[republicman]

---An interesting question, but there really isn't much of a "genetic" difference. "Race" is a social construct:---

Somewhat true, but take a look at the NFL, the NBA they are 70 to 90% black in a country that is 12.5% black. It's pretty clear that genetic differences, no matter how socially constructed they may be, are playing a role in who is qualified to be a basketball or a football player.

And could genes not also play a role in behaviors such as criminal predisposition? Again its not an argument I am advocating, just putting out there.

--Also, blaming crime on genetics only relieves the criminal of personal responsibility. (I know that's not what you were trying to do, but I do believe it leads us down that path)--.

True. However just because there is a genetic predisposition to alcoholism doesn't mean that we should excuse the drunk. No matter how predisposed one is there is still always free will.

[Tired of Taxes]

take a look at the NFL, the NBA they are 70 to 90% black in a country that is 12.5% black. It's pretty clear that genetic differences, no matter how socially constructed they may be, are playing a role in who is qualified to be a basketball or a football player.

I'm not saying that there aren't differences between people. "Genetics" may play a part in a person's abilities or disabilities, but there are genetic differences even within one "racial" group. More importantly, genes don't cause a person to decide to play a sport or to practice that sport until he can play professionally, nor do genes cause someone to choose to commit a crime (or to make any choice, for that matter).

Furthermore, there's the "one drop" rule still in effect. As I stated earlier, just one drop of "black blood" renders you "black". So, genetically, a man could trace his heritage directly to Europe, but the U.S. gov't and the NAACP (and probably the Bureau of Justice, basketball coaches, and the man himself) will still consider him as "black".