I asked a forumer: Do you believe in the inherent and overall superiority of any human ethnicity, or inferiority thereof?

This was his/her reply:

No I do not "believe in the inherent and overall superiority of any human ethnicity, or inferiority thereof"?

I know that there are many differences between the different "human ethnicitys" I think each of those differences are superior in their own way.

I though myself have my own preferences in what "human ethnicitys" I prefer to associate with, based on those differences.

Besides the poor spelling and grammar, is this statement racist?

The reply assumes that there are distinct differences between members of different races. In fact, if such differences exist at all, they are only on average. Thus, on any particular characteristic, a given white person and a given black person may be more alike (even genetically) than the same white person and another white person chosen at random.

To restrict your socialisation to one race based on perceived differences between races just means that you deprive yourself of potential colleagues, friends or contacts based on a misconception of the kinds of differences between human beings that are important.

It doesn't seem so. It's merely stating that there are differences between ethnicities and that each ethnicity excells in certain areas, and some don't. Not that one ethnicity is above all others, but that some are better at certain things.
Carlos Mencia explained it very well in one of his bits.

His last sentence is a bit ignorant, however, but not blatantly racist.

In English we use the terms "race," "ethnicity," and "nation" without a clear definition of what they mean or what the differences are between them.

In many other languages, the word they use to translate our word "race" actually is more appropriate for the "breed" of an animal such as a Persian cat, an Arabian horse, or a Maltese dog. In that context it refers to a more or less well-defined gene pool. The gene pools that once defined the human "races" which arguably existed in antiquity have been blended almost beyond recognition since the advent of modern transportation technology.

So, to accuse someone of "racism" is to admit that the accuser believes in the concept of "race," which itself has been discredited.

"Ethnicity" is a little easier to define, but it clearly has more to do with culture than with genetics. The root of the word "ethnic" is the Greek word for "nation." We might as well speak of national origin rather than ethnicity. Of course, in a few cases such as the Jews, Gypsies, and Kurds, nationhood has eluded them yet they still exist as recognizable "ethnic groups." In other cases we combine multiple nationalities into a convenient "ethnic" label, such as "Latin American," "African," or "Polynesian."

Still, when a person speaks of "ethnicity" rather than "race," we can give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he's speaking of cultural characteristics, of which there are plenty, rather than "racial" characteristics, which are pretty close to nonexistent these days.

I enjoy hanging out with Latin American people because I appreciate the opportunity to practice Spanish and I'm a whole lot more likely to have that opportunity if I hang out with Latin Americans than if I hang out with Estonians. I enjoy hanging out with Chinese people because I love Chinese food and I'm a whole lot more likely to find myself sitting down to a Chinese meal if I hang out with Chinese people than if I hang out with Polish people.

I'm a dog lover, I have a houseful of them. I'm not likely to make many friends among people from fundamentalist Islamic nations, where dogs are considered to be too unclean to be allowed to touch humans or enter their homes.

There are lots of reasons one might prefer the company of people from specific national groups that have nothing to do with "racism."

I define a race as being a group of similar ethnicities. I know, I know, 'race' is just a human invention and blah. Guess what: we're humans.
Now, I am not racist by any means. I believe that all races are equal and should be equal. I also belive that certain ethnicities and people are better at certain things than others, but not "better" over all others.
For example, Africans (not blacks per se, but generally most people in northern and central africa) developed very effective fast-twitch muscle reflexes and hightened senses of vision, smell, and hearing. Why? So that they could more easily defend against the larger, faster, and more dangerous animals that inhabit africa. It was just a twist of history that africans were taken to north america by european tradesmen, and that over time, they retained thier physical attributes and became excelled at physical sports. It was an evolutionary response that they retain to this very day. Athletics requiring fast reflexes and short bursts of energy, anaerobic exercises, are the thing that most people of african descent excell at.
But, mental capacity and mental activity are definently not governed by ethnicity, race, or what have you. That is influenced by thier environment and social surroundings, which vary from region to region, country to country, which are themselves determined by the current leadership and economic conditions of a country.

I believe in evolution and therefore either:
Black people evolved into white people
White People evolved into black people
They both evolved seperateley
Either way all races have stood the test of time and so are superior to othe specieses which have not

It is possible that one race could prove to be superoior to another however in the conditions on earth currently there is no need for the special "feature" which one race may have

Race and ethnicity are two different things. If by ethnicity you meant to say race then I wouldn't have an answer since I am not a biologist. If by ethnicity you meant to say culture, than I would point out that some cultures and ways of life are superior to others.

Each race or indeed each individual has qualities, traits and idiosyncracies unique to that race or individual.
These attributes are to be celebrated or reviled by the individual or race in question.
To decry an entity for those attributes could be construed as racist in certain circumstances. To choose to affiliate oneself (or not) with a race or individual because of those attributes is not inherently racist, simply a matter of personal preference, an assertion of ones own attributes, perhaps.

So no. The statement is not in itself racist.

It's not racist, but it's also the most disingenuous statement this otherwise racist person has made. Obviously he views some differences as superior to others. "In their own way" means not necessarily in my way.

I have been off forums for quite some time and so have no preconceptions as to the personalities of 'new' members, nor the personal verisimilatude of their statements.
Simply judging the statement on it's own merits, however, it reads (to me), that this individual merely recognizes the intrinsic differences in peoples and determines their value in relation not simply to their own attributes but as compared with others:
I know that there are many differences between the different "human ethnicitys" I think each of those differences are superior in their own way.

As I browse the forums and determine which individual the original quote came from, I may revise my assessment :)

The reply assumes that there are distinct differences between members of different races. In fact, if such differences exist at all, they are only on average. Thus, on any particular characteristic, a given white person and a given black person may be more alike (even genetically) than the same white person and another white person chosen at random.

To restrict your socialisation to one race based on perceived differences between races just means that you deprive yourself of potential colleagues, friends or contacts based on a misconception of the kinds of differences between human beings that are important.

So you are saying that it is wrong to assume there are essential differences between jocks and nerds because if you picked a random jock and nerd they could both be equally big football/sci-fi fans? You are also saying that nerds should try to associate with jocks and vice versa (even though the nerds might risk black eyes and the jocks their popularity), because no one would want to deprive themself of "potential colleagues."

Rekkr:

So you are saying that it is wrong to assume there are essential differences between jocks and nerds because if you picked a random jock and nerd they could both be equally big football/sci-fi fans?

The same point applies. The differences between jocks and nerds are only average differences. There are examples of jocks who also like sci-fi, and there are nerds who like football. The labels put on people are often simplistic and stereotypical. People are more complex than these kinds of black and white (no pun intended) classifications.

You are also saying that nerds should try to associate with jocks and vice versa (even though the nerds might risk black eyes and the jocks their popularity), because no one would want to deprive themself of "potential colleagues."

I am saying that jocks should not ignore what nerds have to offer, and vice versa. I am also saying that if you concentrate on difference, you will never see similarity. A jock and a nerd might very well share a common interest, but they'll never know it if they refuse to talk to each other.