GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2004-09 > 1096372056


From: Francisco Antonio Doria <>
Subject: Re: Non-white royal descendants
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 08:47:36 -0300 (ART)
In-Reply-To: <4158A730.000001.01535@W4W8N1>


``Why can't you get a proper job? "Social sciences"
are just chippy
left-wing
theorising at public expense.''

I'm a mathematician by training and profession. I
recall two remarks by my father: first, you can be a
very good mathematician at an early age, but in order
to do good social science you must reach maturity
first.

Second: in order to become a good social scientist,
read Proust. That's a blueprint for urban
anthropology.

fa

--- Merilyn Pedrick <>
escreveu:
> David
> Please stop writing this drivel - you sound like a
> Nazi.
> Merilyn Pedrick
> Mylor, South Australia
>
> -------Original Message-------
>
> From: David Webb
> Date: 09/27/04 18:35:12
> To:
> Subject: Re: Non-white royal descendants
>
> Bronwen, your posting was highly ridiculous, as
> refuted in between your
> comments below.
>
> "Bronwen Edwards" <> wrote in
> message news:54ca55f1
> ...
> > "David Webb" <> wrote
> in message news:<u4e5d
> 108429$>...
>
> > First, I am a "non-white" (or, obviously,
> "part-white") descendant of
> > Henry VII. In my earlier post I failed to note
> that you were speaking
> > of James VI and mis-read it as James IV.
>
> I see, that pins down your descent much more
> exactly. If you are a
> descendant of James IV and Henry VII, but not of
> James VI, it sounds like
> you may be descended from one of James V's
> illegitimate sons.
>
> > Second, speaking as a social scientist, what do
> you mean by "white"?
>
> Why can't you get a proper job? "Social sciences"
> are just chippy left-wing
> theorising at public expense.
>
> > This is a social construct, not a biological one,
> and has been used to
> > describe (or exclude) all sorts of groups. There
> is no such thing,
> > biologically, as racial differentiation among
> humans.
>
> I am afraid you are ill acquainted with the facts.
> You could see www.isteve
> com for articles by Steve Sailer, president of the
> Human Biodiversity
> Institute. He has written a lot about racial
> differences in intelligence
> that you may find interesting. DNA testing, as
> practised by the genetic
> expert Luigi Cavalli-Svorza reveals differentiation
> between human beings,
> although the differences may not be absolute. Eg a
> certain haplotype may
> have a frequency of 30% in France and 70% in
> Algeria. Obviously testing for
> the presence of such a DNA sequence cannot tell you
> for sure whether the
> individual is French or Algerian. This is because at
> the edges of the
> Caucasian world, we shade off genetically into North
> Africa and the Middle
> East with no clear break (Steve Sailer compares this
> to mountain vs. plain;
> just because mountains often ease off gradually, via
> hill regions, until
> plain regions are reached, doesn't mean that
> mountains don't exist.) At the
> extremes, eg Iceland vs. Zululan!
> d, no geneticist is going to have any trouble
> distinguishing the DNAs. But
> the difference between Greece and Turkey is very
> slight, and should be
> viewed as more cultural than racial etc.
>
> If one were to
> > look for physical traits that reliably indicated
> some kind of racial
> > differentiation, "color" would be among the least
> reliable.
>
> You have shot your own fox. You have admitted in the
> above sentence that
> some groups that look similar - I would cite
> Aborigines in Australia and,
> say, black Africans, can be genetically dissimilar.
> Because Aborigines were
> among the first humans to migrate from Africa,
> travelling a very long way to
> Australia, they are among the furthest genetically
> from black Africans. But
> to admit that is to admit that "race" is not all
> about looks, or colour; it
> is about genetic differences among people who are
> more or less distantly
> related to one another. By saying that colour is
> among the "least reliable",
> your paragraph admits that there is some way of
> checking this, and that way
> is by means of DNA testing, which can show greater
> or smaller genetic
> distances between human beings. Of course we all
> share 98.4% of our DNA with
> chimpanzees. Cavalli Svorza shows that by the same
> method that shows we are
> 1.6% distinct from chimpanzees it can be calculated
> that Englishmen are
> about 0.0005% di!
> stinct from Danes (I quote the figure from memory -
> I may have added a
> nought - please see his books), whereas Englishmen
> are 0.16% distinct from
> Nigerians.
>
> Given
> > that, being a social construct
>
> You assume as axiomatic what you have to prove.
>
>
> >does not mean that "race" or
> > "whiteness" are meaningless; on the contrary,
> these concepts clearly
> > have a great deal of power as widely accepted
> symbols of "people like
> > me" and "people like them". Just study how the
> Irish "became white" in
> > American history after they were persuaded (as a
> group, not every
> > individual) to abandon their abolitionist leanings
> and support
> > slavery.
>
> They were white all along. It was probably contact
> with blacks that
> convinced them that slavery and later segregation
> was based on a real
> cultural difference between people of different
> races and the need to
> restrain a group of people who might otherwise wreck
> the social order and
> commit crimes on a grand scale. Most "African
> American" men are likely to go
> to jail at one time or another in their lives: that
> is a fact that refutes
> your civil rights nonsense. Of course society can
> only exist on the basis
> that we accept other members of the nation as
> "people like us". Nationhood
> is shared identity. In terms of appearance, IQ
> levels and behaviour, the
> Irish were always likely to be assimilated
> eventually into the American
> nation. The problem with the blacks, having brought
> them over to America,
> was what to do with them following abolition as they
> clearly have a separate
> shared identity. Abraham Lincoln laid the facts of
> the matter on the line
> when he spoke to some free blacks sa!
> ying:
>
> "Perhaps you have long been free, or all your lives.
> Your race are suffering
> in my judgment, the greatest wrong inflicted on any
> people. But even when
> you cease to be slaves, you are yet far removed from
> being placed on an
> equality with the white race. You are cut off from
> many of the advantages
> which the other race enjoy. The aspiration of men is
> to enjoy equality with
> the best when free, but on this broad continent, not
> a single man of your
> race is made the equal of a single man of ours. Go
> where you are treated the
> best, and the ban is still upon you.
> I do not propose to discuss this, but to present it
> as a fact with which we
> have to deal. I cannot alter it if I would. It is a
> fact, about which we all
> think and feel alike, I and you. We look to our
> condition, owing to the
> existence of the two races on this continent. I need
> not recount to you the
> effects upon white men, growing out of the
> institution of Slavery. I believe
> in its general evil effects on the white race. See
> our present
> condition---the country engaged in war!---our white
> men cutting one another
> s throats, none knowing how far it will extend; and
> then
=== message truncated ===





_______________________________________________________
Yahoo! Acesso Grátis - Internet rápida e grátis. Instale o discador agora! http://br.acesso.yahoo.com/


This thread: