The Biological Case Against Race

American Outlook, publication of the Hudson Institute ^ | Spring 2002 | Joseph L. Graves Jr.

[tallhappy]

The article in this page is sufficient.

It states it well.

I am not interested in the author's other views.

The fellow you link to is, to be nice, a bit eccentric.

(And of most importance, not correct in his assertions of fact).

This issue is not like evolution or other matters. It observed and clear cut.

There is no reason to argue about it.

You mistake these obvious facts about biology with the greater questions of race that are social and poltical.

[tallhappy]

Further, you all failed the simple test -- define race and list the biological attributes that define it.

You can't do it.

[tallhappy]

Both liberal and conservative thought must deal with the self evident differences amongst peoples.

Of course. And they are not biologically defined in most cases (except in genetic diseases or conditions -- but that's not what you mean).

As a side note, for perspective, this is a basic teaching of the Bible as well that the differences you speak of and I agree exist are not biologically defined.

[William Tell]

wardaddy said: "Of course then one will invariably ask as William Tell did last night: Isn't culture a product to some degree of race in addition to many many other factors?"

Would you be kind enough to point out where you saw that comment? I do not recognize it as something I said. Thanks. - William Tell

[ThePythonicCow]

Good link - thanks. One other link was posted with evidence of genetic biological differences amongst the human races. See the more recent Post 232 or the earlier Post 75.

[lepton]

Race is a strong self-association factor -- we grow up with our own race, we tend to hand around with our own race, hence cultural identity tends to break along racial groupings.

Bingo...and the author washes right over "race as genetic" vs. "race as typical of culture", and blends them together then claims that they are claimed to be gene-based.

[ThePythonicCow]

Maybe that's in your Bible.

[tallhappy]

Maybe that's in your Bible.

What Bible do you use?

Mine is the one with the Old and New Testaments.

[ThePythonicCow]

Human races are not distinct separately defined groups. Your question is not a simple question, but a transparent rhetorical device.

[Condorman]

After all, wouldn't a "gay gene" have a hard time perpetuating itself?

A combination of one or two "gay genes" could very easily define a predisposition towards homosexuality. It would then be possible to define a person not as gay or straight but as relatively gayer or straighter than the population. People on either extreme would hard-pressed to choose the opposite of their natural inclination. People closer towards the middle would be more fluid in their attractions and choice of partners.

There are straights with one or two past homosexual experiences who go on to marry and raise a family. These might be people who are mostly straight, but near enough to the boundry that a cross-over isn't unthinkable.

Conversly there are individuals gay of center who try to follow conventional norms, marry, and have a family only to later realize that they are morbidly unhappy in a hetero lifestyle.

Hard to escape the fact that homosexuals are absolutely always procreated heterosexually.

Not really; it's basic genetics. Remember high school biology class? There are two allels for every gene. If there is a gay gene, and if it is recessive (a reasonable assumption), you will never be able to "breed it out of existence" because a person with the Gay/Straight combination will be indistinguishable from a Straight/Straight individual, but will be a "carrier" for homosexual tendencies.

Disclaimer: All of the above is conjecture and hypothesis on my part, but it does seem to fit the annecdotal facts and observations.

[Condorman]

"BDF"

Is that the same as "BFD"?

Heheh... yes, it's approximately the same, but there are certain logistical differences between the two...

[ThePythonicCow]

You wouldn't understand. Good day.

[lepton]

It's easier to keep slaves if they don't look like any of the free peoples around. That's why Indians were preferred in some areas...why the Leho try to take ALL Pygmies as slaves...numerous other examples.

[wardaddy]

OK....you may choose to believe that there is no such thing as race as a classification of humans based on physical characteristics. Hence, you may also naturally believe that there are no biological differnces (testosterone and estrogen levels and tolerance to heat or cold being the most obvious) and that any diseases that one commonly attributes as race-based are all bullsh!te.

Now in light of your refusal to acknowledge any other scientific data other than that which suits you, who's being political here concerning this issue?

I have made no political or social generalizations on this subject other than to attribute them to culture and geography more so than to race.

[lepton]

And least we forget, all the vaunted American Indian cultures of note were subdued handily by a few mean as hell Spainards on horseback with primitive firearms. Ironically, the less advanced but hardier and simply tougher Plains Indians put up a much better fight proportionately.

The Aztecs were conqured by the Spaniards more by the Spaniards freeing slaves than by their firepower. The 500 Spaniards were eventually accompanied by about 500,000 freed slaves when they hit the capital. The armor and firearms made the small-scale battles more dominant, but without the slaves there just weren't enough to do it.

The Roman's largely conquered non-Italian Europe and Africa by the same means as we defeated the Taliban.

[tallhappy]

Human races are not distinct separately defined groups.

Exactly. This is what the article says and what I have been saying the entire time.

Another way of saying it is that there is no biological basis for defining race.

I knew you'd get there eventually

[wardaddy]

My apologies ...it was William Terrell. Whoops.

And I paraphrased his exact query which was this:

Then which came first, the chicken (race) or the egg (culture)?

Again my apologies for mistaking you and to Terrell for paraphrasing him....but I think I was close to the gist of his post.

Regards

[tallhappy]

OK....you may choose to believe that there is no such thing as race as a classification of humans based on physical characteristics.

I don't believe that and never said that.

The problem is, you don't really understand much of anything on this topic. You are speaking out of ignorance.

Why is the question?