NationStates Jolt Archive

The only race is one that several beings compete in. Saying there are different "races" of people IS "Racist". Discuss in a :) way.

And people screaming your racist are the worst of all. They claim to be against racism yet constantly tuttle the eaqual other races making sure you notice the differences, which don't matter according to their propaganda.

The only race we should concern ourselves with is the Master Race, which is the human race. Color, religion, sexual orientation, gender, or whatever are irrelevant. We are all members of the Master Race!

The only race is one that several beings compete in. Saying there are different "races" of people IS "Racist". Discuss in a :) way. If someone thinks that all races are equal, they are being a] the opposite of racist and b] according to you, being racist.

Please explain this paradox.

It's not accurate to say there's not race. That's like saying there's no hair color or height or ethnicity. However, I do agree that race shouldn't really be a factor in how we think about people, perhaps even how people view themselves.

I think race does exist, in the way that people originating from different regions of the world have diffferent coloured skin and different physical features to people originating from other regions of the world. I don't think it matters though, any more than say eye or hair colour does. Race is just a visual difference between people, nothing more, and as such should have no impact upon how we interact with each other.

The only race is one that several beings compete in. Saying there are different "races" of people IS "Racist". Discuss in a :) way.
"One of the more painful spectacles of modern science," the developmental biologist Armand Marie Leroi has observed, "is that of human geneticists piously disavowing the existence of races even as they investigate the genetic relationships between 'ethnic groups."'

I think race does exist, in the way that people originating from different regions of the world have diffferent coloured skin and different physical features to people originating from other regions of the world. I don't think it matters though, any more than say eye or hair colour does. Race is just a visual difference between people, nothing more, and as such should have no impact upon how we interact with each other.

There are different ethnic groups, yes, but not different races.

There are different ethnic groups, yes, but not different races. The difference is? Race ? species.

That was a "doesn't equals" sign.

if different races of humans dont exist, then why does the FDA have a "Draft Guidance for Industry Collection of Race and Ethnicity Data in Clinical Trials"? why do drugs have different effects and require different dosage for asians, negroes and europeans?

There are different ethnic groups, yes, but not different races.
Let's take a quick trip to London, shall we?

You come across two gentlemen. They're both London born, dyed-in-the-wool Britons. They're practicing Anglicans, and both come from middle-class families. Now, one of them is white and the other is black. Do they have the same ethnicity? Yes. Same race? No.

Now that's not a question of whether race matters (it shouldn't), but it is a simple question of factuality.

if different races of humans dont exist, then why does the FDA have a "Draft Guidance for Industry Collection of Race and Ethnicity Data in Clinical Trials"? why do drugs have different effects and require different dosage for asians, negroes and europeans?
Well when your family has lived in a certain area for THOUSANDS of years, certain environmental factors can affect your repsonse to certain chemcials

Saying there are different "races" of people IS "Racist".
If I say there are different breeds of dogs, I'm a dog racist?

Well when your family has lived in a certain area for THOUSANDS of years, certain environmental factors can affect your repsonse to certain chemcials And your limb length, and your hair colour, and how your skin reacts to the sun, and any number of other things. It's called adaption.

As Eliki said, ethnic group is not race, unless we ban immigration. Let's not.

"One of the more painful spectacles of modern science," the developmental biologist Armand Marie Leroi has observed, "is that of human geneticists piously disavowing the existence of races even as they investigate the genetic relationships between 'ethnic groups."'
Yay! I'm not the only one who loves NYTM's Ideas of the year issue.:)

There are different ethnic groups, yes, but not different races.

Even if there is no "race" in a biological sense, there is as a social construct. In other words, people have created race. Would you honestly argue that there is no such thing as nationality or class, as those doesn't exist in a biological sense?

Even if there is no "race" in a biological sense, there is as a social construct. In other words, people have created race. Would you honestly argue that there is no such thing as nationality or class, as those doesn't exist in a biological sense?
Yes, but then it is nationality or class.

"One of the more painful spectacles of modern science," the developmental biologist Armand Marie Leroi has observed, "is that of human geneticists piously disavowing the existence of races even as they investigate the genetic relationships between 'ethnic groups."'

Where'd you garner that from Eutrusca?

You can't argue until someone defines "Race". I don't know how you all go on spewing forth opinions on an undefined term. So here it is:

race

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.


Sorry you are wrong according to the definition of the word. There definately are different races of humans. Does it matter? No, I don't think it should. (I have ignored the other definitions of the word that we are clearly not referring to ie. running a race)

Where'd you garner that from Eutrusca?
New York Times Magazine's Year in Ideas issue, which came out yesterday. I advise everyone to read it, it's excellent!

If I say there are different breeds of dogs, I'm a dog racist?

I think so...

Well, biologically speaking, "race" implies a distinct seperation in the genetic material of one human from another, i.e. the genetic difference between a caucasian and an African. From what I've learned in college biology and anthropology, the genetic difference between any people of a different "race" is too small to really qualify as a measure of seperation.

Now, certain populations that live one type of enviroment and interbreed will produce offspring with certain common genetic and physical commonalities. For example, put about 20 redheads on an island and you will probably find a population of mostly redheads there in a century. This is what creates ethnic groups, which are usually more distinct from other groups culturally than genetically.

Race is mostly a social construct based upon physical characteristics that are common among people from different areas, like white skin on Europeans and dark skin on Africans. While recent science has been showing race to be incorrect, it is still a strong idea because it is culturally enforced, and so it should still be regarded as an important idea, but not necessarily a scientific fact.

Just my two and a half cents.

The only race is one that several beings compete in. Saying there are different "races" of people IS "Racist".

I'm an advocate of that.

Well, biologically speaking, "race" implies a distinct seperation in the genetic material of one human from another, i.e. the genetic difference between a caucasian and an African.

The implied mutual exclusivity of said terms is, I believe, incorrect - I know of several Chechens presently residing in Cairo. All jest set aside, a firm Caucasoid qualification characterizes a significant segment of Africa.

"One of the more painful spectacles of modern science," the developmental biologist Armand Marie Leroi has observed, "is that of human geneticists piously disavowing the existence of races even as they investigate the genetic relationships between 'ethnic groups."'

i don't get it. what would the existence of determinable genetic relationships within and between ethnic groups (read as 'semi-isolated breeding groups') has to do with the biological non-existence of the much larger category of 'race'? does this individual think that each ethnicity is a race?

I read the magazine article he's quoting from. It basically discussed the sensitive issue of not sounding racist even though geneticists are discovering medicines might work somewhat differently based on so called "race".

I read the magazine article he's quoting from. It basically discussed the sensitive issue of not sounding racist even though geneticists are discovering medicines might work somewhat differently based on so called "race".

Yay for PC induced stupidity.

The only race is one that several beings compete in. Saying there are different "races" of people IS "Racist". Discuss in a :) way.
HUMAN PRIDE!!!!!!!!!!!!

HUMAN PRIDE!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yeah, what use is persecuting the black man when you've gotta deal with Dwarves who love gold and getting drunk and hacking at your knee-caps more than humans like sex.

And Don't get me started on Trolls! Golems though, they're alright, because they're just like clay droids.

I read the magazine article he's quoting from. It basically discussed the sensitive issue of not sounding racist even though geneticists are discovering medicines might work somewhat differently based on so called "race".

i'd find that strange since nobody has ever come up with a consistent account of 'race' in the first place. like, for example, how many races are there exactly? without such an account, all you can compare is ethnic groupings and perceived race.

There is beginning to be evidence that race does exist. Several months ago, a new medicine was released that was targeted solely at African-Americans.

In addition, certain genes are more common in certain ethnic groups - cystic fibrosis is common in Africans, while Tay-Sachs disease is (sadly) common among Ashkenazic Jews.

Ironically, "Aryans" are most at risk from ultraviolet radiation (light skin and blue eyes are risk factors), while Africans are resistant to it.

Really, "race" is a PIC term for "ethnic group". The notion that one ethnic group is inherently superior to another is bogus, but there are differences.

What is amazing is that given the amount of time humans have lived on Earth, we have relatively little genetic variation. This is the result of a "bottleneck", when humans were at one point driven to the brink of extinction (leading theory is that the Toba supervolcano caused an ice age and a lot of humans froze to death). Had it not been for Toba, we would see more difference between ethnic groups.

But, as someone said earlier, the real "Master Race" is homo sapiens sapiens. We out-evolved all other homonids - the australopithicenes, homo habilis, homo erectus, the neanderthals - they're dead, we're still here. I'd say that would be evidence that we are the Master Race.

If I say there are different breeds of dogs, I'm a dog racist?

There seems to be enough genetic difference between breeds of dogs (purebreeds anyways) to label them as such. However, there does not seem to be enough difference between races (ie. "breeds") of humans to do the same thing. It appears that no one group of humans (at least one that still exists) has ever been genetically isolated long enough to develop into what we would actually call a race.

You can't argue until someone defines "Race". I don't know how you all go on spewing forth opinions on an undefined term. So here it is:

So, which definition are you picking? You conclude that the OP is incorrect, without clarifying which definition was being used. Let's look at them closely.

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

No. As far as we can tell, no human population has been genetically isolated long enough to form a distinct genetic group.

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

Ok, these certainly exist, but are a product of social construct and could easily change based on who moves borders tomorrow.

3. A genealogical line; a lineage.

Ok, so every family is now a race. I don't think this is a common usage.

4. Humans considered as a group.

Well, this definition would mean all humans are the same race. Thus, there would be no separate races within human beings.

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.

And *this* is the definition most people are using when they say that there is no race. And they are correct. Certain traits are more common in certain ethnic groups, but no single group has reached the point of differing enough from the rest to be classified as a race. Indeed, there is more variation within a socially classified "race" than there is between two "races".

b. A breed or strain, as of domestic animals.

This basically matches the above, and thus doesn't apply.

6. A distinguishing or characteristic quality, such as the flavor of a wine.

I don't think we were going with this one, although I've never heard it as a definition of race.

Sorry you are wrong according to the definition of the word. There definately are different races of humans. Does it matter? No, I don't think it should. (I have ignored the other definitions of the word that we are clearly not referring to ie. running a race)

You can't post several definitions, some of which apply and some of which do not, and then conclude, "The" definition does apply. You have made the same mistake you accused the OP of - not clarifying which definition you are using.

But, as someone said earlier, the real "Master Race" is homo sapiens sapiens. We out-evolved all other homonids - the australopithicenes, homo habilis, homo erectus, the neanderthals - they're dead, we're still here. I'd say that would be evidence that we are the Master Race.

Extinction does not construe inferiority.

You, I presume, meant 'hominids'? Some researchers, operating under a definition encompassing extant anthropoid apes, would consider 'hominins' (not misspelled) more apt.

In addition, certain genes are more common in certain ethnic groups - cystic fibrosis is common in Africans,.

Actually CF is more of a whitemans disease. Something like 1 out of 8 are carriers. I lost a kid to it. Not asking for sympothy just adding reason for my reading about it.

I think you are thinking of Sickle Cell?

I think you are thinking of Cycle Cell?

Sickle cell?

Yeah, what use is persecuting the black man when you've gotta deal with Dwarves who love gold and getting drunk and hacking at your knee-caps more than humans like sex.

And Don't get me started on Trolls! Golems though, they're alright, because they're just like clay droids.

I see you've traveled through Anhk-Morpork too. ;)

Yeah, I did mean sickle-cell anemia, not cystic fibrosis. I knew a kid who had it. He was - get this - in King's College Choir. He said the regular singing helped keep his throat clear.

Sickle cell?

Doh.....

Yeah, I did mean sickle-cell anemia, not cystic fibrosis. I knew a kid who had it. He was - get this - in King's College Choir. He said the regular singing helped keep his throat clear.

It varies in how it hits. There are digestion problems and there are lung problems. They brag that there is a 35% chance to make it to teen years these days.

I see you've traveled through Anhk-Morpork too. ;)Never been there myself... but I got the news over the clacks...;)

There is beginning to be evidence that race does exist. Several months ago, a new medicine was released that was targeted solely at African-Americans.

african-americans are now their own biological race?

Africans, Chinese, Europeans, Australians, Amerinidans, whatever are all the same race. If we can make babies together than we are the same race. If you can make a baby with a dog...well you better not tell anyone. Different breeds of dogs can be different races if they can't make babies with each other.

Africans, Chinese, Europeans, Australians, Amerinidans, whatever are all the same race. If we can make babies together than we are the same race.

What definition of race are you using? It isn't the biological one, that's for sure. Making babies together makes you the same *species* (so long as the offspring is fertile), not the same race. In biological terms, separate races would be able to procreate with each other, just as separate breeds of dogs can.

The only race is one that several beings compete in. Saying there are different "races" of people IS "Racist". Discuss in a :) way.

Well, your thread title was right.

There can exist greater degrees of genetic difference among individuals of the same 'race' than exists between members of different 'races.' Also, within different cultures, race lines can be radically different - even to the point of cultures such as the Gebusi of Paupa New Guinea where people can literally move across race lines depending on how the tribe feels about them.

The lack of a true biological basis for race, combined with the massive difference between cultures on what exactly race is and where those lines fall is enough to convince me of what my learned professors have told me : Race is a cultural construction - period.

Different breeds of dogs can be different races if they can't make babies with each other.

All, to my knowledge, can.

The only race is one that several beings compete in. Saying there are different "races" of people IS "Racist". Discuss in a :) way.

Saying there are different "races" is not necessarily racist.

Depending on the context, it is true, a mistatement, or an overgeneralization.

As a matter of political-social constructs, race does exist.

As a matter of anthropology, race does not exist.

As a matter of biology and genetics, race does not exist in conformity with our usual use of the term. Also groupings of genotypes does not equate to our preconceptions about phenotypes.

What definition of race are you using? It isn't the biological one, that's for sure. Making babies together makes you the same *species* (so long as the offspring is fertile), not the same race. In biological terms, separate races would be able to procreate with each other, just as separate breeds of dogs can.
I define race as an intelligent species...although whther humans are intelligent is debateable.

The boundaries seperating "different" races are so arbitrary and artificial (especially in modern times when more and more people have mixed heritage) that they doesn't really exist in any meaningful way except in peoples' minds IMO. Certainly there are physical features that are more likely if you have relatively recent ancestry from one area or another, but there is far too much ambiguity about any dividing lines (not to mention that people share essentially the same DNA they do with people of a different "race" than they do with people of the same "race" - or so I have heard, at least).

"One of the more painful spectacles of modern science," the developmental biologist Armand Marie Leroi has observed, "is that of human geneticists piously disavowing the existence of races even as they investigate the genetic relationships between 'ethnic groups."'Absoloutly!

Race is very much in existance, and there's no use denying it. Genetisics are actively exploring the differences it produces in regard to illness, resistance to drugs, and even more abstract concepts like apttitude and such. I had a thread about the cutting edge "Haplotype Project" about this a while back.
here:
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=426712 [/shameless plug]

But seriously, race shouldn't make a difference in our attitudes toward people and all that, but the genetic themes contained in our ethnic groups are proviong important, if not PC.

But seriously, race shouldn't make a difference in our attitudes toward people and all that, but the genetic themes contained in our ethnic groups are proviong important, if not PC.

'ethnic groups' are not equivalent to 'race'

'ethnic groups' are not equivalent to 'race'
A large part of this debate is in fact bound to vague an troublesome teriminology. Whn I say "race", "ethnic group", or 'population", I mean the same thing - a group of people with some genetic similarity that physiologically distinguishes them from other groups.

A large part of this debate is in fact bound to vague an troublesome teriminology. Whn I say "race", "ethnic group", or 'population", I mean the same thing - a group of people with some genetic similarity that physiologically distinguishes them from other groups.

so there are hundereds, if not thousands, of races under your system then?

Sorry, but the dictionary disagrees with you.:( "A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the German race." and dictionary>you

Would not the correct term be sub-species?

Then again somebody would be offended by use of sub as in subhuman?

so there are hundereds, if not thousands, of races under your system then?Depends how specific you want to get. You could take it to the nth degree, where each individual is defined as a "race" since we are all peripherally diffierent genetically. However, that would be of marginal usefullness. The HapMap project has concentrated on four general populations : Chinese, japanese, Sub-Saharan Africa, and western/northern European. Check out their website, it is quite specific, and adresses vcabuulary, and moral issues as well as describing the project.
http://www.hapmap.org/hapmappopulations.html

Sorry, but the dictionary disagrees with you. "A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the German race." and dictionary>youFrankly, I don't care what the dictionary says. I was talking about "race" as a genetic grouping, as I made abundantly clear. I realize that vocabulary can be troublesome and confusing, but scientists are trying to create more clarity, by using specific names and labels in their studies that are neutral in their connotations. the HapMap has a page on this too.http://www.hapmap.org/citinghapmap.html

Sorry, but the dictionary disagrees with you. "A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the German race." and dictionary>youDefining something doesn't actually prove it's existance. A dictionary is a tool for defining language, not proving facts. Because you can name it doesn't make it real.What definition of race are you using? It isn't the biological one, that's for sure. Making babies together makes you the same *species* (so long as the offspring is fertile), not the same race. In biological terms, separate races would be able to procreate with each other, just as separate breeds of dogs can.Anybody but me disturbed by the correlation of 'race' and 'breed'? It's why I reject the concept of 'race', I hold myself (and most of my fellow humans) slightly above the level of farm animals bred for specific purpose. 'Breeds' of animals are typically pedigreed and bred for generations with a specific purpose in mind. Free will and nature are removed from the equation. A defined animal is produced but usually at a cost. Most pure breeds have inherent flaws or health problems that occur more frequently than in your average animal. Do we really want to take humans down that same road? Not me, but if someone does selectively breed humans for a dozen generations for a specific purpose I'll recognize a 'race'. I'll ridicule and denounce the practice, but I'll recognize the fact that they've successfully lowered mankind to the level of farm animals.

Anybody but me disturbed by the correlation of 'race' and 'breed'? It's why I reject the concept of 'race', I hold myself (and most of my fellow humans) slightly above the level of farm animals bred for specific purpose. 'Breeds' of animals are typically pedigreed and bred for generations with a specific purpose in mind. Free will and nature are removed from the equation. A defined animal is produced but usually at a cost. Most pure breeds have inherent flaws or health problems that occur more frequently than in your average animal. Do we really want to take humans down that same road? Not me, but if someone does selectively breed humans for a dozen generations for a specific purpose I'll recognize a 'race'. I'll ridicule and denounce the practice, but I'll recognize the fact that they've successfully lowered mankind to the level of farm animals.Yeah, maybe the connotations of 'races' or 'breeds' are disturbing, but the facts are that purposeful selective breeding isn't necessary - it has already been achieve by millenia of comparative isolation between populations. You can maybe take comfort from the fact that any two Humans (a bushman and a scandinavian for instance) are more genetically similar than any two frogs you pick out of the same pond. That's because of some genetic bottlenecks Humans have experienced, duringhte ice-age for example, and also the very youth of our species.

But anyway, no-one has to take us down this road, we are here; indeed, we are not "abouve" genetic diversity, and this diversity is proving not only important, but highly interesting. In fact, we see that there are advantages and disadvantages asociated with different races/populations/wahteveryouwanttocalltehm in terms of disease and such, much like with dog breeds - not as prominant, for sure, but still there. Check out the HapMap links I put up in my posts - this is real science, not some weird Eugenics project.

The HapMap project has concentrated on four general populations : Chinese, japanese, Sub-Saharan Africa, and western/northern European. Check out their website, it is quite specific, and adresses vcabuulary, and moral issues as well as describing the project.
http://www.hapmap.org/hapmappopulations.html

i'd amend that to say "...four specific populations: people living in beijing, tokyo, ibadan, and utah..."

where do they say that they are treating these populations as races?

Sorry, but the dictionary disagrees with you.:( "A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the German race." and dictionary>you

There are more than one definitions of "race." You are correct that some definitions exist merely by definition. That does not mean that the use of the term is meaningful. Nor have you picked a particularly common use of the word. "American race" "Canadian race"

wisdom + understanding + dictionary > you

i'd amend that to say "...four specific populations: people living in beijing, tokyo, ibadan, and utah..."

where do they say that they are treating these populations as races?


Good point and better question. Haplotype /= race

i'd amend that to say "...four specific populations: people living in beijing, tokyo, ibadan, and utah..."

where do they say that they are treating these populations as races?Yes, I should have said that. Instead, I linked to the site that gives you the exact details -it's only one click away. Look, I don't see what the deal is with the word 'race'. Clearly, the researchers are talking these populations from Nigeria, Tokyo, etc, as representatives of a larger group (call that group what you will).

If there were no races then every single human being would have the exact same skin color. And so only an abnormal liberal who believes nothing but lies could possibly agree with the thought of their being no differant human races.

If there were no races then every single human being would have the exact same skin color. And so only an abnormal liberal who believes nothing but lies could possibly agree with the thought of their being no differant human races.

Um. People of the same "race" can have a wide variety of skin tone.

Only an abnormal ignoramous with no knowledge of biology, anthropology, or genetics could possibly agree that different skin tones indicate different races.

Yes, I should have said that. Instead, I linked to the site that gives you the exact details -it's only one click away. Look, I don't see what the deal is with the word 'race'. Clearly, the researchers are talking these populations from Nigeria, Tokyo, etc, as representatives of a larger group (call that group what you will).

C'mon, "race" is a very loaded concept. You know that.

There are both socio-political and scientific reasons why the Halotype Project doesn't talk about "race."

If there were no races then every single human being would have the exact same skin color. And so only an abnormal liberal who believes nothing but lies could possibly agree with the thought of their being no differant human races.Grow a brain cell. Genotypes don't equal race. By your line of reasoning everyone of the same 'race' would have the same hair color, same body type and same eye color. Even the staunchist 'race' advocate doesn't quite go that far. Even within the proposed 'races' there is a variety of skin pigmentation.

If there were no races then every single human being would have the exact same skin color. And so only an abnormal liberal who believes nothing but lies could possibly agree with the thought of their being no differant human races.
If there were no races everybody's hair would be the same color.
If there were no races nobody would be a different height than his neighbour.
If there were no races we'd all be clones looking exactly like each other.


:rolleyes:

Nice try, but no. You and your neighbour, who according to you are of different "races", technically have more genetic material in common if you have the same bloodtype than, say, another person of the same "race" as you with a different bloodtype.

So no, I don't buy the "different races" argument. There *are* ethnicities and different skin tones, but the only race there is is the human race.

Grow a brain cell. Genotypes don't equal race. By your line of reasoning everyone of the same 'race' would have the same hair color, same body type and same eye color. Even the staunchist 'race' advocate doesn't quite go that far. Even within the proposed 'races' there is a variety of skin pigmentation.

Ok so by your logic an African Nigerian is part of the exact same race as a White European man from Norway.... :rolleyes:

If there were no races everybody's hair would be the same color.
If there were no races nobody would be a different height than his neighbour.
If there were no races we'd all be clones looking exactly like each other.


:rolleyes:

Nice try, but no. You and your neighbour, who according to you are of different "races", technically have more genetic material in common if you have the same bloodtype than, say, another person of the same "race" as you with a different bloodtype.

So no, I don't buy the "different races" argument. There *are* ethnicities and different skin tones, but the only race there is is the human race.


It doesnt matter to me whether or not you buy the "different races" arguement. I am right and you are wrong and if you dont want to admit that fact I dont really care.

If you want to flame me go ahead if it makes you feel better.

Ok so by your logic an African Nigerian is part of the exact same race as a White European man from Norway.... :rolleyes:Uh...Yeah!


It's called the Human race. Those two hypothetical individuals you speak of are just as likely to have as much in common genetically as two Nigerians or two Norsemen.

So no, I don't buy the "different races" argument. There *are* ethnicities and different skin tones, but the only race there is is the human race.
Ok so by your logic an African Nigerian is part of the exact same race as a White European man from Norway....
Both of these deserve a *sigh*
I quit.

Ok so by your logic an African Nigerian is part of the exact same race as a White European man from Norway.... :rolleyes:
Yes, they are. There is only one race, and that is the human race.

There is not enough genetic disparity between the two of them to call them different races. Like I said, if they're the same bloodtype, they share more common genetic material than two Nigerians with differing bloodtypes. That's hardly enough to substantiate an argument about them being of "different races".

They're different. Just like Mr. Blond Guy and Mr. RedHead across the street are different from me. We're still all part of the same race.

Both of these deserve a *sigh*
I quit.
And it deserves a *sigh* because?

It doesnt matter to me whether or not you buy the "different races" arguement. I am right and you are wrong and if you dont want to admit that fact I dont really care.

If you want to flame me go ahead if it makes you feel better.
:eek:

That has to be the most stup... less well-thought of post I ever had the misfortune of reading.

At least *try* to summon a shadow of an argument to justify your view, other than you "being right and me wrong, and that's that". Do you even know what you're talking about? Have you ever taking an advanced biology class where genetics are discussed?

No offense, but do you actually expect me to take for the thruth something you most likely just pulled out of your ass and didn't even bother to find a lie to back up? :rolleyes:

It doesnt matter to me whether or not you buy the "different races" arguement. I am right and you are wrong and if you dont want to admit that fact I dont really care.

If you want to flame me go ahead if it makes you feel better.

Well I'm taking my marbles and going home ....

Well I'm taking my marbles and going home ....
I should do the same. No sense in losing precious sleep time arguing with someone who is obviously right while I am so obviously wrong.

Uh...Yeah!


It's called the Human race. Those two hypothetical individuals you speak of are just as likely to have as much in common genetically as two Nigerians or two Norsemen.
never mind. I un-quit.

TLP, did you even read my last response to you? Two Nigerians are likely to have more genetic similarities than a Norseman and a Nigerian. The variation between the two hypothetical Nigerians may certainly be larger in some areas as the variation between the norseman and one of the Nigerians, but there are other variations that will be more consistent and differentiable between the two populations, even if they are "smaller" variations.
Some genes must necessarily be extremely highly conserved to remain functional; these will be very similar in all members of a species, and in fact, in all cellular life. Other features allow more wiggle, and it is in these that features that distiguish populations, and members within those populations are found. So in an gene coding for an essential protein in muscle-contraction, say, we may all be identical, while in a less crucial feature like hair texture, we may differ. It is entirely certain that the Nigerian has identical features with a particular Norseman that is different from a fellow Nigerian in some genetic locations; in ohters, there will be greater consistancy within the population.

Saying that members of a population are just as (or almost as) similar genetically to members of a different population as they are to members of their own population is moot, therefore. The location and nature of a variation in a genome is much more important that the "size" of the genetic variation.

Anybody but me disturbed by the correlation of 'race' and 'breed'?

From a biological viewpoint, they would be the same, with no connotations applied.

It's why I reject the concept of 'race', I hold myself (and most of my fellow humans) slightly above the level of farm animals bred for specific purpose. 'Breeds' of animals are typically pedigreed and bred for generations with a specific purpose in mind. Free will and nature are removed from the equation.

This is true, but not fully relevant. If the isolation in breeding had occurred by more natural means, instead of being forced upon the animals for a purpose, they would still be breeds.

Most pure breeds have inherent flaws or health problems that occur more frequently than in your average animal. Do we really want to take humans down that same road?

Very small groups of humans have been down that road. Why are people with royal blood more likely to be hemophiliacs? Well, they were selectively breeding so much that a recessive gene became increasingly common to the point of causing a problem. If we had actual races of human beings, we would expect similar problems, as the only way to get "races" is to have a group of humans in genetic isolation for long enough for them to develop in a dinstinctly different manner from other human beings. As far as we can tell, this hasn't ever happened. Certain groups of humans have been isolated enough to have differences between ethnic groups, but none have been isolated to the point that we can easily tell them apart genetically. There were always people from other groups interbreeding and thus causing genetic diversity.

If there were no races then every single human being would have the exact same skin color. And so only an abnormal liberal who believes nothing but lies could possibly agree with the thought of their being no differant human races.

Under what definition is race defined by skin color? Even in animals, members of the same breed of dog will often have different coloring....


Ok so by your logic an African Nigerian is part of the exact same race as a White European man from Norway....

Yup, pretty much. Neither group has ever been genetically isolated long enough to develop into a separate race.

My view.

There are many different races of people and its blatently wrong to say they're all identical. Scienficially for example most Black people are in general larger individuals and say vietnamese are fairly shorter than the avarage person.

I will say they are all humans and I fully support the human rights act for all and basically all the political equality principles (except equality of outcome). But I would like to for exaple say I find a white girls more attractive than asian or something along those lines without an accusation of racism coming up.

Races are different in their own little ways just as countires and cultures are and as long as it doesn't encourage violence or predjudice I'm fine with it (positive discrimination slowly becoming an issue).