Homo sapiens sapiens

We have never identified the “missing link” we know that several separate groups of primitive humans left Africa and spread from the Middle East across to South East Asia. Amongst those there must have been one genetically dominant type that interbred with all the other distinct types, what used to be referred to as Negroid, Mongoloid and Caucasoid, they could not have evolved separately and have such similar physical and intellectual ability.

Race today revolves around visible differences, not just physical, cultural as well, all the populations around the Mediterranean are genetically the same and physically very similar, yet the cultures have developed in entirely different ways. When we consider “Racial Differences” today it’s often only cultural behavior that is being judged.

Stillstanding

MaizieD, maybe I did not make myself clear. It seems to me that every black person I have ever met seems to think only black slavery matters. There have been white slaves as long as there have been black slaves. Slavery goes back to prehistory. My white slave 5 times great grandmother counts as much as any other slave dead or alive. The only difference I have found is that black slaves who were forced in those horrific ways across the Atlantic were insured so they counted for something. The white slaves were not insured and so were not counted and counted for nothing.

Being insured isn't a marker of race.

Freya5

growstuff

M0nica

oldfrill I think it was reasonably clear that this wasn't the problem, more a cry of despair from a doctor running out reasons for his anaemia. I am sure if he had thought this was a real possibility, a DNA test would have taken place.

I was really using this of an example where a disease had an ethnic connection. There are others, but I am not specifically aware of them.

No, it probably has a genetic cause, not an ethnic one.

Yes, both Thalassemia and sickle cell disease are both genetic disorders, inherited. are wide-spread in Mediterranean , African and Asian countries. Sickle cell is common in certain ethnic groups, Africans, Hispanic Americans, as is Thalassemia, of which in the UK is found in Bangladeshi, Chinese, Cypriot, Indian and Pakistani peoples. So yes there is a well known ethnic marker. Both are terrible diseases, causing pain and misery for the sufferers. Of which I have Nursed a few.

You are confusing genetics and ethnicity.

These diseases tend to be more common in certain groups because people tend to breed with people from the same groups as them, so inherit from the same gene pool.

The diseases have nothing at all to do with ethnicity.

So black people say that black slavery was racist but white slavery wasn't?

MaizieD, maybe I did not make myself clear. It seems to me that every black person I have ever met seems to think only black slavery matters. There have been white slaves as long as there have been black slaves. Slavery goes back to prehistory. My white slave 5 times great grandmother counts as much as any other slave dead or alive. The only difference I have found is that black slaves who were forced in those horrific ways across the Atlantic were insured so they counted for something. The white slaves were not insured and so were not counted and counted for nothing.

growstuff

M0nica

oldfrill I think it was reasonably clear that this wasn't the problem, more a cry of despair from a doctor running out reasons for his anaemia. I am sure if he had thought this was a real possibility, a DNA test would have taken place.

I was really using this of an example where a disease had an ethnic connection. There are others, but I am not specifically aware of them.

No, it probably has a genetic cause, not an ethnic one.

Yes, both Thalassemia and sickle cell disease are both genetic disorders, inherited. are wide-spread in Mediterranean , African and Asian countries. Sickle cell is common in certain ethnic groups, Africans, Hispanic Americans, as is Thalassemia, of which in the UK is found in Bangladeshi, Chinese, Cypriot, Indian and Pakistani peoples. So yes there is a well known ethnic marker. Both are terrible diseases, causing pain and misery for the sufferers. Of which I have Nursed a few.

Race to me is the human race. As the Dalai Lama says we are all born in the same way so are one race.

Well dinosaurs became extinct. Continuity what?
Unacoutable, above the law, cost a fortune the treasury funds all their lifestyle, their security is over 100 million, work shy, Giving Evidence "Royals and "Charity found they don't do much for Charity. Charities should not seek them as they won't benefit. HoS does not defend our constitution from a PM who breaks our constitutional laws so no checks and balances. They've had their day. Yet they are having the time of their lives at our expense. Time for an elected president who will stand up for and defend our countries laws and freedoms. Charles Windsor didn't pay any inheritance tax Are they having a laugh. The millions they are funded plus the millions they made from the slave trade passed down to them abolish the monarchy

During the French Revolition, I expect *Grany's ancester was one of the tricoteuse,What the women who sat and knitted while attending public executions during the French Revolution were called
"as gleeful as the most ragged and revolutionary tricoteuse"

Grany

What about the "royal family" they have blue blood what sort of race are they? One is our HoS though, they don't do much as been found, cut ribbons, wave, Some people curtsey and bow to them. But polling shows they are not so popular. Could they become extinct

Sarcasm , lowest form of wit!!. Think you'll find they're more popular than Starmer. Or Biden for that matter. Continuity is the name of the game. Wanting the extinction of people , especially Royal people, very popular under fascist communism.

One political/social side is that I, like another poster on this thread, have white slave ancestry. However I have discussed this often with black people and they say it doesnt count as racism unless the slave is black. In fact that is a racist thing to say but try telling that to a black person.

That was me, I think, Stillstanding, but my slave ancestry is black.

I don't quite understand the rest of your paragraph, though.

Why should black, or white, slavery 'count as racism'?

What 'race' means to me is a slightly naughty word that offends many people. I am aware that geneticists don't believe in race although they do believe in biologically -acquired physical traits and their occasional relevance to specific geographical areas.

I have studies evolution to first degree level. Admittedly that was decades ago way back in the last century. Darwin and Mendal may mot have met but Darwin knew there was something he was missing. There is no difference that matters between any 2 humans.

One political/social side is that I, like another poster on this thread, have white slave ancestry. However I have discussed this often with black people and they say it doesnt count as racism unless the slave is black. In fact that is a racist thing to say but try telling that to a black person.

I am part of human race. Happy to be alive, healthy and sort of wealthy. Content with my lot that's me!

There is only one human race, in variety.

Göttingen

I agree with the original post...race is political and fluid. A good example is how we have associated slavery with black people. This was never the case slavery was common using white people until they were used in the Caribbean and died off too quickly from malaria, it was discovered that some black slaves from Africa didn't die (that sickle cell gene that protects against malari) and so black slaves from Africa became more valuable as slaves. Nothing to do with racism. pure economics. cruel economics I might add. The whole idea of races wasn't born until the early 19th century when racial groups were studied by Blumenbach in Gorttingen, at the time the most advanced medical university in Europe. The races were given names. Semitic, Mongol, Negro...terms I thought we had rejected long ago. (The term Semitic incidentally had nothing to do with jews it described the Arabic race. All these races were described intricately with facial characteristics and of course with a line of superiority favouring the white European. That's what you studied. Its only now that such physical characteristics are being seen as just that adopted primarily to suit climactic and food resource conditions, ever changing. There is no such thing as a 'race' gene. It is like a certain worrying trend on Ancestry where you can have your DNA analysed and they will give you a analysis of your geographical lineage. This can be understood wrongly too. For instance there is no gene that says you are Spanish or Norwegian..all there can be is a comparison of data from around the world and your DNA having more similarities with those in certain geographical areas. And the more data they get the more it changes. It's really interesting in that respect. And let's not forget that the earliest Anglo-Saxon man discovered recently was dark skinned with blue eyes.

Many people forget that slavery was common all over the world until recently. The tribes almost all almost all took captives from battle into servitude and the slave traders were the suppliers of slaves to transport last century.

I heard that there are still slave markets in Mali. Dors anyone have up to date knowledge?

I believe that people are people. But I believe the concept of 'us' and 'them' is hard-wired into a species whose survival has probably been the result of more aggressive family groups overcoming less aggressive ones, generation upon generation. You don't get dogs treating one another this way. One 'breed' doesn't assert itself on the basis of its pedigree; they pick their friends on the basis of compatibility.
But we cannot even imagine an 'us' without identifying others as 'them. And now we even choose to 'other' people who do or don't agree that people should have equal rights.
Unless we can educate ourselves away from these primitive knee-jerk attitudes we deserve to become another failed species.

Scat

You seem to be arguing with yourself here growstuff. What is it that you're wanting people to say? Anything that posters have said so far has been met with your dismissal as being wrong or unproven and I'm really not sure what it is that you're looking for anymore. Is it just 100% agreement you're needing?

Nope! I don't need anything.

Scat

You seem to be arguing with yourself here growstuff. What is it that you're wanting people to say? Anything that posters have said so far has been met with your dismissal as being wrong or unproven and I'm really not sure what it is that you're looking for anymore. Is it just 100% agreement you're needing?

I don't want anybody to say anything. I just thought it would be an interesting topic to discuss.

Characteristics of certain groups are more than a bit fuzzy round the edges.

All humans share over 99% of their DNA with each other. The differences between people are minute. Not only that, but there is more genetic variation within a single population subgroup than between two different population subgroups. In other word, from a scientific perspective, distinct races don't exist.

We are all members of one human race. Any secondary interpretation of race as subgroups is much more complicated and is a human construct based on shared language, history, culture, beliefs, etc.

You seem to be arguing with yourself here growstuff. What is it that you're wanting people to say? Anything that posters have said so far has been met with your dismissal as being wrong or unproven and I'm really not sure what it is that you're looking for anymore. Is it just 100% agreement you're needing?

Incidentally, who on this thread has tried to claim that humans don't evolve?

The difference between Shetland ponies adapted to the environement in which they lived and race courses

No, Shetland ponies did not evolve to the environment in which they lived. That's Lamarckism, which Darwin disproved. Shetland ponies thrive in their environment because the ones most suited to their environment survived and produced offspring. That's what Darwinian evolution is about.