by Vivian Chou
figures by Daniel Utter

Donald Trump’s election as the 45th President of the United States has been marked by the brewing storms of racial conflicts. A rise in racial incidents ensued in the immediate aftermath of Trump’s victory in November 2016. Since the beginning of 2017, over 100 bomb threats have been made against Jewish community centers and schools. Trump’s travel ban, signed in late January 2017, initially affected about 90,000 people from seven Middle Eastern countries; 87,000 of those banned were Muslims. Minorities such as American Muslims and black Americans have expressed fears over racial relations under Trump. Undeniably, the topic of race—and racism—has gripped America and the world throughout.

Over the last decade, there have been hopes that the US has become a post-racial society, free of racial prejudice and discrimination. However, the most recent months indicate the contrary: race remains an incendiary issue. Race and racism are not new issues, but in today’s 21st century Trump-era, discussions about race are distinct from those of the past in that they possess an entirely new dimension: that of genetics and DNA.

Race in the new era of human genetics research

In 2003, scientists completed the Human Genome Project, making it finally possible to examine human ancestry with genetics. Scientists have since tackled topics such as human migrations out of Africa and around the world. And it’s not just scientists who are excited about human genetics: widely affordable at-home ancestry test kits are now readily available from companies like 23andMe, Family Tree DNA, and Ancestry. For $99—around the price of a romantic dinner or a pair of Nikes—a customer can receive an analysis from 23andMe indicating that they are, for instance, 18.0% Native American, 65.1% European and 6.2% African.

The soaring popularity of ancestry testing bespeaks a widespread perception that we can use these tests to dissect, delineate, and define our ancestral composition. Indeed, social media is teeming with blog posts, and even livestream videos, from excited customers bursting to broadcast their test results and their reactions. Ancestry test kits are the new “it” item—and with their success is the tacit admission of our belief that our DNA can sort us into categories like the “five races:” African, European, Asian, Oceania, and Native American (Figure 1A).

Figure 1. ‘Race’ cannot be biologically defined due to genetic variation among human individuals and populations. (A) The old concept of the “five races:” African, Asian, European, Native American, and Oceanian. According to this view, variation between the races is large, and thus, the each race is a separate category. Additionally, individual races are thought to have a relatively uniform genetic identity. (B) Actual genetic variation in humans. Human populations do roughly cluster into geographical regions. However, variation between different regions is small, thus blurring the lines between populations. Furthermore, variation within a single region is large, and there is no uniform identity.
Figure 1: ‘Race’ cannot be biologically defined due to genetic variation among human individuals and populations. (A) The old concept of the “five races:” African, Asian, European, Native American, and Oceanian. According to this view, variation between the races is large, and thus, the each race is a separate category. Additionally, individual races are thought to have a relatively uniform genetic identity. (B) Actual genetic variation in humans. Human populations do roughly cluster into geographical regions. However, variation between different regions is small, thus blurring the lines between populations. Furthermore, variation within a single region is large, and there is no uniform identity.

New findings in genetics tear down old ideas about race

Estimating our ancestral composition down to 0.1% seem to suggest that there are exact, categorical divisions between human populations. But reality is far less simple. Compared to the general public’s enthusiasm for ancestry testing, the reaction from scientists has been considerably more lukewarm. Research indicates that the concept of “five races” does, to an extent, describe the way human populations are distributed among the continents—but the lines between races are much more blurred than ancestry testing companies would have us believe (Figure 1B).

A landmark 2002 study by Stanford scientists examined the question of human diversity by looking at the distribution across seven major geographical regions of 4,000 alleles. Alleles are the different “flavors” of a gene. For instance, all humans have the same genes that code for hair: the different alleles are why hair comes in all types of colors and textures.

In the Stanford study, over 92% of alleles were found in two or more regions, and almost half of the alleles studied were present in all seven major geographical regions. The observation that the vast majority of the alleles were shared over multiple regions, or even throughout the entire world, points to the fundamental similarity of all people around the world—an idea that has been supported by many other studies (Figure 1B).

If separate racial or ethnic groups actually existed, we would expect to find “trademark” alleles and other genetic features that are characteristic of a single group but not present in any others. However, the 2002 Stanford study found that only 7.4% of over 4000 alleles were specific to one geographical region. Furthermore, even when region-specific alleles did appear, they only occurred in about 1% of the people from that region—hardly enough to be any kind of trademark. Thus, there is no evidence that the groups we commonly call “races” have distinct, unifying genetic identities. In fact, there is ample variation within races (Figure 1B).

Ultimately, there is so much ambiguity between the races, and so much variation within them, that two people of European descent may be more genetically similar to an Asian person than they are to each other (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Case study of genetic variation between three scientists. Left: Schematization of the genetic variation between Drs. James Watson, Craig Venter, and Kim Seong-jin. Colored bars represent genes; different colors represent different alleles, i.e. versions of genes. Some alleles are shared by all three of the men (represented by the dark brown allele that is shared by every person in this image). Besides the universal dark brown allele, Watson and Venter share one other allele (bright blue). However, both share two alleles with Kim (Watson shares red and orange with Kim, Venter shares green and magenta), in addition to the universal allele. Right: There is more similarity between the Kim and Watson and Kim and Venter, than there is between Watson and Venter.
Figure 2: Case study of genetic variation between three scientists. Left: Schematization of the genetic variation between Drs. James Watson, Craig Venter, and Kim Seong-jin. Colored bars represent genes; different colors represent different alleles, i.e. versions of genes. Some alleles are shared by all three of the men (represented by the dark brown allele that is shared by every person in this image). Besides the universal dark brown allele, Watson and Venter share one other allele (bright blue). However, both share two alleles with Kim (Watson shares red and orange with Kim, Venter shares green and magenta), in addition to the universal allele. Right: There is more similarity between the Kim and Watson and Kim and Venter, than there is between Watson and Venter.

Does “race” still mean something?

The divisions between races are doubtlessly blurred, but does this necessarily mean that race is a myth—a mere social construct and biologically meaningless? As with other race-related questions, the answer is multi-dimensional and may well depend on whom you ask.

In the biological and social sciences, the consensus is clear: race is a social construct, not a biological attribute. Today, scientists prefer to use the term “ancestry” to describe human diversity (Figure 3). “Ancestry” reflects the fact that human variations do have a connection to the geographical origins of our ancestors—with enough information about a person’s DNA, scientists can make a reasonable guess about their ancestry. However, unlike the term “race,” it focuses on understanding how a person’s history unfolded, not how they fit into one category and not another. In a clinical setting, for instance, scientists would say that diseases such as sickle-cell anemia and cystic fibrosis are common in those of “sub-Saharan African” or “Northern European” descent, respectively, rather than in those who are “black” or “white”.

Figure 3. Race versus ancestry. (A) The classification of people into different races is typically based on observable physical features, with skin color being the most prominently used characteristic. Racial classifications also draw upon non-biological characteristics such as culture, language, history, religion, and socioeconomic status. Thus, “race” is a term that lacks clear definition. (B) In contrast to race, “ancestry” emphasizes the geographical origins of one’s ancestors (parents, grandparents, and beyond). Unlike “race,” the concept of “ancestry” does not focus on the static categorization of humans into groups, but rather on the process by which a person’s history unfolded.
Figure 3: Race versus ancestry. (A) The classification of people into different races is typically based on observable physical features, with skin color being the most prominently used characteristic. Racial classifications also draw upon non-biological characteristics such as culture, language, history, religion, and socioeconomic status. Thus, “race” is a term that lacks clear definition. (B) In contrast to race, “ancestry” emphasizes the geographical origins of one’s ancestors (parents, grandparents, and beyond). Unlike “race,” the concept of “ancestry” does not focus on the static categorization of humans into groups, but rather on the process by which a person’s history unfolded.

However, even if scientists agree that race is, at most, a social construct, any cursory search of the internet reveals that the broader public is not convinced of this. After all, if an Asian person looks so different from a European, how could they not be from distinct groups? Even if most scientists reject the concept of “race” as a biological concept, race exists, undeniably, as a social and political concept.

The popular classifications of race are based chiefly on skin color, with other relevant features including height, eyes, and hair. Though these physical differences may appear, on a superficial level, to be very dramatic, they are determined by only a minute portion of the genome: we as a species have been estimated to share 99.9% of our DNA with each other. The few differences that do exist reflect differences in environments and external factors, not core biology.

Importantly, the evolution of skin color occurred independently, and did not influence other traits such as mental abilities and behavior. In fact, science has yet to find evidence that there are genetic differences in intelligence  between populations. Ultimately, while there certainly are some biological differences between different populations, these differences are few and superficial. The traits that we do share are far more profound

Science and genetics: Instruments of modern racism

Despite the scientific consensus that humanity is more alike than unlike, the long history of racism is a somber reminder that throughout human history, a mere 0.1% of variation has been sufficient justification for committing all manner of discriminations and atrocities. The advances in human genetics and the evidence of negligible differences between races might be expected to halt racist arguments. But, in fact, genetics has been used to further racist and ethnocentric arguments—as in the case of the alt-right, which promotes far-right ideologies, including white nationalism and anti-Semitism.

Considered a fringe movement for years, the alt-right gained considerable attention and relevance during Trump’s presidential campaign. Indeed, Steve Bannon, the current senior counselor and chief strategist to President Trump and the former chief executive officer of Trump’s campaign, has notable ties to the alt-right. Once relegated to obscure internet forums, the alt-right’s newest pulpit is the White House.

Members of the alt-right are enthusiastic proponents of ancestry testing as a way to prove their “pure” white heritage (with Scandinavian and Germanic ancestry being among the most desirable) and to rule out undesired descent from any other groups (including, unsurprisingly, Africans and the Ashkenazi Jews, but even certain European groups, such as Italians and Armenians). The belief in white superiority, and the need to preserve it, drives the alt-right movement—and genetics is both the weapon and battle standard of this new, supposedly “scientific” racism.

Those who disagree with alt-right ideologies may assume that the alt-right is merely spewing ignorant nonsense. This is certainly true for some of the alt-right. What is perhaps a more difficult truth is that many of the alt-right do, in fact, understand biology and genetics to an impressive extent, even if this understanding is flawed.

For instance, alt-right proponents have stated, correctly, that many people with European and Asian descent have inherited 1-4% of their DNA from Neanderthals ancestors, and those of African descent do not have Neanderthal heritage. They are similarly correct that Neanderthals had larger skulls than humans. Based on these facts, some within the alt-right have claimed that Europeans and Asians have superior intelligence because they have inherited larger brains from their Neanderthal ancestors.

However, this claim ignores that while there is evidence for the effect of Neanderthal DNA on certain traits, there has been no evidence for its effect on intelligence. Furthermore, scientific research indicates that the Neanderthals were not necessarily more intelligent simply because they had larger skulls. Unsurprisingly, the alt-right tends cherry-pick the ideas that align with their preconceived notions of racial hierarchies, ignoring the broader context of the field of human genetics.

Fighting racism with understanding

Just as the alt-right is no longer an easily dismissed fringe group, their arguments have some factual basis, and cannot be swept aside as the babbling of the scientific illiterate. The alt-right is not clumsy in their use of science and genetics in their battle for their “ideals.” Those who oppose the alt-right, and other racist entities, must arm themselves with the same weapons: education, namely scientific and genetic literacy.

Mounting scientific evidence has shown that humans are fundamentally more similar than different from each other. Nonetheless, racism has persisted. Scientific findings are often ignored, or otherwise actively misinterpreted and misused to further racist agendas of extreme political groups. Opponents of these forces must, through their own education and awareness, combat these misleading interpretations and representations of scientific findings.

Today, the question of “race” is no longer merely a political and social issue: as science has rapidly advanced, it has become irrevocably intertwined. The genome contains powerful insights about our biology that could unite us as a species, but which could also be dangerous and divisive if used without understanding. As we look forward to 2017 and onwards, it becomes ever more important to understand what our DNA says about what it means to be human.

Vivian Chou is a Ph.D. candidate in the Biological and Biomedical Sciences program at Harvard Medical School.

For more information:

The Atlantic “Will the alt-right promote a new kind of racist genetics?” (December 2016)

Harvard Magazine “Race in a genetic world” (2008)

Livescience “Genetic ancestry tests mostly hype, scientists say” (2007)

Science “The science and business of genetic ancestry testing” (2007; original paper cited in the Livescience article above)

Nature Genetics “Implications of biogeography of human populations for ‘race’ and medicine” (November 2004)

575 thoughts on “How Science and Genetics are Reshaping the Race Debate of the 21st Century

  1. I was touched by this essay as it dared to mention what is already fact: That it is not a matter of race but of diversity. And that one should not haggle about terminology but care that all people, the ones with ‘good’ genes and the ones with ‘bad’ genes, get equal rights and inalienable ones.
    There might be even extraterrestial ones and as long as they are peaceful I would not mind them.
    It is a fact, though that they select the zygotes already in the womb in Germany and have others to be gone off.
    If they are born they are discriminated as far as the phenotyp let them be visible as being of inferior breed. It’s horrible to me.
    And I liked this essay as it reveals that even scientists are of strange genes.

    But: one should unite for human rights as far as possible and give everybody a chance, not only the ‘perfect’ ones.

  2. It is disingenuous for these scientists to state there is no race, but there is an obviousness factor about the whole thing they are glossing over or simply refusing to admit. People have developed over the eons as very distinct and different yet genetically compatible races. Race is simply the word we use to identify one group of genetically more similar people with ever so slight physical differences.

    Like any word, race is used, as others have said, identify people to hate. I do not see it that way though, I see race as something that we use to reflect the obvious difference we see every day between people, like the blonde guy who saved that woman, or that black woman who was instrumental in the Apollo missions to the moon. Any word can be used in bad ways, and that does not mean we eliminate the word from the dictionary.

    1. I think you missed the point! The article disproves your statement that ‘race identifies groups of people that are more genetically similar’.

      It doesn’t. The two white scientists in the example were more genetically related to the Asian scientist than they were to each other.

      Race is a SOCIAL construct and a significant one at that. But it’s not a genetic one.

      1. Race describes groups that have biologically similar traits.
        It is not merely a social construct.

        1. Wrong race, as stated above, is largely associated with heritable phenotypes, such as skin color,and eye shape etc. Which is different than linking it to genetic differences because variation is low and because often the blending of populations resulted in phenotypes that don’t overtly reflect that merge. A good example is the french, who at some point had phenotypically white people and phenotypically black people (the Moore’s) in almost equal numbers blending into a phenotypically white population whose blackness is no longer perceived by most. If race were not a social construct France would have been populated by phenotypically distinct group of people from say Spain but truly I challenge you to pick out all the french people an a line up of all the European cultures you can not

          1. How can you say Matt is wrong and then say “race is largely associated with heritable phenotypes”. How are ‘heritable phenotypes’ not biological?

      2. I have to disagree Tori. If it were a social construct why do different societies still see the same races. I have lived in 6 societies including Japan and they all talk of black Africans as ‘black Africans’. In all of those 6 societies you could say that many saw Africans as ‘lesser people’. In Japan (and I believe in China) ‘if’ there was a consensus on prejudice it would be that East Asians are the most superior, then the long noses (European) in the first scale down then Africans at the bottom.
        Social construct come and go but genes have followed us (I should really say ‘led’) for hundreds of millions of years one generation at a time.

        1. In Japan specifically your comment ignores the fact that Japan was introduced to the international world by a racist United State back in the 1850’s and those ideals have stuck since then, there is historical evidence of other “races” accidentally introduced to Japan and being treated much differently than how they are treated today as a group( this isn’t really fair as they could simply be treated as “exotic” but my point still stands) you underestimate the influence of western societies across the world

          1. MA, instead of pontificating on this subject, you might want to go back and actually do some research on the history of Japan and it’s cross-cultural exposure.

        2. Clive Griffin, do you as individual believe that genetic hierarchy that set the superiority in racial order? Considering black Africans at the bottom of the three major race group has nothing to do with science. If Europeans and Asians inherited Neanderthal genes from their Neanderthal ancestors, but Africans have no such genes, doesn’t this falsify the theory that says humans share around 99.5% of their DNA with each other? A larger brain doesn’t mean greater intelligence. People need to understand that Homo sapiens dominated the ancient world not by force, but their abilities to survive, study plants and fruits according to their seasons. Homo sapiens also migrated out of Africa and mixted/mated with Neanderthals in Eurasia. We can easily say as their suggests, homo sapiens were more intelligent than homo Neanderthalensis. Now, are people considering the offspring of Neanderthals more intelligent than the offspring of homo sapiens? The statement in the racial hierarchy is a mare agreement that did not come to term until the introduction of racism around the 15th century.

          1. I don’t recognise relevance to facts in your comment. I don’t know anyone who applies a ‘hierarchy of superiority’ (as a generality) to race’. I’m sure there are people out there that do but why ask me and not them?
            You can apply an objective ‘better suitability’ to environmental survivability to various conditions – such as races in Himalayan and Andean altitudes having a better ability to process oxygen in their blood systems allowing them to work harder at high altitudes than races that have evolved at lower altitudes (such as in Australia or West Africa). This view is applicable to a whole host of genetic variation in discrete population groups; from the morphological shape and fat content of arctic peoples to the melanin content in the skin of populations evolved at low latitudes and an uncounted number of other ‘evolved adaptations’ to any number of various conditions.
            I would say you are wrong on brain size. Wrong on Neanderthal percentages and wrong on the “introduction of racism around the 15th century.”
            Your use of the word “superior” is loaded with racist implication and I suggest this is holding you back from making rationalised science based judgments.
            You are wrong on so many points I’m not prepared to spend the time necessary to correct you. The knowledge is out there but only accessible after you have dispelled yourself from a belief in the Emperor’s New Clothes (woke Ideology).

      3. Then explain how we can tell the race of someone by their bones? We don’t even need their skin to know what race they are. Because our bones grew similarly. We don’t necessarily need genetics we can use physical bones!

      4. What identifies or differences and being different doesn’t have to create indifference? Can’t we be different and still treat each other the same. We look different, we smell different, we have totally didn’t textures of hair and skin. I’ve touched the skin of others and it does not feel the same, it thought processes are even different.
        This doesn’t make me hate anyone, however ì am more comfortable with those who look more like myself. We were even more different before we were raped, sodomized and colonized by those who looked different and if this is not caused by genetics what is it called?

    2. Race is not a issue of genetics. It existed prior to genetic science and is purely an arbitrary assigning of people groups based on visually apparent phenotypic traits.

      The issue seems to be this idea that something being a social construct delegitimizes its existence. Money is a social construct too. Can I just ignore the financial systems and laws regarding it and simply take whatever I want because money is a construct. Of course not. Even constructs are real and can have tangible effects on our reality.

      1. I would argue with you DJB but it is easier (and maybe more effective) to quote Richard Dawkins on twitter: 10:18 AM · Dec 20, 2015″Social construct”? Forget it. Race is biologically real. But it’s irrelevant to anything that matters. We’re all HUMAN.
        Perhaps you might prefer David Reich (one of the foremost geneticists on Earth) – here in the NYT: “I have deep sympathy for the concern that genetic discoveries could be misused to justify racism. But as a geneticist I also know that it is simply no longer possible to ignore average genetic differences among “races””.

        1. I think that the second quote is precisely why race is a social construct. The genetic difference between “races” is real, however the race category ie the social values we have ascribed to race (prior to even knowing what genetics are) is the social construction part.
          Much like there is biological difference between men and woman, this does not mean that gender is real. Sex is the word we use to describe the biological difference and gender is the word for the social construct which was built up around our bodies and the way we humans interact

    3. From one generation to the next, features like skin color, hair texture, etc can completely change, when people with differing physical features, who present as different “races” procreate. If a child can be labeled a different race than their mother and share not only genetics but culture, identity, class – this completely removes any valid use for the social construct of race, except for to continue to separate and divide up the ONE HUMAN RACE, along trivial differences. Humans are diverse, but any person regardless of their physical features can learn to adopt any culture. By identifying with race, we unconsciously channel our behavior into stereotypes that don’t not honor the full potential of all people to express themselves freely and uniquely.

    1. Only recently have I learned that belief in race is considered inherently racist. I grew up believing that it was acknowledgement of human diversity and that some twisted it into hierarchical thinking. Greater and lesser races.

      This article is not alone, I’m sure, in setting the question of race in Trumpism. I am fairly sickened by politics as a whole but terrified of Trump’s overt disdain for democracy. I vote blue if with less enthusiasm than I once did. I also marched against the Iraq war under Bush.

      I get the idea that there is little or no racial “purity.” And it does not worry me any.

      A lot of it seems like semantics. If race doesn’t exist, what do we call it? Sometimes those determined to render race an unword sound as though they’re confusing race with species. As with different breeds of dogs, all can parent offspring with each other which in itself speaks to their genetic compatability.

      While race isn’t species, it’s more than adaptation in an individual. Skin color can adapt based on sun exposure, but two pure bred German shepherds will not produce basset hound puppies, and two Asians will not give birth to a caucasian.

      On the minimal genetic difference between races, or perhaps peoples, chimpanzees are said to be 98 percent similar to humans genetically. Unlike race, that fraction of a difference is enough that we are not the same species. I wonder to what extent this is all spin on the altar of woke politics.

        1. Europe is Asian really. Its etymology is purely a political one. You could drive a car from Spain to China.

      1. When race was actually originally invented to give “superiority” to the inventors, and to justify oppressing/killing/enslaving certain other groups, they are inextricably entwined, you can’t separate them. Just “believing in races” is always going to resurrect the “superior/inferior” attitude, even if we don’t intend it to. I know there are those who sincerely don’t choose to see it that way, but the fact that they do tend to pat themselves on the back for it, that they do make a distinction between the racists and themselves who “just believe in race” (I’m not like those white supremists-I think all races are alright) just shows that the two go hand in hand and particular mention has to be made that , “I’m not racist.” It is so common to hear “white” people say, “he/she is black, BUT…they were real nice/he did a good job/ she was smart.” And then they wonder why people see them as racist. We have lived so long with this completely false and destructive idea that we feel somehow at a loss as to how to categorize other human beings anymore. Its a shame, because we want race to be our “go to” to categorize each other, we don’t want to use our own brains to start the process of categorizing people by other qualities. Its so easy to just say, “that white dude”, or “the black teacher”. And every time we do, a whole host of connotations trail after that one little race word, if not in the speaker, then very possibly in the one spoken to. What if we just saw each other as people? What is wrong with, “that tall lady with the green shirt”, or “that little boy carrying his backpack”? Or, “I met my new neighbor and he welcomed me to the neighborhood, he was very friendly”, without mentioning what color he is? Takes just a bit of thought, doesn’t it? These descriptions are actually more accurate, but we prefer the easy “white” or “black”, even when these colors can be so varied as to be confusing. They don’t even make sense because no one is truly “white” or “black”, no matter how pale or dark their skin is. We have, racist or not, developed a certain comfort with being able to put people in these boxes, but its a comfort zone we need to get out of because it is still causing a world of injustice.

        1. Absolutely agree with you, Ben.

          Those who still argue that ‘race is real’ and want to remain comfortable in that myth are usually ignorant of (or in support of) where the idea of the five ‘races’ originated from, and how its construction is inherently tied to white superiority.

          The people who came up with the concept of race in the first place identified themselves as white. And it wasn’t a coincidence that these groupings of people based on external characteristics were then given a set of traits that justified their relative inferiority to the white groups, and therefore deserved to be subjugated/controlled by the white group.

          Race was invented to do racism. Just because you don’t yet understand this fact, doesn’t mean you can separate race from racism. There is literally no basis to continue using this categorization of humans (of each other) other than to continue upholding racism, structural and individual. It is not useful in any other context, social or scientific (including in the medical field). It actively hinders an accurate view of the world, and keeps it from progress through research and unbiased interpretations of the findings.

          It takes time for us humans to shift away from old paradigms to new ones (in this case, believing that race is ‘real’ and using it as a core identifier for anyone’s identity, to understanding that while our ancestry might be different, there aren’t enough differences between us to keep reminding ourselves and each other of it, because there is no constructive purpose behind it, and definitely not one that will lead to a more functional society), but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try.

          An article like this is already a beginning of the movement of people looking behind a myth (invented by a relatively small number of humans for biased, unscientific reasons) and starting to observe and understand the world as it is—not as it appears to be.

          Alt right movements and many of the comments here seem like inevitable pushback to this shift.

          And those of you who continue to insist that ‘race is real’, maybe ask yourselves why you are so insistent that this is the case. What use do you think it serves in this world? How does it contribute to anything in any human society?

          And if you can’t answer those questions, study history, and see what’s happened with ‘race’ as the fodder for countless instances of violence, ethnic cleansing, forced subjugation of humans by other humans. And then ask yourselves if it’s worth it to keep insisting that race is real—even as a social construct that affects our collective reality.

          Race isn’t real; but racism is.

          So is it worth to keep this construct alive?

      2. Race does exist. It existed before genes were ever discovered. So the idea that it genes to be justified by genetic science is fallacy. The idea that something being a social construct negates its existence is more fallacy. Nationality is a social construct too. Are we going to pretend nation-states, citizenship and territory doesn’t exist because it doesn’t exist as a natural part of the natural world? Money and laws are social constructs too. Can I just just forgo these pesky financial transactions and simply take whatever I want? Even social constructs exist and are, in fact, real things that have real tangible impacts on our reality.

        The idea that Trump is unique in his “disdain for democracy” is erroneous. The Blues and the Reds are both undemocratic. But I’d actually say the Reds are more democratic because unlike the Blues they don’t have super delegates. And they aren’t actively making up election rules in order to prevent candidates from running or campaigning. Look into why RFK had to switch to Independent. They aren’t cancelling all debates either to protect their anointed candidate. The truth is you have no representation. There is no lesser evil. Regardless of who you vote for the billionaire donor class are the ones who set policy. There is nothing democratic about this so-called Republic.

      3. Just like you I don´t care about racial purity whatsoever. We are living in the era of semantic confusion so it´s hard to know what to call what. I think the new word for race would be ancestry. Good luck 😉

  3. There is not a shred of scientific evidence that humans have evolved or that Neanderthals existed. We all have a mixture of melanin; which is dominant depends on our parents, grandparents, etc.. Just family traits.
    As a lifeguard, by summer’s end I was browner than many who say they are black. The following winter I lightened. I guess some of you think I changed races.
    Race is a social prejudice, not scientific at all.

    1. You make an excellent point. Melanin is what determines our color-skin, hair, eyes. And melanin protects-we’re meant to have it. No one likes to hear this, but “white” people-people who only burn in the sun, lack the ability to produce melanin. And this is caused by a genetic defect. Yes, that makes people mad and offended-what doesn’t these days? But its easy to look up, tons of medical/scientific research to back a simple problem that comes in varying degrees-albinism. If you can’t tan in the sun, you have a variation of albinism-you are an albino and you have a genetic defect. Melanin is made in the body to protect us, period. It is not connected to intelligence, our value as a human being, or any of that “inferior/superior” nonsense. If anything, you’re going to be healthier if you have it. Skin cancer among “white” people runs high when they live in very sunny places, like South Africa, Israel, Australia, etc. The only reason we don’t look at this simple fact and stop the racist nonsense is because the world if full of people who would rather DIE than not be able to look down on somebody. The people who benefit from racism will never let the truth fix the problem.

      1. No one (apart from albinos etc.) “lack the ability to produce melanin”. Some races manufacturer less than others because it improves survivability in high latitudes by allowing low sunlight to penetrate light skin to produce vitamin D. Low levels of vitamin D has health repercussions for those with dark skin at high latitudes.
        You can counter survivability at low latitudes with more melanin in the skin to protect it skin from cancer. So light and dark skin affects survivability (thus evolution) in all skin tones.
        Evidence shows that skin tone has changed via different genetic paths, so while the difference in skin tone between European and East Asian races can be virtually imperceptible to the human eye the actual evolved genetic change is recordable
        Eye colour is also thought to have possible evolutionary advantage in that preliminary tests have shown that blue eyes can better perceive objects in the low light levels that occur in northern winters.

        1. White people are a result of albinism. There is varying degrees of albinism. What do you think blue eyes and blonde hair are? It’s albinism in the eyes and hair.

          I’m surprised you people don’t know there are different types of albinism.

          1. Albinos are the result of albinism – white or black (“white” or “black” are not races).
            There are plenty of people (you might call black) who are albinos. Just google image search ‘black albinos’.
            “I’m surprised you people don’t know” albinism isn’t found in just one race.

      2. Every race can get melanona and every race can photoage. Just at different rates. No one lives outside anymore, we all live under shelter.

      3. I mostly agree with, you but adaptations are defects or mutations. Black people are better adapted to the sunny hot climates, it’s a good thing if you live there. White people are more adapted to colder climates, Asians are maybe even more adapted to the cold, certainly the Inuits have cold weather adaptations that would suck if they moved to the equator.

        The only thing I really see is the scale of differences are so very small but they are still real. Two black people aren’t very likely to produce a white skinned kid, though it could happen as a defect, a mistake and is likely how the first lighter skinned people occurred.

  4. This comment section is rather toxic. Not sure a forced response is the way to go with a discussion.

  5. If there is not a genetic difference , then life in America will verify the failure of the black race is a choice by the black race. If there is no difference in intelligence , living in poverty like a wild animals is a Choice , also , they must like it. I remember when i was under 5 years old watching a chicken dance ,,, which taught me that , almost anyone or anything can be taught something of value to feed themselves . Should that not be a measurement of success or failure of an individual or race ? Has America been using the wrong tools to elevate those that are behind? an , 2 yew Dr chou – visit the real world , it has taken 1000s of years of blacks behaving like , well blacks , for them to be recognized as the troubled group they are. Stop feeding parasites and the hosts will have a better life……enuf

    1. When you build your your white identity on a toxic, weak foundation of lies, delusions, unlimited genocife and violence, you can’t be surprised when it’s so easy to fracture & undermine. You are easy to get a rise out of and break down and crack b/c you’re pathetic, PALE imitations of the real thing (aka original humans). You’ll never measure up & you know it.

    2. Let’s be real, full body albinism – eyes, hair, and skin – is genetically recessive.
      We have (unequal) “Black neighborhoods” & “white neighborhoods” for a reason. Mixed neighborhoods & intermarriage rates scare whites b/c they would take their whiteness away, even if their genes would be passed down to the next generations – which is actually the point of the Darwinist reproduction. White ppl’s obsession w/ trying to create white clone children is abnormal to humans. Humans are 99.9% alike. Of the 0.1% genetic difference btwn any two random ppl only about 7% represents ethnic groups that have “traditionally” been viewed as distinct races. Fruit flies are more genetically diverse than humans. If racism was “natural”, none of this would be true.

      *There’s been a 60% drop in white Western men’s spermatozoa rates the last 40 years & global white birth rates are below-replacement level.* Humans may be closely related but whites extremely closely related to the point of it being deleterious. Whites irrationally won’t accept inbreeding leads to sterility. If they want to survive, they need to admit who & what they are & stop w/ the lying, narcissism, brutality & genocide they’ve been using to overcompensate for their inferiority complexes, irrationality, & paranoia surrounding their skin color. Or they can continue & go down w/ the pathetic “white skin is superior” Titanic they’re on right now.

    3. You are ignorant by choice . So ignorant that my superior genes will not comment . If you were so superior why would you still be trying to prove it 400 hundred years later? Critical thinking is your friend . Play by the rules and let’s see how it goes . I’ll sit back on my upper middle class home and watch more willfully inhumane animal behavior initiated by USA and hope that you find out who you really are , as it is unfolding from every corner of history exactly where we stand . I feel sympathy for you rather than anger I don’t feel the needs to engage further because I know who I am , perhaps that’s choice as welll

    4. Damn, I don’t who the hell you are, but you fucking suck and so do your writing skills. Hopefully you realized that now in the last two years and changed both of those issues lol.

      I could probably guess where you were on January 6th, 2021.

      Man, you are cracking me up, thanks for the laugh.

      – A Black Harvard Undergrad

      1. Everyone literally has the same melanocytes. Lighter skin takes less time to absorb the sun’s benefits and that was created for survival. Please research. There are WHITE RACED albinos too, not just BLACK RACE albinos. Also blue eyes, which have less melanin, can see in the dark better than other color eyes. These are ALL evolutions for survival in different habitats of the world. Why is it always white and black? What about literally the spectrum in between????? This is such a ridiculous rhetoric. The reason white skin burns is because it takes LESS time to get the sun’s vitamins. White people originated out of areas that were COLDER and lacked sunlight and they had to STAY INSIDE OF CAVES. The body evolved for survival in this area.

        Also, isn’t Harvard involved in a plagarism scandal?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *