Posted on 02/09/2004 1:09:47 PM PST by CobaltBlue
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:49:37 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
More than half of the class at San Jose's Piedmont Hills High School, students from numerous racial and ethnic backgrounds, are linked in their DNA to the same ancestor, born more than 100,000 years ago in central China or Taiwan.
(Excerpt) Read more at mercurynews.com ...
Yes, that is absolutely right. Mongoloid, Caucasoid and Negroid tend to confuse people who don't understand the distinction, so I tend to say Asian, African and European.
Incidentally, there is so much racial overlap nowadays that within a hundred years or so I'm guessing you might not be able to make a clear distinction concerning who is what.
Notice, too, how the physical characteristics of these Caucasians have altered over time. Given the proper circumstances, they will doubtless evolve into the racial type that best suits the environment in which they live. This has to be qualified, though, by marking the extreme mobility of human beings in the modern age; intermarriage; and the ability of technology to transcend the pressures posed by environment.
Huh? Is there a logic in this statement that eludes me? Other than your conclusion, your argument validates the propositon that some genetic disorders are "race" linked. (Actually, I prefer the term "breed" of mankind.}
Again, this is not the result of some natural, genetic desire to associate solely with one's own race. Rather, it is a result of liberal approaches to education and race that encourage the balkanization of college campuses.
That's a good question. Our thinking on race is essentially binary: black or white (or whatever other combination). Up until recently, there was no box on the census for "Mixed-race" (though, again, why is the half white/half black person "mixed?" How is their racial make-up any less distinct than anyone else's?)
I would say, people in our society still have a subconscious belief that when a white person has a child with a black person, the resulting offspring is somehow a diluted white person (why don't we consider them to be a diluted black person?), less "pure" than a white child.
Why isn't she considered a white actress?
Because, on the one hand, most people in our society probably believe that having any black blood automatically makes a person black. On the other hand, race-hustlers and members of the diversity industry have an interest in emphasizing race in America.
I think a more important question is: Why isn't she simply labelled an "actress?"
Not really, as this is also essentially a minor cosmetic difference. There is as much difference in builds within members of the same race as there is between races.
Going back to my cat example- I have two cats, one is a tan/brown, 20lb Maine Coone, the other is an 8lb, white/grey domestic short hair. These cats have completely different builds and looks about them, but they recognize each other as cats and make no distinction based on minor cosmetic differences. The animal world is full of examples like this where members of the same species look different from one another, but make no distinction based on this fact. To me, that suggests that our concept of race is a pure cultural creation.
I think my post goes back to a previous post that said that certain diseases afflicted only certain races, which implied that only those races coud get those diseases. I'm trying to point out that there is no "racial" aspect to these diseases(i.e. not only black people can get sickle cell anemia, while whites are genetically immune to it), just that they have historically been found only in certain races due to the fact that, up until recently, inter-racial mating was pretty rare.
No. Just pointing out how the decision was received in my neck of the woods. By others, not by me. "Impeach Earl Warren" signs everywhere.
No, now we are out of room.
If we cannot survive of our own, then there is something seriously wrong.
I see no value in a culture developing technology for the fun or mere pleasure of it--in fact, it would be counter-productive.
It might be better for a culture to accept more death and disease, and let natural selection do the rest, rather than forestall natural selection by developing technologies, which technologies will almost certainly visit more grief on a people than benefit.
LOL.
I read a little more of your post--I think I like this guy.
Still, he's missing something if he thinks he must rationalize-away what might be inferior intelligence by Western standards among aboriginal peoples--I would not be surprised to learn that some groups of people would be genetically incapable of coping with the mental tasks of living and working and learning in a technological society.
But I would not view such a group as mentally inferior, rather I view them as mentally different.
some South Indians, all of whom are caucasians are dark in skin tones and may be darker than some negroids.
In other words, we have other ways of identifying races than skin color. Facial characteristics are just as distinguishing. Michael Jackson knows that.
And that's the point. Like the other guy said, there is a "constellation of features" that identify race even if no single gene or identifier. Even though I may have 99% of my genes in common with an Asian man, the small handful of genes that make up identifiable characteristics are what we perceive as race.
The next genetic observation is that the things we *do* consider to be significant racial differences are actually just constellations of noticeable physical features which we have come to mentally lump into different "categories" and label as "race".
So, the "age old" understanding of race that has been overthrown is that there is a single gene for various races, and that races are marked by a single, observable, superficial characteristic.
Gee whiz, you mean science has shown that view to be false? Wow. That is fascinating. Thanks so much for coming in above the fray and clearing that up.
Of course, I don't know that you'd find anyone with a college education who ever thought there was a "negro" gene or a "white" gene, or anything similar to the view that you think has been "exploded" by modern genetic science.
As far as the cluster-of-properties view goes, that too would likely already have been accepted by someone who thinks that there is obviously something to racial categories. Why wouldn't someone just recognize the obvious and rather than saying that there is some one characteristic that is both necessary and sufficient for a particular race characterize a race by some cluster of properties? Then a person could point to the obvious fact that particular clusters arose in relatively isolated areas, and the components of the clusters are inherited traits.
And, anyway, even if someone insisted on a single-property view of race, one certainly wouldn't need genetics to show the view was false. One could simply observe the range of people that would fall within the ordinary understanding of some racial group. One could have done that in the 18th century. So showing the single-property view is wrong is hardly an achievement of modern science.
Why not just educate children in the notion of moral equality, or equal consideration of people's rights, rather than trying to force on them muddled and deceptive claims that science has "discovered" that there are no races? There's an idea.
Again, this is not the result of some natural, genetic desire to associate solely with one's own race. Rather, it is a result of liberal approaches to education and race that encourage the balkanization of college campuses.
I think I know what you mean. You are talking about all the minority "pride" organizations. But I think the liberals are pandering to an innate tendencies in this case.
There are other examples. Inner city gangs tend to associate by race -- in Los Angeles, there are Hispanic, African-American and Asian gangs, and it isn't because the mayor encourages it.
Sub-Saharan Africa is 99% black, not because few white people have happened to wander there and were not comfortable in the African climate but rather because they have not been successful in competing with the native population. Events in Zimbabwe and South Africa are a good illustration.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.