In DNA Era, New Worries About Prejudice

I’ve been telling people for years that DNA and other genetic research would eventually fall under the influence of Political Correctness, exactly the fate of other programs involved with facts unflattering to the professional victim classes. DNA/Genome science will be forced to alter its findings in ways which will either dilute or expunge any evidence which contradicts the ‘Equalitarians’ world view that not only is there no genetic difference in the races but that there is no such thing as ‘RACE’ to begin with.

I’m going to remember this the next time I hear snooty lib whine and moan about the “censorship of science” (read: conservative opposition to embryonic stem-cell research, and questioning the Religion of Manmade Global Warming). In fact, I’m going to print it and frame it.

Jason Malloy said “Let’s say the genetic data says we’ll have to spend two times as much for every black child to close the achievement gap”.

What if the genetic data says we’ll have to spend ten times as much for every white child to close the achievement gap on NBA teams?

It is not like they discovered the gene that makes people taller or run faster?

Why does the truth of a valid scientific discovery scare some people so much?

People of different races with different DNA? The next thing they’re liable to say is that different races have different mental abilities. Oh my goodness! This is making me very uncomfortable.

Fortunately, I can turn to Lewontin for comfort, knowing of course that this can’t be true. Race is simply a social construct - isn’t it?

Scientists in this area should not be worrying about what they find. Their job is to discover what exists and report it.

Far too often, however, when one reads a book on genetics one will find a bunch of gushy sop in the verbiage about how all humans are alike—which,laughingly,often directly contradict the actual scientific findings reported elsewhere in the book.

Of course the different races are different. Very, very, very different. So different, in fact, that “subspecies” is a better term than race to describe the different races.

LOL! Absolutely hilarious. They can’t even pursue scientific work without worrying about race. You know, the thing that is supposed not to exist?

Home schoolers need to have an online university to enroll in, so they won’t be tainted with such garbage, and afterward enter fields in preselected areas where people are congregating in preparation for secession.

All (or at least many of) our answers can be found in our genes. But we live in the New Dark Age. The right censors science it doesn’t like as does the left.

Science is political for better and worse.

There is no such thing like European Race. There is a Caucasian Racial Group. That includes Europeans, most North-Africans and Midle-Easterns. We can´t refuse race as a “social convention” and express the same mistake, saying, for instance, that Christians and Muslims from Cyprus belong to diferent races. An Armenian or a Kurd is not less White-Caucasian than a German. He simply is not a European. Besides, contrary to the general belief, the original homeland of the “white people” is Central Asia. Europe (like the Phonicians call it) was conquered 40 000 years ago. After Midle East and Northern India.

“At the same time, genetic information is slipping out of the laboratory and into everyday life, carrying with it the inescapable message that people of different races have different DNA.”

Well, the conclusion that people of different races have different DNA does seem inescapable, unless one throws logic out the window. Funny that while our society is said to value science over superstition and dogma, putatively educated people fret about information “slipping out” into “everyday life,” as though the rest of us need protecting from legitimate scientific data.

Posted by Anonymous at 6:21 PM on November 18

What if the genetic data says we’ll have to spend ten times as much for every white child to close the achievement gap on NBA teams?

White men don’t need to close any gap because there is no gap. In the last two Olympics the all Black American team got “whupped” on by a bunch of White guys.

NOw look here: This has got to be presented right. You just cannot chuck it in people’s faces.

Say something like this: “Genetics has shown that Caucasians are genetically more gifted in the intellectual and abstract realms than are Blacks. But the good news is this: we believe that the Black genetics that control dancing and running are evolving into more complex and even more interesting manifestations.”

Or this: “Genetics has shown that Whites are smarter, but the good news is that, in our belief, Blacks are capable of greater faith in God than are Whites.”

YOu have to add a sweetener! Common sense!

An Armenian or a Kurd is not less White-Caucasian than a German. He simply is not a European. Besides, contrary to the general belief, the original homeland of the “white people” is Central Asia. Europe (like the Phonicians call it) was conquered 40 000 years ago. After Midle East and Northern India.

Caucasians moved into India only a few thousand years ago. Yes, Middle Easterners and some Indians are Caucasian. They are not, however, “white.” “White” is a term that refers to a subgroup of Caucasians who have pale skin and who are overwhelmingly European. Pale is I suppose a subjective judgement, however while I would count my Punjabi friend as Caucasian I certainly wouldn’t consider him white - nor would he.

To think that Sarah Palin’s scientific knowledge, admittedly lacking in spots, was mocked by the left. Yet, when confronted with the findings that different races have different DNA structures, they foam at the mouth like rabid dogs. That’s because it doesn’t fit in with their “everybody is the equal of everybody else”.

Wait a minute. Is everyone on planet Earth is equal to every one else, why is there not a single culture on Earth, instead of many cultures?

This doesn’t make sense. If the liberal left really believed that there’s no genetic basis for race and we’re all ‘equal’, then surely they’d be calling for MORE genetic research to prove their theories and embarrass the racists.

Would an innocent man facing a life sentence for murder refuse to give a DNA sample that would prove his innocence? Hell no. So why do liberals refuse DNA research that would ‘prove’ racial equality? Deep down these liars know the facts just as well as any ‘racist’ - they just prefer feel-good lies to the ugly truth.

The irony of race politics is that the more you eliminate prejudice and discrimination, the more natural or genetic difference looms large.

“Race” is an issue mainly because of the cognitive differences between blacks and whites (i.e. not whits and asians).

The fact that these differences have remained constant while our society has been in upheavel for a century means the differences are mainly genetc, not environmental.

Genetic researchh is only confirming what scientific study confirmed decades ago, and what common sense established centuries ago.

For a long time, the question was whether it was good policy to pretend there was no B/W IQ gap.

Now the question is how long to maintain the firewall between science and public discourse.

The shift is coming, then the task is to form useful policies based on this knowledge.

Look no further than Tony Frudakis of DNA fame. Who he, I hear you cry? Well, in Baton Rouge during 2003, police checked out 1,200 White men whilst looking for the serial killer of White Women. Tony Frudakis took DNA samples from the crime scene and declared that they were wasting their time as the perp was black! Short story is that Tony came under a lot of criticism for ‘racial profiling’ even though the guilty man was eventually found and was indeed black! I believe the police even took samples from police volunteers and had Tony check them ‘blind’ and, once again, he identified them 100% accurately by race, including mixed race officers. Seems he has a valid point.

Are any of these MSM journalists bright enough to understand that these people are worried about scientific truths being known?

Are they bright enough to understand that attempting to conceal any truthful findings could well be the harbinger to concealing others a researcher might feel the general public shouldn’t know?

As everything else, science, the one field that once was concerned with nothing but the objective truth, has now fallen under the control of Big Brother, and it is no longer producing scientists but propandized politically correct agents.

[I]“There are clear differences between people of different continental ancestries,” said Marcus W. Feldman, a professor of biological sciences at Stanford University.[/I]

“Continental ancestries.” Since they don’t want to use the dreaded R-word, they have to fall back on using euphemisms. Elsewhere in the article the writer uses the term “populations,” which is also the favored term-of-art employed by the geneticist Luigi Cavalli-Sforza.

The next step will be for the media to start painting genetic research as “Nazi racial science.” I can just see the next PBS “special,” now.

There is so much ignorance about DNA and genes that it’s no wonder even big names such as Bill Clinton can say stupid things about all humans being almost identical.

Very minor changes at the DNA level of existence can result in very major differences in the individual. Just a relatively few of the four chemicals A,T,C,G shuffled a little differently and you have a completely different life form.

“There is no such thing like European Race. There is a Caucasian Racial Group. That includes Europeans, most North-Africans and Midle-Easterns. We can´t refuse race as a “social convention” and express the same mistake, saying, for instance, that Christians and Muslims from Cyprus belong to diferent races. An Armenian or a Kurd is not less White-Caucasian than a German. He simply is not a European. Besides, contrary to the general belief, the original homeland of the “white people” is Central Asia. Europe (like the Phonicians call it) was conquered 40 000 years ago. After Midle East and Northern India.”

People in non-Oriental Asia are part-White for the part of the world you are stating about. In the Middle East, there are clear visible signs of mixing with Blacks. Remember Black slaves were brought to North Africa and the Arab Gulf before they were brought to Europe or the Americas. Second, there are Indian people who are clearly have nothing to do with Caucasians as their features are very similar to Australian aboriginals. And the people to the north of India sometimes show these features as well as Caucasian features. Brown people are mixed! That is a good rule of thumb and it is a fact. People may not like to admit that, but it is the case. And the people in Kurdistan and Armenia are definitely more mixed than Germans. Look at their position on a map and it becomes pretty obvious. They are not mixed exactly the same, but they are mixed just as Mestizos are in Mexico or South Asians in the Indian subcontinent. And this is why you may not be able to tell an Indian apart from a Mexican many times. And remember that brown people from North Africa all the way to southeast Asia cluster together when it comes to IQ. This is also a sign that they are mixed as well and Iranians are not the same as Whites on average.

“Scientists, for instance, have recently identified small changes in DNA that account for the pale skin of Europeans, the tendency of Asians to sweat less and West Africans’ resistance to certain diseases.”

I just looove the way this is phrased; “pale skin of Europeans (genetic fault), ….. West African;s resistance to certain diseases…”

The only one I know of is malaria. But in evolving the sycle cell that protects against malaria, the famous anemia that can kill them later on is the disease at issue in our times. There is of course the genetic tendancy towards higher blood pressure, cv disease and such… but let’s not mention it here.

> Alan, you must be kidding;

“Europe (like the Phonicians call it) was conquered 40 000 years ago. After Midle East and Northern India.”

It’s Phonecians - but 40,000 years ago nothing was being recorded and two ice ages at least were to come before recorded history began in no more than 4,000 years ago. Too many 0’s perhaps?

Phonecians - Thank you for the correction. English is not my mother language.
No “0´s too many” - Archaeology, anthropology and genetics show that first Caucasoids entered in what the Phonecians called (much after, sure) Europe, between 40 000 and 50 000 years ago. At the time, they are already present in Midlle East and Northern India.
Written language was invented first by Caucasians from places that we call now, Iraq and Iran, between 5-6 000 years ago.
The Point is; a Heritage with many thousand of years is in danger due this suicidal fashion, called, Multiculturalism.

8:59 PM

There is some controversy as to whether written language was first developed in Africa(Egypt/Cush area) or West Asia(Mesopotamia). German archaeologist Gunter Drier argues that writing was first developed in Africa some 500 years before West Asia.

Europeans first settled in Europe some 40,000 YA but they entered at different times and in different groups. The latest migrations occurred some 15,000 YA. [See The Seven Daughters of Eve by Bryan Sykes]. It is for this reason that Europeans are of varied haplogroup lineages.

Even a cursory Internet search will reveal that Gunter Dreyer’s (not “Drier”) claims are almost universally rejected by scholars. Occam either does not understand this or does not care.

I’m just curious. Does anybody know the extent of sub-Saharan admixture in North Africans? I know it’s relatively recent (as in within the past millenium or so) due to the trans-Saharan slave trade during which many black African women were taken by Caucasoid Arabs and Berbers as concubines, resulting in a rather large mixed population, but how extensive was this practice?

The reason I ask is because most North Africans I’ve seen are pretty distinct-looking from other Mediterranean populations of southern Europe and even the Levant, with darker complexions, kinkier hair on average, and often with facial features that show signs of sub-Saharan admixture. A good few however, do look like Mediterranean whites, particularly Algerians and upper-class Tunisians I’ve noticed. Most Egyptians I’ve seen are decidedly non-European in appearance, as are most Moroccans. Tunisians vary as many look mixed but others do not, and it seems that Algerians have many people who could pass as Spaniards or Italians. I haven’t seen many Libyans so I can’t comment on them.

So I’m wondering if the ones I’ve seen are just the poorer folks who may or may not be disproportionately mixed, or is that just the standard appearance there?