Let me start with an admission - I haven't bothered to read the entire 300 odd post thread.
Now, just because populations of humans with historically limited gene flow show intraspecific variations within their genotype does not mean that races exist. The same is true within all species (that varieties exist between populations). Whilst biologists sometimes use the term 'sub-species' (which I assume 'race' is the human equivalent), it is consensually understood that this term is merely for convenience and is wholly arbitrary. It can be useful in determining ecological patterns, however, and in questions of evolution. Much in the same way that 'race' (i.e. skin colour and ancestry) can be utilised in medical science to increase its efficacy. But the distinctions people make on racial lines are arbitrary, and the real problems seem to rise when generalisations are made which are groundless and/or lacking validity. For example making a leap linking intelligence and skin pigmentation is ridiculous. What is the mechanism by which skin pigmentation determines intellect, I wonder?
Race also exists in the human imagination; in sociological terms it is a phenomena which is real (as it is embedded in our culture, and perhaps even our nature to dominate, and what better mechanism have we than division...the oldest trick in an ancient book).
Anyway like I say I am far too bone idle to have read the whole thread, so maybe I am addressing points already made or repeating others' words. Indolence runs deep in the blood you see; I'm a West Indian
. I smoke ganja too, it is programmed into me you know. :m: As is mugging, I am an inherent mugger. Unlike some of you, who are inherent mugs.
Enough already. Stand up is not my strong point...
f
Now, just because populations of humans with historically limited gene flow show intraspecific variations within their genotype does not mean that races exist. The same is true within all species (that varieties exist between populations). Whilst biologists sometimes use the term 'sub-species' (which I assume 'race' is the human equivalent), it is consensually understood that this term is merely for convenience and is wholly arbitrary. It can be useful in determining ecological patterns, however, and in questions of evolution. Much in the same way that 'race' (i.e. skin colour and ancestry) can be utilised in medical science to increase its efficacy. But the distinctions people make on racial lines are arbitrary, and the real problems seem to rise when generalisations are made which are groundless and/or lacking validity. For example making a leap linking intelligence and skin pigmentation is ridiculous. What is the mechanism by which skin pigmentation determines intellect, I wonder?
Race also exists in the human imagination; in sociological terms it is a phenomena which is real (as it is embedded in our culture, and perhaps even our nature to dominate, and what better mechanism have we than division...the oldest trick in an ancient book).
Anyway like I say I am far too bone idle to have read the whole thread, so maybe I am addressing points already made or repeating others' words. Indolence runs deep in the blood you see; I'm a West Indian
Enough already. Stand up is not my strong point...
f
Last edited: