A thousand years from now most humans will look the same and race differentiation will be all but impossible. They'll all have a mocha/olive skin with various hair colors and eye colors. This is what you'll get from constantly mixing genes. The oddities will be the people who still have an identifiable race,whether it's white, black, asian, etc.
I guess technically, every 1/4 mile run consists of a few 100yd dashes but mehhh.... I'm not into the whole mixing thing. Sent from my iPhone using Grasscity Forum
People act like race mixing is somehow a new thing. They seem to think of the established races as "pure" in some way. Like I'm "pure" white, pure black, pure German, etc. It's all bullshit. Conquest ensured races got mixed around on the regular. Anyone who claims to be "racially pure" is deluded.
Were all pink and runny on the inside. We all have the same desires also, safety, comfort, food, family, fun and the desire to spread our genes to the next generation. So you have to ask yourself if the 'race' thing is anything beyond your cultural definitions of what a person 'should' look like. Remember it's all skin deep, anything beyond that is your upbringing telling you that person doesn't fit with your home group. At least that's the way I look at it.
Oh really do explain? The lowered genetic fitness due to neanderthal admixture isn't really worth it.
The concept of race is largely a 17th century invention. Prior to that people were grouped based on where they were from and what language they spoke, not necessarily what their skin tone was. Cue slavery... Mixing is probably going to be the only way to end tension and perceived differences between one another. But we're human...we're going to come up with another way to be divisive.
I don't know where you learned that but it's BS. Racial prejudice and slavery are as old as human civilization itself. Pretty much all known ancient societies practiced some form of slavery, and most had rigid social hierarchies. Anyone who believes these concepts only arose during Colonial times needs to read more history.
No not really, more like all of the above actually. Lots of ancient societies had slavery systems with a racial component. Like the Romans thought they were doing "barbarians" a favor by enslaving and "civilizing" them. The Arab slave trade was the same way, the Arabs thought themselves superior to the black Africans they traded. And Colonial slavery had a large class element to it as well. You didn't have to be white to own a slave, free blacks and Native Americans practiced it as well. You just had to have the money to buy and make use of them. The Trans-Atlantic slave trade wasn't unusual in these respects.
I am all for it. Just like how a mutt dog is more intelligent than pure bred (pretty much inbreeding). So by mixing races you have really no chance of inbreeding.
Cultures were enslaved, not races. This thread is about race mixing. Yes, Arabs enslaved Africans prior to Europeans, but most historians agree that there was no white, black, or even Native American race until colonialism.
This is very true. Roman society had all sorts of slaves. Mostly white slaves from armys that lost to the roman campaign. Racism seems to be something more dominant once chrisitianity came around. Even the bible says not to mix race. Sounds pretty racist to me but Jesus and the bible said it so it is ok. Lmao also love how Jesus is a white guy from the middle east. Anyways don't mean to derail the thread.
This makes no fucking sense. You are essentially saying Africans are superior to all other races? African supremacist? Lol
Lol source for that claim? You really believe the concept of race is only a few hundred years old? "It was cultures not races"? What does that even mean? You definitely won't find a credible historian who will assert that people had no concept of race or racial prejudice until a few centuries ago. That's absurd.
No, Africans aren't superior. But because modern homo sapiens originated in Africa, Africans have had a lot of time through history to become as genetically diverse as they are. Not to mention many civilizations came to Africa and Africans went elsewhere. There were even African Romans and Greeks, which is why I say cultures were enslaved during ancient times, not races. Who would be considered white people today enslaved other white people, Africans enslaved other Africans--not based on race, but culture. This is way off topic though; I'm done.
I'm just interested in what historical sources you're basing these theories on. Because there definitely weren't black Romans. I mean, there were black people under Roman rule, but they wouldn't have been considered "true Romans" by the Latin people, the original Romans. They assimilated other peoples into their culture, but the conquered races always had a subordinate position in society. That's why I brought them up, they definitely considered themselves a superior group and definitely did not approve of race mixing, at least among the ruling class. For instance, Marc Antony was declared a traitor to his people when he married Cleopatra, a foreigner. When Alexander the Great took a Persian wife, it hurt him politically with the Greeks because, again, they thought of themselves as a superior people. I don't get exactly what you mean by "based on race" or "based on culture". What criteria are you using for these conclusions? The reality is there were dynamics involving both these concepts in regards to slavery and social inequality. And race and culture were much more closely entwined in the past than they are now, in our increasingly global society. So yeah, the subject is a little more complicated than "they invented ideas of race just to fuck over black people".