>>723
Well, here I go:
>Anyone who thinks that American and African blacks have anything in common is retarded.
I get a different impression comparing Detroit and Monrovia
>American Blacks and […] the Southern dialect.)
Which is the concern here. People of different biologies will create different cultures; even if a foreign one is handed down to them intact they'll bastardize it anyway.
>Not to mention that […] the existence of Switzerland.
As to the first point, you can demarcate clear differences between, say, someone of a historically Norwegian bloodline versus someone of a historically Greek one. Dutch and German are in the end both Germanic nationalities. Sure, the populations of Europe have been stirred up. You still have clusters of people though, who are not that mixed (some of these even "pure") and could serve as the grounding for such a nationalism. The more mixed bloodlines could be "distilled" over generations via, say, a directed breeding program. 'This is "just a musing'', though, and not really a concern in the forefront of my mind.
Your examples here show that a racial group can be broken down in to cultural groups. That doesn't mean that race and culture are inherently separable, as all people participating in a cultural context are still biological beings with particular heritages. It matters whether there are some isolated individuals of alien heritage "riding along" within the culture carried on by the native heritage, or if there are reams of the alien heritage (either widely distributed so that they frequently interact in stable, multiple relationships and can impact the native culture on some level, or cluster to yield their own culture with ghettos being a notable example)
>Also, the OP pic should […] to be literally different species.
Even if I did that it wouldn't matter. The woman on the left is unquestionably aboriginal, an the one on the right is unquestionably white. While the matter of them being different species might ultimately have taxonomical issues, I get a lesser feeling of difference comparing pictures of great white sharks and tiger sharks then comparing stereotypical examples of the different races. Admit it; the abo women resembles a gorilla in a way that an ugly, old and fat white woman wouldn't. As in she doesn't merely have an uncanny resemblance, but actually seems to betray some primitive simian linkage.
>And, you also forgot that models often have their photos be modified by photoshop to look more attractive.
Obviously there's propaganda value to the poster. But I don't think you'll find any candid photo or screenshot of Candace Swanepoel in which she looks like anything less than a Nazi poster child, much less questionably Arab or questionably mestizo.
>Again, there are differences … fall of American crime rates.)
I'm not going to touch this, because I've spent a good handful of hours of my past on various threads in which nature vs. nurture debates wind up being slugfests wherein we back and forth post research that agrees with our positions, on and on without reaching common ground. So I'm not going to submit my own race-friendly IQ research. Anyone can obtain that in fifteen minutes on /pol/ and sift the wheat from the chaff (there are both).
>Actually, humanity has very low genetic variety, primarily due to the population bottlenecking quite a bit.
This is the whole Lewontin's fallacy argument, whereby a low number of genetic differences are used to discount any important phenotypical realities coded for by those few differences. Hey, the only thing distinguishing men and women is one out of 46 chromosomes being an X or a Y. Guess we can start discarding sex as a trivial sidenote.
Whatever competing figures I come across when I check out how genetically similar humans are to chimps, pigs, mice, fruit flies or bacteria, my reaction is always, "WTF, that x percent covers ALL this difference?" So when I hear the "humans are 99.9% similar" meme, my reaction is the opposite of most people. I think "Damn, there's a LOT going on in that .1%"