Must I really point this out?
They’d be scared to put me on trial because they’d be forced to admit I’m correct.
On court records for the next thousand years.
It felt churlish to point this out before, I considered it obvious.
We use the term race to be polite, technically they don’t have one.
However, circumstances compel me to explain.
They believe in superiority but not race (mixed isn’t a race).
That is irrational.
The rhetoric that “mixed race are superior” is absurd on many levels.
Here’s one, the most biological and side-stepping value judgements.
A few sharper ones claim to be raceless, this is true.
As updated for clarity:
A race evolves over millennia in precise environments and overcoming specific (natural) selection events, it’s like saying you invented a primary colour. A human group can’t evolve in ALL/NO environment, especially with no advantageous mutational benefit to the organism’s fitness (why I emphasize health).
Mate selection requires informed consent. Medicine isn’t telling them about these things until it’s too late and they experience the problems firsthand. With no warning.
Naturally, not knowing the information (usually they are never told!), they’ll tend to blame themselves as individual parents when it’s really the mating strategy combination. It used to cause health problems in royalty too, since they’d marry across vast distances. Repeating the behaviour made it cumulative. They became too inbred by outbreeding too much, narrowing to a smaller and smaller niche of potential breeding partners with every generation.
There are no separate human groupings (sub-species) made from pre-existing groups! It’s logically impossible! It’s a little like cutting a slice of cake and acting like it’s a new, whole cake. The genetic tree doesn’t sprout from air!
It’s called a phylogenetic tree and I made you one to illustrate my point.
See? I care.
This is the easy to read version because it fits well on the timeline of history.
Rest of the edit:
Genetically, they’re creating niche sub-subraces with severely restricted breeding opportunities (explaining the IVF rates) and I’ve yet to see a mixed race fertility study go into grandparents and great-grandparents, which could already be done.
Maybe it was done and never published.
Cult of silence.
Parental attitudes of mixed children would also be a thrilling read.
As a niche group whose rarer, more recessive mutations are swiftly lost in the blend, we would expect their fertility overall to drop with each generation (this includes mixed White and could explain secular America below replacement level).
A Northern Italian subrace man mixed with an Austrian subrace woman is mixed race (of the White European thede) but we never think of it that accurate way, do we?
We think of a more PC form of mulatto, which is narrower and limited as an idea.
(50% “black”/50% “white” and up to two generations applicable tops).
They’re toying with the definitions of the levels.
Again, because I love you. I want you to understand. Origin of the Species isn’t on the national school curriculum, causing me to write in full earnest. Someone must tell you.
Subraces you have likely heard of includes Celts, Picts, Basque, Angles, Saxons, Normans, the Cornish and so on.
The modern concept of “mixed race” is false in every conceivable permutation.
Tell me, where do they fit in? On the tree, show me. Where’s the root? Nobody is allowed to ask about the details because it’s political, it isn’t scientific.
A liger is neither a lion nor a tiger. Those are exclusive categories.
We’re defining them by their parents for linguistic convenience.
They are a mix of their parent’s race/s (evolved identity) but they themselves as an individual organism don’t have one.
There are hundreds, if not thousands, of novel sub-subraces. Precise combinations. It depends the fine-grain you want. The mixed part itself is also a category error because it lumps them all in together.
An individual whose mixture is of Celt, Basque, Alpine and Nord heritage has nothing in common neither biologically nor culturally with a combination in one individual of Sub-Saharan African, Aboriginal Australian, Inuit, Yayoi and South American.
Yet they’d lead you to believe this (lie).
It’s called a voting bloc.
Sometimes you can destroy many group’s unique interests by making them sacrifice for a larger group they don’t truly belong to (Empires fall).
Politically, they’re being played because each type will have its own issues and needs and this means none can truly be studied (similar to how most clinical trials are done on men and there are medical problems* applying their findings to women).
Subraces arose naturally in evolutionary history, they evolved. Their mutations are stable because they’ve weathered thousands of years of events including war or since gone extinct.
This artificial combination called both mixed (too ambiguous) and race (just no, too specific and wrong) when it is neither, is novel (practically born yesterday, unproven) and in mutational terms, that isn’t a good thing.
Surely people deserve to know this information as teenagers or earlier before they consider how to marry?
A lot of people, when thinking of who should father/mother their children, consider the child’s health their primary concern. This is too important to ignore. Studies must be conducted, the burden of proof is directly heaped upon those making the positive claims e.g. sunny Pollyanna health and life outcomes, magically.
From what little I can find on the subject, the evidence points in quite the opposite trajectory.
Whatever happened to consent?
It’s a clear public interest case especially where healthcare is taxpayer funded.
Assuming you want governments lead by science than superstition?
While I’m here “there’s one race, the human race” is bullshit, I trust you knew that too?
“Human race” predates Darwin’s work and the formal classification of species.
“That I might all forget the human race,
And, hating no one, love but only her!”
Charles Darwin was a toddler at publication.
Homo is our genus, sapiens our species. Humans/humanity/mankind is a species.
We have a race (or not). We are always a species.
If you want to deny your brain, (sapiens), go ahead!
It’s totally unscientific to say “human race”, in fact, it’s anti-science.
Congratulations, if you use that term seriously you’re a Creationist.
A liberal Creationist.
Atom predates particle physics too, STFU.
An ancient term of philosophical speculation (in Leucippus, Democritus); revived scientifically 1805 by British chemist John Dalton. In late classical and medieval use also a unit of time, 22,560 to the hour.
“Just being a Negro doesn’t qualify you to understand the race situation any more than being sick makes you an expert on medicine.” [Dick Gregory, 1964]
So in conclusion, yes, contrary to another lie, the idea of race has always existed.
Racial erasure is a form of genocide. Race is exclusive as a sub-category of species. No false equivalence here today, thank you. One is not zero, blue is not red and water is not fire.
Anglo- peoples (please research others at your leisure) simply called it something/s else.
Americans are too uneducated to bloody check!
Sorry, I’ve revealed my power level, haven’t I?
Edit: to really put the cat among the pigeons, advocates of a raceless world are genophobic.
Contrary to https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/genophilia and scientific.
They personally fear breeding with their own kind but an extension of the term would easily apply to a strong sociosexual aversion to one’s own people, culture or kin. Expansions happen all the time if there’s a need in behaviour (see ‘gay’).
OR geno-cidal, a willful termination of their group included, which we knew.
Medically, they would be suffering from: