Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> One item to note: One of the reasons people say "there's no such thing as 
> race" is because "race" is really a mixture of a whole lot of features, and 
> the variation between those features in any particular "race" (regardless of 
> how you cut up the races) is larger than between separate "races".

  AFAIK anthropologists have well-defined meanings for "human races", and
the vast majority of them (well over 50%) don't have a problem with it nor
are advocating getting rid of the concept. For example an anthropologist
can usually easily distinguish from a skull whether it belonged to, eg. a
nordic person or to a central-African person. There are many distinguishing
features. And just because people can have traits of multiple races doesn't
mean that the concept is meaningless.

  Many so-called "multiculturalists" are calling for getting rid of the
whole concept of "race", but this is purely for political and ideological
reasons, not scientifical ones. Personally I see this as some kind of
attempt at orwellian manipulation (like in the novel "1984"): If you
completely ban offending vocabulary, the "criminals" (in this case racists)
won't have any way of expressing their views.

  Some anthropologists might have genuine and well-argumented scientifical
reasons why they are advocating getting rid of the concept, but AFAIK they
are a minority. I'm convinced that most people who do that are doing it for
ideological reasons only.

> > promoting outright banning the entire concept of "race",

> Yes. It's deep down a meaningless term. I've seen twins born of "mixed race" 
> families where one twin looked like he was from finland and the other looked 
> like she was from kenya. Yet they were both born of the same parents. Are 
> they the same race?

  Just because individuals can have mixed traits doesn't make the concept
meaningless.

> Why is Obama "black" but not "japanese"?  I believe even you once pointed 
> out the absurdity there.

  I think that's more a political than a scientifical issue.

> Kenyans are tall, but not all of them, and some British are tall too. I'm 
> sure you know some people born where you are that have dark curly hair.

  Yet an anthropologist can easily distinguish whether a skull belongs to
a Kenyan or a British.

  Why would that be a bad thing? I don't know.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message