GoBlueWolverine's Dre Barthwell: Marvin Robinson to leave Michigan

Nobody's denying that racism exists, or that race as a social construct exists--it's on all the forms. What I'm saying is that it's not a genetic distinction, just a cultural one. It's just one of those things in science where the observed traits don't match the genetics.

You know where we find that the most? In humans--because humans more than any other species like to go around modifying nature to suit our needs.

The greatest example is how non-genetically diverse we are (most species have WAY more diversity) versus how different we see ourselves. Also more than any other species, we build social constructs out of extremely subtle differences in looks. You'll note most animals have minor differences in facial construction but you can't really tell one racoon from another on sight. Your brain is hardwired to make distinctions between human faces, and human faces have developed a lot of different configurations to be able to sexually present as "like you."

Yes there are some specific genetic traits of recent origin in certain populations. Ashkenazi Jews, for example, have several traits we need to get tested for when having children that others don't because there's a couple of mutations prevalent in our gene pool that can cause cancer or birth defects if repeated. People of lighter skin (because solar heat soaked into skin cells is how bodies break down lactose) are far more likley to be lactose intolerant except those of west asian origin because they've been living the longest off of domestic animals' milk (northern europeans were about the last to do this). And the classic example of population differences in genetics is the sickle-cell gene, because while having two sickle cell alleles gives you sickle cell anemia, being heterozygous in that gene makes you immune to malaria, therefore making carriers the healthiest people (and thus most likely to reproduce) within populations that live in highly malarial regions. Except for the pigmentation thing, you're talking about fairly recent mutations that persist in the population where it started. And pigmentation isn't one gene but many, and those are supposedly activateable, meaning dark skin is something any population will get  in just a few generations if they're living near the Equator and remaining physically active, and vice versa (if you wanna see this in action go look at all the 3rd generation descendents of Germans and Poles living in Israel).

For a very long time nobody seemed to notice that across all cultures, people draw the "boogie man" or more generally their idea of a grotesque human being the same way. Indadvertently, even as kids, we retain visual stimulations from our dealings with Neanderthals, who were the same species as us, yet on the extreme of recognizable divergence.

The science says we're all the same. The hard evidence is all on the side of "race" being just another social construct of beings that love to create bullshit social constructs. Maybe it's unfortunate that the facts, in this particular case, support something that other people (who don't care about the facts anyway) use to justify breaking down cultural differences between groups of different historical background. But they're the facts. African Americans are nearly 12% European. Spotted eugenic breeding attempts during slavery were so unsuccessful (because people have always found ways to fuck whomever they want) as to leave no more effect on the population than the Nazis' attempts to do the same turned Germans into healthy blond people. Other than skin pigmentation and the persistence of multi-allele cosmetic features, there is very little difference.

What you're really talking about is cultural distinctions, and those, I agree, don't need to be force-homogenized because there's a lot of value in maintaining our mini-cultures within the larger one. I do think it's very important, however, that when we start talking about physical differences between humans, we can be honest with each other about how little difference there really is between us.

With sports it's not so hard as it seems. Ever notice that most hockey players come from countries where hockey is the biggest sport, and baseball players the same? Do you think that's because there's a Canadian hockey gene, or because Canadian culture pushes kids with hockey talent to start developing that? How about all the basketball players that come from Indiana? So why are black southern players dominant in football? Because football is dominant in black southern culture.

As for eliminating racism, what goes on in science probably doesn't matter since white supremicists are probably the last people who are going to give a shit what science says. You're fighting against somethingt that is very hardwired in humans--tribal defensiveness--and certain learned behaviors passed down from parents and role models used to identify race as one's tribe. The trigger for this kind of defensiveness is usually something else entirely, an individual's feeling that they don't belong, so therefore they use identification and tribalism to make someone else not belong. We fight this the way we have been: if there's an opportunity gap, try to help close that gap, and just keep being not accepting of racist shit, keep being honest about our dark history, and keep avenues of opportunity truly open.