User talk:Gottoupload

Why do I say race is a load of nonsense: 1. Well even though it has some historical relevance, my understanding is that a lot of the conclusions drawn before based on race (lower IQ, greater sex drive, etc) have not really stood up to scientific scrutiny.

Those areas are politically incorrect and thus not well studied so we don't really know. But just because race exists does not means some races are smarter than others. Gottoupload 00:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

2. Even though there are some differences between different ethnic groups in terms of genetics, there is a huge overlap of the distributions. The within-group variance is larger than the between group variances.

There's huge overlap between men and women too but that doesn't mean sexes don't exist. There's overlap between different animals too. Races represent central tendencies, not discrete mutually exclusive categories. Gottoupload 00:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

3. There can be some structural differences (like the distribution of fast and slow twitch muscles), but this becomes muddled when there is migration and interbreeding thrown into the mix. Then there are the exceptions and outliers to also consider.

Of course there's interbreeding. Many people can not fit into race or another. But most people can clearly be identified as belonging to one race or another.

4. There has been more migration in the past than we would like to admit; consider the Lemba or the Japanese/Ainu situation or Kennewick Man for example.

The concept of race is getting weaker all the time, but it still remains quite strong. Most people can be classified genetically as coming predominantly from one region of the world or another. Gottoupload 00:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

5. It can be very difficult to determine race by "inspection" in many cases. If there are a significant number of strange exceptions, like genetic distance between Africans and Europeans being closer than the genetic distance between Maoris and Africans, then the concept of race starts to mean less. Or what about Indians that are classified in some schemes as causacians and in other schemes as blacks, or coloreds? It all is so capricious and flakey that it is not a very good measure of anything.

Indians are not classified as black by biologists. They are clearly Caucasoid and genetically cluster close to people from Europe. Gottoupload 00:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Many Indians are craniofacially Caucasoid due to skull shape, but they genetically cluster closest to indigenous Australians, East Asians, and Southeast Asians according to Dr. Eduardas Valaitas--Dark Tichondrias 07:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I think studying genetic characteristics and untangling some of the migrations and interbreeding is far more likely to help us understand human history and capabilities than if a given group of people have nappy hair or not.

We already know that most of us are predominantly descended from people that settled on one of the major geographic areas and we also know that certain physical characteristics (i.e. nappy hair) make it very obvious what part of the world one is from. A few people have much more complex genetic histories, but this doesn't invalidate the concept in the main. Gottoupload 00:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

However, that does not mean that racial stereotypes should not be addressed and explained in an article, because I believe that is what a person who looks in an encyclopedia needs to know to understand the world.--Filll 00:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

On that we agree. This is just a little discussion on the side. Gottoupload 00:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West african type

I find it odd that you support this article when you claim not to believe in race. This article is a clear support of race science using a phrase which is not even used in anthropology to describe these ideas. These ideas are also being presented as current and encyclopedically true. These ideas are, however, antiquated and there is little published research supporting them. The user is twisting origional research to support his antiquated ideas. The author even considers "coon" to be proper terminology when refering to people of African descent. --Strothra 04:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The author of the article was refering to the anthropologist named Carleton Coon, not the racial slur.--Dark Tichondrias 10:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Black People

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to Black people, are considered vandalism. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. Thulean 23:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

You have reverted parts or all of the article more than three times now and have violated 3RR rule. Failure to revert your last edit will cause you being reported. Thulean 01:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Why did you put a vandalism warning on my talk page?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but putting up a vandalism warning on somebody's page without even specifying what the supposedly vandalistic edit was is certainly not easily understood behavior. It is likely to be interpreted as hostile.

Your posting of the vandalism warning occurred a couple of days after I made my last edit, and my last edit got reverted by somebody who did not like the content I supplied. So unless you went back in the history of the article to find out the edits I made you wouldn't even be aware of them. And, from my standpoint, having made several edits in good faith I have no idea of which one you find to be vandalism. P0M 00:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Civility

Regarding Talk: Black people, Template:Civil0 Thulean 01:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)