|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Darren New <dne### [at] san rr com> 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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |