Newsgroup: it.discussioni.varie
Titolo: Le Razze Esistono

 wrote:
forwardo integralmente, perche' mi sembra un argomento molto interessante,
specialmente perche'  demolisce un cavallo di battaglia di Ernesto !     ;-)
Commento brevemente l' ennesima panzana anglosassone-giudea-buonista percui
non esisterebbero razze. In realta' sono dichiarazioni prettamente false
dettate da un' agenda politica neanche tanto "hidden" per dirla usando l'
assurdo linguaggio inglese. Leggiamo insieme questa interessante (da me
pienamente condivisa) recensione su Amazon di un classico libro di
Cavalli-Sforza.
Cavalli-Sforza & The Reality of Race by Steve Sailer The New York Times has
hailed "Genes, Peoples, and Languages", the new book by Professor Luigi Luca
Cavalli-Sforza, the dean of population geneticists, for "dismantling the
idea of race." In the New York Review of Books, Jared Diamond salutes
Cavalli-Sforza for "demolishing scientists' attempts to classify human
populations into races in the same way that they classify birds and other
species into races".
Cavalli-Sforza himself has written, "The classification into races has
proved to be a futile exercise"; and that "The idea of race in the human
species serves no purpose."
Don't believe any of this. This is merely a politically correct smoke screen
that Cavalli-Sforza regularly pumps out that keeps his life's work --
identifying the myriad races of mankind and compiling their genealogies --
from being defunded by the commissars of acceptable thinking at Stanford.
What's striking is how the press falls for his squid ink, even though
Cavalli-Sforza can't resist proudly putting his genetic map showing the main
races of mankind right on the cover of his 1994 magnum opus, "The History
and Geography of Human Genes."
(Here's also a link to Cavalli-Sforza's map on the website of molecular
anthropologist Jonathan Marks, author of "Human Biodiversity," one of the
few leftists acute enough to notice the spectacular contradiction between
Cavalli-Sforza's boilerplate about the meaninglessness of race and the cover
of his most important book.
This is Cavalli-Sforza's own description of this map that is the capstone of
his half century of labor in human genetics: "The color map of the world
shows very distinctly the differences that we know exist among the
continents: Africans (yellow), Caucasoids (green), Mongoloids ... (purple),
and Australian Aborigines (red). The map does not show well the strong
Caucasoid component in northern Africa, but it does show the unity of the
other Caucasoids from Europe, and in West, South, and much of Central Asia."
Basically, all his number-crunching has produced a map that looks about like
what you'd get if you gave Jesse Helms a paper napkin and a box of crayons
and had him draw a racial map of the world. In fact, at the global level,
Cavalli-Sforza has largely confirmed the prejudices of the more worldly 19th
Century imperialists. Rudyard Kipling and Cecil Rhodes could have hunkered
down together and whipped up something rather like this map in honor of
Queen Victoria's Diamond Jubilee.
Cavalli-Sforza's new book, "Genes, Peoples, and Languages," is a
surprisingly readable updating of a series of lectures on his work that he's
been giving for years. It's not at all a bad introduction to this hugely
productive scientist. But to find out just how politically unpopular
Cavalli-Sforza's findings really are, you need to crack open his tecnically
intimidating but endlessly fascinating landmark, "The History and Geography
of Human Genes." (The reaonably priced abridged version is all that you'd
ever need; the $195 unabridged volume is for libraries only.) It remains the
best summary of how the early humans of Africa split apart into the
countless racial groups we see today.
Cavalli-Sforza's team compiled extraordinary tables depicting the "genetic
distances" separating 2,000 different racial groups from each other. For
example, assume the genetic distance between the English and the Danes is
equal to 1.0. Then, Cavalli-Sforza has found, the separation between the
English and the Italians would be about 2.5 times as large as the
English-Danish difference. On this scale, the Iranians would be 9 times more
distant genetically from the English than the Danish, and the Japanese 59
times greater. Finally, the gap between the English and the Bantus (the main
group of sub-Saharan blacks) is 109 times as large as the distance between
the English and the Danish. (The genetic distance between Japanese and
Bantus is even greater.)
From these kind of tables, Cavalli-Sforza reached this general conclusion:
"The most important difference in the human gene pool is clearly that
between Africans and non-Africans ..." As you can imagine, this finding
could get him in a bit of hot water if the campus thought police ever found
out about it. So, we should certainly forgive the charade he keeps up to
fool the New York Times. But, we definitely don't have to believe it.
Ultimately, what is a "race"? It is essentially a lineage, a family tree. A
racial group is merely an extremely extended family that inbreeds to some
extent. Thus, race is a fundamental aspect of the human condition because we
are all born into families. Burying our heads in the sand and refusing to
think clearly about this bedrock fact of life only makes the inevitable
problems caused by race harder to overcome.

 Cavalli-Sforza.
Hai ragione! Le razze, nel genere umano esistono! Infatti TU (e solo tu!!)
fai parte di una altra razza!
Se solo conoscessi un po' di biochimica, non basterebbe tanto, anche a
semplice livello divulgativo di infima categoria, non diresti certe
panzanate!
Ciao razzista!

 English-Danish difference.  >
Ma guarda un po'. Questi sono i paradossi delle medie "italiane", per cui il
PIL pro-capite è di 20.000 dollari l'anno; poi pazienza se la Provincia di
Milano ha un PIL di 26.000 dollari e quella di Agrigento di 8.000 (di cui il
75% dovuto a spesa pubblica allargata). Simmo tutti 'taliani paisà. Tanto
vale allora mettere in un unico insieme statistico inglesi e nigeriani e poi
paragonarli ad un altro popolo africano; così si potrà dire che inglesi e
africani non sono poi tanto diversi... IL CONFRONTO VA FATTO TRA GLI INGLESI
E I LOMBARDI E POI TRA GLI INGLESI E I NOSTRI AMICHETTI MAFIOSI ! Allora e
solo allora le statistiche sul patrimonio genetico (ma anche sulla
criminalità, sul sistema produttivo,su quello scolastico ecc.) avranno un
senso.
Fabio Zurlini

razzista.
certo che la colgo, invece : la prima e' un fatto OGGETTIVO.
La seconda e' solo una scelta ETICA :
riconosci che tra le razze vi siano differenze, anche sostanziali, ma rifiuti di
approfondire il problema perche'  influenzato da ideologie e pregiudizi che ti
impediscono di ragionare obiettivamente.