There can surely be no doubt in the mind of anyone who have been exposed to genuine diversity that there are clear differences between not only races but ethnicities within races. Why this is controversial at this point baffles me. You are not a racist for simply pointing out observable and/or scientifically proved contrasts. Only ideologues and/or those shielded from true diversity will ever find these type of articles offensive. May the truth prevail, in all things.
“there’s no such thing as race” is a standard sentence in the United States and Europe. Conventional wisdom, and like so much conventional wisdom, false.
Of course there is.
First you need to define your terms. I would suggest that any population – a group whose members have mated within that group, almost entirely, for some time – and has experienced strong-enough natural selection to change significantly in some trait that we give a shit about can usefully be considered a race. Or a ‘goklu’, where goklu has exactly the same operational meaning as race, without having yet acquired any toxic associations. Low levels of inward gene flow allow selection to change the frequencies of alleles, so mating within the group is important. Usually this endogamy is a natural consequence of geography (not much gene flow across the Atlantic before Columbus) but sometimes it has been caused by social rules…
View original post 791 more words