40 replies to this topic

[pcf]

DNA study seeks origin of Appalachia's Melungeons


http://news.yahoo.co...-201144041.html

Among them were the Montauks, the Mantinecocks, Van Guilders, the Clappers, the Shinnecocks and others in New York. Pennsylvania had the Pools; North Carolina the Lumbees, Waccamaws and Haliwas and South Carolina the Redbones, Buckheads, Yellowhammers, Creels and others. In Louisiana, which somewhat resembled a Latin American nation with its racial mixing, there were Creoles of the Cane River region and the Redbones of western Louisiana, among others.


Mixed race people sure got some weird names applied to them.

[The Uniballer]

pcf, on 25 May 2012 - 07:41 AM, said:

DNA study seeks origin of Appalachia's Melungeons


http://news.yahoo.co...-201144041.html

Among them were the Montauks, the Mantinecocks, Van Guilders, the Clappers, the Shinnecocks and others in New York. Pennsylvania had the Pools; North Carolina the Lumbees, Waccamaws and Haliwas and South Carolina the Redbones, Buckheads, Yellowhammers, Creels and others. In Louisiana, which somewhat resembled a Latin American nation with its racial mixing, there were Creoles of the Cane River region and the Redbones of western Louisiana, among others.


Mixed race people sure got some weird names applied to them.

Whaddya mean I'm black??!!!??

"Genetic evidence shows that the families historically called Melungeons are the offspring of sub-Saharan African men and white women of northern or central European origin.
And that report, which was published in April in the peer-reviewed journal, doesn't sit comfortably with some people who claim Melungeon ancestry.
"There were a whole lot of people upset by this study," lead researcher Roberta Estes said. "They just knew they were Portuguese, or Native American.""

[pcf]

The Uniballer, on 25 May 2012 - 07:46 AM, said:

Whaddya mean I'm black??!!!??

"Genetic evidence shows that the families historically called Melungeons are the offspring of sub-Saharan African men and white women of northern or central European origin.
And that report, which was published in April in the peer-reviewed journal, doesn't sit comfortably with some people who claim Melungeon ancestry.
"There were a whole lot of people upset by this study," lead researcher Roberta Estes said. "They just knew they were Portuguese, or Native American.""

Yeah, the guy that got his DNA tested 3 times.

[The Uniballer]

pcf, on 25 May 2012 - 07:56 AM, said:

Yeah, the guy that got his DNA tested 3 times.

He made peace with it by convincing himself his ancestors were white South Africans

[George F. Will]

white-hispanic...

[weklfrog]

The Uniballer, on 25 May 2012 - 07:46 AM, said:

Whaddya mean I'm black??!!!??

"Genetic evidence shows that the families historically called Melungeons are the offspring of sub-Saharan African men and white women of northern or central European origin.
And that report, which was published in April in the peer-reviewed journal, doesn't sit comfortably with some people who claim Melungeon ancestry.
"There were a whole lot of people upset by this study," lead researcher Roberta Estes said. "They just knew they were Portuguese, or Native American.""

[Duquesne Frog]

The melungeon at Red Lobster is very tasty ...

[pcf]

The Clappers are suing for trademark infringement.

[curmudgeon]

Those are my relatives you're eating, Orange Boy.

[HFrog1999]

Maybe that explains why during a NFL hall of fame induction, my son thought that I looked like a certain inductee.

[fnfreebird]

Bottom line is:

A Paler Shade of Black


The jig is up. Thanks to the genetics revolution we now know that there is no such thing as race. The Human Genome Project (HGP) has determined unequivocally that there is the same amount of genetic variation among individuals within a so called racial group as there is between individuals in different racial groups. What that means is that there is no real genetic difference between blacks and whites or between whites and Asians or between any of the so called races. Down:

Bio,
Email

  Wonder why it's been so hush-hush? I mean, you would think this would be big news. Certainly on the order of Galileo stating that the Earth goes around the Sun and not vice versa. But you haven't heard it on NBC or read it in your local newspaper. It's more or less kept within the high brow community as if the common every day man in the street just couldn't take it. So you can read about it in the Atlantic Monthly or New York Times, but not your home town newspaper.  And some professors on ivory tower college campuses are scrambling to prove it isn't so, just like there some who argue that Darwin was a fruitcake and evolution a stunt he pulled to grab the limelight.

[RSF]

A clear sign of too much inbreeding is an inability to communicate in a consistent manner along with a persecution complex.

So be wary, curmudgeon.

[The Uniballer]

The full text from 2002
http://www.calresco....kermn/black.htm

[Duquesne Frog]

The Uniballer, on 29 May 2012 - 09:15 AM, said:

The full text from 2002
http://www.calresco....kermn/black.htm

What is ironic is that a lot of the same people who conclude that the similarity in variability in the human genome across races means we should eliminate racial preferences across the board are probably the same people who tend to ignore the obvious conclusion that the same fact has in light of the Bell Curve ... that the underperformance of blacks in American society is a cultural and societal problem, not a genetic one.  Racial preferences exist as a means to try and fix the cultural and societal problems.

[HFrog1999]

Duquesne Frog, on 29 May 2012 - 11:37 AM, said:

Racial preferences exist as a means to try and fix the cultural and societal problems.

Yeah, that still doesn't mean the current racial preferences are any less wrong or bigoted.

Racism is racism.

That's why people should be treated as individuals, not groups.

However, there is a lot of money and power to be earned by dividing people into groups and creating conflict between them.

[fnfreebird]

Duquesne Frog, on 29 May 2012 - 11:37 AM, said:

What is ironic is that a lot of the same people who conclude that the similarity in variability in the human genome across races means we should eliminate racial preferences across the board are probably the same people who tend to ignore the obvious conclusion that the same fact has in light of the Bell Curve ... that the underperformance of blacks in American society is a cultural and societal problem, not a genetic one.  Racial preferences exist as a means to try and fix the cultural and societal problems.

One could very well argue than once well intended racial 'privileges' have now devolved into becoming little more than opportunities for politicians and social engineers.
The obvious failures to date would indicate that they were either poorly planned, resulting in little to no advantage gained (some measures have gone backwards), or were designed to fail thus providing the necessary fodder required for socialists to prosper.

[Duquesne Frog]

HFrog1999, on 29 May 2012 - 11:45 AM, said:

Yeah, that still doesn't mean the current racial preferences are any less wrong or bigoted.

Racism is racism.

That's why people should be treated as individuals, not groups.

Except humans have never treated other humans as individuals and humans have a high cultural bias to identify themselves as members of groups.  Blacks were systematically treated as inferior humans for centuries in this country while being denied education, the ability to build wealth, a voice in government and pretty much any access to a path to success in our society. They were not treated as individuals during that time.

I hate the "level playing field" cliche, but something had to be done to level a field that had been very askew for a very long time.  Are racial preferences inherently racist?  Absolutely.  Were there better ways to offer blacks the opportunity to decent and higher education, a path toward wealth and success, and political access than the path taken?  Maybe.  But I'm not sure how you provide that to an disenfranchised segment of the society without removing some of the barriers to entry that the enfranchised class had in place, which were, in and of themselves, racist.

IOW, I'm not sure how you address the systemic cultural racism without instituting policies that are, by the nature of the problem being addressed, in and of themselves, racist.  Maybe there was a way.  But I don't have any faith that the problem would have fixed itself after 300 years.  Not with any kind of expedience, at least.

Quote

However, there is a lot of money and power to be earned by dividing people into groups and creating conflict between them.

Sure.  But then there was a lot of money and power to be earned by keeping blacks subjugated and their labor cheap.  Smart, immoral people will always find a way to profit.  But I don't think that is sufficient reason to not attempt to fix the problem.

[HFrog1999]

Duquesne Frog, on 29 May 2012 - 12:05 PM, said:

Except humans have never treated other humans as individuals and humans have a high cultural bias to identify themselves as members of groups.  Blacks were systematically treated as inferior humans for centuries in this country while being denied education, the ability to build wealth, a voice in government and pretty much any access to a path to success in our society. They were not treated as individuals during that time.

I hate the "level playing field" cliche, but something had to be done to level a field that had been very askew for a very long time.  Are racial preferences inherently racist?  Absolutely.  Were there better ways to offer blacks the opportunity to decent and higher education, a path toward wealth and success, and political access than the path taken?  Maybe.  But I'm not sure how you provide that to an disenfranchised segment of the society without removing some of the barriers to entry that the enfranchised class had in place, which were, in and of themselves, racist.

IOW, I'm not sure how you address the systemic cultural racism without instituting policies that are, by the nature of the problem being addressed, in and of themselves, racist.  Maybe there was a way.  But I don't have any faith that the problem would have fixed itself after 300 years.  Not with any kind of expedience, at least.



Sure.  But then there was a lot of money and power to be earned by keeping blacks subjugated and their labor cheap.  Smart, immoral people will always find a way to profit.  But I don't think that is sufficient reason to not attempt to fix the problem.

Since my ancestors had no property or wealth to pass down to me.  The arguments that I should somehow pay for the actions of the generations before me don't hold much water with me.

[The Uniballer]

HFrog1999, on 29 May 2012 - 12:20 PM, said:

Since my ancestors had no property or wealth to pass down to me.  The arguments that I should somehow pay for the actions of the generations before me don't hold much water with me.

How about investing in a better America?

[Duquesne Frog]

HFrog1999, on 29 May 2012 - 12:20 PM, said:

Since my ancestors had no property or wealth to pass down to me.  The arguments that I should somehow pay for the actions of the generations before me don't hold much water with me.

What have you personally had to pay?