Wattree's picture

    If God Rewards Those Who Follow His Word, White Folks Must Be Better Christians, Because They're Sure Being Compensated Better

    Beneath the Spin * Eric L. Wattree
     

    If God Rewards Those Who Follow His Word, White Folks Must Be Better Christians, Because They're Sure Being Compensated Better

     

    Even as a kid, I saw the cat danglin’ out the bag that let me know that my "pastor" was standing up there in the pulpit spewing a lot of nonsense. Every week he’d stand there screamin’ at us about what God was gonna do for us if we listened to him, and what he was gonna to do TOO us if we didn’t listen to him - and all the while, driving a big car, wearing a brand new suit every week, and wearing Florsheims that cost more a pair than my grandfather made all week trying to put food in our mouths. And even though my grandparents followed his words to the letter, every week, week after week, month after month, and year after year, they showed up at church just as poor as if they’d ignored him. And the irony is, they would have been doing much better if they HAD ignored him, because they were giving every extra penny to him.
    .
    This man didn’t know any more about God than a drunk passed out in the alley behind the church - and he probably didn't have either as much character, or sense. Imagine how either clueless or deceitful a man has to be to go around saying that God "called him" to speak for him. He's either a fool, or a hustler - "Man, I'm so tired of having to get up and go to work every morning . . . wait a minute, is that you, Lord!!!?"  That's how most of them are "called."  So he wasn’t preaching the word of God. What he was preaching was bribery and threats, to keep you coming, and paying him to scream at you every Sunday.
    .

    Now, admittedly, I don’t know any more about God than a drunk passed out in an alley either (in fact, I've been known to pass-out a few times myself), but I do know about common sense, and it seems to me that if God did tell men what to say, he’d be more interested in telling us how we should treat "OTHERS," and why you should live a good life - not how to avoid Hell, or how to get into Heaven. It seems to me that God would say, "You should do what's right because it’s right to do right. But what this man was spewing was religion based on selfishness, or what am I gonna get out of it. So that wasn’t the word of God. That was the word of the reverend, hustlin’ to keep that collection plate full.
    .
    But I did recognize that the pastor was right in one regard - I would indeed be rewarded if I acted more like him, because he was there EVERY Sunday, without fail, begging his ass off. But that too perplexed me. I never understood why he needed to do that. Whenever we needed something, he'd tell us to go pray on it, but wherever HE needed something, he didn’t go to God, he came to us. Even when he wanted to take a vacation - or as he put it, "visit a sister church in Hawaii to spread the Gospel" - he’d pass the basket to us for his airfare and hotel accommodations, to help him "spread the word of God."
    .
    But even at 14 years old, I had a few questions about that. 1). Why did he have to go to Hawaii to "spread the Gospel," didn’t they have preachers in Hawaii? And 2). Why did he always have to come to us for financing? Why couldn’t he just pray for God to inspire America Airlines to let him on the plane for free, and that the people at the Hawaii Hilton to set him up in the Jesus suite? That’s what he told us to do when the rent was due, and I didn’t just keep these views to myself. I used to bring these issues up whenever I got the chance to speak with him, and he never came up with a reasonable answer. He’d simply tell me that the Devil had gotten into me somewhere, and I needed to pray for God to help me see the light. But I did saw the light, only too well.
    .
    My grandfather used to joke about the fact that I was gonna get ‘em kicked out of the church. He was a highly religious man, but I think deep in his heart he was proud of the fact that I was willing to debate the man that everybody else in the church held in such high esteem. I guess it’s just a flaw in my character, because to me, he was just another dude in a black rob spewin’ a lot of nonsense. One day my grandfather told me, Rev. Hill came up to him and asked, "Mr. Wattree, where is that boy gettin’ that stuff? I know he's not gettin' it from you and Mrs. Wattree." Actually, I can't answer that question myself. I guess I was just born immune to voodoo. I've never understood how Black people could become so dedicated to a lie that was taught to them while they were tied up next to the mules. It was obvious that even the people who taught it to them didn't believe it; it they had, Black people wouldn't have been in the condition they were in.
    .
    Later that Summer when I was MANDATED to attend Bible School, the reverend assigned the assistant pastor to council me, and according to my grandfather, "After a few sessions the assistant pastor disappeared and we ain’t seen him since." I just had to take his word on that, because the following Sunday the pastor preached a sermon telling all the pretty young sisters in the church that they needed to stop wearing naturals and all of those short, revealing miniskirts. That was the last straw for me. I left church after that sermon and, except to attend funerals, ain’t set foot in one since.
    .
    But the reverend wasn’t anything else, he was tenacious. When I showed up at my uncle’s funeral as an adult, he preached the sermon looking directly at me. But he stepped over the line. He said, "This isn’t the last funeral we’re going to see in this family." The meaning was clear, and it wasn’t lost on anyone, but I wasn’t in any mood for that. My uncle was my mother’s youngest brother, so we were more like brother’s, and he had been shot and killed. So I caught the good reverend after the funeral and demonstrated the assorted colors that I had added to my vocabulary since we'd last seen one another, and I never had a problem with him thereafter.
    .
    I went into all of this for the specific purpose of relating one message to my Black readers - if God rewards people for following the gospel as related in the Bible, he must think White people are much better Christians than we are, because he’s certainly compensating them better. That should be clear evidence that what you're being fed is pure nonsense. So Black people need to get up off their knees, stop giving their money away to these preachers, and start hustling to move forward, because once you free your mind, your ass will follow - but not until then.
    .
    Matthew 6:1-34
    .
    "Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven. Thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues [churches] and in the streets, that they may be praised by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you. And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues [churches] and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward . . ."
    .
    So if you're trying to "sanctify" your way into Heaven, forget it. God's got your number. In fact, he's probably gonna to want to know how you could possibly be so selfish about getting yourself into Heaven that instead of using your money to feed your kids, or dedicating your tithes to helping the poor, you thought you could buy admission into Heaven by making this preacher rich? That's not thinking about God, or the poor, that's thinking about you.
    .
    I guess Bible School wasn’t completely lost on me.
    .
     

    .
    Eric L. Wattree
    http://wattree.blogspot.com/Http://wattree.blogspot.com[email protected]
    Citizens Against Reckless Middle-Class Abuse (CARMA)
     

    .
    Religious bigotry: It's not that I hate everyone who doesn't look, think, and act like me - it's just that God does.

    Comments

    Much of televised religion is about personal enrichment. Joel Osteen and the late Reverend Ike were front and center about money equaling Christianity. There is a current strain of selfish Christianity that criticizes the poor for being poor. The essential message of Jesus was that the poor should be cared for. 

    There is a silly discussion going on about Santa Claus with wingnuts contending that the original Saint Nicholas was White. The wingnuts obscure the fact that St Nicholas was Turkish and had his legend built upon taking care of children and the poor.

    Selfish Christianity has become a fixture in modern religion.


    I agree, RM. It's disgusting to watch, and it's frightening to see how many people buy into that nonsense. It clearly demonstrates that people can be brainwashed into embracing anything, means, in turn, that none of us are safe. 


    Conservatives who practice Selfish Christianity (I got mine) are having fits dealing with the social justice statements coming from Pope Francis.Jesus would be rebuked in similar fashion.

    It has become clear that many people practice nothing close to the message of Jesus.  We tend to think that the Puritans would approve of  Selfish Christianity. The Puritan work ethic is used to suggest that the poor are lazy. In fact, the goal of the Puritans was to eliminate poverty. 

    The first Governor of the Massachusetts colony wrote a letter detailing the basic philosophy of the Puritans including the obligations of individuals to the poor 

    Here is analysis of an excerpt

    Is wealth, therefore, a bad thing? Certainly not, according to Winthrop. He has already established that some wealth can reflect the glory of God and that it should be maintained to help one's family. He also expands the role of wealth to its potential use for the good of the religious state: "the Lord lookes that when hee is pleased to call for his right in any thing wee haue, our owne interest we haue, must stand aside till his turne be served" (p. 2). Finally, he concludes, that one must share one's wealth with others - even if they cannot repay their debts to you. Note the paradox: a religious community seeking wealth in the New World must justify its actions somehow. If a person's individual wealth is redefined as part of a symbolic storehouse for the common good, then personal profit might be acceptable in the Puritan society. Public life must therefore be strong to accommodate and justify the original motives that led many to the New World.

    Selfish Christians tell lies about the true message of Jesus and the Puritans. We now have people like Newt Gingrich and Rep Kingston of Georgia advising that poor children should provide janitorial services for school luncheons to instill a. Work ethic. The true goal is to get cheap labor and rid the workplace of union workers.The Christian way to instill work ethic in children is to make sure that their are jobs available for the parents. Children will see their parents working to provide for family.

     

     


    How sad that the majority of "so called Christians" hasn't figured out; there is only truth or falsehood with God 

    Would you accept a glass of 99.9% pure water that only contained a small portion of poison?

    These churches are not from the True God  "Having a form of godly devotion but proving false" and yet the spiritually blind, serve the causes of the imposter/imposters   

    God does not find favor with the membership of any of the churches, who have adulterated the pure worship.

    Remember:  He warned the Israelites and  Christ's true followers  " Shun idolatry" 

    Who told the Christian churches, that it was now acceptable to Idolize a tree and put a death star at the top and all the while convincing themselves and others that they were righteous, for doing that, which the Christian God has always opposed.

     Hint: The one who has always opposed God and his people.

    Are those who are of sound mind, supposed to feel sorry, for those who spend money on Christmas or on any other of the multitude of other idolatrous and God hating activities, ie. (drunkenness, smoking)   and then cry to the rest of us for help? 

    "Do not be pitying, those who serve other Gods."

    God doesn't abandon those who are righteous in his eyes.  

    King David a man loved by God, stated it clearly  "I have been young, and now am old,

    yet I have not seen the righteous forsaken
    or his children begging for bread.
    (Psalm 37:25 ESV)
     
    No where in the scriptures, does it require TRUE Christians, to support the churches of Satan's,  poor and spiritually blind followers.
     
    "Come into the light and throw your burdens upon him and he will care for you." 

    St. Nicholas was not Turkish - he was Greek. The Greeks controlled Asia Minor at the time, and St. Nick lived in what is now the Turkish Aegean coast. (he was from Myra, near present day Bodrum. He also died in Bari, which doesn't make him Italian). So sorry, no fact there.

    (even though the Greeks have stolen a lot of what is Turkish and claimed it as their own - ouzo/raki, baklava, spanakapita...)


    It seems that you are still smarting about your error on Thurgood Marshall and Rosa Parks.

    Yes, St Nicholas was born in what was a part of Greece, now a part of a Turkey. St Nicholas was born in what is now Turkey. He has been called Turkish n several places. In fact, a Turkish professor wants St Nicholas' bones returned to Turkey by the Vatican because he contends that the bones were stolen from Turkey in 1087. The professor feels that St Nicholas was Turkish. St Nicholas was  Bishop of Myra now a part of Turkey.

    You are correct that  the area was under Greek control in Nicholas' lifetime. Wikipedia labels St Nicholas as Greek. Sketches were made using disinterred bones in 1957. The images were upgraded using more modern techniques. The St Nicholas Center (based in Holland, Michigan) also  labels St Nicholas a Greek. The Turks do see an advantage to pointing out St Nicholas' Turkish ties.

     


    When you are secure you can admit an error. It was a silly error because St Nicholas is an icon of the Greek Orthodox Church. I erroneously focused on what the region is called today. it is a mistake that I won't repeat. I have no need to double down and refuse to admit that I made a factual error.

    Tomorrow, I'll count my blessings, have some family time, fill my stomach, watch football and in no way feel that I am a lesser person because I said that St a Nicholas who lives in what is now Turkey was in truth a Greek. 

    Merry Christmas all.


    To be clear, that was a British travel writer and an Indian blogger discussing St. Nick - a bit culturally/ethnically challenged at that - and don't think many Turks claim St. Nick was actually Turkish. The Turks will also parade tourists through Ephesus and Troy, even though these were Greek cities of Greek significance, or parade the through the early Christian/Jewish caves in Cappadocia - nothing wrong with making a few dimes on historical sites.

    The Turkish people didn't even arrive in the region to Turkicize it until their migration from Asia 800 years after St. Nick. There's not much dispute as to the Byzantine Empire in this region - see Council of Nicaea for example. (Alexandria Egypt of course was a Greek port city with huge Greek significance even though Alexander built it over a tiny Egyptian port and it became first Arab post-Muhammad and Ottoman in the 16th century). Fascinating region.

    Happy Holidays.


    I acknowledged that St Nicholas was Greek. I didn't double down on an error. I also noted that there were economic reasons for Turkish people to claim St Nicholas. Thanks for providing verbiage to support what I already noted.

    Relax and enjoy the day.


    BTW the "ethnically challenged" Indian writer was not the only one who described St Nicholas as Turkish. Here is how the "Daily Show"  described the "Turkish" saint.


    It is not so important to know Santa's roots but instead to what he has become and what to do about it. Relax and have a laugh is what I recommend.

    http://bloggingheads.tv/videos/24116

     And Merry Christmas to you and to all.


    I'm having a great day. We had a family discussion about Fox, the wingnuts and Santa Claus today. One relative pointed out that the Daily show focused on a Turkey. I just added a comment after being reminded. I'm sure that they have Google or other search engines in India and Britain. The "ethnic challenged" meme  did seem outside the mood of the season so I commented.

    I have a relatively large collection of Black Santa Claus figurines that began because of other work I had collected by an artist named Thomas Blackshear. The family was offering to help me find the correct shade of pain so I could correct Santa's appearance to please Megyn Kelly,  Rush Limbaugh, et Al.

    We were about to start when a feast and a football game broke out. Maybe we'll get to it next year.

    Merry Christmas ;)


    This is indeed true. My opinion on the matter would not change one iota if it had turned out that the Greek Saint Nicholas was indeed lily white with rosy red cheeks.


    Well, Stewart et al are simply wrong - St. Nick wasn't Turkish, so would likely be a bit lighter as Greeks tended to be, and wouldn't be Muslim since Islam wasn't invented for 2-3 more centuries. I know it's terribly un-PC to accept a fat old whitish guy that gives stuff away rather than forecloses on mortgages or steals people's pensions. But then, the new Pope doesn't seem too bad either.

    Of course it's pretty common for cultures like Dutch to depict a figure like St. Nick in their own image - after all, the Da Vinci's Last Supper shows a Renaissance table with 15th century characters with Italian features, not Jews from Roman times likely sitting on the floor.


    I realize Stewart is just a comedian, but he was referencing work done by real forensic anthropologists. St. Nicholas' remains were examined and the current best guess for what he would look like is:

    Jolly Saint Nick

    What makes you think they are wrong? Do you see a flaw in their methodology? Are there other scientists who have disagreed with them, and you trust their research more? You seem to be suggesting that this is PC revisionism, but this research was instigated by the Vatican.


    [more Williams problem than Stewart's]

    Bloody hell - your article refers to bone structure & re-assembly, not skin color. As for Stewart & Williams, they reference St. Nick being Greek but born in what's now Turkey and then Williams proceeds to call him Turkish the rest of the skit when not inferring he's "black". Sorry, tan skin doesn't equal black, Byzantine Greek Mediterranean doesn't equal Ottoman. Aristotle was not black, nor Arianna Huffington. Gary Player was born in South Africa - that doesn't make him black. Some native American was born near Spanish Harlem back in 1400 - that doesn't make him Puerto Rican.

    This is really bullshit logic. St. Nick was Greek and would have looked something like Greeks in Greece & Asia Minor looked at that time. Not black, not fair-haired Dutch. Not a drop of "Turkish" as the Turks didn't arrive for another 800 years. The Greeks had boats, in case folks don't realize, so where a Greek was born doesn't much affect assumptions about his genetics (aside from normal screwing around) as opposed to who his parents were, and being a port city Myra had a lot of traffic of migrant Greeks - especially as his father was likely a businessman. His father may have been Theophanes or Epiphanius, which doesn't prove he's related to Thelonious Monk nor the Eulipians.

    Anyway, St. Nick was what we typically call "white" as in "Caucasian" however tanned he looked. Not Turkish, not black. Deal with it. Jennifer Aniston's father is Yannis Anastassakis - last I checked she looks amazingly white, but if you want to claim she's black for some PC reason, or if scientists want to reconstruct what she should have looked like had they stayed in Crete, have at it. 


    The bottom line is that Black Santa can kick White Santa's butt. Black Santa Claus figurines also sell out faster in department stores.


    Given where he lived, do you really think that he looked anything like this:

    No, of course not. No one here is arguing that he is black, so I'm not sure where you're getting that from. He was a Greek citizen, born in what is now Turkey, and would've most likely looked something like the picture I provided earlier. Do you have a problem with that particular skin tone, or are you just intent on attacking the straw man that he's not black, or is there a semantic game you wish to play about what makes someone Turkish or Greek? (As you suggest, modern Turks are not the same people who lived in Turkey then, nor are modern Greeks, however.)

     


    He'll feel better if you tell him the broad nose is likely from trauma suffered while in prison for practicing his faith and not an indicator of ethnicity.

    Stores sell Santa figurines in a variety of ethnicities because they make money doing it. The Superman comic book has been updated to note that there was ethnic diversity on Krypton. Nick Fury, the white former leader of the Howling Commandos and the head of the spy agency S.H.I.E.L.D. in Marvel comic books is now represented by Samuel L. Jackson in the movies and on TV. There was a Black African actor portraying a Norse God in the Thor movies. Samuel L Jackson placed a council member in the Star Wars movies. Laurence Fishbourne was a major character in the Matrix.

    Some Hunger Games fans when Rue, a character portrayed as Black in the book, was played by an actual Black actress on screen.

    It's make- believe. Let's just enjoy.


    [Comment edited]


    Intro expletive could have been edited out without wiping out the other 180 words. Thanks.

    Do you think it acceptable that I can repeat over and over and over that St. Nick didn't look Dutch because he was pre-Turkish Greek, and then some git posts an image of Dutch-looking St. Nick saying, "Given where he lived, do you really think that he looked anything like this"?

    No no no, thats not what I "really think he looked anything like" as I stated before. And of course where he was born was Greece, not Turkey, as Turkey didn't exist, nor did regional Turks.

    Frankly I think the offender should be banned for writing stupid obnoxious obviously provoking comments, but obviously it's those FUs that bother.

    To put this to rest - St. Nick was Greek and likely had white or olive skin like most Greeks, and I even posted a link analyzing the relative continuity of Greek genetics over the years so that what you see from Yanni to Spiro Agnew to Jennifer Aston to Ari Onassis to Arianna Huffington is roughly what the skin color of 300AD greeks looked like.


    People have acknowledged that St Nicholas was Greek. The dark-skin, broad-nosed image shown by Stewart came from a forensic analysis. The image was used to point out that when first viewed some would reject a dark-skinned, broad-nosed guy as the person delivering toys. Stewart went for a visceral reaction. 
     
    The skit came on the heels of Megyn Kelly's assertion that the mythical Santa Claus, not  the real St Nicholas, was white. Stewart was explicitly saying folks like the Duck Dynasty guy may have a problem with the image depicted as the Santa Claus they could present to their children. He was making social commentary
     
    Saturday Night Live went in another direction, presenting Keenan Thompson as a Black Santa who had come to grips with the fact that a white guy was getting crdit for what a Black guy did.
     
    Stewart and Thompson were making their big play on a Santa Claus, not so much St Nicholas.
     
    Chill


    The forensic analysis was about bone structure, not color of skin. If you can show where I misread the article, show me, but from what I read it's all about bones, and it gets tiring repeating this just to be ignored yet again.

    In common usage, 300AD Greeks were Caucasians and thus "white". This is not "assertion", it's basic obvious fact backed up by genetic analysis.

    http://ancientgreekdna.blogspot.cz/

    That doesn't mean St. Nick's skin was white as the driven snow, to be pedantic. But he wasn't a burly looking dark-skinned Turk as Jessica Williams continued describing him when not calling him "black". Yeah, it's comedy, but a) the Daily Show is frequently half-true/all comic, and b) some people can't tell the difference between irony and fact - in this case that may include Williams herself. 

    [no, Stewart was not making a big play on "Santa Claus":  "Of course, the real St. Nicholas was from a part of the world that is now Turkey, so who exactly is changing the facts to make themselves more comfortable here?" Stewart asked, while showing a picture of what scientists have imagined the real St. Nick to have looked like—burly, with dark skin.]

    Ref. Greek people in case you've never seen one:

       

     


    Here is Stewart's comment about the Santa Claus part of the argument.

     

    "Who are you actually talking to?" he asked. "Children who are sophisticated enough to be watching a news channel at 10:00 at night, yet innocent enough to still believe Santa Claus is real, yet racist enough to be freaked out if he isn't white? That's such a narrow audience!"

     

    You are still making the discussion about St Nicholas not being Greek. Everyone agrees that he is Greek. Everyone agrees that the broad nose is from trauma. (By everyone. I mean the dagbloggers commenting here). The Santa Claus part was about getting freaked out by a non -white mythical Santa .


    Have you actually read the responses here that acknowledge that St Nicholas is Greek?

    Do you have objections to a mythical figure like Santa Claus being depicted as Black, Latino, Asian etc.?


    I have absolutely no problem with depicting Santa Claus or even St. Nick as black, yellow, red, whatever. I'm fine black Superman, with Kwanzaa and all other religious rituals, with black & Asian beanie babies and Raggiedy Ann dolls, with a black George Washington rendition. I'm perfectly fine with the concept of self-identification, that we get into the story more when it relates physically and attitude-wise to us., We have a Jesus that looks Italian due to a bevy of prolific Renaissance Italians...

    I only have problems with 1) making up historical evidence to support some PC attitude (including conservatives trying to claim MLK as a soulmate), and 2) insulting whites for having historical figures worth remembering or showing any pride or thinking it horrid to respect a white figure unless they've been properly shaded up to be ethnically neutral. 

     


    By the twisted race classification that we were taught in elementary and high school (where all of Africa was lumped into a single race), Turks are also Caucasian, as are Iranians and Indians, right?

    I also find it fascinating that you find a blogspot page (which mentions other scholars, but provides no citations) reputable, but evidently have problems with the skin color at "The Real Face of St. Nicholas" page hosted by the St. Nicholas Center, as well as with the skin color used by the forensic anthropologist I referenced earlier (of course, the former uses some images from the latter). It's possible that the assertions made on the blogspot page are correct, as I am definitely not an expert on the genetic history of Asia Minor, but I don't believe you are either, so without reputable citations to back you up you're out on a fairly thin limb when you essentially call me an idiot for not trusting your source over mine.


    Turks are Caucasian? they came out of Mongolia/Central Steppes, don't speak an Indo-European language. 

    I find it fascinating I can repeat some fifteen fucking times that the article on "The Real Face of St Nicholas" never mentions skin color, it only mentions recreating bone structure. Should I repeat it 20 times or 30 times? I have no reason to doubt that that's St. Nick's bone structure assuming that was really his skeletal remains found. If you show me an article that discusses determining St. Nick's skin color, I'm happy to consider the validity. BUT YOU HAVEN'T FUCKING DONE THIS. ARE WE 2-YEAR OLDS? CAN WE READ?


      Well, the Turks aren't Mongoloid, so I think they're Caucasian. Language has nothing to do with it; the Finns have a non-Indo-European language and no one denies that they're Caucasian.


    It looks like you had the same (or similar) flawed textbooks. (That is not meant as an insult to you, I hope you understand.) I cringe when I see the term Mongoloid used to describe the peoples of eastern Asia, given its other pejorative usage.


    Well, we don't expect the people of India to change their name due to Columbus' mistake, and we don't expect all Mongoloid people to change their identification because some Brit made a horribly insulting analogy for a genetic abnormality. "In 1961, 18 geneticists wrote to the editor of The Lancet suggesting that Mongolian idiocy had "misleading connotations," had become "an embarrassing term," and should be changed. The Lancet supported Down's Syndrome. The World Health Organization (WHO) officially dropped references to mongolism in 1965 after a request by the Mongolian delegate." [poetic justice - that brand of "idiocy" is now named after the British physician, and we can go back to using Mongoloid as intended except for memories of DEVO]


    Valid point, but most* east Asians I know either do not like the term Mongoloid or they've never heard of the term.

    *By most, I mean all who I've had the discussion with.


    Yes, you're right, language has nothing to do with it.

    In any case, I wouldn't be too down on an early German scientist for trying to come up with a classification system for humans. Our division of the various Kingdoms down through Species has been flawed & subject to various modifications, but it's still been a boon to science.


    Well, sure, at the time his classification system made sense to a lot of scientists, I'm sure. Now that we know a lot more about genetic diversity (there is more diversity within Africa than between Africa and the rest of the world), that system is clearly antiquated. I don't blame scientists studying thermodynamics for coming up with the theory of phlogiston, but anybody who uses it now…


    And what do you use?

    Diversity in Africa might be misleading - there's more biodiversity in Costa Rica & Brazil than the rest of the world, but we don't focus our ecomodels primarily on these 2 countries.

    Does an umbrella genetic class for sub-Saharan "black Africa" make scientific sense / useful, or not?

    Is there a version of "Caucasian" that has scientific validity / usefulness or not?

    "Red and yellow, black and white..." No conclusions or classifications ever?


    Diversity itself is not a criteria, for sure, but there are diverse genetic separations between "races" of Africans as big as between some of those northern "races" and Europeans. So, to answer the first question, what validity might there be to scientific classification of something akin to races? Well, sub-Saharan "black Africa" would contain the San, the Khoikhoi, and the Namaqua in the south, and several other "races" in the west. Here's a San:

    Here's a Khoikhoi:

    And here's a Namaqua:

    From the West, here's a Kwaio woman:

    And here's a Baka man:

    As for utility, I think that classifications are useful mainly for medical diagnostics (because some diseases are more prevalent in certain ethnic groups, but these are not always best understood as "races", e.g., in the case of Ashkenazi Jews), although I could be convinced that there might be other useful classifications.


    We can definitely lose our temper like 2-year olds, that's for sure.

    If they don't mention skin color, then why are you getting upset about skin color?

    And yes, by the same flawed textbooks I had in school that attempted to define Caucasian, Turks are Caucasian. Can you find a precise definition of Caucasian that excludes them? If not, then what's getting you so upset that you're shouting like a 2-year old who isn't getting his favorite toy, even though before his sister started playing with that toy he didn't care about it?


    Verified Atheist this moment: "If they don't mention skin color, then why are you getting upset about skin color?"

    Verified Atheist in a previous state of delusion: "I also find it fascinating that you find a blogspot page (which mentions other scholars, but provides no citations) reputable, but evidently have problems with the skin color at "The Real Face of St. Nicholas" page hosted by the St. Nicholas Center, as well as with the skin color used by the forensic anthropologist I referenced earlier (of course, the former uses some images from the latter).:: 

    So you don't understand why you & others assuring me again and again about skin color from an article that doesn't even mention skin color would piss me off?

    Re: Caucasian, rmrd has a good snippet on why the Caucasian classification can still reasonably apply to Turks. (i.e. similar to Greek genetic continuity, there's a surprising amount of Anatolian genetic continuity despite the Turkish migrations in 10th & later centuries). I agree it's difficult to classify mankind in a few groups, but useful and fraught with peril as well.


    Here is the genetic section on Turks from Wikipedia

    During the late Roman Period, prior to the Turkic conquest, the population of Anatolia had reached an estimated level of over 12 million people.[131][132][133] Furthermore, during the time of Turkic migrations, Anatolia had the lowest migrant/resident ratio.[134] The extent to which gene flow from Central Asia has contributed to the current gene pool of the Turkish people, and the role of the 11th century invasion by Turkic peoples, has been the subject of various studies. Several studies have concluded that the historical and indigenous Anatolian groups are the primary source of the present-day Turkish population.[70]k[›][135][136][137][138] Another study found Adygei population from Caucasus closest to the Turkish population among sampled European, Middle Eastern, Central and South Asian populations.[71] Furthermore, various studies suggested that, although the Turks carried out an invasion with cultural significance, including the introduction of the Turkish language and Islam, the genetic significance from Central Asia might have been slight.k[›][135][139] Today's Turkish people are more closely related with the Balkan populations than to the Central Asian populations,[134][140] and a study looking into allele frequencies suggested that there was a lack of genetic relationship between the Mongols and the Turks, despite the historical relationship of their languages (The Turks and Germans were equally distant to all three Mongolian populations).[141] Multiple studies suggested an elite cultural dominance-driven linguistic replacement model to explain the adoption of Turkish language by Anatolian indigenous inhabitants.[70]k[›][138] A study involving mitochondrial analysis of a Byzantine-era population, whose samples were gathered from excavations in the archaeological site of Sagalassos, found that the samples had close genetic affinity with modern Turkish and Balkan populations.[72] During their research on leukemia, a group of Armenian scientists observed high genetic matching between Turks, Kurds, and Armenians.[142]

    There is the suggest that the Turks have an origin in the Caucasus more so than Central Asia. 

     


    Interesting, thanks - I amend my statement.


    Intro expletive could have been left out in the first place. Thanks.


    I'll do a few Hail Mary's Full of Grace in the middle of my vodka tonics tonight, save my priest from 2 hours of unseemly confessions.

    Anyway, just thought I'd note that people's intentional repetitive incomprehension & distortion of words brings down the IQ of the site.


    That's between you and your vodka tonic


    Another picture of maybe what St. Nick looked like from same site.

    Does this one look black or Turkish?


    Where the modern Santa originated

     

     

     


    Someone has even to take the time to calculate the mythical guy's carbon footprint.

    No wonder NORAD tracks the nonexistent fellow.

     


    Latest Comments