Multi Racial Society - The Biggest Stressor Of Them All?

[RealNeat]

Thinking that racism is a natural instinct everyone feels simply because you feel it is just one symbol of your egocentricism.

yeah its odd how relatible he seems to think this "issue" is.

 

[Cloudhands]

I'm using "race" as a synonym for "pure genetic ancestry"
Everything is technically mixed, but sometimes a population is isolated for long enough that it develops a unique genetic identity of its own. I call this a "race".

The modern western definition of "race" is just appearance. There are "black" people who are more related to "white" people than to other "black" people. And vice versa.
This is because appearance is controlled by a handful of genes, while the total genetic difference between different races consists of 20 million+ genes. For comparison, 75% of eye color variation is controlled by 3 letters of genetic code. 50% of skin color variation is controlled by 2 genes.

Thus, race is an arbitrary social construct based on things like appearance, legends, politics, etc., and there are infinitely many of these arbitrary constructs depending on who you ask. Lebanese are "white" in the US but not in Finland.

But, race is also a genetic and quantifiable construct based on raw genetic similarity. And it is not inherently linked with skin or eye color.

An evidence-based doctrine which finds that British people are 1/3 Middle Eastern doesn't exactly shout "white supremacy" to me

First, the definition you are using for "race" is the same one used in biology(a group is separated long enough to have clear genetic differences creating a subspecies), but equating it to "pure genetic ancestry" in a human context makes no sense. Humans have never been separated long enough to have been "isolated for long enough to have unique genetic identity". Gene flow occurred across human populations from the beginning of our species and have continued since then.
There is much less genetic diversity in the human species than would be expected from a species with such a large population. (see graph below depicting genetic variation among different species of large-bodied mammals.)
Lewontin (1972) offered the first reliable values for human variation and found that 6.3% of variation explained by differences between “racial” groups and 85.4% of variation found among individuals within populations. In other words; there is more genetic diversity within one population than there is between two populations.
Your definition of "race" again makes no sense as there are no clear genetical distinctions between populations of people.

You also note that race is formed as a social function and is arbitrary. Someone in one place may have one "race" while in another have another "race"; all socially and culturally constructed; never linked to specific genetic differences that could be used to delineate a "race".

 

[Cloudhands]

I'm using "race" as a synonym for "pure genetic ancestry"
Everything is technically mixed, but sometimes a population is isolated for long enough that it develops a unique genetic identity of its own. I call this a "race".

The modern western definition of "race" is just appearance. There are "black" people who are more related to "white" people than to other "black" people. And vice versa.
This is because appearance is controlled by a handful of genes, while the total genetic difference between different races consists of 20 million+ genes. For comparison, 75% of eye color variation is controlled by 3 letters of genetic code. 50% of skin color variation is controlled by 2 genes.

Thus, race is an arbitrary social construct based on things like appearance, legends, politics, etc., and there are infinitely many of these arbitrary constructs depending on who you ask. Lebanese are "white" in the US but not in Finland.

But, race is also a genetic and quantifiable construct based on raw genetic similarity. And it is not inherently linked with skin or eye color.

An evidence-based doctrine which finds that British people are 1/3 Middle Eastern doesn't exactly shout "white supremacy" to me

Okay i think i see what u meant now. It was more of a symantic misunderstanding, you meant like phenotypical expression rather than the way i understood you saying "pure genetic heritage"

 

[lvysaur]

First, the definition you are using for "race" is the same one used in biology

No, it is not. Traditional biology is not based on molecular genetics. It's based on wishful thinking and biases.

but equating it to "pure genetic ancestry" in a human context makes no sense.

It does when the people of those pure ancestries have been found fossilized, and their DNA is seen to be ancestral to moderns.

Gene flow occurred across human populations from the beginning of our species and have continued since then.

Yes, but not uniformly through space and time.

Lewontin (1972) offered the first reliable values for human variation and found that 6.3% of variation explained by differences between “racial” groups and 85.4% of variation found among individuals within populations.

That's a metric which has always been represented in a scientifically dishonest way.

Imagine there is a gene X. People can either have an A or G nucleotide here. This is called an SNP (single nucleotide polymorphism).
For instance, at one of the genes for blue eyes, Finnish people have 90% Guanine, which causes blue eyes. British are 80% G, Italians 40% G, and Syrians are 10% G.

By Lewontin's argument, these are all the same. Because you see both variants in all these populations, therefore it is variation "within population variation".
But back in reality, everybody can differentiate these populations based on eye color to some extent. If I go outside and I see a bunch of blue eyed people, I know that I'm not in Syria.

That's because Lewontin used a bankrupt "all or none" discrete method of measuring human variation. If an allele occurs once, even ONCE within a hundred, 500, or 1000 samples, it fits his metric of "within population variation".

Also, he ignores the fact that you can use multiple genes to identify a population.
For instance, the blue eye gene might be a bit off, since after all, some Finns have brown eyes and a few Syrians have blue eyes. If I go by the blue eye gene alone, I would miscategorize some Finns as Syrians and vice versa.

But what if we add a hair color gene in? What about two skin color ones? And the Y haplogroup marker?
If someone comes up with a blue eye variant, two light skin variants, a blonde hair variant, and the N haplogroup Y chromosome, then they are not Syrian. You literally have better odds of winning the lottery than of that person being Syrian.

And that's just 4 SNPs. There are millions of SNPs that you can do this analysis with. And most of them aren't associated with silly stuff like eye color. They're just at naturally different frequencies across populations, use enough and you can pinpoint not only different "races", but different ethnicities within a "race". For example, you can tell with pinpoint accuracy whether someone is from Scotland or Poland.

 

[lvysaur]

Okay i think i see what u meant now. It was more of a symantic misunderstanding, you meant like phenotypical expression rather than the way i understood you saying "pure genetic heritage"

No lol, I didn't mean anything about phenotype. I literally meant "pure genetic heritage".

All the stuff in my last comment, about differentiating Brits and Finns and Syrians, was only to debunk that common Lewontin's fallacy you mentioned. But it doesn't even matter, because "British" isn't even a race in the genetic sense. "White" isn't a race genetically either.

"European" is a genetic race, and it ceased to exist in its pure form 5,000 years ago. All "whites" are part European, but none of them are fully European. Some whites (Italian, Greek, Iberian) are actually more Middle Eastern than they are European. Some whites (Russians, Finns) are 1/8 East Asian.

A race can only be pure with respect to a certain date, because all humans are ultimately mixes of other humans, and it's been going on long enough that nobody has been left totally untouched.

For instance, 9,000 years ago we see West European Hunter Gatherers (WHG) who were genetically pure. Run an admixture test on them and they don't come up as a result of two separate populations mixing. This is because whatever mixed to produced them, happened so long ago, or has had so much genetic selection since, that the mixed group has now evolved its own genetic uniqueness.

This genetic uniqueness does not exist in modern Europeans, or Mexicans, or modern Indians or most moderns. That is why I consider them mixed.

There are some modern mixed populations that have evolved genetic uniqueness. The Kalash of Pakistan are one such example, they come up as a separate grouping on genetic tests, but if you filter out their endogamous isolation-based evolution, they are identical to other Pakistanis. Hence you can say the Kalash are a "race" because they've been isolated from the rest of Pakistan for about 5000 years, and their small population size has made their DNA evolve quickly.

 

[michael94]

Forcing people to live with those that they don't feel comfortable around is wrong. It has nothing to do with "supremacy"

 

[MrGilbert]

Maybe it's the subconscious awareness of our people's "replacement"

 

[LeeLemonoil]

@lvysaur

Thanks for the informative posts.

Tribalism is stressful. Ethnic, social, national backgrounds can all contribute to or constitute tribalism.

Concerning Stockholm: I understand that Swedish or Stockholm natives can develop an undifferentiated hatred towards Arab and African immigrants up there. It’s beyond grasp what’s happening in Malmö and Stockholm since a few years. The many migrants that aren’t involved in all the criminality, gang-life and anti-social behavior get overshadowed easily.

 

[Vinny]

i considered making a burner account for this one because i dont want people to stop giving me good advice but im going to trust that the users here are mature enough to not take this personally.

living in a big European city, dealing all the immigrants is naturally very stressful to me. but this can be attributed to the fact that they hassle me every time i take the subway or the fact that they are more likely to be violent/criminal. but ever since i was a small child, before i had even started judging people based on their skin color, i was always unhappy being around non-white kids. this feeling never went away as i grew older. though i try not to judge other people based on race there is just this deep natural feeling of stress from seeing them. i grew up with a very small amount of immigrants in my small town, so at this point it wasnt even because of the huge immigrant problem we have now. i just can not be happy or relaxed knowing there are other races around me. its not like walking down the street and seing a Chinese person ruins my day, but constantly seeing people of all colors around me just makes me depressed and angry.
of course, arabic and black people stress me out the most, because they most are likely to hurt me. but even the peoples that i know are not a problem, being around them to much makes me feel alone and isolated and this deep unnatural frustration.

(americans who have not visited a northern european city in the last 5 years, please do not tell me about what our situation is like)

surely fighting these instincts must cause harm

i cant think of any people that wouldn't be happier surrounded by their own kind. racism is a deep natural instinct and completely suppressing it must be so tiresome and exhausting. i think the fact we we teach kids from the moment they are born to not categorize people is dumbing down the population. the brain WANTS to categorize and generalize. we are fighting our natural way of understanding the world.

who actually feels happier in a multicultural society? you are constantly put on guard.

I resonate completely with everything you said and have been feeling (and many other people I know) like this since very very early age.

Now I live in a fast growing multi ethnic culture (Cyprus) and I'm quite sure that in several years it'll become unbearable (considering Cyprus had had already its ethnic conflict in the near past).

 

[not_James_Bond]

A multi-racial society sounds ideal, but it doesn't work. Economics also comes into the equation and why does the West constantly interfere with the East? Poverty is a great driver of immigration, why wouldn't you want to improve your lot by moving to Europe or other liberal societies. Add in the disastrous Gulf war of the 90s causing huge resentment in the East and there you go.

 

[TheSir]

I don’t think the racial background is as important as the cultural one. I have a natural proclivity to open up and be myself more around people that I perceive to share similar values, hobbies, and interests as I do. I’m equally as likely to get along with a fellow who’s of any racial type so long as they meet the aforementioned criteria. Given the probability for people of certain racial types to grow up in certain cultures usually creates this assumption that it is the skin that dictates the person, but it’s necessary to look past that and see that it is the values they embrace that dictate who they really are. The definition by race is just an easy, but short-sighted way of defining certain cultural types. A black family growing up in a conservative, America Christian culture will adopt all the values of this culture, and is “white” in everything but skin color.

Perhaps the real discussion should be whether a multicultural society is one that is good, and what do we mean by multicultural. What values must remain central and shared for the members of an area to feel united and at peace with one another? Perhaps the cultural practices can be different, but the values must remain shared for their to be peace. In this then setting, the cultures may be different and interacting, but there is still harmony.

On the other hand, culture is an extension of biology. One race adopting culture and values from another race will not create a carbon copy, but something new, due to biology distorting the culture and values that are being adopted. Using your example, christian worship in black communities organically became something different from WASP worship. Furthermore, racial background and cultural background ultimately point to the same fundamental thing, as there can be no specific culture without there first being a specific biology and environment from which the culture in question emerges. As such, a multiracial society can be a monocultural society only once the society itself becomes closer to monoracial. Up until this point, no real culture beyond superficial feel-good values (love everyone, fight evil etc.) can emerge.

If you take a look at history, you could make the argument that white people are the most likely to be violent

I think you should actually study history for once before sharing nonsensical statements like this. Why even make a point about white people if you don't believe in race?

You can be a multiracial homogeneous society (Chileans, most European countries)

By far most European countries are distinct genetic clusters, and as such could be viewed as distinct races -- unless you count in immigrants, in which case we would no longer be talking about homogenous societies.

Humans have never been separated long enough to have been "isolated for long enough to have unique genetic identity

as there are no clear genetical distinctions between populations of people.

Are you saying that if you picked up a genetic sample from a Guatemalan and an Ukrainan body, you'd be unable to figure out what ethnicity the samples belonged to? Do you realize how relatively little time it takes to end up with unique genetic identity? Do you realize that various groups of humans have been separated from each other for at least a hundred thousand years? To say that there are no genetic distinctions between populations of people is as unscientific as one can get.

So it begs the question what came first... the chicken or the egg?

Depends on whether you believe racism to be innate or learned. If learned, it must have been the result of direct empirical experience with the object. If innate, it is an expected organic reaction.

 

[Vinny]

I think you should actually study history for once before sharing nonsensical statements like this. Why even make a point about white people if you don't believe in race?

 

[pro marker]

Good thread. We are supposed to live in small local communities with similar people. It’s not racist, it’s natural and beautiful. Multiculturalism seems great on paper, but I agree it creates huge stress and guilt.


I find it funny that we praise places like Japan for having a strong national identity and proud, uniform tradition. Yet we don’t extend that same thinking to ‘the west’. There is SO much self loathing inside progressives.

no one ever went to Syria or Kenya or Japan and said: you’re not doing enough for diversity, you’re not inclusive enough, your local culture is inherently discriminatory against foreigners etc.

As a white man, I feel I’ve been denied the right to belong to my own tribe. In fact I’m not even supposed to say I have one, cos that immediately = “white supremacy”.

I sincerely hope there is a backlash against all this SJW bs at some point in my life

"As a white man, I feel I’ve been denied the right to belong to my own tribe." i agree with this very much and its a horrible feeling. the reason why the immigrants here can treat us like this is because white people are no longer together in large groups. if they were, these immigrants would get beaten to a pulp anytime they messed with a white person. and so they would stop. but there are no repercussions. i no longer feel safe and i constantly have to be on my guard. their strenght is in their numbers. if you see 20 immigrants walking down the street thats just normal. if you see even 15 white men walking down the street people turn their heads. i hate this violent society i now have to live in.

It's resentment, most of them feel alienated from the mainstream society which at some level they would like to be really part of. At the same time they are pulled in the other direction by Islam. Many may have either been born in Sweden or have kids born there like you said, so they often don't even have a real sense of attachment to their country of origin. If you don't feel like you belong in the country where you live, nor your country of origin, and don't see good opportunities for fulfilling work and social relationships, the only thing that's left to define your identity is Islam. They seek refuge in Islam and its ideology and in doing so become more radicalized and dissociated from the rest of the society.

And yes, you're right, I think it takes some special type of mindset and constitution to withstand the dark and frigid climate of the nordic countries. It's bound to be a factor.

where are you from, sounds like a great place lol. i would argue that "ghetto culture" IS mainstream culture here in sweden. even upperclass rich kids are dressing like them, walking around with hooded and hidden faces, dealing dope even though they have no need to do so. immigrant music about crime is the most popular amongst the youth. the new beauty standard is far away from the traditional swede. i would too be violent and angry if i was forced to live in a very hot country. islam sounds pretty good to me tbh if you live in the east.

I don’t think the racial background is as important as the cultural one. I have a natural proclivity to open up and be myself more around people that I perceive to share similar values, hobbies, and interests as I do. I’m equally as likely to get along with a fellow who’s of any racial type so long as they meet the aforementioned criteria. Given the probability for people of certain racial types to grow up in certain cultures usually creates this assumption that it is the skin that dictates the person, but it’s necessary to look past that and see that it is the values they embrace that dictate who they really are. The definition by race is just an easy, but short-sighted way of defining certain cultural types. A black family growing up in a conservative, America Christian culture will adopt all the values of this culture, and is “white” in everything but skin color.

Perhaps the real discussion should be whether a multicultural society is one that is good, and what do we mean by multicultural. What values must remain central and shared for the members of an area to feel united and at peace with one another? Perhaps the cultural practices can be different, but the values must remain shared for their to be peace. In this then setting, the cultures may be different and interacting, but there is still harmony.

i definitely think different races have different temperaments. some are more prone to violence than others because thats what it takes to survive where they are from. nothing wrong with that, no man should be denied the right to be themselves.

Thats still a broad statement to make. Ive never felt it. Ever since i was little ive had friends of all sorts of colors, and it wasnt until i was older that i noticed my mom sometimes had racist views. I dont think its fair to assume everyone feels that way because you have some examples of some people feeling that way. I dont think isolating yourself based on subconscious fear is healthier than integrating and realizing theres nothing to be afraid of. Poor people are the most violent, just because they happen to be people of color sometimes doesnt mean it isnt spurious correlation. I think that if someone has a very healthy metabolism and thyroid they are more likely to embrace all cultures and be more willing to make friends with people of all walks of life :)

were you not exposed to mainstream media or school? the i know some very poor all white communities with tons of drugs incest, all kinds of bad stuff. there is no more violence there.

Clearly, the serotonin and hypothyroid physiology can contribute to anger and fearfulness. It affects everyone living in the modern world negatively, sadly.

I would love to go to africa and meet actual native africans. they seem completely different from the rest of the world. very calm and understanding. at peace with life. of course this is just my impression from videos and documentaries.

That is key. No one is born racist, it depends on your early childhood experiences. But you are right that it is a natural behaviour (maybe a safety mechanism of a stressed organism). People can lose that tension after getting to know a different culture or befriending someone. I know that the situation is difficult since a lot of the current immigrants in europe are immensely stressed themselves. Low social status, low income, poor nutrition, etc only makes it worse and can lead to aggressive behaviour.


Rats will help a stranger if they recognize his 'type' - Futurity
"It takes diverse social interactions during development or adulthood to expand helping behavior to more groups of unfamiliar individuals. Even in humans, studies have shown that exposure to diverse environments reduces social bias..."

...

“Rats are apparently able to categorize others into groups and modify their social behavior according to group membership,” Bartal says. “Genetic similarity or relatedness to another individual really has no influence at all.”

“Rats are not born with an innate identity or motivation to help their own type,” Mason says. “It’s only through social interactions that they form bonds that elicit empathy and motivate helping. There are no mirrors in nature, so what they see forms their identity.”

With these behavioral patterns established in an animal model, the researchers are optimistic the underlying biological mechanisms of helping and group categorization can be explored, and that these results can inform future studies in other social species, including humans.

“Exposure to and interaction with different types of individuals motivates them to act well toward others that may or may not look like them,” adds Mason. “I think these results have a lot to say about human society.”




It sounds to me like you have deep resentement. People sense this and will often mirror to you what you already think of them. A friend complained to me about the Germans sitting at the pub outside always giving him an angry look when he walks by because he is a foreigner. What he didn't notice is that he gave them an angry look first. Some people are not always aware of their own facial expressions.

I would keep in mind that many immigrants are not there because they wanted to, so you shouldn't be angry at them but at the people forcing them out of their homes with war.

well i was born deeply racist and so did many other people i know. i do not at all have a deep resentment. any muslim man living in a muslim country is okay in my book. multiple wives, strong family values that still hold up, all that fresh milk... sounds wonderful. i would not be happy living there because they are not of my race. im sure most people would feel the same no matter how welcomed they were. and to claim that those muslims are not racist... well thats just absurd.

 

[pro marker]

I think it's not so much race, but physical dissimilarity. They're related but different concepts.

You can be a multiracial homogeneous society (Chileans, most European countries)
You can be a multiracial heterogeneous society (USA, UK, most of Latin America)

Once the races blend, the dissimilarities blend as well, and you start seeing the traits of both groups being found throughout the population. Of course, there are still vestiges of that mixture left if you look hard enough. In some groups you still see skin color differences, in the European case you see eye color differences:

Facial averages of blue eyed and brown eyed Europeans.

But another factor is the knowledge of racial mixture. For example, Europeans are heavily mixed between indigenous European ancestry and "Basal Eurasian" ancestry from the Middle East, which is an extremely divergent lineage from all the other peoples of Eurasia.

But nobody cares about this mixture because it is not repeated in the popular media. It is not repeated because it happened in the late neolithic (so it's not in living memory) but more importantly, because modern Europeans control the vast majority of wealth/resources, and such a fact is politically incorrect and insulting for most of them to acknowledge--thus pop science outlets tend to "sugarcoat" it, ancestry testing services omit the data, etc, otherwise they wouldn't make money.

Because this event is so politically hidden, and because the mixed eye colors are so evenly distributed that they're even found within individual European families and siblings, it is very unlikely that you'll see a blue-brown eye war anytime soon lol.

The western hemisphere is a newly settled region and it hasn't reached equilibrium yet, so of course there is stress. Europe during the time of the Aryan invasions was stressful as well, to say the very least.

"I think it's not so much race, but physical dissimilarity"

you are absolutely right. looking back on this post, perhaps i should have replaced "race" with "physical dissimilarity"
i instinctively trust the person on the left much more, and i cant help but feel this deep feeling that the face on the right is a threat. this can of course be overcome by getting to know the person, but you cant get to know every person you see lol.

Gotta love the way you generalize. Seems as though you have a deep hatred for "them." So it begs the question what came first... the chicken or the egg? Maybe overcoming your cultural ignorance will help you cope with living on a diverse planet, or do different species of animals stress you out too? Im sure we can find a mono climate for you to relax in.

please dont take it so personally. i do not have a deep hatred for them. i pity them for being screwed up the **** by the government. forced into this horrible immigrant culture, sourrounded by drug use, not fitting in... its horrible. this thread is about the human instinct that is tribalism. living on a diverse planet is not even what we are doing anymore, everything is becoming one nasty soup. i have travelled a lot and this is not cultural ignorance. a bear stresses me out more than a deer. a small bear stresses me out more than a bigger bear. this is human instinct. i have seen several bears in my life btw. they are pretty scary.

 

[pro marker]

No lol, I didn't mean anything about phenotype. I literally meant "pure genetic heritage".

All the stuff in my last comment, about differentiating Brits and Finns and Syrians, was only to debunk that common Lewontin's fallacy you mentioned. But it doesn't even matter, because "British" isn't even a race in the genetic sense. "White" isn't a race genetically either.

"European" is a genetic race, and it ceased to exist in its pure form 5,000 years ago. All "whites" are part European, but none of them are fully European. Some whites (Italian, Greek, Iberian) are actually more Middle Eastern than they are European. Some whites (Russians, Finns) are 1/8 East Asian.

A race can only be pure with respect to a certain date, because all humans are ultimately mixes of other humans, and it's been going on long enough that nobody has been left totally untouched.

For instance, 9,000 years ago we see West European Hunter Gatherers (WHG) who were genetically pure. Run an admixture test on them and they don't come up as a result of two separate populations mixing. This is because whatever mixed to produced them, happened so long ago, or has had so much genetic selection since, that the mixed group has now evolved its own genetic uniqueness.

This genetic uniqueness does not exist in modern Europeans, or Mexicans, or modern Indians or most moderns. That is why I consider them mixed.

There are some modern mixed populations that have evolved genetic uniqueness. The Kalash of Pakistan are one such example, they come up as a separate grouping on genetic tests, but if you filter out their endogamous isolation-based evolution, they are identical to other Pakistanis. Hence you can say the Kalash are a "race" because they've been isolated from the rest of Pakistan for about 5000 years, and their small population size has made their DNA evolve quickly.

this is so complex and so much to take in, where do i even start with learning about peoples and races and hman development??

Maybe it's the subconscious awareness of our people's "replacement"

when i grew up i only saw white people. life was safe and we didnt lock our doors. there was a potential murder in our area and people talked about it for years. i went to the store alone and kids could hang out alone in the evening.
now i live sourrounded by crime and drug use. i have been attacked multiple times, and my girlfriend can not travel alone at night. its hell. all this in less than 20 years. all these americans do not understand the pain. they always lived with crime and violence.

 

[lvysaur]

By far most European countries are distinct genetic clusters, and as such could be viewed as distinct races

European countries are multiracial, they've just homogenized over the last 3 millennia. Most countries are, West Africa and maybe Papua are the only exceptions.

By far most European countries are distinct genetic clusters

genetic clustering doesn't matter. Chile is a unique cluster and nobody would describe it as a distinct race.

this is so complex and so much to take in, where do i even start with learning about peoples and races and hman development??

population genetics journals is a good start
The genetic history of Ice Age Europe

 

[TheSir]

-European countries are multiracial,
-they've just homogenized over the last 3 millennia.

Pick one. No population that has undergone homogenization for 3000 years can any longer be multiracial.

genetic clustering doesn't matter. Chile is a unique cluster and nobody would describe it as a distinct race.

Chile is not an European country. If genetic clustering doesn't matter, then nothing matters when it comes to biological classification of human populations.

 

[lvysaur]

Pick one. No population that has undergone homogenization for 3000 years can any longer be multiracial.

Nope, they are still biologically multiracial.

Mexico can blend into a uniform Mestizo population over the next 1000 years, and they will still be a multiracial population, just more homogeneous.

Europe is no different. The genetic signatures of Anatolian and Aryan mixture are still there and plainly visible.

 

[X3CyO]

No lol, I didn't mean anything about phenotype. I literally meant "pure genetic heritage".

All the stuff in my last comment, about differentiating Brits and Finns and Syrians, was only to debunk that common Lewontin's fallacy you mentioned. But it doesn't even matter, because "British" isn't even a race in the genetic sense. "White" isn't a race genetically either.

"European" is a genetic race, and it ceased to exist in its pure form 5,000 years ago. All "whites" are part European, but none of them are fully European. Some whites (Italian, Greek, Iberian) are actually more Middle Eastern than they are European. Some whites (Russians, Finns) are 1/8 East Asian.

A race can only be pure with respect to a certain date, because all humans are ultimately mixes of other humans, and it's been going on long enough that nobody has been left totally untouched.

For instance, 9,000 years ago we see West European Hunter Gatherers (WHG) who were genetically pure. Run an admixture test on them and they don't come up as a result of two separate populations mixing. This is because whatever mixed to produced them, happened so long ago, or has had so much genetic selection since, that the mixed group has now evolved its own genetic uniqueness.

This genetic uniqueness does not exist in modern Europeans, or Mexicans, or modern Indians or most moderns. That is why I consider them mixed.

There are some modern mixed populations that have evolved genetic uniqueness. The Kalash of Pakistan are one such example, they come up as a separate grouping on genetic tests, but if you filter out their endogamous isolation-based evolution, they are identical to other Pakistanis. Hence you can say the Kalash are a "race" because they've been isolated from the rest of Pakistan for about 5000 years, and their small population size has made their DNA evolve quickly.

Awesome posts. It makes sense, otherwise a lot of these ”peoples” would have much more genetic fixation and become different species. At least thats the impression i’d got from reading about genes in relation to immunology.

 

[nomoreketones]

i cant think of any people that wouldn't be happier surrounded by their own kind. racism is a deep natural instinct and completely suppressing it must be so tiresome and exhausting. i think the fact we we teach kids from the moment they are born to not categorize people is dumbing down the population. the brain WANTS to categorize and generalize. we are fighting our natural way of understanding the world.

who actually feels happier in a multicultural society? you are constantly put on guard.

I live in an racially mixed and culturally mixed city. More of my friends are not of my race than are of my race. I have dated women in my race and I have dated women outside my race. From my own personal experience, there are no issues with people living together whose ancestors are originally from different continents.

I think the issues that you bring up in your original post are caused by two things:

1. Cultural differences
2. Wealth and opportunity differences

We have major economic problems in the world caused by globalization and automation. Overall, globalization and automation have increased average worker productivity which has significantly increased global wealth. But for reasons that no one fully understands, this wealth is concentrating into a small number of individuals and giant corporations. The average person in Europe or the United States doesn't have an easier life than 50 years ago.

Life is especially hard for immigrants now compared to 50 years ago. When my Grandfather came to the United States not being able to speak English, he got a job in a factory and he was able to save up and buy a two family home. Now when an immigrant comes to the United States or Europe, there are no high paying factory jobs to catapult them into the middle class. So they come to Europe/United States believing that there is good opportunity to work hard and get ahead. But then they realize that the opportunity doesn't exist and there is really no way to get ahead.