Warp wrote:
>   Just because individuals can have mixed traits doesn't make the concept
> meaningless.

It makes the concept of assigning a single race to a person (especially 
nowadays with global travel and all) mostly 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.

Exactly. You can't say scientifically what "race" he is, because the 
boundaries of "race" aren't scientific.

>> 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.

No, they can't, any more than you can look at a person's race and tell 
whether they're a legal resident or an illegal immigrant.

You can tell whether they have genetics more often associated with people 
whose ancestors come from middle africa thousands of years ago, or more 
often associated with people who come from northern europe thousands of 
years ago.  But you can't say whether they're from Kenya or Britain.

And *that* is the distinction people are trying to make. Other than for 
information *about* genetics, "race" is a meaningless term. It's a statement 
about genetics, and for anything outside the field of genetics, it's 
meaningless.

You may say "Saying someone is Kenyan is a shorthand for saying they had 
ancestors thousands of years ago who lived near what is now Kenya," but by 
the time you actually *express* it that way, almost any assertion you make 
about the person's behavior or location (especially classical "racist" 
assertions) becomes obviously nonsense.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
   open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.

Post a reply to this message