What do you mean, "doesn't still exist"? Is a half white, half black person not just as white as he is black? The genes are still there, so even if visually darker skin dominates, that doesn't mean the white genes are gone.


Culture and language changes. This is inevitable, and the alternative is stagnation.


Soooooo... it's a BAD thing that culture and language has changed since the paleolithic?

Looks are only superficial, and only one aspect of your genes. A brown-eyed person may well have the genes for blue eyes, it's just that the genes for brown eyes are dominant. He may have blue-eyed descendants along the line.

If we say we have ethnicity A and ethnicity B, and they mix, we will end up with ethnicity AB. Ethnicity AB may have more of the looks of ethnicity B than ethnicity A, but that doesn't mean that AB is somehow more B than A. And if the entire species end up being ethnicity AB (and let us say for the sake of argument that neither A nor B can resurface in "pure" form), A will be no more gone than B, no matter how much AB looks like B. The genes of both ethnicities will still be there, and variation does a species good, anyway.

Looks are the parts of your genes that are the easiest to ''see". If the genes that determine your look have changed, it's reasonable to assume the other genes have changed as well (assuming both "types" of genes differ between the races).
It's true that the genes will probably remain. But if the genes are recessive, and suppressed by a large enough amount of dominant genes (e.g. a huge amount of black people cross-breeding with a small amount of white people), it's very likely that the suppressed genes will never surface again.
Thus the race will cease to exist.
"Race" depends on phenotype as much as it depends on genotype. The genes may still be there, but if they don't show the race has disappeared (or rather changed/assimilated) nonetheless.

You do realize that cultures do have major and measurable differences, unlike races?

I dont accept cultures automatically as of equal value, some i despise deeply.

You claim protecting ones culture is automatically stagnation, i dont buy that, sounds like leftists propaganda.

At the same time you dont see the possibility of culture deteriorating with outside influence.

Its part of the multiculti faith that everything new coming from outside is good and the old is bad.

We are always being enriched from outside, never impoverished.

Cultural evolution is an ongoing process of change and even extinction. The culture a society has now is not the same as 10 years ago, or 100 years ago, and so on. Change is inevitable, and cultures have been mixing, blending, and disappearing since the start of society. Trying to protect it is in a sense pointless as it is ever changing even without outside influences. Also this is survival of the fittest, the strongest culture is the one that survives in the end.

Also for the record, race does not exist according to genetics or scientific theory. None of the so called races posses unique genetic traits, all races have variations where some genes may be more dominant then others. All 'races' possess the physical features of all the other 'races', you can have dark skinned 'white' people, Asians with Caucasian features, and all with out intermixing of genetic data. We assign race to people because of trends in very superficial physical characteristics in the overall demographics.

One of the ironies of the holocaust was that the Nazi's were often putting to death people that more perfectly represented the physical ideals of the so called Aryan race then the vast majority of the German populace. Yet their ideology was based very much on physical traits associated with 'racial purity'.

Lastly no matter how you try to slice it, intermarriage and breeding is not ethnic cleansing. The two are practically polar opposites. One is a blending of genetic code (often with some cultural blending in the family unit), the other is the elimination of a group (which may not even be genetically different) typically by practices of genocide (mass murder, sterilization, etc).

Anyhow I would advise people to tread carefully when it comes to expressing concepts of genetic (racial) purity and other such stuff. We don't take too kindly to that sort of talk round these here parts :shucks:

Culture is indeed changing. It always has. But the problem here is that Western European cultures are currently changed by foreign influences from immigrants, against the will of the natural population.

Not entirely true. Scientists don't agree on it.
But one thing is certain; there are notable genetic differences between the human races. Apart from these difference, all Humans are essentially the same. But isn't that exactly what "race" means? Different races of one species always have the same genetic buidup, if they had a different genetic buildup they'd be another species. That's why the word "race" was invented.
Why is it okay to talk about dog races, horse races, whatever animal race (though in English it's rather called "breed". In Dutch it's the same word for both), but when we talk about human beings it's immediately regarded as incorrect? Why is a human different from a dog, apart from that we're a little smarter?

Not entirely true. Apart from genetic irregularities (e.g. albino) the physical features within one race are largely the same. The only reason why e.g. Caucasians from the Mediterranean look quite different from Caucasians from northern Europe is an (IMO) too large generalization of races. Personally I'd divide the Caucasian race into "North Western Caucasian race", "Mediterranean Caucasian race", "Slavic Caucasian race" etc. etc. If you do so you'll find that there are remarkably few differences amongst the members of one race.
This doesn't count for cross-bred people of course. They've got characteristics from both races (just as is the case with animal cross-breeding. But we do talk about races there. We Humans are animals too so why make such a large difference between our species and other animals?)

And yes, there'll always be differences amongst the members of a single race. But so is it with other animals. No two animals look exactly the same, but still we do talk about races (or breeds) there.

True, because Judaism is just a religion being Jew doesn't say anything about your race.
But because the Nazis misused the word "race", does that mean races don't exist?

Most reputable scientists have dropped the term after all the research that has gone on. There is no unique genetic information that is found in only one race. Yes there are traits dominant towards one group, though those traits adapt and change too depending on environment.

Also we don't use the term race for dogs, or cats, or horses, we use the term breeds. There is only one race of dogs (pet dogs), one race of cats (house cats), etc. The term race denotes major differences between two biological entities, which really don't exist in humanity. There is only one race. All the differences are cosmetic and very superficial.

Some wiki links, read with a grain of salt though ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_%28biology%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_an...ations_of_race
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_%2...uman_beings%29

That's exactly what a race is. The difference in frequencies in which certain genes appear between a number of populations. If these differences are reasonably high you can sensibly call it a different race. I have yet to see any white people with a black skin, which means the genes for a black skin are (almost) nonexistent amongst Caucasians. Therefore you could call them different races.
Please note that it appears that we are using different definitions of race (read my reply to your next quote below). This has probably caused some misunderstandings between the two of us.:) Using your definition, what I call race would be breed.

Beware, I'm not saying any race/breed would be better than or superior to any other race/breed. White people and black people and yellow and purple and green people are all humans, so in my opinion all equal.

Depends. There are more ways to define "race". Depending on what definition you use, race either means "subspecies" or "breed". I obviously mean "breed" as there are clearly no different human subspecies.
I agree that in English the word "breed" is far more common, but "race" isn't incorrect:

race (countable and uncountable; plural races)

[...]
5. A breed or strain of domesticated animal.

This too is probably a result of us using different definitions of race.
If you change all "race" into "breed" in my previous posts, would you agree with me then?

In summary, all these Extreme Left Wing theories ("scientific" or not) make very little difference. I'll continue to stand up for what I know is Right.

I have no desire to see europeans following the very Open, and Tolerant cherokee people down The "Trail Of Tears" (google it), to be followed by borderline extinction.

Once we're gone we can never come back!

For those that think multiculturalism = paradise,
you are free to take a one way ticket to Brasil or Cuba.
"Paradise" awaits you.