' have nothing to do with falsification, and so are entirely semantic and irrelevant in scientific discussions.  An 'old' scientific finding or argument can be much superior to anything new.  The vice versa scenario can also be true of course.

SocialistPunk wrote:

We still see it now with the climate change skeptics.

Do we?  I doubt that, but climate is a whole different topic of debate.  My position on that subject is idiosyncratic.  While I have my own principled doubts and skepticism, I am strongly inclined to support precautionary policies for pragmatic reasons – but I am reluctant to dismiss the views of climate skeptics.  Science is a tool not an ideology unto itself.  Scientific findings can be argued one way or the other and are not conclusions in their own right.

SocialistPunk wrote:

The second highlighted sentence is a little odd. I seem to be all at once the "victor" and at the same time wrong, because despite the lack of scientific proof, "race" is apparently a fact.

Here you purport that there is a contradiction in my arguments, but the contradiction only arises due to your own distortions.  You are, essentially, arguing with yourself.  No more need be said.

SocialistPunk wrote:

On this thread and on a previous thread on "race", the socialist view is that "race" is a social and political construct, that is forever fluid and open to social prejudice.So what we have, is Hrothgars idea that "race" is determined ancestrally and socially. Given that geneticists can trace ancestry back many, many generations, it would be difficult to pin down any solid "racial" identity that way. However when we add the social and political aspect of "race", pinning down "racial" ancestors becomes easy, depending on what we want from them.

In most cases, a coherent racial identity is traceable over at least several generations.  This is especially so in the United Kingdom, a coutry in which most white Britons are indigenous, but it would apply almost everywhere that ancestry is traceable, whether on a genetic or a documentary basis, or both.  I do not doubt that some people apply impracticable standards to racial identity – for instance, the one drop rule, which I do not support – and verifiable 'racial purity' is not possible in most cases, but that kind of purity is not a precondition for the existence of distinct racial groups.  The observable fact is that racial pheno- and genotypes exist and people tend to congregate within racial groups.

SocialistPunk wrote:

Rather than being despite capitalism's best efforts, it is more a case of, because of capitalism's best efforts, that people huddle together in divisive groups of various different identities, political, financial, religious, "racial". The fact that people still break with those confines, proves that so called human tribal instincts do not work for everyone.

It could be that the mixed-racial ideology now officially promoted in most Western societies does make people more racist and, whether or not that is an intention or function of the propaganda, it may be that in fact this addresses a natural behaviour found among human beings.  If this serves the interests of capitalism, then that could be seen as unfortunate, but even if true, that in itself does not disprove or invalidate a biological basis for the human behaviour.

[SocialistPunk]

Hi HrothgarI can see why people on this thread are losing their cool with you. But I will not be goaded into "losing it", by your long distorting posts. On that note, I guess we both see each other as using distortion tactics, so I intend to keep it simple.Are their any genes that determine a persons "race"? The answer is, no. "Race" is not a scientific reality, it is a social construct, just like culture, or politics. I have maintained that stance throughout such discussions, past and present.What we have is a social construct used as part of cultural identity, a concept that is highly subjective. Socialists don't really care about the concept of "race" itself. We care about the divisional tactics used by the elite in their pursuit of keeping the working class in line, of which "race" is one hell of an effective tool.The clash arises today, when some insist that "race" has a scientific basis. It gives divisional politics an air of much needed credibility. But if in the near future, scientists overwhelmingly declare "race" to be a scientific fact, I would not mind one bit, nor would most on this thread. I have three simple questions:1) Are their any specific genes that determine a persons "race"?2) How many "races" are there?  3) Why is the socialist position on "race", as a social construct, harmful to the case for global socialism?

[SocialistPunk]

A link to a "socially-informed" website, but interesting all the same.http://www.councilforresponsiblegenetics.org/ViewPage.aspx?pageId=72

[Hrothgar]

SocialistPunk wrote:

Hi HrothgarI can see why people on this thread are losing their cool with you. But I will not be goaded into "losing it", by your long distorting posts.

Losing their cool were they?  Or were they just engaging in the same tactics that are popular across the internet among people with 'humanitarian views', which is shouting and abusing anybody who doesn't share their 'nice' perspective on the world?  Anyway, do please specify where and when I have distorted anything here.  I note you haven't troubled yourself, but I have been specific in my accusations of distortion, so please do me the same courtesy.  It's important to me because I am growing rather tired of these facile accusations that I am doing this, that and the other which never seem to be supported by anything except bluster and hot air.  So perhaps you'd oblige us?

SocialistPunk wrote:

Are their any genes that determine a persons "race"? The answer is, no.

This is correct, but the premise itself is fallacious.  Understood correctly, genes don't 'determine' things.  It's understandable that you would make this mistake as it reflects a popular misconception, but it's a fallacy all the same.  Thus, the following assertion that you make is flawed as well. 

SocialistPunk wrote:

"Race" is not a scientific reality, it is a social construct, just like culture, or politics. I have maintained that stance throughout such discussions, past and present.

For the reason given above, your syllogism is flawed.  I'll touch on precisely why, later, but for now – and for the sake of argument – let's take your assertions at face value, put aside the shaky foundations of your logic, and ask: What do you mean by the phrase, 'scientific reality'? Are you saying that race is not a scientific concept or are you saying that race might be a scientific concept but it is not likely to be of any significant value to a scientific understanding of human beings?  Which is it?When you say that race is a 'social construct', I suspect you are just using that phrase lazily to dismiss the concept of race.  People use phrases like that because they think it makes them sound clever and gives an air of authority to whatever nonsense they happen to be spouting.  I am not saying that is the case with you – well, at least not entirely anyway – but it is very easy to fall into the trap of repeating what amount to modish platitutdes.  "Hey, race is just, like, a social construct, ya know?  Yeah man!"The notion of a 'social construct' can mean many different things.  In this context, it could mean that race is entirely invented and has no biologic bearing whatsoever – which is possible, but unlikely – or it could mean that there is a biologic basis for race but the typologies are socially-defined, largely as a reflection of socio-geographic traditions.  The latter, I would suggest, is the more realistic position.  But in any event, the two propositions are fundamentally different.  It seems to me you and your colleagues do accept there are at least de minimis racial types based on skin colour.  So you do accept race as a biologic concept, albeit in a very restricted sense.  That being the case, you contradict yourself if you assert that race is only a social construct and nothing else.  The real issue is the significance of the concept, not its existence.  I think the reason you fall into the fallacy of arguing over the existence of something that you have already conceded exists is because it suits you ideologically and politically to maintain that race does not exist at all.  That's a wholly counter-factual and unscientific position, and it even contradicts your own utterances and in that sense amounts to doublethink, but if it fits your prejudices, then it's fine, no?  This also explains why you become angry – "lose your cool" – with people like me who point out the obvious.There is also the secondary (and less important) fallacy that you fall into in thinking that because a major difference among human beings is (as you allege) merely a matter of skin colour, this makes it unimportant.  You don't seem to realise that the skin colour difference may well have evolved for – among other reasons – to signify deeper and more significant differences.

SocialistPunk wrote:

What we have is a social construct used as part of cultural identity, a concept that is highly subjective. Socialists don't really care about the concept of "race" itself. We care about the divisional tactics used by the elite in their pursuit of keeping the working class in line, of which "race" is one hell of an effective tool.

I don't doubt that race is used in hierarchical societies to divide the working class against each other, but I return to my point in a previous post.  This, in itself, does not disprove or invalidate race.  In fact, in some ways it serves to reinforce the notion that race is a manifest of a deeper impulse in human beings.  These propaganda techniques you allude to would lack effectiveness if they were merely social constructs.  That is not to say I think we should accept things simply because they are in our nature – the so-called 'naturalistic fallacy' – but our natural impulses, however unpleasant, cannot be lightly discarded.  It may be that people prefer to live among others who they believe are like them, and it may be that this reflects a deeper genetic imperative to breed within and among a group that is intermediate between closest kin and 'outsiders'.

SocialistPunk wrote:

The clash arises today, when some insist that "race" has a scientific basis. It gives divisional politics an air of much needed credibility. But if in the near future, scientists overwhelmingly declare "race" to be a scientific fact, I would not mind one bit, nor would most on this thread.

You'll need to explain what you mean by 'divisional politics' and why it's so different from other politics.  I understand the point about race (and other social cleaves) being used to divide the working class and so obscure any consciousness about a common class interest, but all politics is 'divisional'.  People take sides, even among their 'own kind'.  It's probable that initially national groups were formed so as to more easily control populations, but this observation, even if true, tells us nothing of why people could be divided this way.Human beings are just tribal and divide by nature.  I don't use the term 'by nature' in a lazy way.  I realise that it can be a last resort for unthinking people who will say "Well, it's just our nature", and so takes on a mysticism of its own, but that is not the sense in which I mean it.  I think there are good evolutionary reasons why we divide and seek to label 'outsiders'.  That is not to say it is a good or a bad thing.  Initially, the 'outsiders' might be labelled this way socially, or due to geographic factors, or something else, and the basis for the labelling may be silly, but in time differences emerge that may be of some value or importance to the people so divided.  I notice we have always done this, and I see nothing trite in acknowledging that and speculating as to the reasons.  As I see it, the human racial types are evidence of human micro-evolution in which, over countless millenia and via various wave migratory patterns, different human groups have evolved characteristics that are adaptive for their respective environments.  What is wrong with recognising this?

SocialistPunk wrote:

I have three simple questions:1) Are their any specific genes that determine a persons "race"?

No.  As explained both above and in a previous post, the premise of genes 'determining' things is fallacious.  I addressed this early on when I made reference to Lewontin's fallacy.  The genomic basis of race is the distinctive patterning of hundreds of thousands of genes.

SocialistPunk wrote:

2) How many "races" are there?

I don't know, but to speculate, I would suggest there are four basic groups (or 'meta-groups'): Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid and Australoid.  Within those, there are further sub-groups.  For instance, Europeans (i.e. whites) are a sub-group of Caucasoid.  

SocialistPunk wrote:

3) Why is the socialist position on "race", as a social construct, harmful to the case for global socialism?

I'm not suggesting it's harmful to the case for socialism in any objective way, and – to give you credit – the case is actually very well put by the SPGB.  In that respect, it's refreshing that you are able to make an honest case using clear language, which is more than can be said for the other fake "socialist" groups.  What I am suggesting is that, first, if humanity is to go down a mixed-racial route of development and, in effect, devolve its racial types, this could be both socially- and developmentally- damaging.  Whites and Far East Asians are civilisationally superior, reflecting a higher mean average intelligence than other races.  So I worry for humanity.  Second, while I don't think mixed-racial ideology damages your case in an objective sense, I do think it might make it harder for socialism to happen, for the following reasons (among others):– mixed-racial societies tend to be less stable and exhibit less solidarity among their working populations, and since coalitions and alliances need to emerge within countries and other geographic spaces, this (ironically) makes it harder for a genuine class consciousness to coalesce on a trans-national basis;- immigrants are easily exploitable in the countries they arrive in and also tend to be more entrepreneurial or business-minded, and both factors dissipate the labour power of indigenous working class groups;- if whites mix with other races, this will lower the average intelligence level in European societies, making it much harder for socialist ideas to gain acceptance;- if racial types reflect a tribal impulse, then the devolution of races will require an authoritarian style of government and repressive measures against "terrorists" (i.e. Racial Nationalists and other dissidents), which may make it harder to encourage the spread of esoteric political ideas, including socialism.

[ALB]

In case people couldn't read all the way through what he wrote, here's how, towards the end, he re-states his basic premise:

Hrothgar wrote:

What I am suggesting is that, first, if humanity is to go down a mixed-racial route of development and, in effect, devolve its racial types, this could be both socially- and developmentally- damaging.  Whites and Far East Asians are civilisationally superior, reflecting a higher mean average intelligence than other races. 

Hrothgar wrote:

if whites mix with other races, this will lower the average intelligence level in European societies,

[steve colborn]

What race would you put those from ancient Babylonia, Persia, Egypt etc in? All socially advanced civilisations just not from the Far East Asian stock nor European.As for intelligence levels, did a Kalahari bushman need knowlede of computing, mathematics, history of european thought, to exist in his or her native environment? Or was it, how to construct a "sip well", patterns of migration of animals, where to find supplies of berries, roots etc? Is it not the case, that if you were to attempt to live in the environs these people inhabited, it would be "your" intelligence level, that would be found wanting!It is your "presumption" that intelligence levels are only measurable by westernised methodology, that is in error.Finally, it is not because I am a "humanitarian", (whatever the hell that actually means) that I find your posts, vile, odious and repugnant, it is because, I have yet to read any proof of your racist theory!What would you get if an abandoned "white" child had been raised by, for instance, the above mentioned Kalahari Indians? Well, we all know you would get an intellectually advanced, tea drinking, superior minded member of the european branch of the caucasoid race family. In actual fact, the child would grow and only be differentiated from other "tribe" members by the colour of his skin. That, in a nutshell is what you are on about really, is'nt it, skin colour?Steve.

[Brian]

steve colborn wrote:

That, in a nutshell is what you are on about really, is'nt it, skin colour?Steve.

Hmm, not quite, he's also plugging: 1.  The discredited eugenics arguments;  2. Enforced segregation; 3. Apartheid; 4. I.Q. testing.However, my own ancestry, like most people is mixed, with African-American on my father's side and my mother coming from Norman stock.  Interestingly, my great grandfather was brought into this country, along with 19 other African-Americans by the mine owner George Davies to teach the 'welsh' miners a new method on extracting coal from the Ocean Colliery.  Also the history of the local colliery, Cwm, Beddau, records a total of at least 15 different peoples or if you prefer 'tribes' having worked and settled there. I'm a socialist which when added to the above mix (pun) discredits many of his arguments.  Indeed, how come my ancestry has allowed me to survive, and become a socialist in such an hostile environment?  Finally, I do not consider myself  welsh, british, european, black, brown or white but a citizen of the world and a member of the human race.Why should I allow a social construct like 'race' restrict my development and movement when I have a world to win?

[J Surman]

Bravo Brian!

[Hrothgar]

Brian wrote:

Hmm, not quite, he's also plugging: 1.  The discredited eugenics arguments;  

I'm arguing for the improvement and betterment of my species.  Horrible isn't it? 

Brian wrote:

2. Enforced segregation;

I'm not arguing for this.

Brian wrote:

3. Apartheid;

We already have this.  Have you been outside recently?

Brian wrote:

4. I.Q. testing.

I'm not specifically arguing 'for' or 'against' IQ testing.  I know it has limitations.

Brian wrote:

However, my own ancestry, like most people is mixed, with African-American on my father's side and my mother coming from Norman stock.  

Norman stock, eh?  At least I know why you don't like my views, yet you obviously recognise there is such a thing as race.

Brian wrote:

Interestingly, my great grandfather was brought into this country, along with 19 other African-Americans by the mine owner George Davies to teach the 'welsh' miners a new method on extracting coal from the Ocean Colliery.  Also the history of the local colliery, Cwm, Beddau, records a total of at least 15 different peoples or if you prefer 'tribes' having worked and settled there.

I can't find any record of a 'George Davies' owning that mine, either outright or as a director.  Nor can I find any reference to the story you give here, although I only had time for a quick search.  Not that I think you'd just make it up, so maybe you could post a link on here?  We can then see why the 20 African-Americans (presumably from Appalachia) were sent over here and what they did and whether it is of any significance to this discussion.Maybe you could also provide a link to the history of the local colliery (I assume you are referring to Marine Colliery) that tells us about these "15 different peoples" who lived and worked in Cwm?  Just so that we can see the numbers and decide whether you're describing a mixed-racial paradise or just ad hoc families and individuals.

Brian wrote:

I'm a socialist which when added to the above mix (pun) discredits many of his arguments.  Indeed, how come my ancestry has allowed me to survive, and become a socialist in such an hostile environment?  

What are you a mix of?  It must be at least two racial groups, right?  So once again you admit, tactily, that races exists.I didn't say that black people would not or cannot grasp socialism, I just think that if societies become racially-mixed then this is less likely to result in socialism than if we remain racially-homogenised.

Brian wrote:

Finally, I do not consider myself  welsh, british, european, black, brown or white but a citizen of the world and a member of the human race.

The term 'citizen of the world' is just lazy shorthand for people who don't know what citizenship is.  In the society you envisage, there would be no need for any concept of citizenship.  Indeed, socialism would be completely antithetical to any such idea.  You may reject citizenship as a concept now, but you cannot be a citizen in form only so the term 'citizen of the world' is nothing more than empty verbal masturbation.

Brian wrote:

Why should I allow a social construct like 'race' restrict my development and movement when I have a world to win?

This last sentence sounds rhetorically attractive, but it is meaningless.  It is in the nature of life that people are restricted in their development and movement.  This is due to all kinds of factors, many of which would remain in socialism.  The point should be how to win a real world, not this daydreaming and fantasy.

[Hrothgar]

steve colborn wrote:

What race would you put those from ancient Babylonia, Persia, Egypt etc in? All socially advanced civilisations just not from the Far East Asian stock nor European.

Today, they are mixed.

steve colborn wrote:

As for intelligence levels, did a Kalahari bushman need knowlede of computing, mathematics, history of european thought, to exist in his or her native environment? Or was it, how to construct a "sip well", patterns of migration of animals, where to find supplies of berries, roots etc? Is it not the case, that if you were to attempt to live in the environs these people inhabited, it would be "your" intelligence level, that would be found wanting!

Not really – intelligence testing can be conducted in a culturally-neutral manner.

steve colborn wrote:

It is your "presumption" that intelligence levels are only measurable by westernised methodology, that is in error.

Could you highlight where I have made this presumption?  I don't recall it.

steve colborn wrote:

Finally, it is not because I am a "humanitarian", (whatever the hell that actually means) that I find your posts, vile, odious and repugnant, it is because, I have yet to read any proof of your racist theory!

I have not advanced any theories, so there is no proof necessary.  In any case, not everything has to be proved (nor have I yet been informed of your probative standards), but I have referred to evidence that supports my views.  

steve colborn wrote:

What would you get if an abandoned "white" child had been raised by, for instance, the above mentioned Kalahari Indians? Well, we all know you would get an intellectually advanced, tea drinking, superior minded member of the european branch of the caucasoid race family. In actual fact, the child would grow and only be differentiated from other "tribe" members by the colour of his skin. That, in a nutshell is what you are on about really, is'nt it, skin colour?

No, and I have already explained why this is not merely a matter of skin colour.  However, putting your sarcasm aside, I am sure you're right in what you imply, that the child in your hypothetical example would grow up acculturated as a member of the San, but that does nothing to disprove or invalidate race as a concept.

[ALB]

Hrothgar wrote:

I assume you are referring to Marine Colliery

Why this assumption? I think that despite his self-proclaimed superior intelligence he is confusing Cwm and Cwm Beddau.

[LBird]

In my experience of self-employed professionals, they have a strong social tendency to develop cloth-ears.As Hrothgar displays with his genetic purity, here we have an example of concrete determinism.Perhaps Socialist Punk can tell us if 'Hrothgar' is a derivative of the Anglo-Saxon for 'Hessian-horns'.

[Author]

Posts