toshiromiballza Wrote:There's so many errors in that article I don't even know where to begin... If a white person is born in Japan, he is not ethnically Japanese, he is a citizen of Japan only. If a Japanese person is born in Australia, she is ethnically Japanese, and if she moves back to Japan, she is still Japanese by ethnicity, not Australian. The fact that there is more variation within a race than between two races means nothing. There is more variation within the same sex than there is between a male and female. Does that mean sex does not exist? Of course not.

That is not a valid analogy, because "ethnicity" isn't purely a concept of Biology, the way sex is. An ethnic group is united only to a small extent by common biological features (claims of common ancestors within an ethnic group are more often fabricated than proven, to be honest), and much more by cultural and political similarities.

Stansfield123 Wrote:That is not a valid analogy, because "ethnicity" isn't purely a concept of Biology, the way sex is. An ethnic group is united only to a small extent by common biological features (claims of common ancestors within an ethnic group are more often fabricated than proven, to be honest), and much more by cultural and political similarities.

The analogy was that of race, not ethnicity. Race is a biological reality just like sex is. Only crackpot scientists actually disagree with that.

The Japanese "ethnicity" has been well established throughout the years, and it consists of "Yamato" Japanese, whose ancestors are almost entirely East Asian, and Ryukyuans, who are today a mixture of Yamato Japanese and the old settlers, who were probably similar to Taiwanese Aboriginals, Malays, etc. You could also include the Ainu, but they consider themselves as a separate ethnicity, which they are. Although some Ryukyuans/Okinawans don't like being called "Japanese" either...

Genetically, Yamato Japanese are today a distinct group of people, who have over the years (biologically) developed differently from Koreans and Chinese, although their ancestors came from there. They created a separate culture, language, etc., and long story short, the Japanese ethnicity/people were born. There was no problem with such a definition for hundreds of years, until recently, with the beginning of internationalism, multiculturalism, etc. Of course, the crackpot scientists with their crackpot theories of "we are all the same" had the biggest impact on this unscientific way of thinking. This nonsense has actually got so bad, that my college professor is one step away from teaching us that the Japanese people do not exist! Sorry to say it, but your blog post is essentially the same kind of crap.

Japan is a very homogeneous country, with more than 90% of the population being genetically Yamato Japanese. Yes, the Yamato are a mix of different ancient populations, but that very mix gave life to an entirely new people! Just like creating a new dog breed. This is what my college professor can't get through his thick bald skull.
Foreigners, either white, black, Filipino, Koreans, Chinese, etc. are not ethnic Japanese, as they are genetically different (especially those from other races), regardless if they have a Japanese passport or not. They are Japanese by law only, not by ethnicity.

If that's true then who decides where you can arbitrarily draw the line for race?

toshiromiballza Wrote:This is what my college professor can't get through his thick bald skull.

Dunning-Kruger effect in action.

Isn't saying that Yamato Japanese are genetically Japanese saying really: we took socially and politically established racial boundaries, tested the prevalence of certain genes within the population, and some of those genes are slightly more common or slightly less common compared to Koreans, Chinese, South-East Asians, etc. Calling those slight variations a difference in race is not a scientific decision--it's a social/political one, which is where we started.

toshiromiballza Wrote:...The Japanese "ethnicity" has been well established throughout the years, and it consists of "Yamato" Japanese, whose ancestors are almost entirely East Asian, and Ryukyuans, who are today a mixture of Yamato Japanese and the old settlers, who were probably similar to Taiwanese Aboriginals, Malays, etc. You could also include the Ainu, but they consider themselves as a separate ethnicity, which they are....

...genetically, Yamato Japanese are today a distinct group of people, who have over the years (biologically) developed differently from Koreans and Chinese, although their ancestors came from there....

...the Yamato are a mix of different ancient populations...

...an entirely new people! Just like creating a new dog breed...

no, that is called a mutt... 'ethnically' yamato japanese people are, like you explained, the product of several different, long established asian races. they were basically the losers of various wars in various countries that then escaped to japan long ago. now this amalgam of many different peoples have their own distinct culture, and nationality... but that is a very different thing from race/ethnicity. This is why the japanese people are among the most heterogeneous genetically of all asian countries.

I'm quite certain the article's focus is on cultural identification, not on genetics.
Although, he does throw around the word 'race' a lot without mentioning the term Yamato, so I totally agree.

This article is such crap!!

toshiromiballza, why exactly do you care so much about this issue?

Do you think someone in Japan should have greater rights if they are "ethnically Japanese"?

Do you think a 5th generation white white kid born and raised in Japan ought to still to consider themselves ethnically something else?

What about someone of korean or chinese ancestry?

In your opinion, for how many generations must one's ancestors have been in Japan before you get to be Japanese?

Maybe in 5 generations Japan might be the type of country to accept a white person as Japanese, but it's not that country today.

A white person born and raised in Japan is not Japanese and will never be Japanese except in nationality only. You'll get laughed at by both Japanese people and white people if you try to say otherwise.

Zainichi Koreans and Chinese are a bit more complicated. Most of them want to retain their Korean and Chinese identities which brings us to the question of whether or not someone can be both Korean and Japanese at the same time. I don't think Japanese society will ever accept that concept in our lifetimes.

blackbrich Wrote:If that's true then who decides where you can arbitrarily draw the line for race?

There are overlaps between all taxonomical categories which define our fauna. There are no absolutes. Yet the only time people decide to make this an issue is when it comes to human races. There is enough variation between the human populations that enables scientists (even the race-denying ones) to essentially categorize them into certain "clusters."

These "clusters of populations" are Caucasian, Negroid, Mongoloid, Australoid, then there's also the San people of Africa (Bushmen), the Andamanese in India, etc. who don't lump into any "population cluster", and are therefore a distinct cluster/population themselves. You can also further sub-categorize these "population clusters" and you get "sub-clusters" such as the Amerindians, Polynesians, whites, East Asians, South Asians, etc.

To show you just how thick-skulled these race-denying scientists are; reading the above you'd probably think Carleton Coon or some other "racist" scientist made the list. Well, no. It comes from a large volume written by race-denying geneticists and anthropologists. Their findings basically differ from those, say, of Coon, by just calling them "clusters" and "populations" instead of "races" or "sub-races." So the only thing race-denying scientists are doing is arguing semantics, basically. Or they really are that thick-skulled and can't connect A and B, which wouldn't surprise me.

Tzadeck Wrote:Isn't saying that Yamato Japanese are genetically Japanese saying really: we took socially and politically established racial boundaries, tested the prevalence of certain genes within the population, and some of those genes are slightly more common or slightly less common compared to Koreans, Chinese, South-East Asians, etc.

In a way, but your wording makes it seem as if we/they decided that in a day. Saying Yamato Japanese are genetically Japanese is based on the fact that they came to Japan and evolved there separate from other people, developed their own culture and language, protected their land/country from other populations and are today both genetically and culturally different from other populations due to hundreds of years of (keeping) their existence as a separate group.

Tzadeck Wrote:Calling those slight variations a difference in race is not a scientific decision--it's a social/political one, which is where we started.

It's not a difference in race, they are still the same race as the Koreans or Chinese. They are, however, a different ethnicity.

dtcamero Wrote:no, that is called a mutt... 'ethnically' yamato japanese people are, like you explained, the product of several different, long established asian races. they were basically the losers of various wars in various countries that then escaped to japan long ago. now this amalgam of many different peoples have their own distinct culture, and nationality... but that is a very different thing from race/ethnicity. This is why the japanese people are among the most heterogeneous genetically of all asian countries.

And after a long period of breeding, the "mutt" becomes a separate breed. All dog breeds are basically "wolf mutts," yet after enough generations and selective breeding, one of these mutts "evolves" into a new breed. It's not any different with humans, except it's less artificial. So no, Japan is actually the most homogeneous "1st world nation" on the planet. But have fun calling the Japanese a bunch of Chinese and Koreans, like my Japanese Studies professor.

nadiatims Wrote:toshiromiballza, why exactly do you care so much about this issue?

Do you think someone in Japan should have greater rights if they are "ethnically Japanese"?

Do you think a 5th generation white white kid born and raised in Japan ought to still to consider themselves ethnically something else?

What about someone of korean or chinese ancestry?

In your opinion, for how many generations must one's ancestors have been in Japan before you get to be Japanese?

I don't care that much, I'm just trying to be factual and scientific about these things.

Do I think an ethnic Japanese should have more rights in Japan than a white Japanese-wannabe with a Japanese passport? Tough question. Luckily Japan is not yet "blessed" with mass immigration and multiculturalism, especially thanks to their immigration policies, so a few gaijin that actually live there are no problem. The answer gets more complicated when (heavens forbid) Japan gets to the same level of immigration and multiculturalism as, say, France or England, especially with "certain" third world immigrants whose birth rate is 4+ times that of the Japanese. Then I am 100% behind certain limitations being set up for these gaijin, including the number of children they are allowed to have.

Some (most?) Koreans and Chinese, if assimilated, can pass off as Japanese without a problem, because they look alike. Most of the times they themselves refuse to be called Japanese, because, like kitakitsune said, they want to retain their Korean/Chinese identities. A white person, or a black person, will never be considered Japanese, no matter how many generations they've lived there, because they can't pass as Japanese, since they're a different race altogether. That's simply how society and human nature work and it's never going to change. Ethnically they are something else, no matter how many generations they've been there, and if they want to call themselves "Japanese," they have to add a prefix in front (German-Japanese, etc.), otherwise they'd just sound pathetic.

toshiromiballza Wrote:Ethnically they are something else, no matter how many generations they've been there, and if they want to call themselves "Japanese," they have to add a prefix in front (German-Japanese, etc.), otherwise they'd just sound pathetic.

That's your opinion, however. In my opinion, "Japanese" is good enough, without any prefixes. Further more, it is my opinion that it is rather pathetic in of itself to suggest that those whom do not adhere to such arbitrary prefix identity labels would sound pathetic by doing so.


We are still all the same species. A few generations in evolutionary terms is nothing, which is why a lot of this talk about "race" is essentially an arbitrary and political bent on biology. Give it a few hundred thousand more years, and if groups of people have managed to produce progeny only with members of the same group, then and maybe then the issue of "race" will become more accurately biological, instead of arbitrary and biased social/political idealism misusing science.

uisukii Wrote:That's your opinion, however. In my opinion, "Japanese" is good enough, without any prefixes. Further more, it is my opinion that it is rather pathetic in of itself to suggest that those whom do not adhere to such arbitrary prefix identity labels would sound pathetic by doing so.

Speaking of "biased social/political idealism" ...

uisukii Wrote:We are still all the same species. A few generations in evolutionary terms is nothing, which is why a lot of this talk about "race" is essentially an arbitrary and political bent on biology. Give it a few hundred thousand more years, and if groups of people have managed to produce progeny only with members of the same group, then and maybe then the issue of "race" will become more accurately biological, instead of arbitrary and biased social/political idealism misusing science.

So 50,000+ years is nothing in human evolutionary terms, even though all the dog breeds we know appeared in the last 10,000 years, and human variation between races is bigger than the variation between dog breeds? Denial of race is completely politically motivated, race acceptance is completely scientific. Denying race is denying evolution. But you can play the semantics game and call them "population clusters" as the race-denying scientists do.

Luckily the Japanese (and East Asians in general) have not yet been brainwashed with this politically correct pseudo-science, and you will (for the most part) never convince them otherwise. They will never accept foreigners as ethnically Japanese/Korean/Chinese, because they are intelligent people who can tell the difference between science and politically-inspired bullsh*t.

you realize that dog breeds have come about by selective breeding right? and also that dogs have much shorter lifespans than humans?

I don't think anyone is denying that people can be classified into groups based on their genes (call them what you will). It's just that beyond perhaps the field of medicine it's not that useful and the genetic differences between groupings seem less significant than the cultural and individual differences, except for a handful of irrelevant (to non-racists) things like skin color.

toshiromiballza Wrote:I don't care that much, I'm just trying to be factual and scientific about these things.

It's hard to be factual and scientific when you don't have a basic grasp on what constitutes "scientific method" or "scientific fact". Again, you should concern yourself with understanding basic distinctions between concepts before concluding that everything is an argument about semantics and then making huge leaps to racist conclusions based on fundamental misunderstandings of what has been scientifically proven. The concepts of race / subspecies and population clusters are seperate concepts, they aren't interchangable.

Humans are a monotypic species. All human populations are derived from an extremely small population (around 10,000 people) that came from Africa. Because the original population all humans come from was so small, the genetic differences between all humans are still extremely small today. The genetic differences between two chimpanzees of the same subspecies are bigger than the two most genetically diverse humans, for example.

wikipedia Wrote:A polytypic species has two or more subspecies, races or more generally speaking, populations that need a separate description.[4] These are separate groups that are clearly distinct from one another and do not generally interbreed (although there may be a relatively narrow hybridization zone), but which would interbreed freely if given the chance to do so. Note that groups which would not interbreed freely, even if brought together such that they had the opportunity to do so, are not subspecies: they are separate species.[citation needed]

A monotypic species has no distinct population or races, or rather one race comprising the whole species. Monotypic species can occur in several ways:[citation needed]

All members of the species are very similar and cannot be sensibly divided into biologically significant subcategories.
The individuals vary considerably but the variation is essentially random and largely meaningless so far as genetic transmission of these variations is concerned.
The variation among individuals is noticeable and follows a pattern, but there are no clear dividing lines among separate groups: they fade imperceptibly into one another. Such clinal variation always indicates substantial gene flow among the apparently separate groups that make up the population(s). Populations that have a steady, substantial gene flow among them are likely to represent a monotypic species even when a fair degree of genetic variation is obvious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspecies

The whole concept of "race" was originally based on phenotype. When you start looking at genetics, you find it doesn't make sense any more, because individuals with the same phenotype can't necessarily be classified into the same genetic cluster. Neither can you divide humans neatly into groups; genetic clusters are fuzzy.

All humans belong to the same species, homo sapiens, and the same subspecies, homo sapiens sapiens. Again, this is completely basic, widely accepted science, with a firm basing in concept distinctions and scientific fact.

toshiromiballza Wrote:The answer gets more complicated when (heavens forbid) Japan gets to the same level of immigration and multiculturalism as, say, France or England, especially with "certain" third world immigrants whose birth rate is 4+ times that of the Japanese. Then I am 100% behind certain limitations being set up for these gaijin, including the number of children they are allowed to have.

Why? What is so important about preserving......... i'm not even sure what it is you are hoping to preserve? A certain cluster of DNA? Culture? (if culture, surely all this race bollocks and how many children people are allowed to have is completely irrelevent though)

I still haven't decided whether you are simply an idiot, or a dangerous idiot, so if you would like me to explain your complete misunderstanding of "heredity" in the last thread in a simpler way, i'll give it a go.

nadiatims Wrote:you realize that dog breeds have come about by selective breeding right?

Of course I know that. The human races/populations have come about by a type of "selective breeding" as well. Nature's own selective breeding. Geography prevented certain populations to mix with anyone else and as such they evolved separately from others as different races.

nadiatims Wrote:I don't think anyone is denying that people can be classified into groups based on their genes (call them what you will).

You'd be surprised. Look at our very own IceCream.

nadiatims Wrote:It's just that beyond perhaps the field of medicine it's not that useful and the genetic differences between groupings seem less significant than the cultural and individual differences, except for a handful of irrelevant (to non-racists) things like skin color.

Sure, culture can be learnt. Anyone can be "culturally" Japanese. However, it's a problem when too many genetically different people (from other races) come to Japan (or any other country, for that matter), integrate, eventually become the majority and replace the native population. Luckily this will probably never happen in Japan, because they're too smart (by not buying the pseudo-scientific garbage of "we are all the same") to be willingly eradicated out of existence by mass immigration and inter-mixing, which is happening in Western European countries right now.

To IceCream, the ignorant, genocidal, unscientific evolution denier, I'll just point out that the difference between a chimpanzee and a bonobo is 0.103%, whereas the difference between an Englishman and a sub-Saharan African is 0.23%, so nice try at lying and pulling data out of your behind. Please read something about the topic by actual geneticists and anthropologists, not by cultural Marxist pseudo-scientists, the ones I've mentioned in the other topic, thanks. Too bad there is no ignore button, my brain cells are dying reading your nonsense. I'll just have to ignore any other posts from you, until you actually post something factually scientific in nature.

Also, it's really nice of you that you wouldn't mind wiping an entire ethnic group of people out of existence by replacing them with a foreign population. This must be the definition of "peaceful" in communist countries. Myself, I hope there will always be Japanese people, as I believe every people has a right to exist. But that's just mean, "racist," pro-diversity me, as opposed to the diversity-hating, cultural Marxist maniacs, who would prefer to destroy the diversity of the world by mixing everyone together until we're all the same brown mess, and thus eliminating racism forever. Kinda like how the communists murdered everybody who wasn't a communist until everybody was finally "equal." You're definitely a Nobel Peace prize candidate, considering all the warmongering scumbags that have been awarded one in the past. While we're at it, I've got a great idea for the likes of you. Why don't we just breed all the Sumatran and Siberian tigers together? Why would we need two sub-species, when we can make a hybrid out of them and only have one? One is a much simpler number than - what's the number that comes after one again? Oh, two. And why stop there? Why do we need panda bears? Their numbers are dwindling? Oh, let's just bring some grizzlies to spice things up a bit. And I never really liked bottlenose dolphins. Turns out they can breed with false killer whales. So if they can breed, I mean, why not! Wholphins FTW!

Also, look up the multiregional hypothesis. Certain races have ancestors who belonged to other Homo species, who then mixed with Homo sapiens. The San people of Africa are (if I remember correctly) the only pure descendants of sapiens, everybody else is "contaminated" with others, such as the Neanderthals, Erectus, etc.

ahahah. ok. seems like it's worth replying to you just to watch your head explode and you flail around so absurdly.

You do know that the multiregional hypothesis was made before the genome was decoded and it was proved false, right?

p.s. "ethnic group" also has a definition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_group which is seperate from other concepts, such as "race / subspecies". It's a social construct rather than a biological term.

Was there some sort of point in toshiromiballza's rambling?
It seems to have a lot in common with A. B. Breivik's video, especially the "social marxism" part.

Also, I can't link "anti-diversity" and "Social marxism" together. I thought those demonised "social Marxists" wanted the diversity, and therefore were pro immigration.

EDIT: I thought "race" was "ethnic group" in layman terms? That's my interpretation of it...

Stian Wrote:EDIT: I thought "race" was "ethnic group" in layman terms? That's my interpretation of it...

It can be if you're just talking in laymens terms, yeah, but Toshiromiballza is using the term in the biological sense, which has a seperate definition, and is therefore not interchangable with "ethnic group".

I dunno, guys, Toshiramiballza is totally on the right track here. In fact, I think discouraging immigration isn't enough. We should just go round up all the foreigners in every country, regardless of whether they were born in that country or not, and just send them back where they came from. I mean, interracial people? Ew. Racial purity is the only way to go!
Now if you'll excuse me, I've got a Klan meeting to attend.

quark Wrote:I dunno, guys, Toshiramiballza is totally on the right track here. In fact, I think discouraging immigration isn't enough. We should just go round up all the foreigners in every country, regardless of whether they were born in that country or not, and just send them back where they came from. I mean, interracial people? Ew. Racial purity is the only way to go!
Now if you'll excuse me, I've got a Klan meeting to attend.

Don't forget your hat! Nothing more awkward than being the only one not wearing a white and pointy.

uisukii Wrote:

quark Wrote:I dunno, guys, Toshiramiballza is totally on the right track here. In fact, I think discouraging immigration isn't enough. We should just go round up all the foreigners in every country, regardless of whether they were born in that country or not, and just send them back where they came from. I mean, interracial people? Ew. Racial purity is the only way to go!
Now if you'll excuse me, I've got a Klan meeting to attend.

Don't forget your hat! Nothing more awkward than being the only one not wearing a white and pointy.

Well, obviously, if I don't look like everyone else, I'm an outsider and therefore not allowed. That's how diversity works. Duh.

IceCream Wrote:

Stian Wrote:EDIT: I thought "race" was "ethnic group" in layman terms? That's my interpretation of it...

It can be if you're just talking in laymens terms, yeah, but Toshiromiballza is using the term in the biological sense, which has a seperate definition, and is therefore not interchangable with "ethnic group".

You shouldn't deny that there are some genetical differences between Europeans and East Asians. However, that doesn't justify Neo-Nazi ideologies and other "racial purity" bs.

IceCream Wrote:ahahah. ok. seems like it's worth replying to you just to watch your head explode and you flail around so absurdly.

The only ones doing the arm flailing, together with fits of possible anger, are the likes of you when you're faced with the reality that the vast majority of Japanese people think the same as I do, and consider people like you deranged, genocidal maniacs, and would only ever issue you citizenship so they could lock you up in an asylum for life. The Japanese still have an evolutionary will to survive, and I bet that both saddens and angers you, because your genocidal political agenda will never succeed there.

IceCream Wrote:You do know that the multiregional hypothesis was made before the genome was decoded and it was proved false, right?

Regardless if one believes in the OoA or the multiregional hypothesis, certain races have Homo ancestors which others do not. The San people are the "purest" humans, everybody else is a "mutt."

IceCream Wrote:p.s. "ethnic group" also has a definition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_group which is seperate from other concepts, such as "race / subspecies". It's a social construct rather than a biological term.

Yes, it's an age-old social construct dating hundreds, and in some cases, thousands of years. All the major ethnicities of the world have over the hundreds of years got well defined, and except for modern hybridized ethnicities (mestizos, Brazilians, etc.) and ethnicities whose ancestors mixed with other races thousands of years ago, all belong to a single race. That's why a white person will NEVER be ethnically Japanese. Except, of course, in your hypothetical genocidal wet dream of a future, where all the Japanese are mixed with other people and only multi-racial hybrid Japanese exist. I guess you could call them Japanese then, and not only that; give it a few thousand years more, and you could potentially consider them a new sub-race, like the Polynesians.

Stian Wrote:Also, I can't link "anti-diversity" and "Social marxism" together. I thought those demonised "social Marxists" wanted the diversity, and therefore were pro immigration.

Maybe try thinking further ahead than 5 years into the future. I'll make it simple so every resident cultural Marxist on the forum can understand:

Native American Indians
+
Foreign Europeans
= DIVERSITY, YAY!

The Indians should mix with the Europeans instead of sticking to their racist reservations, don't they know we are all the same? We brought diversity to America, which is a good thing for the Indians, so they should totally get over it, stop being racist and assimilate! Multiculturalism is good! Nothing says "diversity" more than a hybrid population of people who all look the same all across the world! Oh, yes! Only tinfoil hat-wearing idiots think multiculturalism leads to mixing of ethnicities, it really doesn't, honest! Besides, we are all the same, so who cares!

This is basically where the cultural Marxist immigration policy is leading, except that due to the cognitive limitations of these people, they can't think 5 minutes into the future, let alone a few decades. Or, as in some cases, they're just genocidal maniacs who don't mind seeing certain people disappear and getting replaced with another.

I mean, surely nothing bad can happen when you let millions of third world immigrants into Europe, who are slowly becoming the majority, and with their peaceful religion, they will surely not undermine democracy. Why would they even have to? They will have the numbers, so democracy will work for them.
A right to exist as a people? A right to self-determination as a people? Pff, what's that? You sound like those crazy racist Native Americans. We all must be equally diverse! We must all be equally multicultural! We must all be hybrids!

I'll say it again, thank god the disease that is cultural Marxism has not yet reached Japan and that they refuse to swallow this politically correct nonsense. Debito Japanese? Only in your minds.

Well, guys, we've managed to goad toshiromiballza into revealing how bat-shit crazy he is, which is nice because it saves us the trouble of having to argue with him. Congrats!