NationStates Jolt Archive

What are your opinions on this?

Of course, didn't you watch the last olympics?;)

Now there's a vague question. :rolleyes:
Of course race exists; it's a name for various things, most notably as a synonym for ethnicity.

yes it exists, it's a human and natural thing, perhaps you mean, should race exist?

This is a seriously controversial question... of course race exists...

next thing, someone will creaste a thread asking which is the superior race... :mp5:

I think the cockroaches have a pretty good end game they'll be initiating soon enough.

Yes it exist. Though we should try and learn from each other.

Blarg. :D I sound like a hippy. Maybe because I'm sitting like I'm in a meditative position.

No, it's all an elaborate conspiracy invented by fat skinheads that had nothing to throw dustbins at.

I think what he's getting at is the idea that since people of different ethnicities can interbreed, and since their offspring will not neccessarily be of either race, race should not be considered as fixed is perhaps it is in society.

Where do you draw the line between someone who's white and someone who's black? There's plenty of middle ground. What if someone's family were mostly of african origin but there was sufficient european blood in them to make their race less certain?

So I think what he's saying is that perhaps people shouldn't be considered to be of any one particular race.

It's a fair point, but I'm not completely sure on this. People clearly do come from different ethnic backgrounds. But in a free society, race should have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on what you can or can't do, so it shouldn't really be of concern.

Race is not a genuine concept. It is important to remember that human beings share more than 99% of the same genetic information. The "appearance" differences among us are attributable to climatological factors and the attendant biological acclimation.

Race is only used as a convenient---and dangerous---means of sociological categorization. Why it is important to ascertain how many pink, brown, red-brown, white, etc humans there are in a given geographic location is still something I can't quite appreciate or understand.

Perhaps a few of the more.....opinionated?.....members of this forum can enlighten us.

race = a competition - yes
race = ethnicity - no

if, ethnicity-wise, race existed, would it also be fair to call animals of different fur colour belonging to different races within their species?

secondly, genetics have proven that there is more difference within out genetic coding intra-"race" compared with inter-"race". therefore, an asian may be more similar in genetic codings to a caucasian than between two caucasians... so does race ethnicity-wise exist? the answer for me is no

We shouldn't form judgements based on it, i.e. stereotyping.

I don't see the problem with using it to describe someone in the same way we would use "tall" or "blue eyed" and so on.

I think what he's getting at is the idea that since people of different ethnicities can interbreed, and since their offspring will not neccessarily be of either race, race should not be considered as fixed is perhaps it is in society.

Thank you I was. But couldn't think of a decent way of putting. So I hoped someone would do it for me (sly maybe, but it was the quickest way I could think f doing it).

Race exists; there has never been any "pure" race, though. It's a generalized trait.

Race is a concept devised by us humans - to me it doesn't exist

This answer is "no." We should avoid grouping people, and take the time to learn about each person we meet as an individual.

If you describe someone as a "black" person, a "white" person or as an "asian," think of all the extra meaning that accompanies this. You automatically makes assumptions about the person without ever actually meeting him or her yourself.

We should just do away with the idea of race altogether.

Yes race excists, but we are all homo sapiens sapiens. There is just one human race. Other kinds of humans are extinct.

Race only exists because of climate and different breeding patterns. In the beginning, we would all have been the same colour. I just happen to be white because my ancestors passed a lot of time in a climate where not a lot of melanin could be prodounced in their system. Also, my ancestors' culture evolved so that many believed that pale skin was a sign of beauty, so paler skinned people probably bred more. If human beings had never become nomadic, we would all still be the same colour.

These evolutions were allowed to take place for thousands of years because there weren't a lot of interractions between the different areas of the world. I think that within a few more thousand years (or maybe even less), we all might be the same "race" again, due to vast globalization... better and faster world travel, racial intermarriage, etc.

Big debate on this not too long ago - http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=350877&highlight=race

Race =/= Ethnicity

Race, as a biological division of modern existing humans, does not exist, and not one person could demonstrate that it does.

I'll leave off with this: American Anthropological Association Statement on "Race" (http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm)

Race is a social construct. Race is not definable in biological/physical terms, geographic terms, nationalist/politico terms, really what's it on about if it's a an actual occurance, rather than socio/cultural construct?

NO there is only one race, and that is the human race!

NO there is only one race, and that is the human race!
hear, hear. We all just developed in our own ways living in different environments.

There are definite differences in peoples, but can these be classed as sub-species? Each relegated to a different reigon of the earth, we all formed a global breeding pool long before we could go our different ways as species, but long enough to become niticeably different.

I agree with Hogsweat. We all belong to one race, the human race. Any distinctions between people have been invented by the capitalists to destroy the will of the working people by turning them against each other instead of uniting them behind the common enemy of capitalism.

I agree with Hogsweat. We all belong to one race, the human race. Any distinctions between people have been invented by the capitalists to destroy the will of the working people by turning them against each other instead of uniting them behind the common enemy of capitalism.
Very, very, well said.

race ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rs)
n.
1. A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics.
2. A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the German race.
3. A genealogical line; a lineage.
4. Humans considered as a group.

5. Biology.
a. An interbreeding, usually geographically isolated population of organisms differing from other populations of the same species in the frequency of hereditary traits. A race that has been given formal taxonomic recognition is known as a subspecies.
b. A breed or strain, as of domestic animals.
6. A distinguishing or characteristic quality, such as the flavor of a wine.

According to all of those, yes, it quite clearly exists. Denying the existence of different races of various types means you're either blind or just plain weird. How you act on the differences determines whether you are a racist or not, the fear I think is causing all the 'of course not's.

I think the question was supposed to be does racism exist.

and to that i say DUH

race5. Biology.
a. An interbreeding, usually geographically isolated population of organisms differing from other populations of the same species in the frequency of hereditary traits. A race that has been given formal taxonomic recognition is known as a subspecies.

According to all of those, yes, it quite clearly exists. Denying the existence of different races of various types means you're either blind or just plain weird. How you act on the differences determines whether you are a racist or not, the fear I think is causing all the 'of course not's.

Ahem. Homo Sapien Sapien is the only existant race of humans that fits the given definition of a biological race.

Ahem. Homo Sapien Sapien is the only existant race of humans that fits the given definition of a biological race.

Which means that race does exist. However you look at it, race exists.

If the above post is accurate though, and the question was supposed to be 'does racism exist', then I would have to answer in the affirmative for that too. There are even political parties dedicated to racism, although they obviously don't say such. Well, some do.

I think the question was supposed to be does racism exist.

and to that i say DUH

Does race exist?

Duh. Nope.

race ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rs)
n.
1. A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics.
2. A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the German race.
3. A genealogical line; a lineage.
4. Humans considered as a group.

5. Biology.
a. An interbreeding, usually geographically isolated population of organisms differing from other populations of the same species in the frequency of hereditary traits. A race that has been given formal taxonomic recognition is known as a subspecies.
b. A breed or strain, as of domestic animals.
6. A distinguishing or characteristic quality, such as the flavor of a wine.

According to all of those, yes, it quite clearly exists. Denying the existence of different races of various types means you're either blind or just plain weird. How you act on the differences determines whether you are a racist or not, the fear I think is causing all the 'of course not's.
the fact that some dictionaries and text book compilers have chosen to attempt to make sense out of a mistake, or that the mistake generated flow on linguistic terms that do describe actual happenings doesnt change the fact that the concept of human races amongst modern anatomical humans isnt about any definitive particular categorisation that occurs independently of socialised concepts.

For instance more or less distinct group....mmm which means, nothing we can define, so race is a term that defines undefinable groups....aha...
The definitions you are providing (German race humans considered as a group), are social constructs/products/elements.

Wine definitions dont apply to people. And frankly I have yet to find anyone who has succeeded in provided a definition based on gene frequency, that can be applied with the result of identifying all members and only members of any of the traditionally recognised races, and until someone does, I find the definition lacks credibility and/or value.

Which means that race does exist. However you look at it, race exists.

If the above post is accurate though, and the question was supposed to be 'does racism exist', then I would have to answer in the affirmative for that too. There are even political parties dedicated to racism, although they obviously don't say such. Well, some do.

Fair enough. Race exists. All one has to do is look at a taxonomy. Birding taxonomies are especially good, as they are full of races of birds. But if the question is does race exist among humans, the answer is no. If the question were "did different races of the Genus Homo sapien exist at one time?", then you have a good basis for debate, as to the taxonomic classification of different members of the Genus Homo is still debateable. Otherwise, not.

Of course if the OP made a mistake, and intended racism to be the question, it would clearly be the case that it exists, however poorly founded on non-scientific concepts.

the fact that some dictionaries and text book compilers have chosen to attempt to make sense out of a mistake, or that the mistake generated flow on linguistic terms that do describe actual happenings doesnt change the fact that the concept of human races amongst modern anatomical humans isnt about any definitive particular categorisation that occurs independently of socialised concepts.

For instance more or less distinct group....mmm which means, nothing we can define, so race is a term that defines undefinable groups....aha...
The definitions you are providing (German race humans considered as a group), are social constructs/products/elements.

Wine definitions dont apply to people. And frankly I have yet to find anyone who has succeeded in provided a definition based on gene frequency, that can be applied with the result of identifying all members and only members of any of the traditionally recognised races, and until someone does, I find the definition lacks credibility and/or value.


:D Could have used your help back in August (see the link to the previous debate above).

1. A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics.

Genetically transmitted physical characteristics could include hair colour, eye colour, or, in most typical cases, skin colour. Skin colour is a real, distinct, biological difference, which can have advantages or disadvantages based on your surrounding environment. It doesn't necessarily mean that a group of people are inferior or superior, nor does it make you a racist to acknowledge that people do have different skin pigmentations. It makes you a racist to believe that someone with different skin pigmentation is inferior to you, to insult them, or to imply that you should have fewer or greater human rights than everyone else because you are a different colour.

2. A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the German race.

Social construct it may be, but if that's the only way to refute its existence, then I submit that morals, language and art don't exist either.

3. A genealogical line; a lineage.

These exist. I am in one.

4. Humans considered as a group.

Humans are a race in themselves.

Race does not exist. Race is something humans have made up in their minds. This idea of seperate races dates back to slavery in the USA. Slaves were seperate from whites and much of seperatism still exists. But blacks and whites are not of a diffrent race. Human's have made that up.

Wine definitions dont apply to people. And frankly I have yet to find anyone who has succeeded in provided a definition based on gene frequency, that can be applied with the result of identifying all members and only members of any of the traditionally recognised races, and until someone does, I find the definition lacks credibility and/or value.

Tradition has proved to be ineffectual at predicting a round earth, solar system and plate tectonics. Why sould it be any different with human population groupings?

If gene frequency is the delineator and not tradition then you must agree knowledge of racial charcteristics is of value.

While race (I believe)exhists...it is a dificult question. "Race" is one of those words that hase been used in the past as a way to seperate people in a bad way. Like "gay" which really means happy. I mean, I wouldn't go up to someone in the street and say "nice race!" or "I like the way your race stands out...it's cool" It's more of a scientific word nowadays to distinguish animals (both human and and nonhuman) and plant species.

Dificult question.

1. A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics.

Genetically transmitted physical characteristics could include hair colour, eye colour, or, in most typical cases, skin colour. Skin colour is a real, distinct, biological difference, which can have advantages or disadvantages based on your surrounding environment. It doesn't necessarily mean that a group of people are inferior or superior, nor does it make you a racist to acknowledge that people do have different skin pigmentations. It makes you a racist to believe that someone with different skin pigmentation is inferior to you, to insult them, or to imply that you should have fewer or greater human rights than everyone else because you are a different colour.
Ok, then you tell me the skin colour/s that can be applyed to identify all and only members of any traditionally recognised race, or the eye colour/s or any other physical trait...cant be done, and I assure it's not through lack of trying...



2. A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the German race.

Social construct it may be, but if that's the only way to refute its existence, then I submit that morals, language and art don't exist either.
Morals are social constructs the human tendancy to construct them is not. Language is socially constructed and adapted, the human predisposition to learn and employ it, is not. Art is akin to morals. These terms describe actual things that happen to manifest diversely, I could find biological qualifications for the propensity to employ language, that if applied can identify all and only members of the group 'creatures with the potential to employ language', the same can be done independent of social constructs, with regards to race.

3. A genealogical line; a lineage.

These exist. I am in one.
I simply dont accept that this is a normative usage of the word, beyond socialised constructions relating to kin based social institutions.

4. Humans considered as a group.
Humans are a race in themselves.
I think it is banal to suggest that the poster meant to ask are all species really one, or is there more than one, or any other such nonesence...indeed why would you reply beyond, yes cats and humans are 2 races I can name, or similar if you yourself thought the question meant something as silly as, is there such a thing as 'the human race' or similar?

Race does not exist. Race is something humans have made up in their minds. This idea of seperate races dates back to slavery in the USA. Slaves were seperate from whites and much of seperatism still exists. But blacks and whites are not of a diffrent race. Human's have made that up.

Source/link please.

Actually, the idea of race dates back to the old testament. There are a few passages on "which races to trust and which ones not to trust", but I believe most of the races refered to are obsolete now, the Edomites, Amorites and so on.

The truth is this - Race does exist, but it should have no bearing on the rights and freedoms of any individual.

Tradition has proved to be ineffectual at predicting a round earth, solar system and plate tectonics. Why sould it be any different with human population groupings?

If gene frequency is the delineator and not tradition then you must agree knowledge of racial charcteristics is of value.

Race does not refer to gene frequency, we know this because the concept existed before knowledge of genes.

Gene frequency as a delineator can pheasably show that some people are of different races to their own close kin even their full blooded sibblings. I really dont think that race has ever meant anything that would mean two full blooded sibblings (sibblings with both parents the same) would be of different races. Race doesnt mean gene frequency and gene frequency doesnt definitively measure the thing normatively referred to by the terminology race...

1. A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics.

Genetically transmitted physical characteristics could include hair colour, eye colour, or, in most typical cases, skin colour. Skin colour is a real, distinct, biological difference, which can have advantages or disadvantages based on your surrounding environment. It doesn't necessarily mean that a group of people are inferior or superior, nor does it make you a racist to acknowledge that people do have different skin pigmentations. It makes you a racist to believe that someone with different skin pigmentation is inferior to you, to insult them, or to imply that you should have fewer or greater human rights than everyone else because you are a different colour.

2. A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the German race.

Social construct it may be, but if that's the only way to refute its existence, then I submit that morals, language and art don't exist either.

3. A genealogical line; a lineage.

These exist. I am in one.

4. Humans considered as a group.

Humans are a race in themselves.



None of those definitions are of race.

Peopleandstuff said it pretty well, but to add a little bit:

1 is the definition of a cline (a gradual change of a particular characteristic of a population over a geographic range).
2 is ethnicity (a category rooted in cultural and socially perceived differences).
3 is kinship.
4 is a genus species classification (Homo sapien).

I can't believe this thread.

Dogs evolved into separate races to become physically different from each other (mostly thanks to us) and also intellectually superior to other dogs (the German shepherd is one of the smartest races of dogs).

Am I comparing humans to animals? Perhaps, because we are animals anyway. Natural law applies to us in the same way. It's obvious that the same happened between humans. They spread out through the globe, and their physical features changed. Is that the only thing that changed? No. Perhaps one can say that I.Q. tests are biased to favor Westerners (even if that isn’t true). From that, you make tests of different 'ethnical' groups in America. That way you can't argue they are biased towards westerners.
Here are the scores:

Ashkenazi Jews - An average of 115
Asians- An average of 107
Caucasians- An average of 100
Sephardic Jews (and other) - 17 points below the Ashkenazi Jews (Yes, so it can be concluded that Jews are not one race)
Latinos and Blacks- An average of 85

Don't believe me? There are many books that support this. One of the best you should read is: "The Bell Curve" by Herrnstein & Murray. No wonder European Jews have so much success in intellectual fields, and black people are more likely to commit crimes (it’s also proven that an people with an I.Q. of 90 are more prone to commit crimes). Let’s not forget that black people are the best at sports also.

Before you start labeling me as racist or fascist or whatever please don’t ignore this facts. Even a constructive solution can be concluded from this info. Like Eugenics for example. Like when it comes to immigrants, choose wisely which immigrants can come (not based on race, but based on intellectual ability). Obviously most illegal immigrants wouldn’t make it and many problems would be solved. Otherwise, the consequences will be lethal. Whatever is happening with ‘affirmative’ action that is wrong is too little compared with the rest of the consequences.

According to a cover story article from Scientific American a while back, scientific evidence suggests that race does not exist.

Politically incorrect, blunt and frank opinions to follow: If you are a raging liberal PC thought-dictator stop reading now, or just click ahead to respond and call me an "unenlightened troll" and be done with it.

I think that one important component of "race" as it is commonly applied in today's world is a strong, common, ethnic/CULTURAL background. We always dismiss the cutural component of race, and it is possibly the most important part. It is where the "stereotypical behavior" generally arises from.

It is the reason "racially based profiling" *is* effective for police forces. If they would just call it "culturally based" profiling, maybe they would run into less resistance about that... although there is some bizzare concept among the PC that we have to be tolerant of everything remotely related to a person's "culture", even if that culture is one of ignorance, intolerance, and unacceptable interaction with society in general.

An African-American who has grown up in the ghetto and embraces the dominant cultural foundations of ghetto culture, in speech, education, past-times and mind-set is easy to spot, and best avoided by a Caucasian-American who grew up in the suburbs. The truth of the situation is, a Caucasian-American who has grown up in the ghetto and embraces the dominant cultural foundations of ghetto culture in speech, education, past-times and mind-set is a little less easy to spot, but probably just as well avoided. Ghetto culture, or redneck/white-trash culture, or any other culture on the margins of socio-economic stability has predictible patterns of behavior. One of the most damaging of these patterns in my opinion is a cultural tendency to "embrace ignorance" among cultures of depressed economic means. The fine arts, higher education, conformity with society, are all looked down upon. Negative terms like, "nerd", "geek", "book-worm", "poindexter", all come from this cultural mind-set that intellectual improvement is undesirable.

Another example would be our recent unwillingness to ONLY profile men of middle-eastern descent and Islamic background who wish to fly. Listen, it isn't *racially* based profiling... it *is* culturally based. It just so happens that the culture that is most likely to turn a jet-airliner into a weapon of mass destruction, traditionally, includes a lot of brown dudes from the Middle East. It blows me away how we will ignore common sense for the sake of being politically correct. Hell, it has gotten to the point where Muslim writers are willing to proclaim on the front of London Newspapers, "The Ugly Truth, The World's Terrorists are all Muslim!" Yet the rest of the world still wants to skirt around this uncomfortable truth.

I also think we don't understand enough about genetics, and that this mostly presents itself as an issue in America. African-Americans are a persistently troubling part of American culture, as a legacy of the "Peculiar Institution". Every African-American today is a "scar" across the fabric of that nation, in that they are a reminder of the injustice of that inadvertent experiment in social engineering of the worst kind. Black America struggles to cope with this and come to terms with it, and so does White America. In a world where you can easily breed a new "breed" of dog, we want to overlook the selective breeding programs that African-American slaves were subject to for 200+ years as racially based slavery became the backbone of the early American economy. I think it is disingenious to act as if this specific selective breeding did NOT have an impact, a genetic impact, on African-Americans that still has implications today. This is perhaps the most *touchy* aspect of discussing race as ethnicity, and one of the most often "verboten" among the politically correct. But it is a process that absolutely DID take place and MUST have an impact on the genetic evolution of African-Americans. So how can it be ignored?

Race in the biological sense doesn't exist. It's really more of a cultural construct that often doesn't match up to genetics at all.

I also think we don't understand enough about genetics, and that this mostly presents itself as an issue in America. African-Americans are a persistently troubling part of American culture, as a legacy of the "Peculiar Institution". Every African-American today is a "scar" across the fabric of that nation, in that they are a reminder of the injustice of that inadvertent experiment in social engineering of the worst kind. Black America struggles to cope with this and come to terms with it, and so does White America. In a world where you can easily breed a new "breed" of dog, we want to overlook the selective breeding programs that African-American slaves were subject to for 200+ years as racially based slavery became the backbone of the early American economy. I think it is disingenious to act as if this specific selective breeding did NOT have an impact, a genetic impact, on African-Americans that still has implications today. This is perhaps the most *touchy* aspect of discussing race as ethnicity, and one of the most often "verboten" among the politically correct. But it is a process that absolutely DID take place and MUST have an impact on the genetic evolution of African-Americans. So how can it be ignored?

A very clever way of claiming that African-Americans are less intelligent than rich white men. I must congradulate you for being one of few neo-nazis I've met who actually used decent arguments. Unfortunately, there's a problem: it only works on the decendents of slaves! Sorry, try again.

[QUOTE=Peopleandstuff]Race does not refer to gene frequency, we know this because the concept existed before knowledge of genes.

QUOTE]


This is a logical inconsistency.

The concept of atoms and neutrons existed prior to the actual knowledge that these things existed. Atoms were first described in ancient GREECE far before there was any emperical method to test for or disprove they existed. This is Flat-Earther thinking. Your argument is this: The Earth is Flat because the concept of a round earth existed before knowledge that the Earth was round. Therefore: The Earth is Flat.

Race in the biological sense doesn't exist. It's really more of a cultural construct that often doesn't match up to genetics at all.



A very clever way of claiming that African-Americans are less intelligent than rich white men. I must congradulate you for being one of few neo-nazis I've met who actually used decent arguments. Unfortunately, there's a problem: it only works on the decendents of slaves! Sorry, try again.

Actually, I'm a rich impure caucasian with Yiddish heritage, which must explain why I am so damn smart... but, I don't think the Neo-nazis would have me. Sorry. I'm part of the vast Zionist conspiracy. I shut down *my* peanut stand the morning of 9/11.

"Congratulate", too... not that spelling is any measure of intellect. I'm lost without a spell-checker.

I'd like to point out, I carefully limited this to African-Americans. I will admit, there is an implied assumption there that all present day African-Americans share a common slave history at some point in their family tree. This assumption is *not* far from the mark. The majority of African-Americans today *do* have a slave heritage.

The assumption that I am a racist because I made comments about the genetic history of African-Americans is *part* of the problem that perpetuates racisim. Stifling viable opinion because it does not agree with your political ideology is simply another manifestation of embracing ignorance. See No Evil, Speak No Evil, Hear No Evil.

And what I was *really* going for is the fact that African-Americans of slave heritage tend to be *bigger*, stronger, more athletic, naturally, without artificial assistance. Obviously, slave-breeders were going for a few things, BIG, tough, strong, compliant and Not-Too-Smart.

Slaves were treated like livestock... like animals. They were bred like livestock, like animals. Someone else pointed out, "we *are* animals", we're not excluded from natural processes...

If you can breed a specific DOG breed, those same genetic principles must ABSOLUTELY apply to humans, regardless of how *distasteful* such a concept is. African-Americans are probably the ONLY race where such a long term experiment in selective breeding was enforced on a *human* population. Does that have ramifications that MUST be discussed and addressed in any honest discussion about race?

I personally think so.

I also think the problem with defining race is that there are SO many other factors that contribute. Climate, availability of natural resources, cultural influences, probably a billion other variables that affect the final outcome.

But just because that is the case, I don't think you can dismiss there may be certain underlying genetic foundations that are specific and tip the scales in one direction or another, in general.

"Everyone is special, which is just another way of saying no one is really special at all..."

Race in the biological sense doesn't exist. It's really more of a cultural construct that often doesn't match up to genetics at all.



A very clever way of claiming that African-Americans are less intelligent than rich white men. I must congradulate you for being one of few neo-nazis I've met who actually used decent arguments. Unfortunately, there's a problem: it only works on the decendents of slaves! Sorry, try again.

You don't need to be a Neo-nazi to do statements like that. It's common sense. And it doesn't apply only to the sons of slaves. In fact, blacks became SMARTER thanks to the eugenics applied to them in America (besides stronger). If they didn't, then why are African American blacks much smarter than actual Africans?

It's stupid to loose common sense just for the sake of being politically correct. It’s a fact that TRUTH is politically not correct. He also says that culture is what affects. But what shapes culture? Culture is somehow shaped by a race. Jews lived in American ghettoes like the Bronx and yet they were not affected by the ghetto culture. Why? Jews and Blacks are statistically too different to mingle.

I’m not advocating superiority or inferiority, I’m just saying that there are indeed differences besides color that need to be ‘polished’ in order for the advancement of humanity.

I think the question was supposed to be does racism exist.

and to that i say DUH
Right. Because Race can easily be a typo of racism right :rolleyes:

Race, like various dog "breeds," does not exist in the biological sense. There is no genetic marker for any of the "races" humans have created, just as there is no one gene for West Highland White Terriers or Schipperkes or German Shorthaired Pointers.

There are genes for various physical traits, such as skin color, hair texture, the shape of eyes, etc. Humans, at various times in our history, have chosen to isolate certain genetic traits and link them to a concept of "race." However, the gene for skin color, for example, only indicates how much melanin an individual possesses. It does not, however, indicate how closely related one group of people is to another. Dark skinned Australian aborigines are not closely related to dark skinned Africans, even though the melanin in their skin is similar.

(Of course, I mean they are not closely related in a relative sense. All humans are closely related and an Irishman is more closely related to a person from Tibet than is a chimpanzee in one part of Africa to another chimpanzee on the same continent.)

We have chosen to link physical traits to ethnic cultural traits and call that "race." However, it is an entirely human construct with no bearing on physical differences. It is doubtful that non-human visitors from another planet would recognize or even understand our “races.”

Race, like various dog "breeds," does not exist in the biological sense. There is no genetic marker for any of the "races" humans have created, just as there is no one gene for West Highland White Terriers or Schipperkes or German Shorthaired Pointers.

There are genes for various physical traits, such as skin color, hair texture, the shape of eyes, etc. Humans, at various times in our history, have chosen to isolate certain genetic traits and link them to a concept of "race." However, the gene for skin color, for example, only indicates how much melanin an individual possesses. It does not, however, indicate how closely related one group of people is to another. Dark skinned Australian aborigines are not closely related to dark skinned Africans, even though the melanin in their skin is similar.

(Of course, I mean they are not closely related in a relative sense. All humans are closely related and an Irishman is more closely related to a person from Tibet than is a chimpanzee in one part of Africa to another chimpanzee on the same continent.)

We have chosen to link physical traits to ethnic cultural traits and call that "race." However, it is an entirely human construct with no bearing on physical differences. It is doubtful that non-human visitors from another planet would recognize or even understand our “races.”

You're absolutely right. 'Race' is a subjective concept, yet it shouldn't be ignored. The question "Does race exist?" is similar to "Does god exist?". It depends on ones opinion. Race is a label, yet it is an important label because intelligence is in jeopardy if we don't use it for eugenics.

OOC: Alot of you could use what your writing to make a book. It sounds some of you are geniuses.

You're absolutely right. 'Race' is a subjective concept, yet it shouldn't be ignored. The question "Does race exist?" is similar to "Does god exist?". It depends on ones opinion. Race is a label, yet it is an important label because intelligence is in jeopardy if we don't use that label for eugenics.

I'm not sure I understand your meaning (your post seems to support eugenics - surely not). However, my point was that race does not exist. It only takes on significance in proportion to the emphasis we put on it. Personally, I would like to see the whole concept done away with and forgotten.

OOC: Alot of you could use what your writing to make a book. It sounds some of you are geniuses.


Thanks for the complement. I hope it was directed to me. :-D

Not saying there is race, but if you look at the skulls of a asian man, black man, a white man and an Australian aboriginee, their skulls and skeletal structures will have diferances. Forensic scientists and the like can look ata skeleton and figure out whether one is white or black or whatever. So maybe homo sapiens can be broken down into smaller sub groups

Not saying there is race, but if you look at the skulls of a asian man, black man, a white man and an Australian aboriginee, their skulls and skeletal structures will have diferances. Forensic scientists and the like can look ata skeleton and figure out whether one is white or black or whatever. So maybe homo sapiens can be broken down into smaller sub groups

Every word of this post is incorrect.

Every word of this post is incorrect.

how so?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negroid
http://www.theoryofuniverse.com/man/races/races-skulls.htm

Like Homo Sapiens and Canis Familiaris? Sure they do

There are no differences in the skulls of various ethnic groups. This 19th century concept reached its height in Nazi Germany in the 1930s and 1940s, but has been widely discredited (although one can still find discussions of "dolichocephalic" and "brachycephalic" skull types on white supremacist neo-Nazi web sites).

Skeletal structure does not determine race, but only suggests probabilities. There are no human skeletal markers that correspond perfectly to geographic origin (which is why paleo-anthropologists are unable to determine the "race" of early homonids).

Nor are there any sub groups of Homo Sapiens, which has one genus with only one species. The closest relative of modern Homos Sapiens, a variation known as Neanderthals, died out 30,000 years ago. There are also no pure "races" due to miscegenation or the mixing of people of various "races." As a result there is no way to determine a person's "race" for certain by looking at their skulls or skeletons.

However, all this is beside the point in that there is no such thing, biologically, as race. Humans have created a set of physical criteria - skin color, hair texture, eye shape - and called it race. They could just as easily create a new set of criteria, such as eye color, the texture of ear wax, and the length of toes, and divide humanity into various "races" based on this new standard.

Of course race exists. Whether or not it's important is the real question.

Of course race exists. Whether or not it's important is the real question.

"Of course" it exists? No, it actually does not. Can you tell me what the "races" are and what determines which one a person belongs to?

My favorite arguement to use against those who argue that 'race' exists is to point out the parrallel in domestic animals. We don't call Poodles or Herefords 'Races' do we? No, they are 'breeds' of dogs and cattle. But they are no more different from others of their species than people of different 'races' are from each other.

If you choose to lower yourself to the level of domesticated and specialized livestock and insist upon being catagorized as a 'race' instead of a human, I guess there's not much I can do to stop you.

I however place myself slightly above the level of farm animals, so leave me out.

"Of course" it exists? No, it actually does not. Can you tell me what the "races" are and what determines which one a person belongs to?

Given a choice, Hispanics tend to group with other Hispanics, Asians with Asians, Blacks with Blacks, Whites with Whites, etc. Thus, I can only deduce that each of these groups are different.

hmm i was just thinking racism is believeing someone is different to you becasue of their skin colour, does that mean that if a person of an ethnic minority thought that the major ethnic group in his area was superior would he be racist? becasue he is believe ing someone is different becasue of their race though he thinks they are better than him.

(B.T.W this is all hypothetical i myself am white with blonde hair and blue eyes and have several coloured freinds. i just want to knwo how far the term racism can be stretched)

Given a choice, Hispanics tend to group with other Hispanics, Asians with Asians, Blacks with Blacks, Whites with Whites, etc. Thus, I can only deduce that each of these groups are different.

Yes, there are ethnic groups and language groups and even people who divide themselves by which sports teams they support, but none of those are "races."

My favorite arguement to use against those who argue that 'race' exists is to point out the parrallel in domestic animals. We don't call Poodles or Herefords 'Races' do we? No, they are 'breeds' of dogs and cattle. But they are no more different from others of their species than people of different 'races' are from each other.

If you choose to lower yourself to the level of domesticated and specialized livestock and insist upon being catagorized as a 'race' instead of a human, I guess there's not much I can do to stop you.

I however place myself slightly above the level of farm animals, so leave me out.

Yes you are special.

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

Negroid describes the race of humans primarily from Africa, and was one of the four major races as recognized by nineteenth century racial theories.

note the past tense and reference to past theories. This is not accepted theory in modern biology or anthropology.

http://www.theoryofuniverse.com/man/races/races-skulls.htm

So general in defintion to be meaningless.

My favorite arguement to use against those who argue that 'race' exists is to point out the parrallel in domestic animals. We don't call Poodles or Herefords 'Races' do we? No, they are 'breeds' of dogs and cattle. But they are no more different from others of their species than people of different 'races' are from each other.

The proper term from biology is cline variation. :)

Of course. Wether or not it's right to judge by it is a different question.

The question in itself is flawed, but that has already been pointed out.
One thing, it should state that we're talking about the human species.
And then should homo sapiens sapiens be considered a race or a species, and there is a possibility that there is still another andro species left, supposedly the fossiles found are from the same time as all other human species/races were considered extinct and look somewhat like a hobbit, local tribal communities claim to have seen these hobbits also in recent times.
Also someone said there is only one race, the human race, uhm, let's consider all the other species in the known universe and the unknown universe.

Wether or not there are different human races, hard to define.
On which genetic qualities should you base what the different races are?
Skin color?
A white couple can have a black child(no, I'm not talking about through cheating, it is simply a genetic property that sometimes(yes rarely) happens to turn itself on due to some random combination of genes).
If we consider how we group animals into races it gets harder, as for instance dogs have a lot more than just appearances that are different, although there are a lot of canine races that share a lot of these differences, but then again there are several hundred canine races.
The question isn't really wether or not there are races, but how should one group attributes into defining races, and is it possible?
Interracial relationships are actually preferred due to genetic differences(but then there's the thing about how to define races, if we only base it on skin color it has no meaning and the interracial mixing to get the best mixing of genes makes no sense either), but we already seek out partners that are as genetically different from ourselves as possible already, through all our 5 senses, especially smell (you might notice that couples very often look a lot like each other, but almost always they have genetic differences that are very large anyhow, as they choose each other on such a basis, if we are to be purely scientifical about love that is).

As long as there are genetic differences there will be races, but defining them is a lot harder.

To most of you I probably come off as some kind of asshole who has to correct all kinds of idiotic meaningless flaws and tiny errors that make no sense to correct, but that's just my nature.
At least I know I'm annoying, maybe that could be one of the many attributes to define races by, how annoying they are (maybe "geek" is a human race, we just don't know it yet??? ;) ).

Race was rumoured to have been the 'code name' for the top level agent or agents that protected the scientists working on the most secret of secret science, or 'super-science' projects across the globe, codenamed "Quest." The agents whose job it was to 'accidently' activate this science from the theorotical(sp) to the applied where codenamed "Johnny." This was in close co-operation with eastern allies, codenamed "Haji"'s. But if you where to ask a government official today they would assure you that Race does not exist.

The question in itself is flawed, but that has already been pointed out.

Whether or not there are different human races, hard to define.
On which genetic qualities should you base what the different races are?

Skin color?

A white couple can have a black child(no, I'm not talking about through cheating, it is simply a genetic property that sometimes(yes rarely) happens to turn itself on due to some random combination of genes).

If we consider how we group animals into races it gets harder, as for instance dogs have a lot more than just appearances that are different, although there are a lot of canine races that share a lot of these differences, but then again there are several hundred canine races.

The question isn't really wether or not there are races, but how should one group attributes into defining races, and is it possible?

Interracial relationships are actually preferred due to genetic differences(but then there's the thing about how to define races, if we only base it on skin color it has no meaning and the interracial mixing to get the best mixing of genes makes no sense either), but we already seek out partners that are as genetically different from ourselves as possible already, through all our 5 senses, especially smell (you might notice that couples very often look a lot like each other, but almost always they have genetic differences that are very large anyhow, as they choose each other on such a basis, if we are to be purely scientifical about love that is).

As long as there are genetic differences there will be races, but defining them is a lot harder.

Races only exist because we humans have decided to group and label various genetic differences as such. It is only our cultural prejudice that gives more importance to genetic markers for skin color than, say, eye color. We could just as easily divide up the "races" into those who can roll their tongues and those who cannot; into those who can wiggle their ears and those who cannot (both are genetic traits).

The problem is that the definition of race is a circular argument. What is race based upon? Skin color. What is skin color? It is the determinant of race. You can plug in anything and the definition still works, which is why, biologically speaking, there is no such thing as race. It is a cultural creation.

One I know of: the human race

Okay, yes, race does exist - the Preakness, Belmont Stakes, and the Kentucky Derby.

Dogs evolved into separate races to become physically different from each other (mostly thanks to us) and also intellectually superior to other dogs (the German shepherd is one of the smartest races of dogs).
Not true, a poodle is a different breed to a german shepard, not a different race.

Am I comparing humans to animals? Perhaps, because we are animals anyway. Natural law applies to us in the same way. It's obvious that the same happened between humans. They spread out through the globe, and their physical features changed.Is that the only thing that changed? No. Perhaps one can say that I.Q. tests are biased to favor Westerners (even if that isn’t true). From that, you make tests of different 'ethnical' groups in America. That way you can't argue they are biased towards westerners.
Here are the scores:

Ashkenazi Jews - An average of 115
Asians- An average of 107
Caucasians- An average of 100
Sephardic Jews (and other) - 17 points below the Ashkenazi Jews (Yes, so it can be concluded that Jews are not one race)
Latinos and Blacks- An average of 85

Don't believe me? There are many books that support this. One of the best you should read is: "The Bell Curve" by Herrnstein & Murray. No wonder European Jews have so much success in intellectual fields, and black people are more likely to commit crimes (it’s also proven that an people with an I.Q. of 90 are more prone to commit crimes). Let’s not forget that black people are the best at sports also.
You do realise that 'The Bell Curve' is a highly discredited book whose findings have been largely debunked?

I think that one important component of "race" as it is commonly applied in today's world is a strong, common, ethnic/CULTURAL background. We always dismiss the cutural component of race, and it is possibly the most important part. It is where the "stereotypical behavior" generally arises from.
There is no such thing as culture if there is such a thing as race. Culture is learned, however the concept of race is that differences between societies result from race (ie are bred not learned).

Race is a concept that explains why some groups of humans looked and behaved one way whilst others looked and behaved other ways. The concept explained this through evolution, suggesting that some people were less evolved and that the differences in behaviour were a direct bred result of this, we now know this is not true A person who is ethnically Chinese, does not automatically know how to speak Chinese for instance.

Again race was a concept invented before genetics were known about, it does not refer to them.

I dont say any of this due to liberal or PC notions, I say it due to science and knowledge. Races dont accord with genetics, morphological features, geographic absolutes, or any other definable criteria that can be applied in absolutely in the real world with the result of identifying all and only members of what is meant by people when they say race.

This is a logical inconsistency.

The concept of atoms and neutrons existed prior to the actual knowledge that these things existed. Atoms were first described in ancient GREECE far before there was any emperical method to test for or disprove they existed. This is Flat-Earther thinking. Your argument is this: The Earth is Flat because the concept of a round earth existed before knowledge that the Earth was round. Therefore: The Earth is Flat
No it is not an inconsistency. The word race didnt describe differences in morphology. It described percieved inherent evolutionary rate differences that dictated everything from morphology to behaviour that occured as a result of breeding. We now know that no such thing exists. We understand the differences caused in morphology are the result of gene actions as opposed to being caused by a evolutionary failure, we know that social differences are learned not bred. All the things that the concept meant are false, ergo the concept is false. My argument is that race meant X Y Z and it turns out not X, not Y and not Z therefore not race.

If the word earth of itself meant flat thing we live on, no such thing would exist, however the word earth never meant that, people just believed that about the earth. Race however was the (untrue) explanation for things we have since found are not exmplained by the concept at all, so a concept that gives a false explanation is untrue, race is untrue.

I’m not advocating superiority or inferiority, I’m just saying that there are indeed differences besides color that need to be ‘polished’ in order for the advancement of humanity.
Differences are explained by ethnicity, they are not explained by 'race'. People are different because they are enviromentally constituted and ethnicity refers to this, race does not refer to most things that ethnicity does describe whilst referring to untrue things that simply dont occur.

Again I challenge those who believe in race to posit an absolute criteria that when applied to the real world will identify all and only members of any given race...

You're absolutely right. 'Race' is a subjective concept, yet it shouldn't be ignored. The question "Does race exist?" is similar to "Does god exist?". It depends on ones opinion. Race is a label, yet it is an important label because intelligence is in jeopardy if we don't use it for eugenics.
Why would something that doesnt exist, and doesnt refer to genes be important to eugenics? Evidently what on earth makes you think you or any other mortal is qualified to predict which genes will be most adaptive in the furture....did someone invent a crystal ball that actually does tell the furture, while I wasnt looking? Because if they did not, we have no way of knowing what genes will or wont be most adaptive in the future, and so are in no position to practise eugenics.

Given a choice, Hispanics tend to group with other Hispanics, Asians with Asians, Blacks with Blacks, Whites with Whites, etc. Thus, I can only deduce that each of these groups are different
Given a choice I tend to hang out with people who like comedy shows, but my sister given a choice hangs with people who like horrors, thus I can only conclude we are both different, although I dont see what that proves about races. In fact the thing you have pointed out is the shared trait of our race to seek out things that they identify with....I guess however being one race and all, such similarities crop up from time to time ;)

Yes, people are from some origin asian, native american, celt, germanic, anglo-saxon, african, slavic etc.
MD's can take a skull and see what the origin is.
But does it matter is what you should be asking.

Humans are actually one of the least genetically diverse species on the planet. The only species that I know of less diverse are cheetahs, which were at one point reduced to a single breeding pair, and other recently endangered animals in the same boat. We were reduced, by something, nobody knows what, to ten thousand individuals at one point, which is just barely enough to propagate a species without it becoming inbred. So, in other words, all humanity is just barely on the right side of inbred. There simply isn't enough genetic diversity to justify the idea of "races." There's just different skin colors.

Yes, people are from some origin asian, native american, celt, germanic, anglo-saxon, african, slavic etc.

That's not race (biological), it's ethinicity (cultural).

MD's can take a skull and see what the origin is.

Incorrect.

But does it matter is what you should be asking.

Yes, it does. The continuing classification of humans into "race" does social and intellectual harm.

That's not race (biological), it's ethinicity (cultural).

Incorrect.

Yes, it does. The continuing classification of humans into "race" does social and intellectual harm.


You are wrong, the celtic race, the anglo-saxon race, the african race etc. this is common useage in english thus it is true what I said. Look it up.

I was saying that HE should have said used that classification.

It does no harm unless you are racist and say it in racist terms.

You are wrong, the celtic race, the anglo-saxon race, the african race etc. this is common useage in english thus it is true what I said. Look it up.

I was saying that HE should have said used that classification.

It does no harm unless you are racist and say it in racist terms.

The idea that race exists has been demonstrated again and again to be false, in this very thread.

The suggestion that it does exist causes both social harm (by promoting racism, for example) and intellectual harm (damage to science).

Not true, a poodle is a different breed to a german shepard, not a different race.

No shit, pal. You see, after having discussed that race and breed are not much different, since race is just a label after all, and so is breed, I see your point is not contradicting itself by saying "A breed, not a race". Oh wait...


You do realise that 'The Bell Curve' is a highly discredited book whose findings have been largely debunked?
Discredited by whom? By some overpaid lobbyist? Or a pompous asshole? And why? Because it is politically incorrect? Or because nobody likes the truth?

There is no such thing as culture if there is such a thing as race. Culture is learned, however the concept of race is that differences between societies result from race (ie are bred not learned).
Since race is a label, we can define the same race with different cultures, and different races with one culture.

Race is a concept that explains why some groups of humans looked and behaved one way whilst others looked and behaved other ways. The concept explained this through evolution, suggesting that some people were less evolved and that the differences in behaviour were a direct bred result of this, we now know this is not true A person who is ethnically Chinese, does not automatically know how to speak Chinese for instance.


Well, obviously if you believe in evolution, then it's true that different ethnicities developed thanks to evolution. Although, there is nothing like 'more' or 'less' evolved. Evolution is like a tree with lots of branches, not a line.

Again race was a concept invented before genetics were known about, it does not refer to them.
And genetics is a way of confirmation that differences do exist, in spite of the 99.9% that is shared. Of course, race can not be defined 'genetically', since it is a label as I stated.


I dont say any of this due to liberal or PC notions, I say it due to science and knowledge. Races dont accord with genetics, morphological features, geographic absolutes, or any other definable criteria that can be applied in absolutely in the real world with the result of identifying all and only members of what is meant by people when they say race.

But the differences in intelligence are proven. Not only by the bell curve... there are many books that talk about that. It's known that intelligence is hereditary. And evolution caused different groups to develop more intelligence than others. Unless you just wanna accept 'some' science, and not all, which would be fallacious.


I'll finish this later

Not true, a poodle is a different breed to a german shepard, not a different race.

You do realise that 'The Bell Curve' is a highly discredited book whose findings have been largely debunked?

There is no such thing as culture if there is such a thing as race. Culture is learned, however the concept of race is that differences between societies result from race (ie are bred not learned).

Race is a concept that explains why some groups of humans looked and behaved one way whilst others looked and behaved other ways. The concept explained this through evolution, suggesting that some people were less evolved and that the differences in behaviour were a direct bred result of this, we now know this is not true A person who is ethnically Chinese, does not automatically know how to speak Chinese for instance.

Again race was a concept invented before genetics were known about, it does not refer to them.

I dont say any of this due to liberal or PC notions, I say it due to science and knowledge. Races dont accord with genetics, morphological features, geographic absolutes, or any other definable criteria that can be applied in absolutely in the real world with the result of identifying all and only members of what is meant by people when they say race.

No it is not an inconsistency. The word race didnt describe differences in morphology. It described percieved inherent evolutionary rate differences that dictated everything from morphology to behaviour that occured as a result of breeding. We now know that no such thing exists. We understand the differences caused in morphology are the result of gene actions as opposed to being caused by a evolutionary failure, we know that social differences are learned not bred. All the things that the concept meant are false, ergo the concept is false. My argument is that race meant X Y Z and it turns out not X, not Y and not Z therefore not race.

If the word earth of itself meant flat thing we live on, no such thing would exist, however the word earth never meant that, people just believed that about the earth. Race however was the (untrue) explanation for things we have since found are not exmplained by the concept at all, so a concept that gives a false explanation is untrue, race is untrue.

Differences are explained by ethnicity, they are not explained by 'race'. People are different because they are enviromentally constituted and ethnicity refers to this, race does not refer to most things that ethnicity does describe whilst referring to untrue things that simply dont occur.

Again I challenge those who believe in race to posit an absolute criteria that when applied to the real world will identify all and only members of any given race...

Why would something that doesnt exist, and doesnt refer to genes be important to eugenics? Evidently what on earth makes you think you or any other mortal is qualified to predict which genes will be most adaptive in the furture....did someone invent a crystal ball that actually does tell the furture, while I wasnt looking? Because if they did not, we have no way of knowing what genes will or wont be most adaptive in the future, and so are in no position to practise eugenics.

Given a choice I tend to hang out with people who like comedy shows, but my sister given a choice hangs with people who like horrors, thus I can only conclude we are both different, although I dont see what that proves about races. In fact the thing you have pointed out is the shared trait of our race to seek out things that they identify with....I guess however being one race and all, such similarities crop up from time to time ;)

Thank you for taking the time and effort to refute some of the more ridiculous comments about race. I was going to but could not work up the steam to run through the arguments one more time.

I hope people read your comments - very well argued.

Of course race exists. But that dosen't make any one human being any better than another.

Like it or not, blacks are different from whites, just as blacks are different from hispanics or asians.

I have just graced your thread with my 200th post. Be enamoured by my generosity.

Really, the only difference in people from America, and people form Africa is that the mellinin(sp?) in their skin is burnt(Or tanned), making their complection darker. So alll they are are people with better tans than us.

Plus, If accents play into this then people from Boston are a race in themselves. :D

[The Bell Curve has been] Discredited by whom? By some overpaid lobbyist? Or a pompous asshole? And why? Because it is politically incorrect? Or because nobody likes the truth?

No, The Bell Curve has been discredited for the methodology driving its conclusions as well as the funding behind the "research."

You do know that the research was funded by the Pioneer Fund? The Pioneer Fund was described by the London Sunday Telegraph (3/12/89) as a "neo-Nazi organization closely integrated with the far right in American politics." The fund's mission is to promote eugenics, a philosophy that maintains that "genetically unfit" individuals or races are a threat to society. The Pioneer Fund has been the key source of funding for the last 20 years of scientists who have produced the material that is the foundation for the claims that African American people on average are intellectually inferior to whites.

Beyond questionable sources it turns out The Bell Curve is also full of mistakes ranging from sloppy reasoning to mis-citations of sources to outright mathematical errors.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2416

http://www.fair.org/extra/9501/bell.html

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45/049.html

No, The Bell Curve has been discredited for the methodology driving its conclusions as well as the funding behind the "research."

You do know that the research was funded by the Pioneer Fund? The Pioneer Fund was described by the London Sunday Telegraph (3/12/89) as a "neo-Nazi organization closely integrated with the far right in American politics." The fund's mission is to promote eugenics, a philosophy that maintains that "genetically unfit" individuals or races are a threat to society. The Pioneer Fund has been the key source of funding for the last 20 years of scientists who have produced the material that is the foundation for the claims that African American people on average are intellectually inferior to whites.

Beyond questionable sources it turns out The Bell Curve is also full of mistakes ranging from sloppy reasoning to mis-citations of sources to outright mathematical errors.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2416

http://www.fair.org/extra/9501/bell.html

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45/049.htmlJust a quick addition. The Pioneer Fund is provided by the Pioneer Foundation. It should be noted that the major beef most academics have with all studies published by researchers traced to them is they go about their science completely backwards. They start with a conclusion and work on finding information to support it, choosing only data that suits their desired findings and ignoring anything else. Their mission statement traces to a 19th century railroad tycoon who started the foundation to prove and promote his theories on racial superiority.

But I doubt this information will desuade anyone who cites such work Ogiek, they usually, like the foundation, start with a preconcieved notion and only seek to bolster it. Truth is inconsequencial.

No, The Bell Curve has been discredited for the methodology driving its conclusions as well as the funding behind the "research."

You do know that the research was funded by the Pioneer Fund? The Pioneer Fund was described by the London Sunday Telegraph (3/12/89) as a "neo-Nazi organization closely integrated with the far right in American politics." The fund's mission is to promote eugenics, a philosophy that maintains that "genetically unfit" individuals or races are a threat to society. The Pioneer Fund has been the key source of funding for the last 20 years of scientists who have produced the material that is the foundation for the claims that African American people on average are intellectually inferior to whites.

Beyond questionable sources it turns out The Bell Curve is also full of mistakes ranging from sloppy reasoning to mis-citations of sources to outright mathematical errors.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2416

http://www.fair.org/extra/9501/bell.html

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45/049.html

You know, I would believe that 'nazi' thing if that book wouldn't actually say that Jews rank even higher than whites.

You know, I would believe that 'nazi' thing if that book wouldn't actually say that Jews rank even higher than whites.
Well, the Ashkenazi Jews iirc from your earlier post. Who are the most 'european' and less obvious then the other Jews who wear signifecantly lower down on the scale (IQ 99 iirc)

Well, the Ashkenazi Jews iirc from your earlier post. Who are the most 'european' and less obvious then the other Jews who wear signifecantly lower down on the scale (IQ 99 iirc)

What's your point? Yes, Ashkenazi jews are smarter, that's why I advocate on other threads for the separation of 'jewish races' and against Zionism, and an establishment of an Ashkenazi state instead of a 'jewish' state.

This is also contradictory for the statement that nazis wrote it, since the nazis advocate for the jews being one race and inferior to whites (99 and 100 isn't too different between whites and non ashkenazi jews), which is blatantly false, and you see that with the avg. of Ashkenazis being 115+ while the rest of the jews are 17 points below.

There's more difference intellectually between ashkenazis and the rest, including sephardic jews.

You say also that is because they're more 'european' that the 'nazis' "advocate for them" ? Nazis wouldn't give a damn if they're 'more or less' european. They're "jews" after all. This book is obviously not nazi, or at least not anti-jewish.

the reason that race exists is that it has been integrated socially, legally, and institutionally into our society. the fact is that people do see the color of other peoples skin, or their outside features, and make judgements based on them. to deny this is to hold prejudice. to not acknowledge and battle the constraints that race puts on so many individuals in this country, that is to hold prejudice.

how can you say that because of the magical civil rights movement, or because of affirmative action, america has forgotten about race and racism? how can you say you have forgotten about it, when you make a racist joke, or when you laugh at one? how can you say racism doesnt exist when the signs are so obvious? how can you say that everyone person who isnt fighting against it...isnt with it, isnt subduing?

race, genetically speaking, DOES NOT EXIST. it was invented, legally speaking, in 1669, during bacons rebellion, wherein white land owners legally seperated 'white' indentured servants from 'black' slaves. before then, it was present in social darwinism, and in globalization efforts, in the same context, but never formalized into law. the concept, and the word, were invented in order to elevate rich white people. nothing more.

the reason that race exists is that it has been integrated socially, legally, and institutionally into our society. the fact is that people do see the color of other peoples skin, or their outside features, and make judgements based on them. to deny this is to hold prejudice. to not acknowledge and battle the constraints that race puts on so many individuals in this country, that is to hold prejudice.

how can you say that because of the magical civil rights movement, or because of affirmative action, america has forgotten about race and racism? how can you say you have forgotten about it, when you make a racist joke, or when you laugh at one? how can you say racism doesnt exist when the signs are so obvious? how can you say that everyone person who isnt fighting against it...isnt with it, isnt subduing?

race, genetically speaking, DOES NOT EXIST. it was invented, legally speaking, in 1669, during bacons rebellion, wherein white land owners legally seperated 'white' indentured servants from 'black' slaves. before then, it was present in social darwinism, and in globalization efforts, in the same context, but never formalized into law. the concept, and the word, were invented in order to elevate rich white people. nothing more.


This is exactly the problem with maintaining that race exists. If we accept the idea of race as valid, then the social problems caused by the idea remain unaddressed because they are biological rather than cultural.

You know, I would believe that 'nazi' thing if that book wouldn't actually say that Jews rank even higher than whites.Substitute 'white supremist' for 'nazi', The founder of the Pioneer Foundation was an American Industialist, he was interesting in proving 'white' supremecy, not 'Aryan'. They still carry on his mission. Their 'studies' are still crap.

Race, like various dog "breeds," does not exist in the biological sense. There is no genetic marker for any of the "races" humans have created, just as there is no one gene for West Highland White Terriers or Schipperkes or German Shorthaired Pointers.

There are genes for various physical traits, such as skin color, hair texture, the shape of eyes, etc. Humans, at various times in our history, have chosen to isolate certain genetic traits and link them to a concept of "race." However, the gene for skin color, for example, only indicates how much melanin an individual possesses. It does not, however, indicate how closely related one group of people is to another. Dark skinned Australian aborigines are not closely related to dark skinned Africans, even though the melanin in their skin is similar.

We have chosen to link physical traits to ethnic cultural traits and call that "race." However, it is an entirely human construct with no bearing on physical differences. It is doubtful that non-human visitors from another planet would recognize or even understand our “races.”

Sure is hard to find your place in a thread here once you've left the forum.

A couple of points. You can *clearly* tell the difference between a West Highland White Terriers and a Border Collie when you see them. What makes it any less likely that a "non-human vistor from another planet" would understand or recognize our "races"???

The physical traits of certain breeds are well documented among dogs. Some dogs are more aggressive, some are known for having better developed sense of smell, or for having skin better suited to fighting, or for having nervous or calm dispositions. These are genetic *perponderances* of certain breeds of dogs... That doesn't mean you won't have a very passive and patient pit-bull turn up or a very aggressive lab turn up... but you can certainly apply certain stereotypes to particular breeds.

Your argument above may be politically correct, and within a narrow biological definition of "race" it may be correct, but in actual application, it is an incomplete and imperfect theory that doesn't hold up to this very appropriate analogy.

You're also trying to limit your "markers" which you decide a "racial classification" on. For example, "Dark skin does not indicate African origins".

Who said it does? Are all Spotted dogs dalmations? Are all small dogs Chiuahuas? No. Can we divide dogs and catagorize them and see strong characteristics that taken together likely indicate a common heritage? Absolutely.

If we can do this with one animal on the face of the planet, why not others? We chose to call it BREED with dogs, and Race with humans...

They start with a conclusion and work on finding information to support it, choosing only data that suits their desired findings and ignoring anything else.

Doesn't this pretty much sum up the scientific method...

to wit... You develop a theory, and then perform tests to try and gain emperical data to either support that theory or to disconfirm the theory...

You START with a conclusion "Animals all share such similar traits because life acts as a branching organism constantly evolving over time..."

And then start doing research to confirm or disconfirm that conclusion.

So, it WORKS with Darwin, but not with the Bell Curve?

I mean... maybe so. I'm not giving the Bell Curve a *lot* of credit, here... But it looks like you want your scientific method both ways, depending on how it suits your current conclusion...

Sure is hard to find your place in a thread here once you've left the forum.

A couple of points. You can *clearly* tell the difference between a West Highland White Terriers and a Border Collie when you see them. What makes it any less likely that a "non-human vistor from another planet" would understand or recognize our "races"???

The physical traits of certain breeds are well documented among dogs. Some dogs are more aggressive, some are known for having better developed sense of smell, or for having skin better suited to fighting, or for having nervous or calm dispositions. These are genetic *perponderances* of certain breeds of dogs... That doesn't mean you won't have a very passive and patient pit-bull turn up or a very aggressive lab turn up... but you can certainly apply certain stereotypes to particular breeds.

Your argument above may be politically correct, and within a narrow biological definition of "race" it may be correct, but in actual application, it is an incomplete and imperfect theory that doesn't hold up to this very appropriate analogy.

You're also trying to limit your "markers" which you decide a "racial classification" on. For example, "Dark skin does not indicate African origins".

Who said it does? Are all Spotted dogs dalmations? Are all small dogs Chiuahuas? No. Can we divide dogs and catagorize them and see strong characteristics that taken together likely indicate a common heritage? Absolutely.

If we can do this with one animal on the face of the planet, why not others? We chose to call it BREED with dogs, and Race with humans...Sure you can selectively breed any animal to promote selected characteristics. But in the end it's still the same animal, all dogs can interbreed, just as all humans can. We manipulate domesticated animals to get the feature we want. That's breeding.

Do you really think humans should be thought of in the same terms? Race=Breed
The term Race is demeaning to all humanity.

They start with a conclusion and work on finding information to support it, choosing only data that suits their desired findings and ignoring anything else. Doesn't this pretty much sum up the scientific method...

to wit... You develop a theory, and then perform tests to try and gain emperical data to either support that theory or to disconfirm the theory...

You START with a conclusion "Animals all share such similar traits because life acts as a branching organism constantly evolving over time..."

And then start doing research to confirm or disconfirm that conclusion.

So, it WORKS with Darwin, but not with the Bell Curve?

I mean... maybe so. I'm not giving the Bell Curve a *lot* of credit, here... But it looks like you want your scientific method both ways, depending on how it suits your current conclusion...Uh, I think you missed an important part, check the bolded type.

heh, but it does sort of fit what's being said, the racists tend to ignore what doesn't fit their arguements.

Sure you can selectively breed any animal to promote selected characteristics. But in the end it's still the same animal, all dogs can interbreed, just as all humans can. We manipulate domesticated animals to get the feature we want. That's breeding.

Do you really think humans should be thought of in the same terms? Race=Breed
The term Race is demeaning to all humanity.

Answer me this...

IS it the same thing? Were African American slaves subjected to 200 years of selective breeding that had an impact on their character as *certainly* as selective breeding had an impact on the character of *any* domestic canine?

Even without *selective* breeding, does *natural* selection create distinct "breeds" of animal within a particular genus, animals that while technically of the same common genetic heritage (regardless of ability to interbreed or not) develop in different ways, usually to take advantage of their environment? The ability to leverage different resources, different climates, different threats and advantages?

If you're going to reduce us to simple biological processes and address this from a purely scientific perspective... then let's do away with the emotional knee-jerk reactions to comparing humans to dogs, or any other animal, for that matter.

I'd like to also opinion that, clearly at a certain point, despite very close and similar genetic heritage, like animals may diverge completely including the ability to interbreed. Examples in the equine family come readily to mind. The Zebra, the Donkey, Mules, Horses and their bizzare inter-realtionships.

I mean... the *truth* of the matter is sitting there right in front of you.

Why on EARTH would we be excluded from this process if OTHER animals on this planet are NOT? Because we have souls?!? Because we are SPECIAL? Sounds more like metaphysics than *science* to me...

this isnt a social issue, to me. if youre going with the genitic definition of race there most certainly IS such a thing. the most obvious genetic difference between many races is skin tone. other genetically influenced traits also vary from "race" to "race," naturally.

isolated populations in different environments evolve with different traits.

regardless of your definition, "dismissing the race concept - that humanity can be usefully divided into groups known as 'races' - is not the same as denying that characteristics vary among different human populations." (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/marek.kohn/FAQ.html) an important distinction.

of course we are all people. i dont see why people start taking offense at this way of distinguishing groups within the whole. we do it all the time in every imaginable way. to ourselves and everything else.

other posts have mentioned stats on intelligence tests crime rates, etc. first of all, there is no commonly accepted measure of intelligence. why should black people score as white people on a test designed by whites? or africans on a european test? substitute any populations. this principal transcends inherited differences. crime rates, test scores and other measures cited in this forum to rank the human population are sullied by nurture, not to mention countless other forms of bias and error.

groups of people are different. individuals are different. there are always exceptions. seriously, though: who cares?

One more thing... this time we'll use CORN as an example, as maybe that will be less "offensive" to human dignity than using DOGS as an example...

So, science has established that through selective breeding, *radical* change can be introduced into a species in just a matter of a few generations. Corn is a great example of this process. In no time at all, once cultivated and selectively bred, corn no longer resembled the original native grasses it was originally bred from.

Is modern CORN the same as the original plant it was selectively bred from? More importantly, could the process be REVERSED? Once made into something completely different, how quickly can the process be turned back... if at all...

And listen... if it applies to corn, it applies to wolves, if it applies to wolves, it applies to wolves cum domestic canines, if it applies to wolves cum domestic canines, it applies to HUMANS. Nothing is exempt.

Check and mate.

Ok... I'm on a roll now... not at my most eloquent, but...

IF we are all genetically absolutely the same, and there are no "racial genetic markers" then it would be a crap-shoot what kind of kid you would get. It might turn out looking Asian, or it might turn out looking African, or it might turn out looking European, or any of the other potential "racial" profiles that exist on this planet.

Clearly, then, there are genetic markers, there is a BIOLOGICAL function of "race". If mainstream, accepted science denies this, that doesn't mean mainstream, accepted science is RIGHT. At one point, mainstream accepted *science* denied that the Earth was not the center of the universe.

There may be anomolies... and certainly almost no one on the planet today is an individual "pure" race... so you get regressive genes popping up here and there and a certain amount of randomization.

But by and large, you get two white people together in the sack, and they're not going to spit out an asian baby, as certainly as two Great Danes are not going to produce a Pit-Bull.

If *that* isn't a biological function of race, or breed, or just PLAIN DIFFERENCE... then I don't know what else qualifies. And if this applies to outward physical characterstics, it applies to other characterstics, as well. Those would include intellectual capacity, athletic ability, endurance, strength, hand-eye coordination, adapatability (or lack thereof) to different climates and conditions, penis size, you name it...

You can deny it all you want, ignore it all you want, turn your back on it because it doesn't fit your concept of a color-blind world...

But that doesn't mean it *isn't* the way it really works.

analmania, you have been generally right. thank you for not being upsettingly dumb.

this isnt a social issue, to me. if youre going with the genitic definition of race there most certainly IS such a thing. the most obvious genetic difference between many races is skin tone. other genetically influenced traits also vary from "race" to "race," naturally. isolated populations in different environments evolve with different traits. regardless of your definition, dismissing the race concept - that humanity can be usefully divided into groups known as 'races' - is not the same as denying that characteristics vary among different human populations. an important distinction.


What makes "race" a non-biological term is the randomness with which the phenotypic genetic traits are grouped together to create the criteria for race. For instance, we don't associate eye color, oiliness of skin, blood type, nose size, the consistency of ear wax, propensity for baldness, breast size, or any of dozens or even hundreds of different physical characteristics as determinants of race, yet we could easily divide the population into groups based on those characteristics and come up with a name for those "races.".

Instead race is generally, but not always, defined by skin color and to a lesser degree, facial type, eye shape, and the texture and color of hair. However, race definitions tend to be imprecise, usually derived from custom, and vary between cultures.

Consider this: if humans had the olfactory capabilities of dogs we would most likely divide the world of people by smell, rather than skin color. I’m sure we would come up with all kinds of distinctions and observations about people of various odors and perhaps we would even link certain positive and negative social traits with various human odors. The only reason we don’t do this is because, relatively speaking, our ability to smell sucks. Dogs recognize other dogs, not by distinctions in fur color, but by differences in smell. We have made skin color such a major issue that we have a difficult time understanding that alien visitors to our planet might not even notice the differences that are so important to us.

What makes "race" a non-biological term is the randomness with which the phenotypic genetic traits are grouped together to create the criteria for race. For instance, we don't associate eye color, oiliness of skin, blood type, nose size, the consistency of ear wax, propensity for baldness, breast size, or any of dozens or even hundreds of different physical characteristics as determinants of race, yet we could easily divide the population into groups based on those characteristics and come up with a name for those "races.".

Instead race is generally, but not always, defined by skin color and to a lesser degree, facial type, eye shape, and the texture and color of hair. However, race definitions tend to be imprecise, usually derived from custom, and vary between cultures.

Consider this: if humans had the olfactory capabilities of dogs we would most likely divide the world of people by smell, rather than skin color. I’m sure we would come up with all kinds of distinctions and observations about people of various odors and perhaps we would even link certain positive and negative social traits with various human odors. The only reason we don’t do this is because, relatively speaking, our ability to smell sucks. Dogs recognize other dogs, not by distinctions in fur color, but by differences in smell. We have made skin color such a major issue that we have a difficult time understanding that alien visitors to our planet might not even notice the differences that are so important to us.

absolutely. however race is still based in genetic differences, even though we distinguish arbitrarily, paying attention to some traits and ignoring others. no race comes to mind distinguished by non-genetic qualities.

Consider this: if humans had the olfactory capabilities of dogs we would most likely divide the world of people by smell, rather than skin color. I’m sure we would come up with all kinds of distinctions and observations about people of various odors and perhaps we would even link certain positive and negative social traits with various human odors. The only reason we don’t do this is because, relatively speaking, our ability to smell sucks. Dogs recognize other dogs, not by distinctions in fur color, but by differences in smell. We have made skin color such a major issue that we have a difficult time understanding that alien visitors to our planet might not even notice the differences that are so important to us.

What dog told you that? Just because they sniff asses to say hello doesn't mean that they aren't capable of *visually* distinguishing between say, a *cat* or some other potential prey and another dog. Certainly their olfactory sense is superior and is used to identify a number of things when they run into each other...

"How ya doin'? Where you been? Feeling horny? What did you have for dinner last night? Yeah, chuckwagon for me too..."

I'll tell you, most dogs, after tackling ONE skunk, become experts at VISUALLY determining another skunk... although I guess you could argue that there is a olfactory component in play there, too...

And just because there are a ton of different components going into race, doesn't mean that just because we SEEM to rely on the obvious visual ones that we're NOT at least subconciously going by non-visual cues as well.

Every walked into a hot room full of Asians, if you're not an Asian? Or, I suppose, a hot room full of Caucasians, if you're not white?

Smell absolutely plays a part in it, and I'm willing to bet that there are some genetic markers for this, racially speaking, as well. (Beyond just SIMPLY being about diet or other "cultural" factors).

We are diverse and complex, and the more complexity, the less clear an issue like this is going to be. A simple organism like a plant, it is pretty easy and clear to see. You move up to a dog, it becomes a lot more complex. By the time you get to us, wow, you've got a puzzle on your hands.

Just because you've got too many pieces to know what to do with, doesn't change the basic formula here or invalidate the fundamental truth that you can see in the simple ear of corn.

You can hold onto your sacred cows as tight as you like... but the truth is, until we *acknowledge* our differences and speak honestly about them and put them on the table and figure out how to co-exist *with* those differences between us, denial is *never* going to solve the problem.

analmania, you have been generally right. thank you for not being upsettingly dumb.

I try my best, although I'm not always successful. After all, I am *only human*...

:)

What makes "race" a non-biological term is the randomness with which the phenotypic genetic traits are grouped together to create the criteria for race. For instance, we don't associate eye color, oiliness of skin, blood type, nose size, the consistency of ear wax, propensity for baldness, breast size, or any of dozens or even hundreds of different physical characteristics as determinants of race, yet we could easily divide the population into groups based on those characteristics and come up with a name for those "races.".

Instead race is generally, but not always, defined by skin color and to a lesser degree, facial type, eye shape, and the texture and color of hair. However, race definitions tend to be imprecise, usually derived from custom, and vary between cultures.

Consider this: if humans had the olfactory capabilities of dogs we would most likely divide the world of people by smell, rather than skin color. I’m sure we would come up with all kinds of distinctions and observations about people of various odors and perhaps we would even link certain positive and negative social traits with various human odors. The only reason we don’t do this is because, relatively speaking, our ability to smell sucks. Dogs recognize other dogs, not by distinctions in fur color, but by differences in smell. We have made skin color such a major issue that we have a difficult time understanding that alien visitors to our planet might not even notice the differences that are so important to us.

In addition to the choice of arbitrary traits, the dividing lines are completely arbitrary. One might also note the complete lack of agreement amongst the "experts" on race as to the division of races and their exact traits. You will not find this arbitrainess and complete lack of agreement among biologist's taxonomies.

(Oh, and the last time this came up, I asked for a citation of a reputable taxon for the races. None was ever provided.)

My father is 'white' and my mother is 'black'. But my mother has white blood in her and my maternal grandfather was half Cherokee, so I don't know where the hell that puts me in terms of race.

What our conception of race ignores is a certain thing called hue. Yes there are physical differences, and in some regions of the world these characteristics are accentuated. But what about people like me who exist in a state of racial limbo? I go to India and everybody there thinks I'm Indian. I go to Egypt and everybody mistakes me for an Egyptian. And here in America I'm simply what Anglosaxons refer to as 'black'. If I can be separate races at once, then there must be something wrong with the definition we all use for race.

I'd rather that race didn't exist, because then people would stop asking me if I was adopted when they see me in public with my Scotch-Irish father. Look at the nose, the hair, the overall physical demeanour, and you'd see that I'm unmistakably his son!





PS. I never did understand how Nazis thought that European Jews and Slavs constituted separate racial groups from the rest of Europeans. Here in America there are no such racial definitions. Jews and Russians fall under the all-encompassing label of "white people".

PS. I never did understand how Nazis thought that European Jews and Slavs constituted separate racial groups from the rest of Europeans. Here in America there are no such racial definitions. Jews and Russians fall under the all-encompassing label of "white people".[/B][/COLOR][/SIZE]


Ask a white supremist, an African American, or an Arab if Jews fall under the "all-encompassing label" of "white-people"... Even among a lot of blacks, you'll get,

"No, Jews look white, but they're different..."

I think it has something to do with our skulls. :)

What dog told you that? Just because they sniff asses to say hello doesn't mean that they aren't capable of *visually* distinguishing between say, a *cat* or some other potential prey and another dog.

I said dogs rely on smell over color, whereas humans rarely use smell in classifying people. I need no dog to tell me this. Dogs are red-green color blind. They lack the cones in the eye to detect color as humans do. They see a brighter and less detailed world than do humans. Dogs also have about 25 times the olfactory sense ability of humans. They can smell a large number of odors that we can't detect at all (if we had the olfactory sense ability of dogs I guarantee there would be less infidelity in the world).

I fear you focused on minutia and missed the entire point of my post.

I think what he's getting at is the idea that since people of different ethnicities can interbreed, and since their offspring will not neccessarily be of either race, race should not be considered as fixed is perhaps it is in society.

Where do you draw the line between someone who's white and someone who's black? There's plenty of middle ground. What if someone's family were mostly of african origin but there was sufficient european blood in them to make their race less certain?

Race is a legitamate categorization. All be it can be a little difficult to categorize people, but there are certain types of people who are different from eachother on a physical and biological level. Between Caucasians and Negroids there are some biologoical differences that have their bodies operate slightly differently, and this goes across the board.

And as far as Jews and Slavs being separate races, the Jews particularly are distinct from the rest of the European populations. The Slavs is a little more of a stretch but the Jews came from an entirely different section of the world and had obvious physical differences originally. Over centuries of miscegenation, it became harder to tell but it was still fairly obvious. Just from looking at a person, I can tell pretty easily if they have some kind of Jewish ancestry.

Race exists just as real as there is a difference between a poodle and a german shepard. Yet we all should be treated equally. The only place it really has in government is for medical records, police descriptions, and statistics.

I fear you focused on minutia and missed the entire point of my post.

I think the same could be said of you and my post.

It seems that subtle and wry humor and wit may be lost on you...

Let me summarize, then...

"We can split hairs to the atomic level, if we want... the core concepts of the argument I presented remain unchanged..."

Race was rumoured to have been the 'code name' for the top level agent or agents that protected the scientists working on the most secret of secret science, or 'super-science' projects across the globe, codenamed "Quest." The agents whose job it was to 'accidently' activate this science from the theorotical(sp) to the applied where codenamed "Johnny." This was in close co-operation with eastern allies, codenamed "Haji"'s. But if you where to ask a government official today they would assure you that Race does not exist.
Nothing?

Not Johnny Quest fans?

Nothing?

Not Johnny Quest fans?

That one zipped right over my head.
I thought you seriously were trying to say that.

Race is a legitamate categorization. All be it can be a little difficult to categorize people, but there are certain types of people who are different from eachother on a physical and biological level. Between Caucasians and Negroids there are some biologoical differences that have their bodies operate slightly differently, and this goes across the board.

And as far as Jews and Slavs being separate races, the Jews particularly are distinct from the rest of the European populations. The Slavs is a little more of a stretch but the Jews came from an entirely different section of the world and had obvious physical differences originally. Over centuries of miscegenation, it became harder to tell but it was still fairly obvious. Just from looking at a person, I can tell pretty easily if they have some kind of Jewish ancestry.

Race exists just as real as there is a difference between a poodle and a german shepard. Yet we all should be treated equally. The only place it really has in government is for medical records, police descriptions, and statistics.

Go back and read some of the posts in this thread and you may change your mind. Very little of what you have said has any scientific merit.

That one zipped right over my head.
I thought you seriously were trying to say that.
I can live with that.

In addition to the choice of arbitrary traits, the dividing lines are completely arbitrary. One might also note the complete lack of agreement amongst the "experts" on race as to the division of races and their exact traits. You will not find this arbitrainess and complete lack of agreement among biologist's taxonomies.

true. as humans, we mix genes thoroughly (likely a defense against virii, etc.) more. i do not assert the race:human/breed:dog analogy. the line is fuzzy because it comes in continuous gradations, not discontinous sects. the human/dog comparison would be more logical if dogs were interbred as thoroughly as us humans have been. then youd have muddy spectrum for every genetic trait, more like we do.

(Oh, and the last time this came up, I asked for a citation of a reputable taxon for the races. None was ever provided.)

in fact, i would insist there is no such thing. does it matter if people agree? race is a particular group. given a different set of circumstances and observers the groups would probably be different. im just trying to point out that there are in fact differences.

What our conception of race ignores is a certain thing called hue. Yes there are physical differences, and in some regions of the world these characteristics are accentuated. But what about people like me who exist in a state of racial limbo? I go to India and everybody there thinks I'm Indian. I go to Egypt and everybody mistakes me for an Egyptian. And here in America I'm simply what Anglosaxons refer to as 'black'. If I can be separate races at once, then there must be something wrong with the definition we all use for race.

:headbang: Not really. I mean, I can have a dog that's half german shepard half lab and that doesn't make their breeds any less real. There nothing wrong with the definition of breeds for dogs, and essentially race is the same thing in people.

And as far as people of mixed races, up until about 50 years ago they had specific names for them. Its only recently that we've sort of dropped their usage because we try to look beyond color.

Some of the generic ones were Mulattos (1/2 black, 1/2 white), Quadroons (1/4 black, 3/4 White), Octroons (1/8 black, 7/8 white), Mustifs (1/16 black, 15/16 White), Mustifos (1/32 black, 31/32 White). There were also a variety of names for persons of black and further mixed ancestry like Sambos (partially black, partially mullatto.) et...

Yes it exits. No it does not make anyone better than anyone else. We are all humans, and we are all equal.

:headbang: Not really. I mean, I can have a dog that's half german shepard half lab and that doesn't make their breeds any less real. There nothing wrong with the definition of breeds for dogs, and essentially race is the same thing in people.

Man... that headbanging icon is SO appropriate for this thread...

It seems that subtle and wry humor and wit may be lost on you...

Perhaps you are correct. Or it may be that Don Pedro's comment about Dogberry in Much Ado About Nothing applies to your subtle and wry humor: "this learned constable is too cunning to be understood."

Man... that headbanging icon is SO appropriate for this thread...
A) I wanted to use a smiley cuz I have yet to do so.

B) Saying the whole system of determining peoples race is essentially flawed is kind of an ignorant thing to say. Race is a broad term, but there are 3 types of mankind with varying degrees of certain physical and biological characteristics.

:headbang: Haha, I did it again.

I have yet to read a single post supporting the idea of the existence of race that contains any scientific basis for that claim. Each person seems to come in and say the same thing: "we all look different so there must be races."

The most basic, fundamental understanding of high school biology shows there is no such thing as race (or dog breeds), outside of an arbitrary, inexact cultural creation. And even that differs from one culture to the next.

:headbang: Not really. I mean, I can have a dog that's half german shepard half lab and that doesn't make their breeds any less real. There nothing wrong with the definition of breeds for dogs, and essentially race is the same thing in people.

Whoa! A guy named Adolf Hitler uttered those EXACT same words in one of the Nazi Propaganda flicks in the 1930s. I kid you not. Freaky...

And btw the racial labels you are using are South-American labels. That's the system Brazil uses when you are asked to identify your race. In North America it's "Black, White, American Indian, Asian-Pacific, Other" and in France it's "French, North African, Slavic, etc". I go to France and racially I'm a North African.

And in Japan they list Korean, Chinese and Japanese as separate racial entities (????). All my Japanese friends claim you can tell the difference at first glance, but I think that's horse shit.

Slice the fruit however you see fit, and make racial definitions as compulsive as you'd like. Just don't expect other people to buy into it. Most people would just get bored trying to figure out what race they were.

I have yet to read a single post supporting the idea of the existence of race that contains any scientific basis for that claim. Each person seems to come in and say the same thing: "we all look different so there must be races."

The most basic, fundamental understanding of high school biology shows there is no such thing as race (or dog breeds), outside of an arbitrary, inexact cultural creation. And even that differs from one culture to the next.

Dog breeds look different, and have different genitic problems arise, but they are still the same species (can reproduce and have fertile offspring (even across breeds)) Same with the races in humans. For example black africans are more prone to sickle cell anemian.

Race exists, it's just socially constructed. ;-)

Dog breeds look different, and have different genitic problems arise, but they are still the same species (can reproduce and have fertile offspring (even across breeds)) Same with the races in humans. For example black africans are more prone to sickle cell anemian.

Correction: West Coast Sub-Saharan Africans have Sickle-Cell Anemia. You couldn't find me one Ethiopian or Kenyan with the disease. And all you have to do is take a good look in order to see that Somalians, Bantus, North Africans and Koisans(South Africa) are different "breeds" as you are so fond of putting it.

And please don't tell me you think hairy-ass, dark-skinned Tibetan Shirpas are in the same racial category as Manchurians who haven't a hair on their body.

Dog breeds look different, and have different genitic problems arise, but they are still the same species (can reproduce and have fertile offspring (even across breeds)) Same with the races in humans. For example black africans are more prone to sickle cell anemian.

Yes, if you arbitrarily group people together based on a certain trait you will begin to find other similarities and trends within the group. This applies to ethnic and national groups, fans of specific sports teams, or devotees of music styles. However, the fact that we can arbitrarily divide up the human race in an infinite number of groupings doesn't change the fact that those groupings are entirely cultural and have no basis in biological reality.

Perhaps you are correct. Or it may be that Don Pedro's comment about Dogberry in Much Ado About Nothing applies to your subtle and wry humor: "this learned constable is too cunning to be understood."

Heh... nice response.

I have yet to read a single post supporting the idea of the existence of race that contains any scientific basis for that claim. Each person seems to come in and say the same thing: "we all look different so there must be races."

The most basic, fundamental understanding of high school biology shows there is no such thing as race (or dog breeds), outside of an arbitrary, inexact cultural creation. And even that differs from one culture to the next.

I have yet to see any concrete evidence that DISPROVES the theory or confirms it, one way or the other... from either side of this debate. I've seen politically correct wiggle-talk that *claims*, without real substantiation, that there is no valid proof of biological/genetic racial difference. But, again, at one time, there was no valid proof of the fact that the Earth is round, is not the center of the Universe, or even, gasp, the center of the solar system...

And I maintain, that applying the scientific method correctly, we must therefore accept that there is a perponderance of evidence that suggests that although we do not have a complete understanding of race as a biological/genetic function, it still is likely to exist and we see manifest examples of the role it plays in the evolutionary process of all life on Earth as we know it.

I have yet to see any concrete evidence that DISPROVES the theory or confirms it, one way or the other... from either side of this debate. I've seen politically correct wiggle-talk that *claims*, without real substantiation, that there is no valid proof of biological/genetic racial difference. But, again, at one time, there was no valid proof of the fact that the Earth is round, is not the center of the Universe, or even, gasp, the center of the solar system...

And I maintain, that applying the scientific method correctly, we must therefore accept that there is a perponderance of evidence that suggests that although we do not have a complete understanding of race as a biological/genetic function, it still is likely to exist and we see manifest examples of the role it plays in the evolutionary process of all life on Earth as we know it.

Really? Perhaps you can provide a taxon for the various "races" and describe the points of division between each.

If you have not seen the scientific explanation why race does not exist in biology then you have not been reading the posts. There is nothing politically correct (I don't even know what that term means) about biology.

Correction: West Coast Sub-Saharan Africans have Sickle-Cell Anemia. You couldn't find me one Ethiopian or Kenyan with the disease. And all you have to do is take a good look in order to see that Somalians, Bantus, North Africans and Koisans(South Africa) are different "breeds" as you are so fond of putting it.

And please don't tell me you think hairy-ass, dark-skinned Tibetan Shirpas are in the same racial category as Manchurians who haven't a hair on their body.

It was a generalization. I never said race was limited to those that are commonly consedired by our culture to be a race. Asians can tell the difference at a glance between those from asian areas that we think have a populace that looks the same.

Race exists, it's just socially constructed. ;-)

I'll buy that, although there is some backing to it.

Yes, if you arbitrarily group people together based on a certain trait you will begin to find other similarities and trends within the group. This applies to ethnic and national groups, fans of specific sports teams, or devotees of music styles. However, the fact that we can arbitrarily divide up the human race in an infinite number of groupings doesn't change the fact that those groupings are entirely cultural and have no basis in biological reality.

Stop trying to split hairs and dodge what the guy is saying. Genetic susceptibility to certain diseases is an absolutely BIOLOGICAL classification of genetic markers, whereas taste in music, or involvement with particular sports teams, is far less clearly related to biological classification. I'm not going to argue that the former two are absolutely NOT related to biological function of some sort that we do not understand. I mean, going back to olfactory triggers, we're just now beginning to understand the role pheremones may play in human sexuality. So being a jug-head pro-sports face-painting fan MAY be influenced by genetics... But clearly that is a stretch, where disease (Sickle Cell in Blacks... there is something Jews are highly susceptible to as well....) is not.

And, there we go again. If you are of Hebrew descent, they *test* your children for susceptibility to this particular disease. I kid you not. Maybe there is a "real" Jew watching the thread that can help me out here. How is this *not* a *racial* classification that says, "This group of people is biologically and genetically DIFFERENT from all other people"? Just *becoming* a Jew, you know, converting, doesn't suddenly make you susceptible to this disease. It isn't something you pick up from the Rabbi or in the dust in the Temple. You've got to have the genetic makeup of a Jew in your heritage.

Race. Period. End of story.

Stop trying to split hairs and dodge what the guy is saying. Genetic susceptibility to certain diseases is an absolutely BIOLOGICAL classification of genetic markers, whereas taste in music, or involvement with particular sports teams, is far less clearly related to biological classification. I'm not going to argue that the former two are absolutely NOT related to biological function of some sort that we do not understand. I mean, going back to olfactory triggers, we're just now beginning to understand the role pheremones may play in human sexuality. So being a jug-head pro-sports face-painting fan MAY be influenced by genetics... But clearly that is a stretch, where disease (Sickle Cell in Blacks... there is something Jews are highly susceptible to as well....) is not.

And, there we go again. If you are of Hebrew descent, they *test* your children for susceptibility to this particular disease. I kid you not. Maybe there is a "real" Jew watching the thread that can help me out here. How is this *not* a *racial* classification that says, "This group of people is biologically and genetically DIFFERENT from all other people"? Just *becoming* a Jew, you know, converting, doesn't suddenly make you susceptible to this disease. It isn't something you pick up from the Rabbi or in the dust in the Temple. You've got to have the genetic makeup of a Jew in your heritage.

Race. Period. End of story.

The fact there are genetic differences in humans is not an indication of race. Yes, there are tendencies within certain groups. However, there are more genetic variations WITHIN "races" than there are BETWEEN "races."

Are you claiming Jews are a race? Tell me, how many "races" are there and how does one tell one from another?

*By the way, most babies born with Tay-Sachs in North America at present are not from Jewish families, despite stereotypes to contrary.

I think what he's getting at is the idea that since people of different ethnicities can interbreed, and since their offspring will not neccessarily be of either race, race should not be considered as fixed is perhaps it is in society.

Where do you draw the line between someone who's white and someone who's black? There's plenty of middle ground. What if someone's family were mostly of african origin but there was sufficient european blood in them to make their race less certain?

So I think what he's saying is that perhaps people shouldn't be considered to be of any one particular race.

It's a fair point, but I'm not completely sure on this. People clearly do come from different ethnic backgrounds. But in a free society, race should have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on what you can or can't do, so it shouldn't really be of concern.

Exactly. Race is a physical adaptation to the environment in which you live, or rather, since that happens over an extended period of time, where your ancestors lived. But, I don't think it should be of any real concern. It exists, but frankly, who cares.

So they say there are more 'simularities' between a white person and say a Nigerian, well guess what... There are also more 'simularities' between any person and a banana, than their own brother!

So I guess I should go out and start preaching equality for bananas now... :rolleyes:

Ok, the level of scientific illiteracy has reached critical mass.

Good night all.

Race, as it is used in the case of humans, is an artificial social construct...

All humans on the planet are in the same actual race... There is not enough genetic variation to classify them into seperate races. Even dog breeds are non-comparitive... There is more generic differentiation between a German Shepherd and a Huskie than there is between those of Caucasian and those of African descent...

Race, as it is used in the case of humans, is an artificial social construct...

All humans on the planet are in the same actual race... There is not enough genetic variation to classify them into seperate races. Even dog breeds are non-comparitive... There is more generic differentiation between a German Shepherd and a Huskie than there is between those of Caucasian and those of African descent...

I'm in no way trying to disprove what you have to say, but, you should really take a look at my dog.

Race, as it is used in the case of humans, is an artificial social construct...

All humans on the planet are in the same actual race... There is not enough genetic variation to classify them into seperate races. Even dog breeds are non-comparitive... There is more generic differentiation between a German Shepherd and a Huskie than there is between those of Caucasian and those of African descent...
The same Species perhaps but the same race is pushing it quite far...

Race is simply the variation within a given species. There is no such thing as a "white race," "black race," "asian race," or whatever skin colored race you want to use. Race is simply a geographical/genetic difference identity. It is like the difference between a Timber Wolf and Black Wolf. Both are of the same species, but they are of different race. Hence, race does exist, but not in the way that most people think it does.

So they say there are more 'simularities' between a white person and say a Nigerian, well guess what... There are also more 'simularities' between any person and a banana, than their own brother!

So I guess I should go out and start preaching equality for bananas now... :rolleyes:

Wow man. Ummmm... you are weird.

*eats a banana* (and thourogly enjoys the anguish of his fruitopian brother*

Race, as it is used in the case of humans, is an artificial social construct...

All humans on the planet are in the same actual race... There is not enough genetic variation to classify them into seperate races. Even dog breeds are non-comparitive... There is more generic differentiation between a German Shepherd and a Huskie than there is between those of Caucasian and those of African descent...

Dog breeds are comparative I ask you this: if you were sledding though the arctic tundra would you rather have a huskie or a poodle?

The only difference is that breeds are human selected while races are due to natural section and the environment.

*By the way, most babies born with Tay-Sachs in North America at present are not from Jewish families, despite stereotypes to contrary.

Then why do Doctors do genetic screening on Jewish fetuses exclusively?

Aren't Doctors "scientists"? Isn't it "Medical Science"...

I sure hope it isn't an art...

At least you're addressing the issues somewhat consistently, rather than *only* banding the same "Genetic differences within 'races' are larger than genetic differences OUTSIDE of the same race"... argument while avoiding addressing any of these counter-claims that use logic and reason and common sense and critical thinking to show the falsehood of your arguments.

That is like the "second hand smoke is worse than first hand smoke" argument among non-smokers.

How does that PC logic work? In the 2nd hand smoke case... let's think about that...

"The smoker is getting the first hand smoke, AND the second hand smoke, so he is getting smoke, then getting smoke that is even WORSE for him... the non smoker is only getting the 2nd hand smoke... now WHO is getting it worse?!?"

Critical thinking... it ain't hard... The next time I hear someone say, "second hand smoke is worse for a non-smoker than a smoker" I'm going to smack them upside the head. The smoker is ALWAYS around second hand smoke, all day, and the second hand smoke is in ADDITION to the regular smoke they inhale. How is it possible that the second hand smoke selectively targets the non-smoker and is worse for them?!?

Take the same basic logic for the second hand smoke argument, and apply it to this "more variation INSIDE a similar race than OUTSIDE of it" argument...

Politically correct spin-masters... use your *brains*, for God's sake...

Goodnight...

I'm in no way trying to disprove what you have to say, but, you should really take a look at my dog.

Perception can be deceiving... Humans can only identify less than 1% of the total contents of their surroundings with their natural senses of sight, smell, and sound...

The differentiation between genetic subspecies is about 20%... That is, within a species, each subspecies shares 80% of the same genetic code...

Donkey's and Horses share about 90% of their genetic code...

Humans and Chimpanzees share about 98% of the same genetic code..

Individual dog breeds share about 99.11% to 99.53% of the same genetic code....

Humans, between each other, share between 99.87% to 99.91% of the same genetic code...

Can't resist one last remark.

As evidence of how culturally subjective and imprecise the whole concept of race is take a look at Brazil. At least 500 racial categories have been documented in Brazil. There it is possible for children of the same parents to be classified as different races if they look different (whereas in Japan people that look biologically identical can be considered different races).

A "white" person in the United States could be labeled several different races in Brazil: branco (white), claro (light), louro (blond), sarara (light skinned red-headed), or mulato claro (light mulatto).

Race does exist, but only as a subjective cultural creation, not a series of biological categories with clearly deliniated taxons.

And, characteristics are less from DNA drift, but from the ammount of code available for differentiation... More chromosomes, more variables available for characteristic differences... Though characteristics play little part in actual SPECIAL classification...

Canines have 78 Chromosomes

Humans have 46... There is far more possible combinations of characteristic variation between Canines than Humans.

Define race?

Differences between Race of Humans, such as intelligence, crime, disease, brain size, physical appearances etc.

The answer is Yes!

Race exists not only scientifically but also in culture differences

Define race, then we can talk.

Bottom line is its all relative.

Taken from dictionary.com:

Race:
# A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics.
# A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the German race.
# A genealogical line; a lineage.
# Humans considered as a group.
# Biology.
1. An interbreeding, usually geographically isolated population of organisms differing from other populations of the same species in the frequency of hereditary traits. A race that has been given formal taxonomic recognition is known as a subspecies.
2. A breed or strain, as of domestic animals.

Race is a biological term denoting individuals of the same species different in phenotypical characteristica (appearance). The definition of them being of the same species is that they are capable of producing offspring capable of producing offspring also capable of reproduction.
This applies to humans as it applies to dogs, bugs, cows, and fish. But that's all there is to it, no more, no less.

Race is a biological term denoting individuals of the same species different in phenotypical characteristica (appearance). The definition of them being of the same species is that they are capable of producing offspring capable of producing offspring also capable of reproduction.
This applies to humans as it applies to dogs, bugs, cows, and fish. But that's all there is to it, no more, no less.

No, race is a cultural term, not biological.

Race is not a genuine concept. It is important to remember that human beings share more than 99% of the same genetic information. The "appearance" differences among us are attributable to climatological factors and the attendant biological acclimation.

Race is only used as a convenient---and dangerous---means of sociological categorization. Why it is important to ascertain how many pink, brown, red-brown, white, etc humans there are in a given geographic location is still something I can't quite appreciate or understand.

Perhaps a few of the more.....opinionated?.....members of this forum can enlighten us.

This biological acclimation attendant on climatological factors is called "evolution" and it does differentiate the races. There are three basic races - caucasoid, negroid and mongoloid. There are many people whose genetic makeup contains elements of more than one of these basic races, and within and between these basic races are many fluid and merging subdivisions.

You may not see the value of categorisation by race, but it is useful in eg medicine, where some races are more prone to certain illnesses or allergies than others. This is NOT a sociological categorisation except where the epidemiology is ued for sociographic purposes. I expect that a lot of people whose illnesses are quickly diagnosed based on their race are very happy about this.

No, race is a cultural term, not biological.

No, race is a biological term. The cultural analogue of race is, surprisingly, "culture".

Thus 10 people of the same race can have 10 different cultures, and 10 people of different races can have the same culture.

No, race is a biological term. The cultural analogue of race is, surprisingly, "culture".

Thus 10 people of the same race can have 10 different cultures, and 10 people of different races can have the same culture.
so yes. if you want, there's a race 'humans'. but everything else is not biological.

so yes. if you want, there's a race 'humans'. but everything else is not biological.

if negroid, caucasoid and mongoloid aren't races, what are they?

if negroid, caucasoid and mongoloid aren't races, what are they?
cultural constructs :)

cultural constructs :)
seriously? the colour of my skin is a cultural construct? if i was in a different culture, would the colour of my skin be different?

seriously? the colour of my skin is a cultural construct? if i was in a different culture, would the colour of my skin be different?
:) no, of course not. but only a tiny proportion of the genetic variation in the world is related to what is conventionally thought of as racial variations.

The classification of humanity into races, based on physical apprearance, is arbitrary.

seriously? the colour of my skin is a cultural construct? if i was in a different culture, would the colour of my skin be different?

Why do you assume the color of skin determines race?

Why do you assume the color of skin determines race?
because that is what most people think of when they talk about races.

No, race is a biological term. The cultural analogue of race is, surprisingly, "culture".


Really? Then tell me what is the taxon of the various races and how does one tell what "race" one belongs to?

because that is what most people think of when they talk about races.

Right! What most people think. It is entirely arbitrary and culturally related. As previously posted:

As evidence of how culturally subjective and imprecise the whole concept of race is take a look at Brazil. At least 500 racial categories have been documented in Brazil. There it is possible for children of the same parents to be classified as different races if they look different (whereas in Japan people that look biologically identical can be considered different races).

A "white" person in the United States could be labeled several different races in Brazil: branco (white), claro (light), louro (blond), sarara (light skinned red-headed), or mulato claro (light mulatto).

Race does exist, but only as a subjective cultural creation, not a series of biological categories with clearly deliniated taxons.

Really? Then tell me what is the taxon of the various races and how does one tell what "race" one belongs to?
hey, relax! before we can start debating 'races' we need to define what we understand when we talk about race. say one person believes that race means physical features, and another takes 'race' as an ideology, then there's no point arguing whether race is a biological category or not. and there's no point in getting angry at the other person, either ;)

:) no, of course not. but only a tiny proportion of the genetic variation in the world is related to what is conventionally thought of as racial variations.

The classification of humanity into races, based on physical apprearance, is arbitrary.

Imagining that you are correct about the "tiny proportion" part, that still exists and that is still race, whatever you may think is conventionally thought of as racial variation.

All classification is arbitrary. Language is a sociocultural construct so all words are cultural constructs so all classifications by words are cultural constructs. These constructs are more useful when they more accurately model more widely shared subjective experience of the world. The classification of human races models humanity's shared experience of being different colours, having or not having an epicanthic fold, being prone to thalassaemia. And it is reflected in the human genome. Given that we share some 95% of our genetic material with chimps, only a very tiny tiny set of genetic variations accounts for racial difference.

Why do you assume the color of skin determines race?
Why do you assume that I assume that the colour of skin determines race?
I don't assume that at all. I do assume that racial genetic variations often determine colour of skin.

... only a very tiny tiny set of genetic variations accounts for racial difference.
i looked it up: "to begin with, all humans have about 99.8% of their genes in common. of the remaining 0.2%, 85% can be found withing any ethnic group, and 'racial' differences account for only 9% or 0.2%, which is 0.012% difference in genetic material." (Thomas Hylland Eriksen)

hey, relax! before we can start debating 'races' we need to define what we understand when we talk about race. say one person believes that race means physical features, and another takes 'race' as an ideology, then there's no point arguing whether race is a biological category or not. and there's no point in getting angry at the other person, either ;)

There is probably no need for lectures either. You are reading words on a screen with absolutely no way to determine the emotional content of my phrases. If you are reading stress or anger into my words that may say more about your own emotional state than mine.

i looked it up: "to begin with, all humans have about 99.8% of their genes in common. of the remaining 0.2%, 85% can be found withing any ethnic group, and 'racial' differences account for only 9% or 0.2%, which is 0.012% difference in genetic material." (Thomas Hylland Eriksen)

...and that said, there is more genetic variation WITHIN the same "race" than there is BETWEEN different "races."

There is probably no need for lectures either. You are reading words on a screen with absolutely no way to determine the emotional content of my phrases. If you are reading stress or anger into my words that may say more about your own emotional state than mine.
Didn't mean to offend you, but imo you replied to comments in a way that implies you think others don't know what they're talking about.

I guess they'll have to coin a new term for "racism" if race doesn't exist then. Any suggestions?

Originist? Ethnicisist? Skinist? Colourist?. . .

Maybe the 1% difference is enough.

Why do you assume that I assume that the colour of skin determines race?

I don't know how I could have made that mistake.

seriously? the colour of my skin is a cultural construct? if i was in a different culture, would the colour of my skin be different?

Didn't mean to offend you, but imo you replied to comments in a way that implies you think others don't know what they're talking about.

Why? Because I do know what I'm talking about?

Why? Because I do know what I'm talking about?
and i don't?
have you noticed that we've been arguing on the same side of the discussion?

I don't know how I could have made that mistake.
You made it by not understanding causality, or english.

Didn't mean to offend you, but imo you replied to comments in a way that implies you think others don't know what they're talking about.

People seem to assume if we acknowledge that race is something we have created, culturally, based upon our random selection of a very narrow group of genetic traits that somehow means things like skin color do not exist. All I am saying is that from a biological point of view race is a term with no precise biological meaning.

It doesn't mean there is no racism. It doesn't mean we stop using the term. It just means for reasons reflecting our own cultural obsession with the melanin content of people's skin we have divided the human race into categories that are not scientific.

You made it by not understanding causality, or english.

My mistake then. Tell me, what determines if a person is negroid, caucasoid or mongoloid?

I guess if I spend too much time in the sun, with my Cajun ancestral blood kicking in, I would change races miraculously...

and i don't?
have you noticed that we've been arguing on the same side of the discussion?

I didn't notice that we were arguing at all.

All I am saying is that from a biological point of view race is a term with no precise biological meaning.

In fact what you are saying is that the individually classified races, however many people classify, from the three basic races to the however many someone just said there are classified in brazil, aren't yet recorded in terms of genetic variation, ie no-one has listed all the variants in all the genes for any given race. This doesn't mean that no-one ever will. Nor does it mean that racial categorisation is useless.

My mistake then. Tell me, what determines if a person is negroid, caucasoid or mongoloid?
There are specific genetic characterstics, of which any given person may have some, or none, from each group.

In fact what you are saying is that the individually classified races, however many people classify, from the three basic races to the however many someone just said there are classified in brazil, aren't yet recorded in terms of genetic variation, ie no-one has listed all the variants in all the genes for any given race. This doesn't mean that no-one ever will. Nor does it mean that racial categorisation is useless.


You are right, I must not understand English. Because to me it looks like you are saying:

1) we have these scientific categories of people,
2) but there are no actual characteristics defining these categories,
3) but the categories do exist, even though no one really knows what they are.

havent read the whole discussion, but i'd say races don't exist.

There are differences between people: haircolour, eyecolour, skincolour, bodylength, shape of the nose etc. But why should we take these differences together and give them a lable? Why don't we leave them for what they are, differences between seperate bodyparts.

Quite randomly we've selected skincolour as the most important difference, but why is the colour of the skin more important then the colour of the hair? We'd have a red-haired race, a brunette race. Those 'hair-defined races' would have no territorial base, but for the rest I see no difference with the usual skin-defined races. Just to show how silly the concept is.

havent read the whole discussion, but i'd say races don't exist.

There are differences between people: haircolour, eyecolour, skincolour, bodylength, shape of the nose etc. But why should we take these differences together and give them a lable? Why don't we leave them for what they are, differences between seperate bodyparts.

Quite randomly we've selected skincolour as the most important difference, but why is the colour of the skin more important then the colour of the hair? We'd have a red-haired race, a brunette race. Those 'hair-defined races' would have no territorial base, but for the rest I see no difference with the usual skin-defined races. Just to show how silly the concept is.

Excellent points.

Remember that story in the bible about the band of people who wanted to build a staircase up to heaven? God didn't want them to, but they didn't listen. So, God made them all speak different languages so they couldn't communicate and finish the job. :headbang: Therefore, they moved to different areas of the known world with people who spoke the same language as them. (countries) I wonder what would happen if you were to take a caucasian and put him or her on the equator what he or she would look like in a year or two. I think he or she would look very latin american...don't you? Race is just a way of describing people. It wasn't intended to classify humans into groups of similar beings. You can compare race to the medieval castes. Nobles were nobles, peasents were peasents. There was nothing that anyone would or could do about it. It's just the way that people were back then.

You are right, I must not understand English. Because to me it looks like you are saying:

1) we have these scientific categories of people,
2) but there are no actual characteristics defining these categories,
3) but the categories do exist, even though no one really knows what they are.

That's pretty much how the language of scientific categorisation works. Check out the characterisations of breeds of dog. Luxuriate in their various subjectivity and arbitrariness, then tell me there is no such thing as a dalmatian.

Do you think that when black holes were first observed, and no-one knew what they were, that they didn't exist? Do you think that now we still don't actually know what they are (although we have a pretty good, testable hypothesis) that they still don't exist?

Race is just a way of describing people. It wasn't intended to classify humans into groups of similar beings.

That is precisely what it was intended for. The term was first coined in the 17th century and has been used since not only to classify people, but also to assert that certain "races" are superior to others. The concept of race has been used to defend ethnic nationalism, to justify enslavement, as a pseudo-scientific argument for extermination camps, and to rationalize ethnic cleansing.

One of Hitler's favorite sayings was "Politics is applied biology" (while he may have been a masterful politician, he knew shit about biology).

That's pretty much how the language of scientific categorisation works. Check out the characterisations of breeds of dog. Luxuriate in their various subjectivity and arbitrariness, then tell me there is no such thing as a dalmatian.

No, I'm afraid that is not how scientific categorization works. However, I have neither the time nor the inclination to give you a tutorial in biology 101. I suggest you go back and read your Aristotle for the fundamentals.

Your point about dog breeds is a good one, though. Dog breeds also are no more biologically justified than are human "races." They too are simply a cultural construct with no real basis in genetics. From a biological point of view a dog is a dog is a dog (to paraphrase Gertrude Stein).

Many of the classifications for identification of seperate "racial groups" amongst humans, have pointed to some extremely minor differences...

1. Certain "racial groups" are mor susceptibile to certain generic diseases and enviromental causalities:

Most of the time citing examples of Kidney disease and Heart disease in higher proportion amongst those of negriod descent. Other examples include the increased cases of genetic deformative and functional disease amongst Caucasians, including, Grave's Disease, Turner's Syndrom, and Parkinsons in much higher proportions; Mongoloids and Australoids show susceptibility to Cystic Fibrosis and Sickle-Cell Anemia in larger proportions...

Of course, such susceptibilities is not inately refferences to inferiority. As they are not confined to the group classification. Merely exist in higher proportions than within other group classifications. American Caucasians from Germanic or Brythic descent show massive susceptibility to heart-disease and high blood-pressure than caucasians of Acadian and French descent.

2. Differentiation in brain mass/body mass ratios, and relative IQ mean differences between "racial group classifications":

On average, "racial group classifications" have shown disparaging IQ means. Negroids showing a relatively lower mean IQ (80), and in association a slightly smaller brain/mass to body/mass... Mongoloids on the other hand possess the highest mean IQ (120) and associated higher brain mass... With Caucasians in the center (100).

Though, once again this is poor study, and in no way is indicative to inferiority. Negroids possess the highest "reaction rate" to external stimuli. And the mean is not indicative of overall capability, as in any pool, there are individuals which surpass members of the group of the higher mean.

3. Problems with reliance on the criteria to determine differentiation:

Overall, as I discussed previously... Sub-groups within the normative "group racial classifications" show disparaging differentiation in the classifications used for the above criteria... Those of Germanic and Italian descent are as equally likely of suffering Heart Disease as southern african negroids.... While Acadian Caucasians have the lease likely-hood of susceptibility to heart disease....

Overall, humans grouped, categorially, despite race, lacking cerebral dominance genes; show less susceptibility to cancer, and higher brain to body mass. And in fact demonstrate more cerebral and disease susceptibility disparity to those in possession than that which exists between the mean of racial groups (so should "lefties" and the "ambidextrous" be classified as a 'race'?). And as such, it is obvious that the groupings are arbitrary, merely classified in a realm of socially defined 'standards', as opposed to providing much scientific understanding of differing descent of humans.

On average, "racial group classifications" have shown disparaging IQ means. This is because the IQ test was designed with a certain cultural bent in mind. IQ is bunk. Funny how people of certain ethnicities start doing on IQ tests as soon as they are accepted as 'white.' Both race and IQ are social constructs.

There are specific genetic characterstics, of which any given person may have some, or none, from each group.
Oh silly me, a racial group is something that you belong to if you do or not have one or more of a group of characteristics, that being the criteria for inclusion may I ask then what the critiria for not being part of a particular race is?

This is because the IQ test was designed with a certain cultural bent in mind. IQ is bunk. Funny how people of certain ethnicities start doing on IQ tests as soon as they are accepted as 'white.' Both race and IQ are social constructs.

Which I agree with... IQ's increase in relation to relative spatial reasoning... As such, the tests are not measuring the "intelligence" of the person, just how well they are at spatial constructs... And, to my knowledge, spatial reasoning would not constitute raw intelligence... If it were, Ospreys, Eagles and Dolphins would be the most intelligent creatures on the planet... surpassing even us humans in spatial cognative abilities.

Many of the classifications for identification of seperate "racial groups" amongst humans, have pointed to some extremely minor differences...

1. Certain "racial groups" are mor susceptibile to certain generic diseases and enviromental causalities:

Most of the time citing examples of Kidney disease and Heart disease in higher proportion amongst those of negriod descent. Other examples include the increased cases of genetic deformative and functional disease amongst Caucasians, including, Grave's Disease, Turner's Syndrom, and Parkinsons in much higher proportions; Mongoloids and Australoids show susceptibility to Cystic Fibrosis and Sickle-Cell Anemia in larger proportions...

Of course, such susceptibilities is not inately refferences to inferiority. As they are not confined to the group classification. Merely exist in higher proportions than within other group classifications. American Caucasians from Germanic or Brythic descent show massive susceptibility to heart-disease and high blood-pressure than caucasians of Acadian and French descent.

2. Differentiation in brain mass/body mass ratios, and relative IQ mean differences between "racial group classifications":

On average, "racial group classifications" have shown disparaging IQ means. Negroids showing a relatively lower mean IQ (80), and in association a slightly smaller brain/mass to body/mass... Mongoloids on the other hand possess the highest mean IQ (120) and associated higher brain mass... With Caucasians in the center (100).

Though, once again this is poor study, and in no way is indicative to inferiority. Negroids possess the highest "reaction rate" to external stimuli. And the mean is not indicative of overall capability, as in any pool, there are individuals which surpass members of the group of the higher mean.

3. Problems with reliance on the criteria to determine differentiation:

Overall, as I discussed previously... Sub-groups within the normative "group racial classifications" show disparaging differentiation in the classifications used for the above criteria... Those of Germanic and Italian descent are as equally likely of suffering Heart Disease as southern african negroids.... While Acadian Caucasians have the lease likely-hood of susceptibility to heart disease....

Overall, humans grouped, categorially, despite race, lacking cerebral dominance genes; show less susceptibility to cancer, and higher brain to body mass. And in fact demonstrate more cerebral and disease susceptibility disparity to those in possession than that which exists between the mean of racial groups (so should "lefties" and the "ambidextrous" be classified as a 'race'?). And as such, it is obvious that the groupings are arbitrary, merely classified in a realm of socially defined 'standards', as opposed to providing much scientific understanding of differing descent of humans.

Mongoloid? Lol, so you say people from mongolia have an avg. IQ of 120?Ridiculous. If you mean Ashkenazi Jews, which are a mix of german, roman, slavic, magyar, khazar (which doesn't mean mongolian), and pehaps little or no semitic heritage, the mean is somewhere around 115... perhaps a little more.

Black people in America have around 85, not 80. In africa it's much lower. You're disscarding 100% semites (arabs), latin-americans, and others here... And if you mean't Asian with mongoloid, then you're wrong again... Only eastern asians are higher than Caucasians (excluding ashkenazi jews), and that's only by half a standard deviation, 107. (the highest among most asians)

what do you mean by "acadian caucasian" anyway? Weren't acadians the semitic cousins of the semitic summerians?

Which I agree with... IQ's increase in relation to relative spatial reasoning... As such, the tests are not measuring the "intelligence" of the person, just how well they are at spatial constructs... And, to my knowledge, spatial reasoning would not constitute raw intelligence... If it were, Ospreys, Eagles and Dolphins would be the most intelligent creatures on the planet... surpassing even us humans in spatial cognative abilities.

Dolphins DO surpass us. They're disadvantaged in other ways because they have to live underwater, but go to the surface for air, they don't have opposable thumbs (so they can't build tools... yet) and they don't travel around standing up like we do.

Race is an arbitrary construct based on skin color. Different genetic associations and/or lines may exist, creating a variety of groupings, but these are many. Some may be associated with a specific skin color to a certain percent at one end of the skin color sprectrum, but we need to remember it is a spectrum, not either-or. It always amazed me that, here in the US, with all the rapes and mistresses during slavery which resulted in "mixed blood", that, still, a "black" x "white" offspring should automatically become "black", when, genetically, that individual is certainly more "white".

are there genetic lines, resulting in complex ethnicities? certainly.
can these be separated into "races"? No.

What "race" are native americans, the Inuit of Canada and the residents of northeast Russia? They certainly are genetically similar.

What "race" are the dark hindus of India, the 7-ft tall Masai, the original natives of Australia, and the Fore of New Guinea? They are all dark-skinned, hence "black", but far more different genetically than "white" americans and "african-americans".

Mongoloid? Lol, so you say people from mongolia have an avg. IQ of 120?Ridiculous. If you mean Ashkenazi Jews, which are a mix of german, roman, slavic, magyar, khazar (which doesn't mean mongolian), and pehaps little or no semitic heritage, the mean is somewhere around 115... perhaps a little more.

I mean mongoloids... Asiatic peoples... the entire average mean IQ is 120 according to the 1970 study.


Black people in America have around 85, not 80. In africa it's much lower. You're disscarding 100% semites (arabs), latin-americans, and others here... And if you mean't Asian with mongoloid, then you're wrong again... Only eastern asians are higher than Caucasians (excluding ashkenazi jews), and that's only by half a standard deviation, 107. (the highest among most asians)


My goal was not to count in every group-classification, but merely the problem with associative characterization of group classifications as a means of continuing social disparity between those falling in the groups. (Sic. My refferences to other sub-group/cultures and other gene differentiations globaly across the human race).


what do you mean by "acadian caucasian" anyway? Weren't acadians the semitic cousins of the semitic summerians?

You are thinking of Arcadians...

Acadians and Gaulish are sub-classifications of western mediteranean caucasoids... Both groups were analyzed in this situation.

Again, my goal was to show the problems with certain classificational schemes as they are employed... And not as a representative debasing of "Racial groups"... In fact, the information is indicative that debasing based on such criteria is inherantly problematic in its approach and goal.

Each "group" may hold lesser susceptibilities to certain ailments, with certain categorical advantages... But these categorical advantages are invalid criteria for absolute superiority of a certain group over another. In that they only provide advantage under certain situations, and can be disadvantaged in others.

I mean mongoloids... Asiatic peoples... the entire average mean IQ is 120 according to the 1970 study.



My goal was not to count in every group-classification, but merely the problem with associative characterization of group classifications as a means of continuing social disparity between those falling in the groups. (Sic. My refferences to other sub-group/cultures and other gene differentiations globaly across the human race).



You are thinking of Arcadians...

Acadians and Gaulish are sub-classifications of western mediteranean caucasoids... Both groups were analyzed in this situation.

Again, my goal was to show the problems with certain classificational schemes as they are employed... And not as a representative debasing of "Racial groups"... In fact, the information is indicative that debasing based on such criteria is inherantly problematic in its approach and goal.

Each "group" may hold lesser susceptibilities to certain ailments, with certain categorical advantages... But these categorical advantages are invalid criteria for absolute superiority of a certain group over another. In that they only provide advantage under certain situations, and can be disadvantaged in others.
Which 1970 study? It doesn't ring a bell, but if you read the Bell Curve (or many other groups) you'll see that the 156 studies (yes, one hundred and fifty six) up to 1994 compared to your study in 1970 shows that ashkenazi jews have an average of 115 plus, asians an average of 100 except japanese, korean and hong kong people that are in the range of 107. (Besides the ones below 100 that i mentioned earlier)

And about the acadian and gaulish... you mean celts then?

Black people in America have around 85, not 80. In africa it's much lower.

This is such BS and ignorance that I'm loathe to even respond. But I will, in hopes...

Which "Africans" were given the Stanford-Binet (a language-based test)? Of the millions of residents, and 100's (1000's?) of ethnicities, which few were chosen by the tester to represent their entire continent? If they are so "inferior" as a whole (assuming that the individuals tested had adequate nutrition during their brain development so that their "entire" potential could be tested), why do all who come here do so very well? How do they learn to speak and write English better than our U.S. white natives? So many Africans here in this country come from some tiny village somewhere. Yet even at our prestigious Ivy-league schools, the African-born outnumber the U.S.-born "blacks". I'm sensing multiple cultural issues at play in that lopsidedness.

So, to label an ENTIRE continent with the doubtful fruits of one IQ-tester, indicates a woeful ignorance of populations, statistics, anthropology and biology.

now on to the "latin american"... :headbang:

This is such BS and ignorance that I'm loathe to even respond. But I will, in hopes...

Which "Africans" were given the Stanford-Binet (a language-based test)? Of the millions of residents, and 100's (1000's?) of ethnicities, which few were chosen by the tester to represent their entire continent? If they are so "inferior" as a whole (assuming that the individuals tested had adequate nutrition during their brain development so that their "entire" potential could be tested), why do all who come here do so very well? How do they learn to speak and write English better than our U.S. white natives? So many Africans here in this country come from some tiny village somewhere. Yet even at our prestigious Ivy-league schools, the African-born outnumber the U.S.-born "blacks". I'm sensing multiple cultural issues at play in that lopsidedness.

So, to label an ENTIRE continent with the doubtful fruits of one IQ-tester, indicates a woeful ignorance of populations, statistics, anthropology and biology.

now on to the "latin american"... :headbang:
No one is saying "they are inferior". And because africa has many hundreds of millions (I think 800, i'm not sure though), it's easier to find some intelligent africans there than in the states (only somewhere around 25 million). Those intelligent africans are better fed than the rest of africans.

(African IQ is not only low because of race, but also because lack of nutrition and excess of sickness/lack of good health)

So, to label an ENTIRE continent with the doubtful fruits of one IQ-tester, indicates a woeful ignorance of populations, statistics, anthropology and biology.

Your comments indicate a woeful ignorance of standard compulsive 'believe despite the dictates of good sense' disorders. Otherwise you would know that scientific evidence about humans, evolution, and the action of hereditary processes widely accepted in mainstream biology, anthropology genetics, etc are simply leftist PC rantings if they challenge the notion of race, whereas books however badly researched (and widely discredited) and scientific data about corn, along with annecedotes about linguistic treatment of canine categories that support the notion of race are not to be questioned...

Please try again when you have something less rational to say.... ;)

Clearly race is real because people are different to each other, and I know for a fact that everyone can be categorised into groups on the basis of having or not having one or more of a group of characteristics (my only confusion is how this results in more than one group...but you cant have everything).... ;)

Your comments indicate a woeful ignorance of standard compulsive 'believe despite the dictates of good sense' disorders. Otherwise you would know that scientific evidence about humans, evolution, and the action of hereditary processes widely accepted in mainstream biology, anthropology genetics, etc are simply leftist PC rantings if they challenge the notion of race, whereas books however badly researched (and widely discredited) and scientific data about corn, along with annecedotes about linguistic treatment of canine categories that support the notion of race are not to be questioned...

Please try again when you have something less rational to say.... ;)

Clearly race is real because people are different to each other, and I know for a fact that everyone can be categorised into groups on the basis of having or not having one or more of a group of characteristics (my only confusion is how this results in more than one group...but you cant have everything).... ;) Yeah! Sorta...

Yeah! Sorta...

Hang on, are you not going to clarify how dividing the human race up on the basis of all those who do or dont have one or more of traits X,Y and/or Z belong to one race, and those that dont have or not have one or more of the traits X, Y and/or Z dont belong to that race, results in more than one race? Why am I not surprised?

Hang on, are you not going to clarify how dividing the human race up on the basis of all those who do or dont have one or more of traits X,Y and/or Z belong to one race, and those that dont have or not have one or more of the traits X, Y and/or Z dont belong to that race, results in more than one race? Why am I not surprised?

It seems that you haven't gotten yet the point of racism...

The point isn't saying: "We're not compatible, we're different species".

The point is: "We're becoming different, and some of us like our differences, so let's become even more different to stop being compatible and evolve into new species. Join us if you're like us or wanna be like us through a process of eugenics, or else let's split up, but don't make interference on our evolution process."

Get it? Similarities don't matter.

No, I'm afraid that is not how scientific categorization works. However, I have neither the time nor the inclination to give you a tutorial in biology 101. I suggest you go back and read your Aristotle for the fundamentals.

Your point about dog breeds is a good one, though. Dog breeds also are no more biologically justified than are human "races." They too are simply a cultural construct with no real basis in genetics. From a biological point of view a dog is a dog is a dog (to paraphrase Gertrude Stein).

I'll give you a choice, I'll sic a vicious toy poodle on you, or a real upset pit bull on you...

And then *you* tell *me*, "Hey, it doesn't matter, cuz a dog is a dog is a dog..." and let me pick which one to let go...

I'll give you a choice, I'll sic a vicious toy poodle on you, or a real upset pit bull on you...

And then *you* tell *me*, "Hey, it doesn't matter, cuz a dog is a dog is a dog..." and let me pick which one to let go...
Exactly. Dog races are like human races. They're dogs, yet they're different and must remain different. In the future, they'll become different animals, not only races.

Does race as a social concept exist? Unfortunately, yes.

Does race as a biological construc exist in humans? No.

I'll give you a choice, I'll sic a vicious toy poodle on you, or a real upset pit bull on you...

And then *you* tell *me*, "Hey, it doesn't matter, cuz a dog is a dog is a dog..." and let me pick which one to let go...

The point you were replying to was untrue anyways.

There is a very clear biological construct involved in dog breeds, and genetics would clearly demonstrate a purebred dog to be of a specific breed.

This is not true of human "races" and would be expected if we were to use race or breed as a biological term.

Exactly. Dog races are like human races. They're dogs, yet they're different and must remain different. In the future, they'll become different animals, not only races.

Except they aren't.

There is enough genetic difference between dog breeds to tell them apart.

However, there is more genetic variance within human "races" than there is between them. There is no genetic way to determine what "race" a person belongs to because there have never been isolated breeding groups for long enough to form such races.

Except they aren't.

There is enough genetic difference between dog breeds to tell them apart.

However, there is more genetic variance within human "races" than there is between them. There is no genetic way to determine what "race" a person belongs to because there have never been isolated breeding groups for long enough to form such races.
how do you think skin color, physical features, and most importantly, discrepancies in intelligence developed in humans? I think that's more than enough to either separate humans and let each develop their own groupal intelligence, or just cut off some members of lower intelligence (Not genocide, sterilizing morons of every race, letting breed only the smarter in each)

It seems that you haven't gotten yet the point of racism...
Whether or not I have gotten the point of racism isnt relevent, whether or not race exists is relevent to racism, but racism isnt relevent to whether or not race exists independent of social constructions.

The point isn't saying: "We're not compatible, we're different species".
Whether or not it is saying we are compatible doesnt make it any more true.

The point is: "We're becoming different, and some of us like our differences,
This is a non-issue, modern humans are one race.

so let's become even more different to stop being compatible and evolve into new species.
Er, you cant evolve, I cant evolve, and no seperate human races are going to emerge any time soon.

Join us if you're like us or wanna be like us through a process of eugenics, or else let's split up, but don't make interference on our evolution process."

Get it? Similarities don't matter.
If similarities dont matter, then neither does difference.

About this 'not getting the point', I've pointed out several times that objection to or approval of racism in no way has anything to do with my opinion regarding the existence of races, what's not to get about that?

I'll give you a choice, I'll sic a vicious toy poodle on you, or a real upset pit bull on you...

And then *you* tell *me*, "Hey, it doesn't matter, cuz a dog is a dog is a dog..." and let me pick which one to let go...

Saying there is little genetic difference between one breed and another is not the same as saying there are no differences between dogs, within breeds or between breeds. There is no genetic test to determine a dog's breed which is why the only way to truly distinguish breeds is to go by their breed registry. Without the papers the AKC could not identify "pure breeds."

Understanding there is no scientific basis for race or breed does not mean skin color disappears or toy poodles become pit bulls. It is simply an acknowledgement that humans have identified a series of genetic traits we arbitrarily assigned importance to and have given that group a name. We could just as easily pick another set of genetic traits (as has been demonstrated time and again in this thread) and call that a race or breed.

Whether or not I have gotten the point of racism isnt relevent, whether or not race exists is relevent to racism, but racism isnt relevent to whether or not race exists independent of social constructions.


Whether or not it is saying we are compatible doesnt make it any more true.


This is a non-issue, modern humans are one race.


Er, you cant evolve, I cant evolve, and no seperate human races are going to emerge any time soon.


If similarities dont matter, then neither does difference.

About this 'not getting the point', I've pointed out several times that objection to or approval of racism in no way has anything to do with my opinion regarding the existence of races, what's not to get about that?

I see you'll never get the point. The point isn't separating, it's evolving for BETTER. We know that what made us a great 'animal' is our intelligence. The more we have, the better we become. Yet, there are some groups that haven't reached the necesary intelligence to live well as first world nations. Maybe not even first world nations. So we must focus on advancing on that. But the problem is that the less advanced intellectually speaking are breeding more than the more advanced. We must reverse that process in order to evolve. If other groups don't want to cooperate, well... I guess each will have to worry for the advancement of his own group or else mix with everyone, and make one race of everyone... slowing the process of biological, therefore social and economical evolution. Maybe stoping it or worse: Make it go backwards. Nobody wants that. Not even black people I hope.

how do you think skin color, physical features, and most importantly, discrepancies in intelligence developed in humans? I think that's more than enough to either separate humans and let each develop their own groupal intelligence, or just cut off some members of lower intelligence (Not genocide, sterilizing morons of every race, letting breed only the smarter in each)
The morphology and functioning of an individual organism is determined by enviromental factors, of which there are too many to name, and most of which cant be sensibly considered to be related or linked to what is meant by race (ie 'bred traits').
Your suggestion for so many reasons is so very absurd.

Eugenics: the single most barbaric ideology humanity has ever invented. I place it just below Communism.

The 'science' of Eugenics was used by the Nazi regime to justify the murder of 8 million European Jews and 20 million Russian peoples. It was used by the Japanese Empire to validate the murder of millions of Koreans, Chinese, Indonesians, and Philipinos. And it was used by America to limit Jewish and Eastern European immigration to a trickle in the 1920s.

It is also an archaeic science. It is supported only by evidence collected before there was such a thing as Peer Review, when researchers simply threw out data they did not agree with.

But the single biggest flaw in Eugenics is its misinterpretation of correlation as being evidence of causality. For instance: Halley's Comet has over the last 20 years been travelling farther and farther away from the Sun. Also during the last twenty years, the human population has been growing at a proportionally exponential rate. Were we to put # of humans on the X-axis and Halley's distance from the sun on the Y-axis, the two would correlate perfectly. (r=.995)

But does that mean that the two phenomena are somehow intrinsically related to one another? Has Halley's Comet somehow influenced human population growth? Most people would say 'of course not!'

And yet when a correlation between IQ scores and skin color is found, somehow the conclusion becomes that one has happened as a result of the other. In truth, correlation almost never is proof of causality, but Eugenics was researched back in the days when scientists hadn't yet realized that.

Since then, every Eugenics book that has come out, including the Bell Curve, has based its conclusions not on contemporary data, but on the same antiquated findings that have already been discredited. The Army Alpha and Beta tests of yesterday are amateuresque compared to the scientific procedures of today, and were a researcher in ANY field today to attempt such antics their 'findings' wouldn't make it past the first Peer Review.

M&Ms may have different coloured shells but in the end of the day they really all taste the same.

Eugenics: the single most barbaric ideology humanity has ever invented. I place it just below Communism.

The 'science' of Eugenics was used by the Nazi regime to justify the murder of 8 million European Jews and 20 million Russian peoples. It was used by the Japanese Empire to validate the murder of millions of Koreans, Chinese, Indonesians, and Philipinos. And it was used by America to limit Jewish and Eastern European immigration to a trickle in the 1920s.

It is also an archaeic science. It is supported only by evidence collected before there was such a thing as Peer Review, when researchers simply threw out data they did not agree with.

But the single biggest flaw in Eugenics is its misinterpretation of correlation as being evidence of causality. For instance: Halley's Comet has over the last 20 years been travelling farther and farther away from the Sun. Also during the last twenty years, the human population has been growing at a proportionally exponential rate. Were we to put # of humans on the X-axis and Halley's distance from the sun on the Y-axis, the two would correlate perfectly. (r=.995)

But does that mean that the two phenomena are somehow intrinsically related to one another? Has Halley's Comet somehow influenced human population growth? Most people would say 'of course not!'

And yet when a correlation between IQ scores and skin color is found, somehow the conclusion becomes that one has happened as a result of the other. In truth, correlation almost never is proof of causality, but Eugenics was researched back in the days when scientists hadn't yet realized that.

Since then, every Eugenics book that has come out, including the Bell Curve, has based its conclusions not on contemporary data, but on the same antiquated findings that have already been discredited. The Army Alpha and Beta tests of yesterday are amateuresque compared to the scientific procedures of today, and were a researcher in ANY field today to attempt such antics their 'findings' wouldn't make it past the first Peer Review.

Just more rationalization than reasoning.

The fact that eugenics wasn't well done (Jews not only shouldn't have been slaughtered, they should have been promoted for their intelligence).

And again, the point is not understood by you. It's not the color that makes others dumb. But their average is just below. Obviously, if they made a massive breeding of their smartest members, they'll level up. And nobody said that a rule for eugenics is massive murder/genocide. It just means massive breeding of the best/smartest, which should be done. There's proof that it works. Why do you think european-something jews are so smart?

I see you'll never get the point.
I have no idea why you are convinced it is I who do not get the point.

The point isn't separating,
This is what makes me think that you dont get the point, I dont care about seperating at some future time, because it isnt relevent to the fact that there is currently only one human race.

it's evolving for BETTER.
It's statements like this that make me believe you dont understand the concepts you imagine prove your point.

We know that what made us a great 'animal' is our intelligence.
Er, hang on we dont that we are 'great'...

The more we have, the better we become.
Better by what criteria?

Yet, there are some groups that haven't reached the necesary intelligence to live well as first world nations.
All human beings alive are anatomically modern...

Maybe not even first world nations.
How do you intelligence is the problem?

So we must focus on advancing on that.
But the problem is that the less advanced intellectually speaking are breeding more than the more advanced.
Er, you really dont know very much about the evolution do you?

We must reverse that process in order to evolve.
I can only repeat my above sentiments...

If other groups don't want to cooperate, well... I guess each will have to worry for the advancement of his own group or else mix with everyone, and make one race of everyone... slowing the process of biological, therefore social and economical evolution. Maybe stoping it or worse: Make it go backwards. Nobody wants that. Not even black people I hope.
I suggest if you want to improve the overall intelligence of your community, you start by reading a text book about evolution...

I have no idea why you are convinced it is I who do not get the point.


This is what makes me think that you dont get the point, I dont care about seperating at some future time, because it isnt relevent to the fact that there is currently only one human race.


It's statements like this that make me believe you dont understand the concepts you imagine prove your point.


Er, hang on we dont that we are 'great'...


Better by what criteria?


All human beings alive are anatomically modern...


How do you intelligence is the problem?


Er, you really dont know very much about the evolution do you?


I can only repeat my above sentiments...


I suggest if you want to improve the overall intelligence of your community, you start by reading a text book about evolution...

And the one to talk about understanding is one that talks about 'relevence' and 'seperetion'. Good job.

You know, maybe you should explain 'how evolution works' (on your opinion) if you so think I don't know how evolution works. I perfectly know how it works, if I didn't, I wouldn't be promoting the breeding of the smartest, you dolt.

If everyone becomes smarter (in average), the better our society works.
Don't believe me? Look at the differences between most of the rich nations and most of the poor nations.

And the one to talk about understanding is one that talks about 'relevence' and 'seperetion'. Good job.
I think you need to re-read my comments, because I'm sure you are not being deliberately obtuse, and I doubt you are not able to comprehend the fact that whether or not the cake is cut at 5.00pm on an afternoon does not confirm that it was cut at 4.45pm that same afternoon. The fact that something which may or may not occur in the future doesnt tell us what is happening right now is hardly some earthshattering news...

You know, maybe you should explain 'how evolution works' (on your opinion) if you so think I don't know how evolution works. I perfectly know how it works, if I didn't, I wouldn't be promoting the breeding of the smartest, you dolt.
I'm not your textbook, but if you believe that you can determine the 'best' traits to 'breed' into a population are, you either believe you are able to tell the future in precise detail, or you dont understand the subject.

If everyone becomes smarter (in average), the better our society works.
Don't believe me? Look at the differences between most of the rich nations and most of the poor nations.
No I dont believe you, and with good reasons.

Just more rationalization than reasoning.

The fact that eugenics wasn't well done (Jews not only shouldn't have been slaughtered, they should have been promoted for their intelligence).

And again, the point is not understood by you. It's not the color that makes others dumb. But their average is just below. Obviously, if they made a massive breeding of their smartest members, they'll level up. And nobody said that a rule for eugenics is massive murder/genocide. It just means massive breeding of the best/smartest, which should be done. There's proof that it works. Why do you think european-something jews are so smart?


I'm afraid it's you who doesn't get it, my friend. Let me put my main point in the simplest terms possible:

[SIZE=4][CORRELATION != CAUSALITY][SIZE=3]

'!=' is slang for "is not equal to". As I just said, there is a high correlation between race and IQ. There is also a high correlation between Southern states and low IQ. There is an even higher correlation between states who vote Republican and low IQ.
But does that mean southerners are dumber than northerners, Republicans are dumber than Democrats, or blacks are dumber than whites? As I said, even perfect correlation ultimately proves nothing in terms of one phenomenon being responsible for another.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my guess is you haven't taken very many science classes. If so, I can see how the rudimentary aspects of causality would be a difficult concept to grasp.

But trust me on this one. I went to the NC School of Science and Mathematics for high school, and went on to major at Duke in Chemistry with a Math concentration and minor in Physics. I've spent the past 8 years learning how to be a good researcher, and more importantly I how not to be one.

Sorry, I forgot to address your main point.

Frankly, I don't care how or why you think that your ethnicity is somehow smarter than others. That's between you and your ego.

What I do care about is your butchery of the Scientific Method in the quest to prove that you are right. Reasoning has become a casualty of your dogma, and I simply can't tolerate what amounts to an embarrassment to the Scientific community. Go on about racial discrepencies all you'd like, just don't drag the good name of Science into your meatgrinder of ignorance.


I will say this about intellect though: when it come to the fundamentals of math and science, I seem to enjoy a bit of an intellectual advantage over you. If you possessed half the innate capacity you claim to then I wouldn't have to be explaining to you what any mathematician would find painfully obvious.

Eugenics: the single most barbaric ideology humanity has ever invented. I place it just below Communism.

The 'science' of Eugenics was used by the Nazi regime to justify the murder of 8 million European Jews and 20 million Russian peoples. It was used by the Japanese Empire to validate the murder of millions of Koreans, Chinese, Indonesians, and Philipinos. And it was used by America to limit Jewish and Eastern European immigration to a trickle in the 1920s.

It is also an archaeic science. It is supported only by evidence collected before there was such a thing as Peer Review, when researchers simply threw out data they did not agree with.

But the single biggest flaw in Eugenics is its misinterpretation of correlation as being evidence of causality. For instance: Halley's Comet has over the last 20 years been travelling farther and farther away from the Sun. Also during the last twenty years, the human population has been growing at a proportionally exponential rate. Were we to put # of humans on the X-axis and Halley's distance from the sun on the Y-axis, the two would correlate perfectly. (r=.995)

But does that mean that the two phenomena are somehow intrinsically related to one another? Has Halley's Comet somehow influenced human population growth? Most people would say 'of course not!'

And yet when a correlation between IQ scores and skin color is found, somehow the conclusion becomes that one has happened as a result of the other. In truth, correlation almost never is proof of causality, but Eugenics was researched back in the days when scientists hadn't yet realized that.

Since then, every Eugenics book that has come out, including the Bell Curve, has based its conclusions not on contemporary data, but on the same antiquated findings that have already been discredited. The Army Alpha and Beta tests of yesterday are amateuresque compared to the scientific procedures of today, and were a researcher in ANY field today to attempt such antics their 'findings' wouldn't make it past the first Peer Review.

Eugenics was likely first practiced mainly by the Greeks and the Romans. The problem with today in western society is allowing the lowest of the low mass reproduce thanks to "welfare". All the while the most intelligent have little or no children thanks to extreme "feminism" of today and the mass media.

Which 1970 study? It doesn't ring a bell, but if you read the Bell Curve (or many other groups) you'll see that the 156 studies (yes, one hundred and fifty six) up to 1994 compared to your study in 1970 shows that ashkenazi jews have an average of 115 plus, asians an average of 100 except japanese, korean and hong kong people that are in the range of 107. (Besides the ones below 100 that i mentioned earlier)

And about the acadian and gaulish... you mean celts then?

:headbang:

Are you normally blind and hardheaded?

Since you REFUSE to actually address my own posts in the context of what I was talking about; you might as well shut the fuck up, and carry your sorry ass elsewhere... Because your retarded retorts have absolutely no bearing on my subject matter...

Whether a certain jewish group scored 115 or not, has absolutely no bearing on the subject matter... It's a moot point, and an attempt to draw the argument into a ad hominem.

Acadians and Gauls are not Celts, Celts are a sub-set of the Brythonic tribes (along with the Gael), Acadians and Gauls are subsets of mediteranean tribes...

None of this, in particular, however, has no bearing upon the actual subject (which you seem to entirely miss)... Selective hearing maybe? (Or blindness in this case).

My argument is that the classification system expoused by some, in the realm of the IQ test normatives and disease susceptibility normatives, have little credential bearing on race classification. And that reliance upon them, in a non-objective framework, to expouse problems with racial groups (with extensive leanings in voicing the positives of your own, the negatives of others, without treating the full range of positives and negatives across groups; as normally held by people who use such racial classification schemes) to faliciously proove their own superiority over others.

Which was the subject matter... Any other argument, is from misapplication of the subject matter... Whether American-born Negroids have a mean IQ of 85 rather than 80, and whether or not Ashkenazi Jews have a mean of 115 or not, and whether or not every single particular constructed "racial group" was accounted for; has no bearing on the subject matter... The subject matter was against the system itself... And not on the "racial groups".

NO there is only one race, and that is the human race!

what about aryans?

:D

Genetically, we are no different.

Then why do Doctors do genetic screening on Jewish fetuses exclusively?

They don't.
tay-sachs.org (http://www.tay-sachs.org/taysachs.php)
Tay-Sachs carriers are found most frequently among families of eastern European Jewish descent (Ashkenazi Jews). In the United States today, approximately one in every 27 Jews is a Tay-Sachs carrier.

Among Jews of Sephardic origin and in the general, non-Jewish population, the carrier rate is about one in 250. There are certain exceptions. French-Canadian and the Cajun community of Louisiana have the same carrier rate as Ashkenazi Jews, one in 27. Also, individuals with ancestry from Ireland are at increased risk for the Tay-Sachs gene. Current research indicates that among Irish Americans, the carrier rate is about one in 50.

All couples planning to have children should carefully consider their ancestry to evaluate the risk of each partner. Any person who can trace his or her lineage to a high-risk population should be tested. In addition, close relatives of carriers (children, sisters, brothers, cousins, aunts, uncles) must be tested since they may also be carriers.

Aren't Doctors "scientists"? Isn't it "Medical Science"...

I sure hope it isn't an art...

At least you're addressing the issues somewhat consistently, rather than *only* banding the same "Genetic differences within 'races' are larger than genetic differences OUTSIDE of the same race"... argument while avoiding addressing any of these counter-claims that use logic and reason and common sense and critical thinking to show the falsehood of your arguments.

Please show even one counter-claim with any scientific validity.

That is like the "second hand smoke is worse than first hand smoke" argument among non-smokers.

How does that PC logic work? In the 2nd hand smoke case... let's think about that...

"The smoker is getting the first hand smoke, AND the second hand smoke, so he is getting smoke, then getting smoke that is even WORSE for him... the non smoker is only getting the 2nd hand smoke... now WHO is getting it worse?!?"

Critical thinking... it ain't hard... The next time I hear someone say, "second hand smoke is worse for a non-smoker than a smoker" I'm going to smack them upside the head. The smoker is ALWAYS around second hand smoke, all day, and the second hand smoke is in ADDITION to the regular smoke they inhale. How is it possible that the second hand smoke selectively targets the non-smoker and is worse for them?!?

Take the same basic logic for the second hand smoke argument, and apply it to this "more variation INSIDE a similar race than OUTSIDE of it" argument...

Politically correct spin-masters... use your *brains*, for God's sake...

Goodnight...

:rolleyes: Go back and re-read the evidence provided - nothing PC about it at all, just hard biology.

Genetically, we are no different.
Genetically I and my brothers are different, unless we were twins of course. So of course there are going to be genetic differences between the races. There isn't even equality between two brothers because of mutation and crossovers that occur in gametes. So how can there be equality between races?

Oh, and regarding the whole breeds of dog analogy, can those who claim breeds of dogs are analogous to human races, can you explain why domestic dogs are already a classified taxonmic race known as Canis lupus familiaris (http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Canis_lupus_familiaris.html)?

Oh, and regarding the whole breeds of dog analogy, can those who claim breeds of dogs are analogous to human races, can you explain why domestic dogs are already a classified taxonmic race known as Canis lupus familiaris (http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Canis_lupus_familiaris.html)?


Subspecies Canis lupus familiaris

subspecies != race

There isn't even equality between two brothers because of mutation and crossovers that occur in gametes. So how can there be equality between races?

Equality of what?

Genetically I and my brothers are different, unless we were twins of course. So of course there are going to be genetic differences between the races. There isn't even equality between two brothers because of mutation and crossovers that occur in gametes. So how can there be equality between races?

Equality, in the sense of the ideal of reform, exists as an equality of rights.

The attemp to argue, that racial characteristics in relation to normative differences in relative means of the groups, equates to the need to differentiate in a system of exclusive bias towards rights bacause of this. Is based on disconjoined thoughts, and a failure of complete logical extrapolation of the available ideals and data..

All men are created equally... As the writters said... equally in the sense that all were endowed at creation with certain inalienable rights.... Those rights being "life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness".

The principle of relative means is a system of statistical probablity... While statics plays a part in systems of classification and organization... Statistics do not deal in hard reality... They reduce reality to a set of probabilities.
While the "relative mean IQ" of American of African descent is 85... This does not mean that all Americans of African descent are less intelligent. While the relative mean IQ of Ashkenazi Jews may be 115... This does not mean all of them are more intelligent. There will be Americans of African descent with IQ's higher than that of Ashkenazi Jews, and there will be Ashkenazi Jews with IQ's less than the relative mean of Americans of African descent...

The Statistics form a system of prejudice... that is judgement of the person,without hard data... Statistics are not hard, since they do not account for all factors... but reduce factors to the most basic sets... As such, from statistical extrapolation of data of a certain group of people, to which of the members were this individual in particular, and then basing the person off of the results gleaned from others, and casting judgement upon him because of it... Is not functional or logical, and shows a true lack of understanding of statistics in general.

The system is closely related to the ad Absurdum...

It goes like this:
SINCE Blacks have a relative mean IQ of 85.
AND A relative mean IQ of 85 is below the relative mean IQ of the human populace in general.
AND Person "X" is Black.
THEREFORE Person X is less intelligent than average humans.

I could use the same argument, in its ad absurdum, that all Irishmen are drunks; All Germans will die of heart attacks; All Caucasians will die from skin cancer....

Group statistical analysis should never be used as a judgement form against individuals in a group... Such is indicative of a lack of cognative ability to understand the full range of variables in general order.

Equality, in the sense of the ideal of reform, exists as an equality of rights.

The attemp to argue, that racial characteristics in relation to normative differences in relative means of the groups, equates to the need to differentiate in a system of exclusive bias towards rights bacause of this. Is based on disconjoined thoughts, and a failure of complete logical extrapolation of the available ideals and data..

All men are created equally... As the writters said... equally in the sense that all were endowed at creation with certain inalienable rights.... Those rights being "life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness".

The principle of relative means is a system of statistical probablity... While statics plays a part in systems of classification and organization... Statistics do not deal in hard reality... They reduce reality to a set of probabilities.
While the "relative mean IQ" of American of African descent is 85... This does not mean that all Americans of African descent are less intelligent. While the relative mean IQ of Ashkenazi Jews may be 115... This does not mean all of them are more intelligent. There will be Americans of African descent with IQ's higher than that of Ashkenazi Jews, and there will be Ashkenazi Jews with IQ's less than the relative mean of Americans of African descent...

The Statistics form a system of prejudice... that is judgement of the person,without hard data... Statistics are not hard, since they do not account for all factors... but reduce factors to the most basic sets... As such, from statistical extrapolation of data of a certain group of people, to which of the members were this individual in particular, and then basing the person off of the results gleaned from others, and casting judgement upon him because of it... Is not functional or logical, and shows a true lack of understanding of statistics in general.

The system is closely related to the ad Absurdum...

It goes like this:
SINCE Blacks have a relative mean IQ of 85.
AND A relative mean IQ of 85 is below the relative mean IQ of the human populace in general.
AND Person "X" is Black.
THEREFORE Person X is less intelligent than average humans.

I could use the same argument, in its ad absurdum, that all Irishmen are drunks; All Germans will die of heart attacks; All Caucasians will die from skin cancer....

Group statistical analysis should never be used as a judgement form against individuals in a group... Such is indicative of a lack of cognative ability to understand the full range of variables in general order.
Wasn't it life, liberty, and property?

Wasn't it life, liberty, and property?

No... but property is a logical extension of numbers 2 and 3...

Saying there is little genetic difference between one breed and another is not the same as saying there are no differences between dogs, within breeds or between breeds. There is no genetic test to determine a dog's breed which is why the only way to truly distinguish breeds is to go by their breed registry. Without the papers the AKC could not identify "pure breeds."

Understanding there is no scientific basis for race or breed does not mean skin color disappears or toy poodles become pit bulls. It is simply an acknowledgement that humans have identified a series of genetic traits we arbitrarily assigned importance to and have given that group a name. We could just as easily pick another set of genetic traits (as has been demonstrated time and again in this thread) and call that a race or breed.

Hey... leggo my eggo...

How about...

"It is simply an acknowledgement that humans have NOT identified a series of gentic traits... assigned importance to and given that group a name".

The addition of one word and the omission of another and your sentence has a whole different meaning, which is still as *entirely* valid as your counterpoint.

The difference is, my points are irrefutable. Would you rather have the toy poodle or the pit bull come after you? When is the last time A toy poodle and a toy poodle produced a Pit Bull? Obviously there is some sort of trackable genetic pattern going on... which is what we label "breeds" in dogs and "race" in humans. You can try and dance and dodge around this all you want. All day and all night. You can evoke science, and biology, and whatever other politically correct B.S. scapegoat you wish...

Your defense is *still* transparent. Race exists. Differences, biological, genetic *differences*, which can be catagorized, and are passed on, one generation to the next, EXIST.

The AKC could *certainly* determine a canine with strong PUG heritage from a canine with strong PIT BULL heritage, simply by visual assessment, with a HIGH degree of accuracy, without consulting papers. Just as I can absolutely determine someone with strong BLACK AFRICAN descent from someone with strong ASIAN Pacific Rim descent, just by visual assessment, with a HIGH degree of accuracy.

There is nothing *inheirently* racist about this, in the case of DOGS or MEN.

You are not working to SOLVE the problem. You are perpetuating it.

They don't.
tay-sachs.org

Quote:
Tay-Sachs carriers are found most frequently among families of eastern European Jewish descent (Ashkenazi Jews). In the United States today, approximately one in every 27 Jews is a Tay-Sachs carrier.

Among Jews of Sephardic origin and in the general, non-Jewish population, the carrier rate is about one in 250. There are certain exceptions. French-Canadian and the Cajun community of Louisiana have the same carrier rate as Ashkenazi Jews, one in 27. Also, individuals with ancestry from Ireland are at increased risk for the Tay-Sachs gene. Current research indicates that among Irish Americans, the carrier rate is about one in 50.

All couples planning to have children should carefully consider their ancestry to evaluate the risk of each partner. Any person who can trace his or her lineage to a high-risk population should be tested. In addition, close relatives of carriers (children, sisters, brothers, cousins, aunts, uncles) must be tested since they may also be carriers.

So "ancestry" is different than "race"?

Seems like HARD biology becomes a pretty SOFT science when uncomfortable political hot potatoes are on the menu...

*snicker*

People of African or Mediterranean descent are much more susceptible to sickle-cell anemia.

There are definite differences in the races. So what? Personality-wise, my sister and I are polar opposites. Who cares what race someone is, unless screening for particular diseases that affect that race more than others?

People of African or Mediterranean descent are much more susceptible to sickle-cell anemia.

There are definite differences in the races. So what? Personality-wise, my sister and I are polar opposites. Who cares what race someone is, unless screening for particular diseases that affect that race more than others?


There "are no races"...

Haven't you been paying attention to the hard biological scientists on this thread? *shesh*.

Genetically I and my brothers are different, unless we were twins of course. So of course there are going to be genetic differences between the races. There isn't even equality between two brothers because of mutation and crossovers that occur in gametes. So how can there be equality between races?

So how can there be equality between races?Ok science has proven that 150 thousand years ago all of our ansters walked of of Africa and started to populate the world (That’s 2000 generations.) Our skin difference just has to do with hundreds of generations living in different parts of the world. The darker the skin the more sun (Africa) The lighter the skin the less sun that gets through. (Europe) and then everything in between (Asia). So yes Genetically we are all the same we all come from the same place.

Fantastic! I just started a class in Anti Semitism in antiquity and middle ages, one of the questions I'll be looking at is 'does race exist'. I'll get back to ya when I have some more done.

So how can there be equality between races?Ok science has proven that 150 thousand years ago all of our ansters walked of of Africa and started to populate the world (That’s 2000 generations.) Our skin difference just has to do with hundreds of generations living in different parts of the world. The darker the skin the more sun (Africa) The lighter the skin the less sun that gets through. (Europe) and then everything in between (Asia). So yes Genetically we are all the same we all come from the same place.

See my post re: The Evolution of Corn.

It is buried somewhere in this thread.

In a nutshell, within just a few generations of selective breeding, a domestic plant looks and acts *nothing* like the plant it was originally bred from.

Change can be *quick*.

And you know, just because we know that human population fell to around 10,000 heads at some point in our near distant history doesn't invalidate the concept of race.

At some point, we all share a single genetic heritage with an "Eve"... who was probably more or less a knuckle-dragger...

And that Eve... she didn't just magically appear. You can probably trace HER ancestry through a bunch of monkeys all the way to a single monkey...

And if you KEEP going... you'll find a single celled organism, somewhere WAY back...

So clearly, there is NO such thing as different SPECIES. We're all the same. We all come from the same original single celled organism. You are the same as a slug, or a roach, or a buzzard, or a jackass...

"Oh, now you're just being ridiculious"...

Am I? The logic of the argument is the same in both cases.

"If you can trace two things back to a single common ancestor, those things are the same".

I think too many biologists have been skipping too many Logic and Reasoning courses...

So "ancestry" is different than "race"?

Completely.

Seems like HARD biology becomes a pretty SOFT science when uncomfortable political hot potatoes are on the menu...

Incorrect. You simply don't seem to understand the terms under discussion or are willfully refusing the accepted definitions.

"It is simply an acknowledgement that humans have NOT identified a series of gentic traits... assigned importance to and given that group a name".

The addition of one word and the omission of another and your sentence has a whole different meaning, which is still as *entirely* valid as your counterpoint.

The difference is, my points are irrefutable. Would you rather have the toy poodle or the pit bull come after you? When is the last time A toy poodle and a toy poodle produced a Pit Bull? Obviously there is some sort of trackable genetic pattern going on... which is what we label "breeds" in dogs and "race" in humans. You can try and dance and dodge around this all you want. All day and all night. You can evoke science, and biology, and whatever other politically correct B.S. scapegoat you wish...

Your defense is *still* transparent. Race exists. Differences, biological, genetic *differences*, which can be catagorized, and are passed on, one generation to the next, EXIST.

The AKC could *certainly* determine a canine with strong PUG heritage from a canine with strong PIT BULL heritage, simply by visual assessment, with a HIGH degree of accuracy, without consulting papers. Just as I can absolutely determine someone with strong BLACK AFRICAN descent from someone with strong ASIAN Pacific Rim descent, just by visual assessment, with a HIGH degree of accuracy.

There is nothing *inheirently* racist about this, in the case of DOGS or MEN.

You are not working to SOLVE the problem. You are perpetuating it.



See my post re: The Evolution of Corn.

It is buried somewhere in this thread.

In a nutshell, within just a few generations of selective breeding, a domestic plant looks and acts *nothing* like the plant it was originally bred from.

Change can be *quick*.

And you know, just because we know that human population fell to around 10,000 heads at some point in our near distant history doesn't invalidate the concept of race.

At some point, we all share a single genetic heritage with an "Eve"... who was probably more or less a knuckle-dragger...

And that Eve... she didn't just magically appear. You can probably trace HER ancestry through a bunch of monkeys all the way to a single monkey...

And if you KEEP going... you'll find a single celled organism, somewhere WAY back...

So clearly, there is NO such thing as different SPECIES. We're all the same. We all come from the same original single celled organism. You are the same as a slug, or a roach, or a buzzard, or a jackass...

"Oh, now you're just being ridiculious"...

Am I? The logic of the argument is the same in both cases.

"If you can trace two things back to a single common ancestor, those things are the same".

I think too many biologists have been skipping too many Logic and Reasoning courses...

All I can say to the above is that it is increasingly clear you do not understand the fundamentals of the question at hand. Please go back and study your basic taxonomy. Here's a good starting point: http://www.101science.com/Taxonomy.htm

Come back and try again when you can posit a scientifically valid taxon for subspecies of Homo sapien.

how do you think skin color, physical features, and most importantly, discrepancies in intelligence developed in humans? I think that's more than enough to either separate humans and let each develop their own groupal intelligence, or just cut off some members of lower intelligence (Not genocide, sterilizing morons of every race, letting breed only the smarter in each)

Here's the thing, there are no discreet groups in humans. There are no dark-skinned, super intelligent people that we can tell apart from light skinned, stupid people.

And eugenics is an idiotic idea.

Saying there is little genetic difference between one breed and another is not the same as saying there are no differences between dogs, within breeds or between breeds. There is no genetic test to determine a dog's breed which is why the only way to truly distinguish breeds is to go by their breed registry. Without the papers the AKC could not identify "pure breeds."

Understanding there is no scientific basis for race or breed does not mean skin color disappears or toy poodles become pit bulls. It is simply an acknowledgement that humans have identified a series of genetic traits we arbitrarily assigned importance to and have given that group a name. We could just as easily pick another set of genetic traits (as has been demonstrated time and again in this thread) and call that a race or breed.

I know this discussion is more about human races (which biologically do not exist) than dog breeds (which do), but I need to point out an error here.

Genetic testing *can* determine one breed from another, as there are enough differences to do so. And genetic testing is often used in dog breeding. For instance,the AKC will no longer allow dogs who are carriers for certain genetic diseases known to often be found in certain breeds into competitions/breeding.

So how can there be equality between races?

Race is a social construct based on certain outer appearances and there has been quite a bit of inequality enforced between them. However, hard as many have tried, no one can find a *biological* basis on which to claim that there are separate races.

Ok science has proven that 150 thousand years ago all of our ansters walked of of Africa and started to populate the world (That’s 2000 generations.) Our skin difference just has to do with hundreds of generations living in different parts of the world. The darker the skin the more sun (Africa) The lighter the skin the less sun that gets through. (Europe) and then everything in between (Asia). So yes Genetically we are all the same we all come from the same place.

Just to add on: Genetically, we all come from the same place and there has never been a time when there were isolated breeding groups for long enough to develop separate races.

I know this discussion is more about human races (which biologically do not exist) than dog breeds (which do), but I need to point out an error here.

Genetic testing *can* determine one breed from another, as there are enough differences to do so. And genetic testing is often used in dog breeding. For instance,the AKC will no longer allow dogs who are carriers for certain genetic diseases known to often be found in certain breeds into competitions/breeding.

I don't believe so, though I am willing to be proven incorrect. There are genetic tests for canine diseases, but as there is no single gene identifying a dog's breed I do not believe there is a test for breed, which is why the AKC relies on registry. There is a fascinating cover story from the Atlantic Monthy from 1999 called "The Truth About Dogs" by STEPHEN BUDIANSKY which discusses the artificial concept of breed (and race). Unfortunately, the on-line version costs money. I think it was the basis for a later book.

I don't believe so, though I am willing to be proven incorrect. There are genetic tests for canine diseases, but as there is no single gene identifying a dog's breed I do not believe there is a test for breed, which is why the AKC relies on registry. There is a fascinating cover story from the Atlantic Monthy from 1999 called "The Truth About Dogs" by STEPHEN BUDIANSKY which discusses the artificial concept of breed (and race). Unfortunately, the on-line version costs money. I think it was the basis for a later book.

All of the studies I have read have made it clear that breeds can be determined by genetics (not a single gene, but by looking for things such as STRs, SNPs, or biallelic polymorphisms). This would, of course, be a very costly process, so I doubt it will be used as the standard, but the main thing is that the genetic differences between breeds are broad enough that a genetic screen would reliably give you a dog's breed (if it were purebred).

There is no such test in humans, and all of these types of genetic markers have been tried there. Nothing gives them a reliable enough test to determine a given "race" in humans.

ok. there are 7 genetic groups within homo sapiens sapiens (us, it means essentially very wise man, but dont let that let you believe we were more intelligent than our other members of homo sapiens species, were just more agressive than them. there were three versions of homo sapiens) 6 of these are from africa, and the 7th is everyone else. so, the concept of race as we use it is incorrect, indians are not a different race from a british person. An african is though, and could be from any of 6 groups. this makes africans genetically superior to us europeans, as they have a much bigger gene pool. hence, africans clean up at the olympic games.

Completely.



Incorrect. You simply don't seem to understand the terms under discussion or are willfully refusing the accepted definitions.



All I can say to the above is that it is increasingly clear you do not understand the fundamentals of the question at hand. Please go back and study your basic taxonomy. Here's a good starting point: http://www.101science.com/Taxonomy.htm

Come back and try again when you can posit a scientifically valid taxon for subspecies of Homo sapien.

and

Incorrect. You simply don't seem to understand the terms under discussion or are willfully refusing the accepted definitions.

I don't think YOU understand. I have made clear, time and time again, that I'm not buying into the "accepted definitions" put forth by the scientific community. I think common sense, logic, reason, and critical thinking make it OBVIOUS that the mainstream scientific community sees this issue as a rat's nest, a hot potato, and a PR nightmare. Most science, most scientists, are part of the (mostly) liberal left academic community which brings us Politically Correct doublespeak, notions of global unity and cohesiveness, the inheirent superiority of socialist ideologies of government, and more... The mainstream scientific community will dance on it's *head* to avoid this issue, in general and will make elaborate stretches to show how in "fact", we're all clearly the same...

You're using "the accepted scientific definitions" in this case, as a metaphysical argument.

"Why is it right?"

"Because the accepted scientific definitions say so"

"How do you know they are right?"

"Because they are the accepted scientific definitions."

"I disagree."

"You are an uneducated moron, then."

Circular logic. Maybe YOU need to get back to a Logic and Reason 101 course, yourself.

You can keep *telling* me 2+2 is 5... but I'll tell you... even when you put the rats-cage to my face, I'm going to insist that 2+2 is 4 if that is what logic and reason dictates.

and



I don't think YOU understand. I have made clear, time and time again, that I'm not buying into the "accepted definitions" put forth by the scientific community. I think common sense, logic, reason, and critical thinking make it OBVIOUS that the mainstream scientific community sees this issue as a rat's nest, a hot potato, and a PR nightmare. Most science, most scientists, are part of the (mostly) liberal left academic community which brings us Politically Correct doublespeak, notions of global unity and cohesiveness, the inheirent superiority of socialist ideologies of government, and more... The mainstream scientific community will dance on it's *head* to avoid this issue, in general and will make elaborate stretches to show how in "fact", we're all clearly the same...

You're using "the accepted scientific definitions" in this case, as a metaphysical argument.

"Why is it right?"

"Because the accepted scientific definitions say so"

"How do you know they are right?"

"Because they are the accepted scientific definitions."

"I disagree."

"You are an uneducated moron, then."

Circular logic. Maybe YOU need to get back to a Logic and Reason 101 course, yourself.

You can keep *telling* me 2+2 is 5... but I'll tell you... even when you put the rats-cage to my face, I'm going to insist that 2+2 is 4 if that is what logic and reason dictates.

Again, you clearly have a total lack of how biology works. And you clearly are willfully refusing to understand it.