ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 9 ก.พ. 2025
- The video revisits Johann Friedrich Blumenbach, an influential Enlightenment-era scientist renowned for his early work in race science. Contrary to modern critiques that view Enlightenment race theories as flawed, Blumenbach is recognized for his scientific rigor and more nuanced understanding. He proposed that human races, categorized into five groups, were linked by gradual, non-discrete differences influenced by environmental adaptations. Although his views on race origins were influenced by contemporary biases and pre-Darwinian ideas, Blumenbach's emphasis on the shared human species and genetic clustering aligns with some modern genome studies. He advocated scientific curiosity over racial hierarchy.
The article was written by Coel Hellier and published 13 Mar 2024 on Quillette.
quillette.com/...
Quillette is an Australian-based online magazine that focuses on long-form analysis and cultural commentary. It is politically non-partisan, but relies on reason, science, and humanism as its guiding values.
Quillette was founded in 2015 by Australian writer Claire Lehmann. It is a platform for free thought and a space for open discussion and debate on a wide range of topics, including politics, culture, science, and technology.
Quillette has gained attention for publishing articles and essays that challenge modern orthodoxy on a variety of topics, including gender and sexuality, race and identity politics, and free speech and censorship.
---
Quillette's revenue comes from our readers. We are a grassroots organisation that relies on voluntary subscriptions and community membership as our primary revenue stream.
Support Quillette by becoming a subscriber: quillette.com/...
Or donate send us a one-off tip: quillette.com/...
We made our website using Ghost, a powerful app for new-media creators to publish, share, and grow a business around their content. It comes with modern tools to build a website, publish content, send newsletters & offer paid subscriptions to members. Try it here: ghost.org/?via...
Quick note: the claim that humans vary as much within races as between them is a linguistic trick being played on you. What they're trying to imply by saying this is that genes have as much *genetic distance* within races as between, and that is patently not the case. The Fst between Sub-Saharan Africans and Europeans, for instance, typically ranges from 0.15 to 0.2 (roughly comparable to the genetic difference between wolves and coyotes). In contrast, within populations (again, for instance, within African populations or European populations), Fst values tend to be much lower, typically around 0.01 to 0.05, pointing to far greater genetic homogeneity within racial groups than between them. The claim also ignores that the between-population variation affects key functional traits-- such as skin color, cranial structure, muscle composition, disease resistance, and cognitive-related alleles-- which are not randomly distributed but correlate with long-term environmental adaptation.
It’s like when they say masks reduce transmission by 10%. You’d think, wow that is a pretty big difference! But when you look at the study you see, infection rates go from 11%, to 10% lol
It's such a weak argument when you can point out extremely consistent traits such as straight or curly hair. You can also observe these in the offspring. If someone makes such an argument so easily defeated that they could have and should have done themselves then it tells you something is far more seriously wrong than the straightforward error in logic that presents.
Fst has little bearing on genetic variance within groups so…
@@suhaybm186 I can't tell if you're joking or trolling. Are you trying to be obtuse?
When Fst within groups is low and between groups is significantly higher, it reveals important structural differences. Ignoring that is dishonest at best and moronic at worst. It clearly signals meaningful genetic differentiation and population structure, that genetic differentiation between said groups is non-random and likely shaped by evolutionary processes such as isolation, drift, or selection. You're just trying to obfuscate by minimizing how Fst highlights important between-group differences
@@StephenDeagle genetic variance within groups being that large and largely left unexplained by fst reveals to us that the few centuries or even millennia of gene flow fst brings into perspective isn’t significant enough to establish that “genetic differentiation” took place.
It would be astonishing if humans did not evolve a variety of characteristics both physical and cultural based on where they live. None of this makes any specific race intrinsically superior to an̈y other. To his credit the scientist featured understood this basic fact.
The racial supremacist is such a strange strawman when almost no one forwards such a position and the vast majority of all perceived supremacists are actually racial/ethic nationalists. Just a group that is focused on its own interests to the exclusion of others. Yet, you still see the supremacist designation being used. I wonder why it’s so enduring?
9:53 This's a wrong designation of Blumenbach's races 🤦♂
The first one is Mongolian (Mongoloid or East Asian).
The second one is American (now we call it Amerindian).
The third one is Ethiopian (now we would call it Negroid or Sub-Saharan African)
The fourth one is Malay.
The last one (the Blondie) is Caucasian which encompasses not only Europeans but also MENAs (now we call them West Eurasians)
Malik, really, there was no race, racism or slavery before 15th century europeans ventured into to Africa?
Utter sh!te
There was always fear of the unknown, when encountering other groups of humans. It was the norm
The Out of Africa hypothesis has come under fire lately. It's not proven.
Recent studies have shown that, though modern West Africans do not have Neanderthal or Denisovan ancestry Europeans or Asians have , Subsaharans have up to 20% of their DNA have been from an introgression by archaic hominin that diverged before the split of modern humans. Does this ad any partial explanation to Charles Murray /James Watsons type research ?
I expect so. My guess is that the archaic hominids that modern humans encountered as they moved south into central Africa from the Middle East possessed unique characteristics adapted to the extreme heat, humidity, and diseases present there. Kinky hair and wide nostrils to repel the hot sun and dissipate heat. An immune system tuned to survive tropical diseases. Etc. Whites and Asians have a terrible time there, and have to rely on air-conditioning, shade, antibiotics, and antimalarials.
Charles Murray is some sort of psychologist, although I’m sure he appreciates being connected to your comment! Is ‘introgression by archaic hominid’ even English, I mean, does this mean anything in English? lol, keep up the good work ‘supporting’ Charles Murray. . .
@@magicsinglezJust because you're offended by the mere possibility of there being inherent IQ differences between races doesn't mean the idea has no merit.
@@magicsinglez Yes, IQ is measured by clinical psychologists. It's arguably the most scientifically verified principle in any of the social sciences. Not woo woo like "race is just a social construct" or "my truth" or "different ways of knowing".
Science has let itself be so grievously corrupted by ideology it now needs a regulatory enema of niagara proportions.
If race has no basis in biological reality then racial differences would have never arisen in the human species.
You can't reason with antiwhites. Just call out their pretext for its purpose. Say "your antiwhite pretext is something you're only using to disarm us and prevent our collective defense against collective attacks. Your pretext is something you're using to justify white erasing our unique biological expression -- which you would do for no other group of people."
Then if they call you a "racist" point out that this antiwhite slur is a thought-terminating cliche that they throw at anyone who contradicts the antiwhite narrative.
The fact of the matter is that people don't really care about facts if they think your observations are immoral or serve an immoral purpose. The use of the term "racist" is an admission to indifference about whether or not you're correct -- the allegation is that observations contradicting their worldview are ipso facto immoral. You can't reason with someone not speaking the language of reason.
Instead, you pull out the rug on their assumption that they are the moral agent to begin with. Once that is undermined and they stumble and stutter, deprived of antiwhite thought-terminating cliches, their minds suddenly open to the facts and become capable of reason once more.
It works every time.
There are 100% differences between race. Not only the obvious in color and shapes but you can see what they produce as a group. That should be evidence enough.
This comment makes no sense. Ascribing a proportion to a difference is incoherent.
@@budawang77 Huh? He’s not assigning a proportion. He’s saying it’s 100% certain that there are differences.
Yes, there is no Western Civilization without Westernkind. Western Civilization is a product of the Westman's biospirit (sum total of instinctive proclivities).
@@budawang77 Difference is Genetic, gentic differences affect not only the looks but the internal organs. Wherever they are been poured in groups literally brings down quality of life. Thats why they are being poured only in western nations and they aim to mix them with whites. Stop the ignorant naivity of thinking that this elites are actually doing "good". They just push a bank agenda of multiculturalism/diversity at expense of white western nations. THAT makes no sense at all to support. The less of yourself the better? Are you morally good by destroying ONLY your own people and not for ex. Chinese, Japanese, Korean or South East nations? There are plenty of way to prove western civilization is overall much better to African ones for example, civilization is constructed by a people. Go to Africa and see if you will be welcomed, research the genocide in South Africa. You should be another new woke or progressive thinking that for a pair of coins, or social acceptance, you are being "good".
But a lot are not grouped anymore like in America. The differences between the ascribed boundaries isn't question it is the boundaries themselves. There is a thing as blind faith, which is dangerous in that you take things on authority but do not realize it, you believe you properly know these things.
Having faith in authority is necessary and good but one has to keep in mind it is not properly known things.
So for someone that knew nothing of the outside world, like here in the imaginary boundaries of Tennessee we have stereotypes about people from the west Virginia area. Are they a different race because we find consistent differences? What about Flemings and Bretons of France? If the entire world was just that stretch of land between them then they differentiate the race based on the differences they notice between the two races.
Its only when you go thousands upon thousands of miles away that all of a sudden the Flemings and Bretons start to see eachother as relatively the same race.
Same thing with the "accomplishments" of a race. If you happen to expand your view you can group yourself in the same race as other accomplished people's but they themselves may consider you slightly foreign to their way of life and genetic dispositions. Sure you can find crucial similarities but if the point is "there is 100% a difference though" then it establishes you've drawn a boundary, found consistent differences than that boundary is as real as the next size of category
tl;dr
Evolution is real, and also applies to humans.
Obviously.
General environment and social factors are big operators in physical form. It is very common for second-generation migrants to adopt local diets and become overweight in western countries
At the 9:54 min. mark in the clip, the red circles aren't corresponding correctly to the model races.
TFW when you totally ignore Medieval Arabs.
It would be quite easy to identify genes specific to Aboriginal Australians if the Aboriginal identifier, western educated overlords allowed open access to the blood bank that goes way back.
Love your narration Iona! Also really enjoyed this article. I'd never heard of Blumenbach before today.
Thank you!
Glad you enjoyed it!
Amazing!
I am also a scientist and this is correct. It's also easy to determine it so. The debate is not necessarily a matter of intelligence. That is, it is not so much a matter of people who do not know versus those who do know nor is it a matter of those who do not understand versus those who cannot. You are correct at the ending. It is something else. It is the willingness to know and understand. That is, there is a social psychological impasse. There are people with something wrong with them. Explaining things such as clustering will not work. They are in denial. They see denial of reality as a valid utility. This is what needs be addressed. If it can be applied here then it is no doubt that it will also be applied by such minds elsewhere.
Yes, my guy. It's because the de facto state religion is antiwhitism and antiwhitism works through appeal to pretexts. The pretext that all humans are genetically indistinguishable, though obviously wrong, is useful for convincing us to let down our guard. In order to defend this pretext, they will throw out their antiwhite thought-terminating cliches, like the word "racist."
Arguing with them is akin to arguing with Heaven's Gate or the Branch Davidians (dressed as whatever their prophet told them Satan would look like); you cannot reason with religious zealotry. However, there is a useful response. Simply point out that their antiwhite thought-terminating cliche is an antiwhite thought-terminating cliche. Then when they are disarmed of the thought-terminating cliche to silence you, you list the strongest evidence and ask them why they used an obviously false argument and if they used this bad-faith argument in order to prevent white people from seeing themselves as a group in order to be unable to collectively defend against collective attacks. Ask them if they wish to see our unique biological expression extirpated and erased or if they would wish that on other groups.
Reason won't cut it because they have the antiwhite moral imperative. Get them to question that and then their minds are open to the facts.
I must thank you for the B&W portraits of the twelve in those stills after the nineteenth minute. Back in the late '90s at uni' I came to the rough estimate of a dozen overall types of Homo Sapiens sapiens. Remember Darwin's Latin effort, "Natura non facit saltum" which means that nature doesn't move in jumps? I confine my hypothesis to the eras prior to the invention of sail boats, but we have hardly changed much in the past few thousand years, as a special group.
It is funny how the hours of the day (and night) and the twelve different groupings of different peoples across the geography of the planet seem to come to twelve, even though there are only ten fingers and toes ... strange. Maybe I overestimated?
I always figured on twelve, but these are a beautiful smorgasbord of variations within those twelve different genetic guises so that the fringes of one grouping will be indiscernible from the fringes of another, in several directions.
In conclusion, we all have our moods, and the differences in my own personal different mental states are greater than differences between my average state and the average state of my most distant cousin, albeit a close contest, that. As a species, of twelve several geographically derived types, we are more alike than we are different. Just watch out for those Italians because they are too emotional.
Very interesting and well constructed. Thank you
Humans are one race. But like with dogs, there are different breeds.
WE HUMANS ARE A SPECIES... NOT A RACE... THIS PHRACE ''HUMAN RACE'' IS WRONG, INTENTED TO CONFUSES SMOOTH BRAIN PPL...
In the sense that Chihuahuas, Coyotes, and Grey Wolves are different breeds. Those are actually more recent divergences.
@@marktrain9498 Exactly. They can still interbreed, basic DNA compatibility is intact.
“Race” in this context basically means the same thing as “breed,” so no, that’s not correct. Maybe what you mean to say is that humans are one _species,_ which they are. But they are not all one race, just like dogs are all the same species but not the same breed.
The truth is that species don't have hard boundaries. We call wolves and Coyotes different, but they are similar and can interbreed, even though they are also different. The same is true of humans. Asians and Africans are different, but are also similar and can interbreed.
Clearly Blumenbach never saw modern Haiti.
There needs to be a distinction between "racism" and "bigotry." Bigotry is the ipso facto disparagement or judgement - in advance of direct contact - that a particular group is superior or inferior. "Racism" could mean race realism; simply an acknowledgement that there are racial differences without instituting a moral hierarchy with which to lock people into fixed categories as a way to enforce a caste system. Moderns have gone too far in claiming there is only one human race, etc., etc. This is clearly incorrect as the video explains.
But how do I understand race without it becoming an -ism? If one starts to see their clan as a group of people, the physical differences with those even a hundred miles away can be known. The less critical we get the worse the phenomenon gets. Which is to say the further away one is from experiencing and recognizing the distinctions within a "race" the more the superstructure of the race you're "seeing" looks to be satisfactory.
Looking at the Tutsi's getting killed by the Hutu results in the Angolan to ask "are you all not the same Rwandan?" But the differences feel more real to the internal Rwandans.
What si most striking is the extent of his ignorance.
At this point we are beating around the same kind of bush what god's existence was 100 years ago.
Chris Moise, councillor for ward 23 Toronto, is an ancestor of those responsible for the Atlantic slave trade. So is Dr. Shola Mos of London, UK.
Relevance?
@@JohnDoe-gk2qw He's a black supremacist.
What’s next on the agenda, Quillette? Justifying eugenics?
Facts don't care about your feelings.
Trust the science 😊😊
Horse breeding is multi billion dollar evidence of eugenics wouldn't you say?
The operative question is: Do you support using government force to implement racial discrimination?
All the rest is academic.
I support the right of each biological expression to have sovereignty and pursue its own destiny, compatible with that of its own biospirit (sum total of instinctive proclivities). I don't wish to see any policies that would lead to our erasure, ergo, immigration policy should be compatible with this, wherever one is going from and wherever one is going to.
The academics inform the government on how to act. If the academics speak to the reality and fundamentals of the occitan race and its distinctive differences between breton race then what you could have is a lack of cohesion for the French government. The idea of france becomes weak under the weight of the academics pointing out it is a construct and only the basque, occitan, breton, and fleming differences are worth talking about.
Or perhaps Caucasian becomes the focus, now the government of france looks to be subsumed into the idea of a European Union.
These racial understanding of groupings tap into a reality and that physical understanding determines everything downstream of it.
And politics is downstream of physics because every action and organizing we do is built on our physical understanding of reality. Even our most advanced thought can be in error to the degree our physics is wrong.
@partydean17
That's a big ole 'yes' from you.
I appreciate your uncircumspect candor.
I personally think we should abolish all race based government policies as the violations of Equal Protection that they are.
@michaelpcoffee id have to agree. If you follow what I wrote above the outcome of government giving any weight to one understanding of race to the other becomes obviously that they are directing what should be a natural development toward some artificially narrow or wide framing.
Left alone it will ebb and flow with time into ways we can't predict.
The Eugenics Movement bears a striking resemblance to Critical Race Theory.
An academic movement used to justify using violence against honest, peaceful people.
The central theme of the justification being the fact that people measure differently from one another.
They both cherry pick statistics that support their preformed conclusions.
They both ignore real causes of their measurements in favor of their own sophistry.
The more things change; the more they stay the same.
If race is real, and it is certainly based on family, which is real, then there must be a degree of manipulation when it is addressed aa such depending on where one is idealogically standing in regards to who his family is. If my name was Johnson, the race of Johnson is distinctly understood and seen as visually and intellectually observable with the traits given to me and my brothers by my mother and father.
This is very real, the race of Johnson.
As well as the larger clan of my cousins.
To a lesser degree the realness of the cousins of the entire, let us say, Saxon people is so much less real in seeing the paricular ways this human is individuated from the matter.
Even less so if he counts something so abstracted like german. By the time i have gone from the race of johnson to caucasian i have made a huge analogy to my understanding of the realness of my family i am close to speaking of nothing at all. But it is still not nothing. It is something.
This is not to say that species and dogness are an analogy to race. Notice that species is the very next specification to being an animal at all. You are a physical thing, an animal, a man (rational animal), male, and then the billions of ways you are specified from what is given by your father and mother.
Notice that race is an analogous understanding to those billions of specifications of the family specification NOT to the species specification or mode of being.
Female AI voice 👎🏼
Not AI
It's not AI. If you actually listened, you'd know that.