Race Ain’t Nothing but an Illusion

Rebecca Davis, Daily Maverick, July 26, 2012

South Africa is probably the most appropriate place on Earth for Nina Jablonski to address an audience. You could practically hear the preconceptions of her largely white, largely older audience being re-wired while she spoke at an open lecture at UCT’s Medical Faculty on Wednesday night. Jablonski, who is more often found at Pennsylvania State University, was in town to give one of the African Genome Education Institute’s Darwin Seminars.

Nina Jablonski

Jablonski, who is technically a primatologist, an anthropologist, palaeontologist and evolutionary biologist, is nuts about skin. A few years ago she told the New York Times that her preoccupation began while she was teaching anatomy to medical students in Hong Kong in 1981. She noticed that when the students were presented with a cadaver to dissect, they were scared and freaked out. But once the skin had been pared away, they were able to view the body far more neutrally and proceed with the task at hand.

“That moment showed me how much of what we consider our humanity is imbued in our skin,” she told the newspaper. “It stayed with me for a long time.”

Jablonski began studying the history and evolution of skin colour—no easy feat, because fossil records contain no traces of skin. Though the current variations of skin pigmentation have been abundantly recorded, compared and geographically mapped, there has been little discussion of why human skin tone had evolved in such a way that we find some of the darkest skin pigments in Africa and some of the lightest in Northern Europe.

Without fossils to fall back on, she turned to our closest relatives, chimps. (Jablonski made headlines in 2004 when she discovered the world’s oldest chimpanzee fossil, at half a million years old.) Although chimps are covered with a thick matt of dark hair, underneath that they have fairly lightly pigmented skin: infant chimps in particular have very light skin because it has not yet begun to be darkened by UV radiation.

Jablonski displayed a picture of the skeleton of Lucy, the 3,2-million-year-old Australopithecus specimen discovered in Ethiopia in 1974. Although Lucy had the ability to walk on two legs, it’s believed that her lifestyle was more ape-like than human—she would have spent more time climbing trees, for instance, than running in the sun. Because she didn’t do much running, she wouldn’t have had to keep her body and brain cool through sweating, so Lucy, too, would have been likely covered with dark fur. It was when the earliest humans developed long limbs suitable for running that they lost their hair, in order to facilitate the evaporation of sweat. Naked skin became de rigueur for humans between 1,5 and 2 million years ago.

Without their protective hair, Jablonski surmises, the earliest humans—based in Africa—would have evolved permanently dark pigmentation. The reasons for this have everything to do with UV radiation, levels of which are highest over dry areas around the Equator. “In evolutionary terms, what has evolved in human skin is a permanent natural sunscreen,” Jablonski explained. Dark skin contains high quantities of “eumelanin”, a dark pigment which has the ability to absorb and scatter UV radiation. People with dark skin, then, can absorb tremendous amounts of UV radiation.

That explains why the first humans had dark skin. But how did the lighter shades come about? The answer lies in migratory patterns. Jablonski reports that the fossil record indicates that homo sapiens dispersed energetically from Africa, with the first waves of migration taking place about 100,000 years ago to the Mediterranean, followed by the Indian subcontinent and Asia. Migration to Western Europe happened relatively late—only 40,000 years ago. The humans who left the mother continent underwent interesting evolutions in their pigmentation.

The Northern Hemisphere, as anyone who’s ever spent a winter in the UK will know, is very UV-poor. In particular, no UV-B rays make it through to the Northern Hemisphere in the height of winter, which is what is necessary for the skin to start the vital process of making Vitamin D. (Vitamin D is essential because it maintains the immune system, ensures bone growth and inhibits cancer.) The original homo sapiens who flocked to this UV-depleted region would have suffered serious health problems as a result of the slowed vitamin D production in their skin, which led to a process of “depigmentation”—skin getting lighter—in order to absorb as much UV into the skin as possible.

(Even then, Jablonski notes, the only way that humans could evolve to live above the latitude roughly on which London falls—due to the paucity of UV—was to become proficient at catching and eating Vitamin D-rich foods: oily fish and marine mammals.)

“Skin pigmentation is an evolutionary compromise,” Jablonski said. At the equator, what you need is maximum sunscreen. Closer to the poles, what you need is maximum photosynthesis ability. Moderately pigmented people evolved in moderate climes.

Of course, modern humans live far from their ancestral homelands, and have done—whether voluntarily or not—ever since the advent of long-distance mass transportation. Also, as Jablonski put it: “Lucy did not go on holiday”—a point which she illustrated with a slide of the stereotypical Englishman at the beach with a terrible sunburn. What is common to most people in big cities these days, she says, is that they work indoors all day—which is why Vitamin D production is becoming a problem once more, particularly when concealing clothing is worn. To illustrate this, she points to the high prevalence of osteoporosis in Muslim women who wear full hijab.

But the real crux of this all, Jablonski says, is the point that skin pigmentation evolved independently of other physical traits, and not in tandem with a bucket of the other physical characteristics commonly used to distinguish race. “So we cannot group people into genetically distinct groups based on skin colour,” Jablonski holds. “Skin pigmentation is not a unique attribute that can be used to define human races.”

History tells us that, nonetheless, this is exactly what has been done. When Swedish zoologist Carl Linnaeus was drawing up his classifications of animals and plants in 1748, he grouped humans together only by continent and colour. Ten years later, however, he expanded his classification of humans to define the groups not just by geography and skin tone, but also by character, disposition and morality.

He based his classification in this regard on the ancient theory of the “Four Temperaments”, which held that there were four essential bodily fluids that affected human personality. So in terms of Linnaeus’s 1758 revision, Africans became “phlegmatic”, for instance, and the Europeans “sanguine”.

However, Jablonski notes, Linnaeus stopped short of explicitly suggesting that there was any kind of race hierarchy attached to these classifications. Later scholars jumped on his taxonomy with alacrity and did just that. The 18th century German philosopher Immanuel Kant argued in Of the Different Human Races that each race had fixed, immutable qualities, and he placed them in a hierarchy. “The yellow Indians do have a meagre talent,” he wrote. “The Negroes are far below them, and at the lowest point are a part of the American people.”

These racial definitions and stereotypes became what Jablonski terms “colour memes”, endlessly reproduced and given weight by being promulgated by well-respected scientists and philosophers. The legacy of this racist typology is, as no South African needs to be told, still with us today.

“Skin colour is the most visible product of evolution—use it as a teaching tool,” Jablonski urged the audience on Wednesday in conclusion. “Now that you’ve learnt that there’s no relationship between skin tone and race, take it forward to help promote the end of racism and race-based discrimination.”

[Editor’s Note: AR’s video on the biological reality of race can be found here.]

Topics: , ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • MekongDelta69

    Now that you’ve learnt

    “Learnt”? Again? Really?! Can any of these lunatics spell correctly?

    …that there’s no relationship between skin tone and race,…

    What can you POSSIBLY say to someone who is this demented?

    …take it forward to help promote the end of racism and race-based discrimination.

    Tell that to Mandela, the ANC and his communist boys.

  • Church_of_Jed

    Black skin developed independently of sickle cell?

  • IstvanIN

    Well, she appears to be from the group that hates whites to the point of genocide.

    • And dominates these academic filelds, spreading their filthy dirty rotten ideology.

    • The Worlds Scapegoat

       

      Yep.

      The same group that expels anyone from their country that isn’t of their race or ethnic background.

    • Marcus Trajanus

      Yeah, bloody Poles always trying to destroy the White race. /sarcasm

      • NM156

        I believe she’s just a typical American Baby Boomer. No surprise here!

  • So I guess all the other documented differences like IQ, hormone levels, bone structure, susceptibility to certain diseases were just made up then?

  • She blew her credibility right here:  
    “Skin colour is the most visible product of evolution—use it as a teaching tool,” Jablonski urged the audience on Wednesday in conclusion. “Now that you’ve learnt that there’s no relationship between skin tone and race, take it forward to help promote the end of racism and race-based discrimination.”

    *Everything* has to be politicized, meaning … used as a weapon to destroy the white race, er…, white-skinned people.

  • “Skin pigmentation is not a unique attribute that can be used to define human races.”

    This isn’t new–Darwin himself may have been the first to point it out. An Indian (subcontinent) can be as dark as an African but none of the supposedly discredited “racist” evolutionary scientists of the past mistook the two because of it.
     Part of the reason it’s become shorthand for race is because of its trivializing effect; if race were truly just skin color then it would truly be trivial. Alas.

    • Marcus Trajanus

      I recently watched as much as I could stomach of a movie called “Iron Sky”, would you believe in that movie the evil White Nazis turn a Negro into an albino and from then on consider him a fellow Aryan? For me albino Negroes are conclusive evidence that the difference between Whites and Negroes is much more than skin deep. Albino Negroes look if anything more alien than regular ones since their from a White perspective rather grotesque features are not obscured by their dark pigmentation.

  • I want to marry someone with whom we can go out and hunt vitamin D together.   does that make me racist?

    • MekongDelta69

      Absolutely!

      And you and your gf should drink lots of *white* milk – lots of Vit. D!

  • Also you gotta love the “old…white” audience having their brains “re-wired”; does this journalist reflect on the sinister nonsense she writes?

    • Yep.  That’s the way liberals view it.  A rewiring. 

      Once that “Science Fiction” novel in which Amren readers become “enemies of the people” becomes “Present Fact”, they will simply get us all rewired  involuntarily.

    • SarahConnor

      That is what stuck out to me–this lady is standing there tell White South Africans that skin color is an illusion–I have to scratch my head and wonder if any of the people listening said hey lady genocide is happening to the white people in So. Africa. I wonder how she even got them to sit there and listen to this B.S.

  • Francis Galton

    She’s right.  Race IS an illusion.  Time to end Affirmative Action.  

    • JohnEngelman

      Race is a social construct until it is time to give members of politically favored races rewards they have not earned, and to avoid giving them punishments they deserve. 

  • Pay no attention to that low-IQ, violent, unpredictable black man behind the curtain. He’s just like you and me. He’s just been out in the sun too long.

    The story said Jablonski was “nuts about skin.” No; she’s just nuts — period.

    • Lincoln said that a man at age 50 gets the face he deserves. Well,look at this monsters face.

  • loyalwhitebriton

    Now that you’ve learnt that there’s no relationship between skin tone and race, take it forward to help promote the end of racism and race-based discrimination

    More patronising nonsense from a junk-science believing, wishful thinking, wishy-washy liberal.
    Apparently, I am not supposed to believe the evidence of my own eyes, nor conclusions from my own experience, nor conclusions based upon what I’ve read and heard about.

    Besides, based upon everything I know and have experienced, I don’t want to “end racism and race-based discrimination”
    At the moment, I’m of a mind to promote it!

  • JohnEngelman

    The different races evolved not only in response to different climatic conditions, but in response to other population pressures as well.
                                
    The paleolithic way of life was much more violent than the neolithic way of life, which in turn was more violent than urban civilization. 
                              
    In a paleolithic environment, and to a lesser extent in a neolithic environment the best hunters and warriors had the most wives. Consequently the best killers had the most children. 
                                         
    In an urban civilization most men do not fight in wars. The most intelligent become successful merchants, money lenders, government officials, and so on. They live better lives and have more children who survive and reproduce. 
                                 
    The longer a racial population has practiced agriculture and civilization the higher its average intelligence is likely to be, and the lower its rate of violent crime.
                                            
    http://sq.4mg.com/NationIQ.htm        
           
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

    • Indeed.  “Cult, Culture and Cultivation”.  They all have the same root word.  (And it was the slogan of Peter Maurin and the Catholic Worker movement of the 1930s.)

    • The__Bobster

      Which is why a group that hasn’t farmed in centuries sees fit to demean rural Americans though the media they control?

      • JohnEngelman

        Which group are you talking about, and how do they demean rural Americans? 

        • IstvanIN

           The group that can live off the labor of whites who actually work so they can sit in ivory towers and put us down.  The group for whom manual labor is something only “animals”, as their religious texts describe us, perform.

  • A Reptile.

  • JustaWhiteMom

    No anonymous comments allowed.  Jared why don’t you go over there are tell this crazy broad whats what? 

  • B

    This then would mean that the vastly disproportionate amount of violent behavior exhibited by those with dark skin is just an ongoing, unending coincidence.

  • KevinPhillipsBong

    Yes, race is not skin color. Thank you Captain Obvious. Otherwise my race would change whenever I got a suntan.
    http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v671/wilsonclan222/darklight.jpg

  • “Now that you’ve learnt that there’s no relationship between skin tone and race…”

    She might as well say there is no relationship between genes and physical traits

  • APaige

    Nina is a strange name for a man. Yes skin color is the ‘most visable product of evolution’, it is a visual clue to ALL other products of evolution.

  • The__Bobster

    The idea that race might be a social construct was a hypothesis invented by Richard Lewontin, a Harvard geneticist, in 1972. He claimed that the genetic differences between races were so slight that no one working only with genetic data would categorize people as Asians, Whites, Blacks, Mestizos, etc. Lewontin said that racial classification “is now seen to be of virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance.”

    Leftists were quick to pick up on Lewontin’s words and create a number of slogans from them, including “Race is a social construct” and “There’s only One Race, the Human Race.” The Lewontin hypothesis almost immediately became a required belief among the politically correct. And that was very unfortunate for them, because less than 30 years later it would become possible for geneticists and forensic scientists to conduct a statistical analysis of genetic markers in order to see whether their clusters correlated with the commonly identified racial groups.

    They did. By 2005, it was well documented that Lewontin had been wrong. Practically every analysis of genetic markers demonstrated the biological reality of racial identities. In one of them, conducted by Tang, Quertermous, and Rodriguez, et. al., in 2005, all except five of 3636 test subjects (including Asians, Whites, Blacks and Mestizos) sorted statistically into the cluster of genetic markers that corresponded to their self-identified racial group. The success rate for predicting how someone would classify himself racially, using only his genes as information, was 99.86 percent, according to that study.

    • >>Leftists were quick to pick up on Lewontin’s words and create a number of slogans from them, including “Race is a social construct” and “There’s only One Race, the Human Race.”
      That is, there is “only one race” UNTIL they declare that there’s sufficient intelligence in apes, dolphins, robots, what-have-you, such that our discrimination against them becomes “unconscionable racism” as well.  Jane Goodall was three quarters of the way there already.  

      “Anti-racists'” pathological altruism knows no bounds.

    • SarahConnor

      Thanks for the info about that study!

  • Pandemonium

    Jablonski needs to update her information for starters. 

    The theory that all humans came “out of Africa” is shaky at best. Evidence is accumulating that this idea is suspect.

    Also, skin color is obviously one trait of many which makes up a “race”.

    Where do these people come from?

    • libertarian1234

      “Where do these people come from?”

      The ones like her are rife within academia.

      Such foolishness and skewed thinking has no place in an educational setting.

      In fact, the real problem here I’m pretty sure is based in some kind of mental abberation that is influenced to a great extent by emotional immaturity.

      These people get together, convince their circle of oddballs of the accuracy of their theories,  then run with it as if it were backed up with logical,  irrefutable proof.

      Michael Savage identified the problem succinctly and accurately when he said that “liberalism is a mental disorder.”

  • Pandemonium

    Oh, I see. She comes from Penn State University.

    • OsRazor

       It’s that dogged Scots-Irish heritage shining through, again.  Keep up the good fight Nina!

  • mickieshillelagh

    Looking at Nina Jablonski’s hateful and unfeminine face I see not someone wishing to eliminate racism but instead eliminate a certain race, the white race.  Not surprising given her ethnicity.  Why we ever provided them with a safe refuge I will never know.

    • Sloppo

      What do you mean about her ethnicity?  Her last name sounds Polish, kind of like the name “Trotsky”.

      • The Worlds Scapegoat

         Are you serious?

        You can’t tell by the way she looks where her genetics originated?

        Hint: Satan

        • Sloppo

          Okay,  I was being sarcastic.  I thought it was obvious.

          • The Worlds Scapegoat

             

            Sorry, I didn’t see “Trotsky” when I read it. I see it now.

  • Uncle Ruckus

    Really?  So the fact that NBC is showing us a negro every five seconds during it negro-lympic’s coverage is also just an illusion?

  • AmRem

    yeah, its correct but not orthodox

    Like spelt 

  • IanJMacDonald

     You have confused the theory of evolution with the theory of abiogenesis.

  • IanJMacDonald

    You are sadly mistaken. ALL of the fossil evidence supports the theory of evolution; not one piece contradicts it.   And one piece of evidence contradicting the theory of evolution is all that would be needed to overturn it. For example, if tomorrow a rabbit fossil were discovered in the pre-Cambrian strata, that by itself would disprove the theory of evolution.  

    The fossil evidence for evolution is overwhelming, but even if there were NO fossil evidence, we would at this point still know that evolution is true by studying morphology and DNA. See “Relics of Eden:The Powerful Evidence of Evolution in Human DNA” by Prof. Daniel J. Fairbanks.

    No one is “shouting you down.” I am simply pointing out that you are wrong.

    • JohnEngelman

      When Charles Darwin wrote On the Origin of Species he wrote that  the absence of fossils intermediate between humans and apes was a serious flaw in his theory. He predicted that those fossils would be found. They have been. It is now possible to trace human evolution from an animal that resembled chimpanzees in every aspect but the human foot, to what we are today. The first thing that evolved was the ability to walk upright for long distances. Chimpanzees cannot do this. The next thing was the continual evolution toward ever higher levels of intelligence.  
                                       
      The theory of evolution is not only consistent with race realism, it strongly implies it. As the human races evolve it is natural to expect some to evolve faster than others. 
                     
      Secular liberals use the theory of evolution as a weapon against Protestant Fundamentalists. Then they deny its implications when doing battle with men like Charles Murray and Jared Taylor.

  • The Worlds Scapegoat

    “Currently, only the views that this woman is espousing are allowed in
    the academia world.  It does not matter how baseless or silly it sounds.”

    If a lie is BIG enough and told over and over again it becomes the truth. Now who was it that WARNED us against the big lie?

  • The Worlds Scapegoat

     pushing her views with your tax dollars.

  • You misunderstood me. You don’t have to buy into evolution to accept my point either: skin color is not the defining aspect of race, but this only illustrates the depth of racial differences, not, as the lady would assert, that race is insignificant.

    • IanJMacDonald

       Dennis, I was responding to FedUp’s post.

  • JohnEngelman

    It is not true that race is only a social construct and that we are all the same under the skin. The races differ significantly in average behavior and ability levels. Nevertheless, these differences seem to evolved during the past ten thousand years when agriculture began. That is a brief period of time in terms of human evolution. Distinctively human evolution began about six million years ago when the Rift Valley separated the common ancestor of chimpanzees and humans.
                                   
    The out of Africa theory is the scientific consensus. It is substantiated by paleontology and DNA. The reason many posters on this website prefer not to believe the out of Africa theory is because it means that their ancestors 50,000 years ago looked similar to contemporary Negroes. 

  • blindsticks

    Jeez,  look at her. Like something out of Bladerunner. Creepy.  
    Have you guys seen this?
    uk.news.yahoo.com/acid-attacker…mum-baby-102633835.html – Cached
    White Watch… her baby in a … on her body. Last night police investigating the attack in Salford, Gtr Manchester, called it “appalling”. Det Con Jim Harris said: “The lady was very …whitewatch.info/page/4.aspx – Cached

  • blindsticks

    Lol, whatever you do  dont try and point out  anything contrary  to the findings, will you.

    The appalling ignorance in this comment is only superceded by the disgusting racism. No wonder you want to hide behind anonymity.
      
    Kevin Charleston on Thu, 26 Jul 2012 at 17:51 | Reply

    This user’s comment has been removed for violating our comments policy of not using a full name and surname. You are the weakest link. Goodbye! . ! on Thu, 26 Jul 2012 at 19:44 | Reply
    This user’s comment has been removed for violating our comments policy of not using a full name and surname. You are the weakest link. Goodbye! . ! on Thu, 26 Jul 2012 at 20:11 | Reply
    The Nazi’s eugenics program was a scientific attempt to justify the belief that the Aryan ‘race’ was superior – and followed that through with massacres of Jews, blacks, gypsies, the mentally ill. Blaming Haiti on racial inferiority is another aspect of the same belief – and completely ignores the barbarity of the slavery, colonialism and socio-economic situations that have led to the Haiti of today.

    When a professor of Palaeontology who says that under the skin there is no concept of racial inferiority you reveal your ignorance when you call them a Nazi. When you follow up with Haiti in support of your argument – you double-down on ignorance and racism. You appear to have some desperate need to see others as inferior – in ways that are not visible on the surface. This is exactly the thrust of the lecture – there is nothing below the surface of the skin which you can use to justify such beliefs in racial superiority or inferiority.

    If you gibber from the sidelines, and assert more rubbish without actually offering a shred of evidence – you may be indeed be an ignorant, racist, red-neck. Kevin Charleston on Fri, 27 Jul 2012 at 07:04 | Reply
    This user’s comment has been removed for violating our comments policy of not using a full name and surname. You are the weakest link. Goodbye! . ! on Fri, 27 Jul 2012 at 09:56 | Reply
    This user’s comment has been removed for violating our comments policy of not using a real full name and surname. You are the weakest link. Goodbye! A C on Fri, 27 Jul 2012 at 18:20 | Reply
    This user’s comment has been removed for violating our comments policy of not using a full name and surname. You are the weakest link. Goodbye! . ! on Sat, 28 Jul 2012 at 08:35 | Reply
    This user’s comments have been removed for violating our comments policy by not using a real first name and surname. You are the weakest link, goodbye! Lime Lite on Sun, 29 Jul 2012 at 05:10 | Reply

  • In the era of DNA, why bother looking at Skin tone? I discriminate against the more distant genetic clusters. 

  • refocus

    How much money is this creature paid to speak on this topic?

  • slobotnavich

    This woman is supposedly a scientist?  Her opinions represent some of the most specious conclusions I’ve ever read.  Racial differentials in intelligence have been established for generations and observed, if not scientifically proved, for many more generations.  They are settled conclusions, at least among rational people

    • haroldcrews

      I was thinking the same thing.  For a scientist she appears unfamiliar with the concept of a non sequitur.  Because skin tone doesn’t have a 100% correlation with racial classification there is no such thing as race?  If I understand her correctly that is what she claims.  Who but the most radical DWLs have ever claimed that skin color was the only difference between the races?  Everyone who hasn’t drunk the egalitarian kool-aid has believed otherwise.  I suppose when ‘racists’ are beyond the pale and need not be debated or countered then she may have a point.

  •  “Now that you’ve learnt that there’s no relationship between skin tone
    and race, take it forward to help promote the end of racism and
    race-based discrimination.”

    People don’t discriminate based on skin tone, they discriminate based on race.  Albino negroes are treated just like the ordinary kind.  Whites and East Asians have no trouble telling each other apart and hanging out with their own kind.

    • Marcus Trajanus

      ” Albino negroes are treated just like the ordinary kind.” Not in Africa. They are way more likely to end up chopped up be used in some magic spell or potion.

  • Marcus Trajanus

     “Skin pigmentation is not a unique attribute that can be used to define human races.” Has anyone ever actually done this? I can’t think of anyone who has ever defined human races purely by skin colour, and I’ve read a fair bit on he topic. Is she really that ignorant when it comes to race or is she deliberately arguing against a strawman?

    • haroldcrews

      I have to admit that I’ve asked my baby niece and nephews if they are part Mexican when they come in all tanned from playing in the pool or coming home from the beach.  But it was only in jest.

  • Marcus Trajanus

    ” That was HIS kind of “scientific” study and conclusion.” You’ll find it’s a fair bit more complex than that, but regardless of anything you think about Darwin’s methods, modern science has confirmed our close relation to the other apes. “Moreover, Darwin WAS a RACIST.” You say it like that’s a bad thing.

  • Marcus Trajanus

    She hasn’t told anyone but the most scientifically illiterate anything new, she’s argued against a feeble strawman of what “race” means, and her conclusion is a non-sequitur.  Is this the best the oposition can muster?

  • slobotnavich

    You’re right about skin-tone.  I’ve know more than a few men  and women (one of my current doctors is a very dark-skinned Indian woman who has utterly Caucasian features and is very bright and articulate) of Indian or Paki extraction who were as dark as Africans but with completely Euro features and clearly high intelligence. 

    Incidentally, my dark-skinned Indian doctor is one foxy wog-ess.

  • alltoohuman

    Nina Jablonski?  Obviously another Boasian jew.  They’re a dime a dozen.

  • pcknott

    She says “we cannot group people into genetically distinct groups based on skin colour”, as if she thinks she is telling us something we need to know.  Any serious racialist knows that African blacks are a separate race from the Melanesians of New Guinea, who are in turn a separate race from the Aborigines of Australia.   We don’t group people together solely on skin colour, although I dare say there are ‘anti-racists’ who do.   So-called ‘colour prejudice’ is a response to hair-texture and facial structure more than skin colour.   It is imposible to discuss the subject of race without a convenient shorthand and skin colour is the most immediately apparent difference even at a distance.  So we talk of black and white.  Self-styled ‘anti-racists’ take advantage of that to pretend we are classifying people merely by skin colour.

  • Marcus Trajanus

    “Notice the article fails to mention that the fossil record fails to support evolution AT ALL” Well, that’s because that’s not true, not that this article is all that concerned with the truth, but such an obvious lie would be too much even for them. If you want evolution denial with your race denial you should visit Answers in Genesis.

  • NM156

    I hope most of the audience were yawning…

  • SarahConnor

    Sorry Guest evolution is a fact!

  • SarahConnor

    You are so wrong go buy yourself a good AP bio book!

  • SarahConnor

    Well said.

  • Sloppo

    Race is only a social construct, just like dog breeds.

  • “the point that skin pigmentation evolved independently of other physical
    traits, and not in tandem with a bucket of the other physical
    characteristics commonly used to distinguish race. ‘So we cannot group
    people into genetically distinct groups based on skin colour,’ Jablonski
    holds.”

    Wow, that’s some really fuckin fantastic evidence you’ve come up with to support your conclusion.

  • OsRazor

     Yes, you should be proud of your heritage and I know exactly what this woman’s ethnicity is.  Many race realists refer to  one of the Chosen People as “Scots-Irish” as a fake “cover” to avoid being called anti-Semitic.  It’s supposed to be a double irony and somewhat amusing.  Regardless, I should have used scare quotes, and I hardly meant to insult you or your heritage, fellow Celt.

    • There seems to be a concerted effort some some of the commentariat here in recent weeks and months to refer to such individuals of said ethnicity by a name of another ethnicity.  The favorite substitution is “Finns” or “Finnish.”  All that accomplishes is to confuse people and make real Finns mad.