The study of Diversity .. The Robert Putnam Study

An excellent reason to not elect Democratic Presidents: they start wars, mismanage them then, according to you, surrender or let us get "our butts kicked and then cut and ran".

Dude, slavery began and continued long after the US became a nation. You should try reading some history. Here, let me help you get started:
http://www.understandingslavery.com/index.php-option=com_content&view=article&id=369&Itemid=145.html
The transatlantic slave trade was responsible for the forced migration of between 12 - 15 million people from Africa to the Western Hemisphere from the middle of the 15th century to the end of the 19th century. The trafficking of Africans by the major European countries during this period is sometimes referred to by African scholars as the Maafa ('great disaster' in Swahili). It's now considered a crime against humanity.

The slave trade not only led to the violent transportation overseas of millions of Africans but also to the deaths of many millions more. Nobody knows the total number of people who died during slave raiding and wars in Africa, during transportation and imprisonment, or in horrendous conditions during the so-called Middle Passage, the voyage from Africa to the Americas.

The kidnapping of Africans occurred mainly in the region that now stretches from Senegal to Angola. However, in the 19th century some enslaved Africans were also transported across the Atlantic from parts of eastern and south-eastern Africa.

If your post was factual, it would read "Europe calling other cultures racist after their history of slavery would be hilarious"

 

Actually, new genetic advances has questioned the old idea that there are no races defined by genetics.

"I am worried that well-meaning people who deny the possibility of substantial biological differences among human populations are digging themselves into an indefensible position, one that will not survive the onslaught of science. I am also worried that whatever discoveries are made — and we truly have no idea yet what they will be — will be cited as “scientific proof” that racist prejudices and agendas have been correct all along, and that those well-meaning people will not understand the science well enough to push back against these claims."

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/23/opinion/sunday/genetics-race.html

You are apparently one of those "well meaning people."

 

Only the right wing, likes "to **** with Tradition".

I wonder if we need to get Swedish redheads involved.

 

You should try actually reading and understanding what Reich is saying.

BTW, thanks for the quote: "It is true that race is a social construct. It is also true, as Dr. Lewontin wrote, that human populations “are remarkably similar to each other” from a genetic point of view."

Obviously there are genetic variations developed by geographical separation over thousands of years. That, however doesn't mean human beings can be easily divided into 2, 3 or 7 races.

 

I think I understand what Prof. Reich is saying. He is saying that there are differences in human populations and the people who deny these differences they are going to be caught on the wrong side of science.

It is not easy to divide the human population into races, but it is certainly possible using sophisticated statistical techniques. I am glad that you recognize that evolution does indeed operate on humans. Evolution is responsible for the racial differences we are discovering daily.

 

There are genetic variations in people and, due to several thousand years of geographical separation, some commonalities formed among them, including negative ones. However, since people are still 99.9% alike, to claim they are different "races", "breeds" or species is just silly. A black man in South Africa can be the perfect kidney match for a blond-haired, blue-eyed kid in Sweden. Why? Not because they are different races, but because they are 99.9% alike regardless of superficial differences.

 

so you quote from an article that disagrees with your POV when it does just the opposite...

 

what? can't read a scientific heat map? ...both maps quite clearly show there are blonde and blue eyed Spaniards

 

This is true. If the person (group) has some desire to integrate into the culture they will do fine. Those who come in and expect the dominant culture to adapt to them will not. It is ridiculous to move to a new country and not try to learn the language. These are worthless people .. any way you slice it or dice it.

If I was to move to France tomorrow - despite the fact that the language I speak is known by many French people - I would still learn to speak French. How does one expect to function in society without knowing the dominant language ? Such is the mindset of an idiot.

I say this not just from a a perspective of logic and reason but from personal experience. My wife is originally from Eastern Europe ... in fact she speaks two Eastern European languages fluently (Romanian and Serbian) - along with English. I regularly interact with both groups - they tend to have many hall parties throughout the year so I am not just talking interactions with a few.

The smart one's learn English - the idiots do not. One fellow who is a friend of my wife's father - who lives with us - came here at the age of 17 and is now 66. He does speak some English but it is barely passable and he does read or write in English. He is not a bad fellow but he is an idiot.

Now at least with Eastern Europeans they share the culture - so this helps. When you take someone who neither speaks the language or shares the culture this is a bigger problem - especially if this person lacks respect for individual liberty - the principle on which this nation was founded - something this person should have known prior to coming to this nation.

These people often come to the US for our freedoms but then disrespect the freedom of others.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/11/1...ment-mulls-guidelines-as-grim-toll-rises.html

 

not everyone has the same abilities, my mother did well learning english(also fluent in german and dutch), my father struggled...some people have a natural talent for learning a new language others do not, it doesn't necessarily make them idiots(although they may be that too)...immigrants also get themselves into a comfort trap, working with and socializing with other who speak their language, I understand the comfort level they get from it but it retards their learning curve....it also depends on the age your age, learning a new language definitely becomes more difficult the older you get....I'm actually quite good at picking up language even though I'm old, but it is getting more difficult...

 

I did say this but perhaps should have emphasized more. It not the lack of ability to learn language quickly that makes the idiot but the lack of desire. I totally get that some are far more gifted in learning language than others ... just like some are better at math.

The problem is that some of them just don't care "what do I need to learn English for" - This is the comment of the idiot.

I see the comfort trap in play on a regular basis. They work as painters with those who speak the same language - come home and watch TV in their own Language - go on the internet in their own language ...and so on - make zero effort to learn the language. Some of these people I am referring to are not "bad" at English - they are completely incapable of having even a simple conversation - yet they have been here for decades.

On the contrary I know others - who completely immersed themselves in the language (despite working alone - as a tiler). The fellow I am referring to came here in his 40's. He listens to English TV when he goes home .. made a concerted effort to learn the language and learn he did.

Age is a big factor as well - as you point out. I do not call someone who comes here at 60 (or even 50) an idiot for not knowing the language ... this is completely different.

Attitude is a big part of it - the desire to learn.

 

Prof. Reich is concerned with substantial human differences, not superficial ones. Reread my quote.

 

Prof. Reich is concerned that "well meaning people," i.e. those that deny substantial racial differences, hold a position that will not survive the "onslaught of science."

My POV is that there are substantial differences and have nothing to fear from the "onslaught of science."

 

I did you one better; I read his article.

 

And that those are in the minority. Geez. Since when did become controversial to poont out that the average Spaniard is dark haired and dark eyed?

 

If you figured out how to read the map, you'd find "dark haired and dark eyed" is the standard, not the exception. There are genetic survival reasons for being dark haired, dark eyed. So who is normal and who is the genetic aberration?

 

that there differences between people doesn't verify there are races, there aren't...I'm genetically different from my brother, and hugely different from my sisters, are we different races, no...German Shepard dogs have a tendency to hip dysplasia does that make them a different race than Poodles? no they're both still dogs, the german hip dysplasia is problem of continual inbreeding(when you boink your cousins repeatedly you can expect problems to resurface)....the differences between humans is infinitesimally small and superficial with the material of genetic material involved (3 billion) and about 20,000 genes....attempting to see racial differences based on these infinitesimal tiny differences is only trying to justify racism....

what racist see as differences are nothing more than family resemblance due to repeated inbreeding...

 

your reply would indicate that it was non existent...

 

Very good. How do you describe his position? Are the differences in human populations superficial or substantial?

 

No sh*t.

You don't say?

As I mentioned previously, it is entirely dependent on context.

 

Not at all.

 

Yes of course. Geographic isolation leads to the differences between human populations. That is evolution. And Prof. Reich notes that there are substantial differences between human populations not the infinitesimal tiny differences. And if the research justifies racism, so be it. Science ought not be concerned with moral questions or political ones.

If you choose not to agree with Prof. Reich, so be it. But don't pretend he agrees with you.

 

Since you haven't disproved anything I actually said I guess you just are posting to yourself.

 

You are free to think whatever you please and I support your right to do so. Have a nice day, sir!

God Bless America!

 

The point remains that some Mexicans of Spanish descent have fair complexions, naturally light hair, and Mexicans can't spot a fair skinned person at a distance and know they aren't a Mexican.