RE: ‘First time' in history: White deaths outnumber births in US



That chart is so wrong. So apparently Finns are members of the "Tibetan" race, and Dravidians are negroid? LOL



This is what happens when you try to neatly apportion people into discrete races. Shahanshah I know you got pissed at me for saying this before, but race is also a social construct. Is there any OBJECTIVE definition of race that holds true across all historical epochs? NO.



Most racial variation in the human species is clinal, meaning that many races will "blend in" to each other at their periphery. Just to give you an example, Swedes look like Norwegians, who look like Dutch people, who look like Belgians, who look like northern French people, who look like Mediterranean French people, who look like Spaniards, who look like Moroccans, who look like Berbers, who look like Mauritanian Arabs, who look like northern Fulani, who look like southern Fulani, who look like west Africans.



People are shocked when they discover that so many Levantine Arabs, Berbers, north Africans, etc can pass for white. (Look at Zinedine Zidane or Assia Djebar, both of whom are French people of north African descent.) Some even have blonde hair and blue eyes. It is not totally implausible that Jesus Christ looked Italian. This is because the media wrongly portrays middle eastern people as uniformly brown looking motherfuckers, which is BS.



There's also this boy, who is a north African Berber:







Gee where does the Caucasoid race end and the negroid race begin? Is there any OBJECTIVE dividing line? I could say the same for all those diverse tribes in central Asia. You have Turkic-speaking people who look virtually 100% caucasoid, and some, like the Kyrgyz, who look 100% mongoloid.



If you want to classify Persians as white, there is no reason why you cannot do so, because there was never any objective definition of "white" to begin with. My only contention with this is that anthropologically speaking, if you want to classify Persians as white, you would also have to consider a bunch of ethnic groups that have NEVER been classified as white to begin with, ranging from Pashtuns to Amazigh people to Kurds. (Contrary to popular belief, the Irish, Italians, and Slavs have always been considered to be white.) No anthropologist would consider that nonsense, it makes no sense historically, culturally, or genetically.







The difference between me and liberals is that liberals wrongly say that race has no biological meaning other than trivial features such as skin color, which is complete bull crap . There is racial variation in every single phenotype for there exists diversity in the human species.



These include not only skin and eye color, but also craniofacial dimensions, human leukocyte antigens, avg. muscularity, bone density, average brain size (Australian Aborigines have brains that are 15% smaller than the mongoloid average), white blood cell count, hemoglobin affinity to oxygen, resistance to alcoholism, susceptibility to ALL infectious diseases, digestive function, intestinal length, etc. Gee, that leaves what exactly?



I know white liberals (morons) used to bash Japanese for believing that they had 6 extra feet of intestine, compared to whites, but that is apparently true -- there is TREMENDOUS variation in intestinal length between races. Which is what you might expect, when people have subsisting on totally different diets over the past 100 thousand years.



Only 15% of white Americans lack the psoas minor muscle, compared to over 85% of African Americans. ^^That chart is so wrong. So apparently Finns are members of the "Tibetan" race, and Dravidians are negroid? LOLThis is what happens when you try to neatly apportion people into discrete races. Shahanshah I know you got pissed at me for saying this before, but race is also a social construct. Is there any OBJECTIVE definition of race that holds true across all historical epochs? NO.Most racial variation in the human species is clinal, meaning that many races will "blend in" to each other at their periphery. Just to give you an example, Swedes look like Norwegians, who look like Dutch people, who look like Belgians, who look like northern French people, who look like Mediterranean French people, who look like Spaniards, who look like Moroccans, who look like Berbers, who look like Mauritanian Arabs, who look like northern Fulani, who look like southern Fulani, who look like west Africans.People are shocked when they discover that so many Levantine Arabs, Berbers, north Africans, etc can pass for white. (Look at Zinedine Zidane or Assia Djebar, both of whom are French people of north African descent.) Some even have blonde hair and blue eyes. It is not totally implausible that Jesus Christ looked Italian. This is because the media wrongly portrays middle eastern people as uniformly brown looking motherfuckers, which is BS.There's also this boy, who is a north African Berber:Gee where does the Caucasoid race end and the negroid race begin? Is there any OBJECTIVE dividing line? I could say the same for all those diverse tribes in central Asia. You have Turkic-speaking people who look virtually 100% caucasoid, and some, like the Kyrgyz, who look 100% mongoloid.If you want to classify Persians as white, there is no reason why you cannot do so, because there was never any objective definition of "white" to begin with. My only contention with this is that anthropologically speaking, if you want to classify Persians as white, you would also have to consider a bunch of ethnic groups that have NEVER been classified as white to begin with, ranging from Pashtuns to Amazigh people to Kurds. (Contrary to popular belief, the Irish, Italians, and Slavs have always been considered to be white.) No anthropologist would consider that nonsense, it makes no sense historically, culturally, or genetically.The difference between me and liberals is that liberals wrongly say that race has no biological meaning other than trivial features such as skin color, which is. There is racial variation in every single phenotype for there exists diversity in the human species.These include not only skin and eye color, but also craniofacial dimensions, human leukocyte antigens, avg. muscularity, bone density, average brain size (Australian Aborigines have brains that are 15% smaller than the mongoloid average), white blood cell count, hemoglobin affinity to oxygen, resistance to alcoholism, susceptibility to ALL infectious diseases, digestive function, intestinal length, etc. Gee, that leaves what exactly?I know white liberals (morons) used to bash Japanese for believing that they had 6 extra feet of intestine, compared to whites, but that is apparently true -- there is TREMENDOUS variation in intestinal length between races. Which is what you might expect, when people have subsisting on totally different diets over the past 100 thousand years.Only 15% of white Americans lack the psoas minor muscle, compared to over 85% of African Americans.