Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » Science and Technology » A Subversive Idea – The End of Race

A Subversive Idea – The End of Race

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

What if many of the things you thought were true simply weren’t? Could you let go of your old beliefs? Would you? What if they struck at the core of some of your most basic concepts of self? In earlier times people have confronted this unnerving reality, generally as the scientific revolution rolled over their old ideas. We seem to think we are immune; that everything we know is the truth.

Thomas Kuhn, in his transforming The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, argues that science is not a steady, cumulative acquisition of knowledge. Instead, “science is a series of peaceful interludes punctuated by intellectually violent revolutions.” After such revolutions, “one conceptual world view is replaced by another.” It is time for another revolution and this one involves the entire concept of race.

As a scientific fact the black race doesn’t exist; neither do the white or Asian. There is no race gene. In the year 2000, when the scientists at the National Institutes of Health announced that they had put together a draft of the entire sequence of the human genome, the researchers unanimously declared that there is only one race — the human race.

The Hispanic race didn’t even exist until the 1970 census – they needed some classification for “them.” Here is a subversive idea; what if there truly isn’t any “them”? What if the whole concept of “them” is simply a creation of our classification? One can take data and classify it in a myriad of ways, but the classification doesn’t become real in any physical sense.

If we treat the idea of race like any other scientific concept, old, invalid thinking must be discarded when new discoveries are made. Often this demands a profound shift in thinking. Copernicus’s discovery that the earth is not the center of the universe is an example of a similar realization that demanded this type of profound shift.

In the 18th century, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe captured this reality when discussing the profound impact of Copernicus’s discoveries:

“Of all discoveries and opinions, none may have exerted a greater effect on the human spirit than the doctrine of Copernicus. The world had scarcely become known as round and complete in itself when it was asked to waive the tremendous privilege of being the center of the universe. Never, perhaps, was a greater demand made on mankind – for by this admission so many things vanished in mist and smoke! What became of our Eden, our world of innocence, piety and poetry; the testimony of the senses; the conviction of a poetic – religious faith? No wonder his contemporaries did not wish to let all this go and offered every possible resistance to a doctrine which in its converts authorized and demanded a freedom of view and greatness of thought so far unknown, indeed not even dreamed of.”

The false concept of race is treated much the same. Ridding ourselves of this cruel fantasy is fought by those on all sides. Ridding ourselves of this failed theory strikes at the heart of many deeply held beliefs. Ridding ourselves of this obscenity opens us all to knowledge “which in its converts authorized and demanded a freedom of view and greatness of thought so far unknown, indeed not even dreamed of.” Free your mind to the truth. There are only individuals and they are not defined by their skin color. There are only “them” after we create them. Here is an idea – why don’t we simply stop?

Whether we like it or not, there is no scientific basis for the concept of race, and focusing on a human invention will never solve the problem of racism – which is practiced by far, far too many individuals of all sizes, shapes, and colors. Let the revolution begin.

Powered by

About John

  • http://human-interface.blogspot.com/ gazelle

    ‘Race’ is an artifact of the past, although it persists in people’s head. Race does not exist.

    Ethnicity and culture are more useful (concepts). But it is a mistake to think that any culture or ethnicity is ‘pure’ – that is also never true except for relatively short periods of time.

    Thats a lesson difficult to accept for many.

  • http://jeliel3.blogspot.com JELIEL³

    There is race, the human one. Any physical traits that differentiate groups from others are effects of environmental adaptation causes for the most part. Not genetic ones.

    Besides, any boundary is a created and maintained one. In your mind. Human beings are all the same from the saintly to the most vile. They all want the same thing. To be happy. The only problem, is how they think they must proceed to achieve said happiness.

    Same hardware, differently configured operating system. But still the same.

  • Nancy

    While I’m aware of the genetic lack of classification, how do the very recognizable phenotypic traits that define various ‘races’ occur? There must be something that dictates that most if not all persons descended from this group or that have this or that physical traits, otherwise there wouldn’t even be specifically recognizable groups such as asians, blacks, indians, whites, etc.? Also, while there may not be any genetic markers, in forensics when analyzing remains, it is certainly possible to say with considerable probability (& later be proved correct 99% of the time) that an individual is white, black, asian, etc. based on the skeletal aggregate measurements & build, in addition to being able to (generally) state gender, age, etc. if the proper bones are present.

  • http://human-interface.blogspot.com/ gazelle

    Nancy,

    as far as i know, genetic traits have spread and mixed very widely all over the world through millenia of migrations. it is still, i think not established, that the oldest human dna in india for instance of its most isolated tribe is more indian or african.

    in a different vein european ‘white’ people, who would normally seem not to have moved for millenia from their area, surprised in their genetic analysis to find traits from particular tribes from particular regions in africa and other parts of the world.

    Should i say this is the norm?

    but I would go to scientific american or nature to put a stamp on the nuances of this very intersting subject.

    best

  • http://www.eicenterprises.org John Conlin

    Hi Nancy,

    I included the quotes from Thomas Kuhn on paradigm shift since that is what is required to answer these questions – one must change your world view. Of course we are all more like our more recent ancestors than more distant ones (not really rocket science) – and these differences (both external and internal) are based on various breeding groups that have existed in relatively recent time (I’m an ex-geologist so I look at time from a more realistic viewpoint, i.e. from about 3.5 billion years ago when the first pulse of life began on this planet). These differences show themselves in many areas – but they do not “create” the existence of the black and white races.

    All “blacks” do not remotely have the same physical traits – there are just specific ones that are used to group them in this racist category. Asians all look the same? Japanese, Chinese, Laotian, Vietnamese… go to Asia and see if they agree. But since we all come from somewhere, we just didn’t magically appear on the planet one day, these breeding groups can be identified by genetics – perhaps there are 20 such groups, perhaps 50, this is not my point. The genetics are much finer than these broad stokes of “black”, “white”, etc. Many simply take the data and place the racial concepts of “black”, etc. on top of them. The data doesn’t “create” the races, the preconceived notion of race does. This is the paradigm shift of which I speak.

    And when in doubt let’s look to those who study the field – when the scientists at the National Institutes of Health announced they had put together a draft of the entire sequence of the human genome, the researchers unanimously declared there is only one race — the human race. Race is a social construct – it is made up by societies.

    So says the American Anthropological Association (AAA) and the vast majority of experts in the field. To quote the 1998 AAA Statement on “Race”: http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm

    Today scholars in many fields argue that “race” as it is understood in the United States of America was a social mechanism invented during the 18th century…

    From its inception, this modern concept of “race” was modeled after an ancient theorem of the Great Chain of Being, which posited natural categories on a hierarchy established by God or nature.

    “Race” thus evolved as a worldview, a body of prejudgments that distorts our ideas about human differences and group behavior. Racial beliefs constitute myths about the diversity in the human species and about the abilities and behavior of people homogenized into “racial” categories. The myths fused behavior and physical features together in the public mind,…

    A “social mechanism invented”? A “hierarchy established by God or nature”? “Myths”? Why do we continue to pay homage to an idea that is clearly not true in any scientific manner? This is the paradigm shift. I realize we all look different and in the past individuals have been classified based on these outward physical appearances; it is just that these groups are our own creation and we keep them alive by the simple act of keeping them alive.

    People are afraid to discuss some of this since there are most assuredly differences in many of these breeding groups, including IQ and thousands of other traits. This might be of some interest to scientists who study the field but ultimately you and I deal with individuals – and each of them is very unique. And none of them are defined by the failed scientific theory of race.

    I have an ongoing challenge to those who claim there is such a thing as race. I simply ask them to define the “black” and “white” races for me. The only ones who try immediately start talking about the finer points of genetics. But as used in the everyday world, “black” this, and “white” that, they are talking about a whole lot more than genetics. This is the definition I desire. I’m still waiting for ANY ONE to define it for me. If these races are real, physical things, please define it for me. I certainly don’t seem to get it. I’m little slow (must be my race ;-)

  • http://www.codexalimentarious.com/ Richard Brodie

    It seems to be the white race that is more fragile and destined for extinction. Think about it. If you are of mixed lineage, say three pure white grandparents and one pure black one, how do you fill out the “ethnicity” question on the census form? African American, of course! Why doesn’t it hold in reverse – why doesn’t three black grandparents and one white grandparent equate to being considered white?

    Well, one motivation might be the preferential treatment one could expect to get with minority status when it comes to welfare handouts and government mandated quotas. But perhaps genetically dark traits and features are dominant and stand out as more unmistakeably recognizable, so that if one is for example only one tenth black, the African component is perceptible, but if one is only one tenth white it is more difficult to conclude from observation that there is a Caucasian component.

  • http://journals.aol.com/vicl04/THESAVAGEQUIETSEPTEMBERSUN/ Victor Lana

    I recall a teacher in high school saying one time that in another hundred or so years, “race” as we know it would be history. His reasoning was simple: people are people and are going to see the fallacy of categories and will keep defying them, eventually intermingling so often as to blur any distinction.

  • http://human-interface.blogspot.com/ gazelle

    my black features are totally unrecognizable except that i also think, so i am black.

  • http://gratefuldread.net Natalie Davis

    Mr. Brodie wrote: “If you are of mixed lineage, say three pure white grandparents and one pure black one, how do you fill out the “ethnicity” question on the census form? African American, of course!”

    Of course? I have never done so. I suppose you subscribe to the vile “one drop” rule. I sign forms as “other” and write in “human.” It makes people upset, but I don’t care. Accuracy matters.

    Mr. Conlin, thank you, thank you, thank you. It is rare that essays on the fallacious concept of “race” exhibit such good sense. Nearly three years ago, I wrote such an article – there were those who appreciated it, but they were damn few. I received more ridicule and abuse than anything else. Typical.

    Anyhoo, goddess bless you.

    NR Davis

  • Nancy

    I personally consider we’re ALL ‘black’ – or at least, of African extraction, since we ALL hark back to Africa ultimately anyway; it’s just a matter of how far one has to go back. I was just thinking about the physical anthropological parameters used by forensics people when profiling an unknown victim/remains. I was very interested in the recent program on MLK day tracing various person’s DNA. A few were quite surprised to find out what they were – or weren’t – as far as “racial” heritage was concerned. It shouldn’t make such a big difference to anyone: skin us all, and we’re all pretty gross looking.

  • tommyd

    God created man in different colors to live in their own respective geographical areas. Once man decided to play God and mix and conquer and colonise did the real deep trouble begin.

    If you’re looking to create a raceless society, you might as well come out and call yourselves Communists because that’s what you are. It’s a completely Marxist idea that “race doesn’t exist.” Wear your red berets proudly Young Pioneers!

    Spit.

  • lumpy

    tommy, i’ve suspected you were a racist before but was never sure. thanks for making it absolutely clear.

  • http://gratefuldread.net Natalie Davis

    Mr. TommyD, are you insane? Many scientists say life started in one place. As humans multiplied, groups migrated to different areas of the planet. Given that humans ostensibly looked the same prior to the migrations, are you saying a god intended for specific ones to migrate to specific areas? What a weird outlook. And yes, thanks for revealing yourself.

    I’m with Ms. Nancy – we are all one human family. We are all related. All this melanin crap is meaningless.

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com/ Michael J. West

    I am pretty sure TommyD was being ironical, Ms. Davis.

  • Eric Olsen

    it is absolute fact that we’re all Africans – some of us have just been away a bit longer than others

  • http://human-interface.blogspot.com/ gazelle

    tommyd:
    all geographical areas are connected, if you start walking one from one end and walk all over. you will also notice on the way that the ‘race features’ change very gradually, say if you are going north in africa or across, and crossing around the mediterranean and walking to northern europe, or to asia via the old silk road…thats what will surprise you…. people have been moving long long long long before history started being written down.

    now if you take a ship or plane from central africa to sweden or japan, you might ‘think’ races are distinct

    …g

  • RedTard

    Oh no, the PC are back out in full force. Race is simply a way to describe certain sets of features shared by groups of people indicating their probable ancestry. The word has meaning, and will continue to, because we gave it that meaning.

    He challenges people to define white and black as “proof” of the existence of race without relying on the DNA components. I challenge him to define the color orange without relying on the electromagnetic spectrum. Neither one is possible but both race and the color orange exist. (even before DNA or the electromagnetic spectrum was discovered)

    If race is meaningless because of it’s fuzzy edges then ethnicity and culture and a whole slew of social science foundations are equally meaningless. I doubt these scientists and the author plan on dismantling this whole department that created them. I suspect if it did become popular to eliminate race just ot get rid of the word it would simply be replaced with ethnicity.

    Would we need to come up with a new word for racists? Calling someone an ethnicitist just doesn’t have the same ring to it.

  • http://gratefuldread.net Natalie Davis

    Mr. West, I pray he was being ironic.

  • http://www.eicenterprises.org John Conlin

    About 3.5 to 3.8 billion years ago (about 1.3 trillion days ago for those who like that measurement) life began on this planet – the Hand of God or the Hand of Evolution – either way it is the same. It has flowed as a constant, unbroken stream since then. We (and all life presently living) are at the edge of this flow. We are related to all humans on the planet; not as some touchy feely philosophical sense, but as a real, physical fact. We are related to all life that has EVER lived on this planet – again as a real, physical fact – as real as the keyboard and monitor that sits in front of us.

    Remember the concept of paradigm shift – some simply can’t or won’t try (and we can ignore the racists, everyone has the right to be stupid). And it does take a paradigm shift. Hate to make your brains hurt but many evolutionary biologists will tell you that even the concept of species is questionable. It is very difficult to comprehend (much like quantum mechanics or big bang cosmology) but as a snapshot in time the concept of species makes sense. Looking at life over a longer period and the concept becomes much more blurred.

    Sorry RedTard, I’m still waiting for ANY definition (use genetics if you desire but make the definition fit the way “black” and “white” are used in common communication) I look forward to your attempt – and please stop with the PC strawman, I’m about as un-PC as you can get.

    As for ancestry and ethnicity – here comes more brain pain. It is simply the continuation of scientifically false ethnic group thinking from our less knowledgeable and more tribal past. The American Medical Association states it rather clearly “ethnicity is universally recognized as being socially defined.”
    http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/13676.html Which is just another way of saying it has no factual basis.

    Of course we all have ancestors. You did not just appear on the planet one day. And of course your ancestors had to live some place. And of course we are genetically more like our more recent ancestors than our more distant ancestors. We are not talking rocket science here.

    But are you defined by your ancestors? Is it they that define who you are? Why does it matter that some of my ancestors can be traced back to counties we now call Ireland and Germany? These countries, as they are now understood, have only existed for a millisecond on the cosmic clock. What is so special about this small piece of time that we use it to define who we are. The honest answer is it does not. It is simply a historical artifact.

    Sorry to make you confront the facts but such is life. For a GREAT read, do spend some time with Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Modern society, somewhat arrogantly assumes that only those “less informed” from years back had to confront profound paradigm shift – sorry folks, this one is ours to live.

    As soon as I post this comment I’ll post another to our friend Blogcritics – it is called “Who You Are – the Illusion of Ethnicity”. For those who fight the truth, enjoy the brain pain. For the rest, you warm my heart. Truly thanks – jc

  • TA Dodger

    There is no scientific basis for race? That isn’t exactly revolutionary information. Of course, saying something is a social construct is not the same thing as saying it doesn’t exist.

  • RedTard

    Here is a simple proof that race has meaning. If I stand Justin Timberlake, Jackie Chan, and Kanye West in front of a group of 6th graders at any school in the country and ask which of them is black or Asian or white the response will be overwhelmingly consistent.

    Racial terms convey useful information (meaning) that allows people to distinguish between the three. Your welcome to deny it all you want but you’re absolutely wrong.

  • TA Dodger

    Distinctions between races are

    a) Arbitrary
    b) Socially constructed
    c) NOT based on genetics / science

    but are they not *real*? I don’t even know what that means.

    Oh, and the above three points were what I was taught throughout college. The fact that you can’t determine someone’s race with a blood test has already been accepted (at least among academics). Old news.

    Of course those professors still talked about race, since talking about race is important if you want to talk about things like racism and the way people experience their day to day lives.

  • chantal stone

    well said, TA…no matter what science does or does not prove, you can not erase experience.

  • RedTard

    “There is no scientific basis for race?”

    There may not be, but you can send off a sample of your DNA to a lab and get tested to see what percentage of each race you are. Sounds pretty scientific to me.

    The same PC nerds in the social science departments who brought us brilliant theories like ‘cultural relativism’ (basically, there’s no such thing as right and wrong) are at it again. Their next completely useless point of view: ‘race doesn’t exist’. I wonder what non-obvious name they’ll give that one.

  • RedTard

    c) NOT based on genetics / science

    That’s no longer the case.

    A recent study tracking genetic racial markers to self identified race in the US showed an almost unbelievable 99.86% correlation between self identified race and genetic markers. Even here in the melting pot race is real and it is science.

    The link to the study.

  • Dave Nalle

    Distinctions between races are

    a) Arbitrary
    b) Socially constructed
    c) NOT based on genetics / science

    This last, at least, is not true. While on a gross level there are no meaningful genetic differences, there ARE clear genetically inherited traits unique to certain races, such as sickle cell anemia for those of African descent, graves disease among southern Germans, red hair and fair skin among the Irish, characteristic facial features and skin colors – all of these things are genetic and linked to particular ethnic groups. If we were all genetically the same then we’d be clones.

    Dave

  • http://alienboysworld.blogspot.com/ Christopher Rose

    Actually, Dave, my understanding differs on your third point.

    My information may not be complete but I wasn’t aware that the majority or all of the traits you list are actually UNIQUE to the group you ascribe them to, simply more common..?

    In response to RedTard’s confused thinking: if you look at any system of classification in great enough detail, you’re going to find differences eventually. That’s kind of the point.

    As Dave pointed out, if there was no genetic variation at all, we would all be identical and could be wiped out by one toxic organism.

    RedTard’s argument seems to be focussing on an arbitrary interpretation of science in support of his prejudices, rather than trying to understand a situation for what it is. Interesting approach…

  • http://gratefuldread.net Natalie Davis

    Disgusting and frightening approach.

  • TA Dodger

    Of course things like skin color are genetically based, and we do sort people into races based on phenotypes that are no doubt reflections of genetic differences, but the point is that the categories into which we divide people into are arbitrary and not based on science. The difference between things like amount of melinin are a matter of degree and so are most other phenotypic differences.

    Dave, your examples of how people whose ancestors come from certain places show unique (or at least unusual) diseases is one of the reasons I think race is still a useful concept. The idea that there are really distinct and seperate “races” of people might be a social construct, but it helps us talk about things like this, so it strikes me as a useful construct.

  • http://alienboysworld.blogspot.com/ Christopher Rose

    Hi Natalie, as the volunteer comments editor, I try to pick my words carefully so I can debate more effectively. You no longer have that constraint since you stopped being the pol-ed, so get get ‘em!

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Nothing wrong with social constructs, TAD. Everyone likes to have an identity outside of themselves to cling to. Even if the differences between ethnicities were purely cultural they’d still be significant, but the existence of identifiable genotypes really does have some meaning, though it should never be accepted as a basis for prejudice.

    Dave

  • RedTard

    “RedTard’s argument seems to be focussing on an arbitrary interpretation of science in support of his prejudices,”

    And what exactly prejudices are those? I simply state the scientific fact that race does exist. I enjoy watching you PC types jump over one another claiming it doesn’t when it is completely and utterly not true.

    The author of this post has provided exactly zero substantive evidence to support his claim. The only reason anybody is buying it is because everyone would like to be free of racism. That is not a theory, it is simply wishful thinking.

    Scientific studies have shown that people who check a given race box on a form match up with their genetic racial profile over 99% of the time. It doesn’t get more real, scientific, or accurate than that.

    It is interesting how many people had been propagandized that race was not genetic. Even once you realize that you were being lied to, your theory simply adjusts to claim that is not important.

    You were being lied to then with a purpose as you’re being lied to now. The question is will you be fooled twice. Evidently so!

  • http://human-interface.blogspot.com/ gazelle

    race or ethnicity is in the head and socially learned knowledge, not in the body.

    what black means or what white means is learned. In societies where color is not associated with ‘racial’ or worse ‘species’ difference you usually have have many shades – and the gradual differences are the subject of inane jokes not prejudice – when these people confront racially segregated attitudes they are usually shocked by the extreme prejudice.

    There are of course differences between any two families or communities or groups of people…and there are stereotypes

    but race or bodies are not the criteria for one being ‘better’ or ‘superior’ than the other, neither are genes. there can be thousands of other considerations such as the quality of humanity…

    g

  • http://www.eicenterprises.org John Conlin

    We are biologic creatures who evolved on this planet – one individual at a time. EVERY PHYSICAL TRAIT WE HAVE IS BASED ON GENETICS. It can be no other way. The latest theories postulate that 50% to 70% of our BEHAVIORAL traits are based on genetics. This has nothing to do with the concept of “black” and “white” races. Many of you are confusing this – just because certain breeding groups over millennia have developed environmentally driven physical (and behavioral and intellectual) adaptations does not “prove” that the “black” or “white” race exist. The “Hispanic” race is a creation of the 1970’s US census. The concept did not exist until then.

    How many times does one have to repeat – We ALL have ancestors – you did not just magically appear on the planet one day. And you were not “created” at your birth (or more correctly conception), you were continued.

    That women’s rights are one step above a goat was once a social construct. Let’s these creatures vote? My god, they never have in the past, it’s simply not the way things work. That slavery was acceptable and natural (and it did occur around the world) was also a social construct. The quite acceptable killing one who wasn’t of one’s tribe was also a social construct. Do we need any more? They were never true – they were simply believed.

    I recommend that some of you attempt to follow Bertrand Russell’s statement on truth:
    “… minds do not create truth or falsehood. They create beliefs, but when once the beliefs are created, the mind cannot make them true or false… What makes a belief true is a fact, and this fact does not… in any way involve the mind of the person who has the belief.”

    Oh but wait, I’m (and the AMA and AAA and thousands of others) just a radical PC focused person who doesn’t believe there is any reality… or right and wrong… or…? Here I though I was simply making a factual statement that there are ONLY individuals and they are not defined by meaningless physical traits or where their most recent ancestors came from. Guess I’m wrong.

    Sorry for wasting your time – let’s get back to our racist and ethnic classifications so we can fight the good fight against the scourge of racism and ignorant discrimination. I guess the desired finish line it to be able to say that “they” aren’t so different from “us”. This is only benignly racist – what a goal! Please ignore reality and continue with your past beliefs (they were believed in the past so they must be right) – it is soooo much more comforting than searching for and confronting the truth wherever it may lead.

  • RedTard

    Yours is a battle of emotion versus logic.

    1) Race is common knowledge, even children can pick out individuals from different races.

    2) Race is scientifically definable and provable, DNA tests can pick a person’s race with over 99% accuracy.

    Logic and science come down on the side of race. You can easily find the results of the genetic studies yourself.

    I find it interesting that almost every article about studies involving race include a disclaimer similiar to the following. ‘most researchers are reluctant to study race’

    The truth is right their in front of you. Because of the PC police like our dear poster, enormous peer pressure is being put onto scientists not to study racial differences.

    In other words, emotion is trumping science. Because of our collective fear of what information DNA might or might not encode about the different races we choose not to study it at all.

  • http://human-interface.blogspot.com/ gazelle

    ReTard:

    So according to you this would prove that the f. was black. oh i’d “eat it” !.

    g

  • http://alienboysworld.blogspot.com/ Christopher Rose

    RedTard, if you’re going to pin your colours to the flag of logic, you really ought to get a bit more acquainted with the subject.

    1. Children can’t tell the difference between Normans, Roman and Spaniards for a start and nor could you by just looking.

    2. DNA tests can find whatever you ask then to. There’s even a gene for smug self-satisfaction, you know.

    3. Most researchers are reluctant to study race because there is not a lot to be learned. The genetic diversity of humans is actually quite low when compared to many other species due to our relatively late emergence and several near extinction events having reduced considerably the normal variation one would expect.

    4. In your case, alas, sheer prejudice or bigotry seem to be clouding your judgment and your scientific understanding.

  • http://www.eicenterprises.org John Conlin

    RedTard – you truly are amazing. I’m still waiting for you to define the “black”, “white” “Asian” and for fun let’s include the “hispanic” races. Let your fingers of fury get moving.

    Why do you choose to ignore The American Anthropological Association (AAA) and the vast majority of experts in the field? Well I think I know why you choose to ignore it – it doesn’t fit with your preconceived notions. Here are a few quotes from the 1998 AAA Statement on “Race”: http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm

    Today scholars in many fields argue that “race” as it is understood in the United States of America was a social mechanism invented during the 18th century…

    From its inception, this modern concept of “race” was modeled after an ancient theorem of the Great Chain of Being, which posited natural categories on a hierarchy established by God or nature.

    “Race” thus evolved as a worldview, a body of prejudgments that distorts our ideas about human differences and group behavior. Racial beliefs constitute myths about the diversity in the human species and about the abilities and behavior of people homogenized into “racial” categories. The myths fused behavior and physical features together in the public mind,…

    “Race is common knowledge, even children… “ Really? Children are born with this incredible ability? Wow! I thought they were probably taught it. Since it was believed in the past we damn well better believe it today. See what we can learn from you!

    We’ve covered your DNA stupidity. DNA tests can identify VERY specific areas of recent ancestral heritage. As information of the human genetic pool grows, this will get even more specific – far, far beyond the simplistic concepts of black and white. That someone can then take this information and then place race over the top of it only proves that the concept of race is a preconceived notion.

    It is insane to think that the 6 billion people who live on the planet can be place into 3 or 4 nice little racial categories. Study the history of the concept – it is a scientific concept that has been discarded.

    Many researchers are afraid to study “race” since just as there are differences in physical characteristics, their most certainly are differences in behavioral and intellectual differences in various breeding groups which have existed over our relatively recent history – sorry this doesn’t prove the existence of race, it does just the opposite. They are frightened because they don’t want to be called racist and they know that some people (perhaps you?) will then use the results to do a broad brush, stroke invalid racist classification. All of “these” are like “that”…

    As I look around the world I only see individuals. Do you deal with these abstractions called groups or individuals? Do you actively classify every individual you see into your little groups? Enlighten us all, tell us about the black race. Tell us about the white race. Hispanic or is it Latino or is it Chicano or… ? How about women? How about those with physical disabilities? Please let us hear your wisdom about how these groups think and act and …? Who knows what insights you contain?

    And once again – your straw man of calling everyone who disagrees with you PC is wearing thin. Support your arguments with facts and reality, not silly name calling.

    Still waiting for the definition – and please also address those lunatics at the American Anthropolgical Association (for race) and those drunken bastards at the American Medical Assocation (for ethnicity). We really must do something about those types. You know what I mean… they just aren’t like us.

  • Nancy

    This argument reminds me: does anyone remember the magazine cover featuring hundreds of pictures of people who start out black (or white, I can’t remember) & morph completely into the white (or black)? Very neat; the gradations were so subtle & indefinable, yet if you took them every 10th frame, there were notable differences. Someone also did a “composite” photo of a woman based on world racial percentages, who came out looking like J.Lo.

  • RedTard

    Christopher, you points are really weak, let me take them one at a time.

    “1. Children can’t tell the difference between Normans, Roman and Spaniards for a start and nor could you by just looking.”

    I am not claiming that those are races, children can differentiate between asian, black, and white very easily.

    “2. DNA tests can find whatever you ask then to. There’s even a gene for smug self-satisfaction, you know.”

    First race was meaningless, now genetic tests are meaningless, at least there is consistency to your “logic”.

    “3. Most researchers are reluctant to study race because there is not a lot to be learned. The genetic diversity of humans is actually quite low when compared to many other species due to our relatively late emergence and several near extinction events having reduced considerably the normal variation one would expect.”

    If there were nothing to be learned then there is no harm in allowing research into those areas. Why the shrill cries from the PC crowd everytime a new study comes up? The rest of that point is useless background information that does nothing to prove or disprove the concept of race. We have 99% the same DNA as monkeys, next you and the nutty professor will be telling us that the difference betwwen us and other primates is all in our mind as well.

    “4. In your case, alas, sheer prejudice or bigotry seem to be clouding your judgment and your scientific understanding.”

    Ahhh. A good old personal assault, another sure sign the truth must be on your side.

    Your attempt at rebuttal was to cloud the issue with useless unrelated facts, claim genetic tests are meaningless, then imply that I’m a racist. I think you’ve demonstrated your point as well as you could have hoped.

  • RedTard

    “Many researchers are afraid to study ‘race’ since just as there are differences in physical characteristics, their most certainly are differences in behavioral and intellectual differences in various breeding groups”

    Considering this statement I will concede that you are no longer PC.

    “They are frightened because they don’t want to be called racist and they know that some people (perhaps you?) will then use the results to do a broad brush, stroke invalid racist classification.”

    Finally an argument I can agree with. This whole ‘race does not exist’ thing has been created because of fear of racism, that is emotional not logical.

    “DNA tests can identify VERY specific areas of recent ancestral heritage.”

    Ancestral heritage, hmmm. Sounds just like a narrower version of race or ethnicity to me (both of which you claim don’t exist). Your simply replacing the current words with less controversial ones.

  • http://alienboysworld.blogspot.com/ Christopher Rose

    In one final attempt to bring some sanity to another pile of emotion masquerading as reason, I’ll rebut your flawed thinking again.

    1. They peoples I named are races; the children you speak of would only perceive differences of skin colour. Your point is empty.

    2. I didn’t say genetic tests were meaningless, Ï said they will find whatever you want them to, as all tests do, by definition. Why stop at skin colour? There must be a gene for stubborn resistance to reason despite all evidence supporting it; let’s test for that and have them all killed at birth, shall we?

    3. One of the many reasons for not studying race is that at a genetic level it means so little as there is no standard against which to measure, just a continuum of evolutionary change. The other is that it allows idiots and malcontents a paltform to spout their ignorant prejudices. That and there is more exciting and interesting work to be done.

    4. That wasn’t a personal attack, just a description of your simplistic and contentious arguments. Still holds up too.

  • Lilly

    What will be really interesting is an unbiased disclosure of the National Geographic Genome project. A world wide DNA study into human migrations, origins etc. Perhaps some old myths will be exposed, perhaps some things will come to light, perhaps even folklore or oral traditions will be substanciated. This project and the outcomes will be most interesting to look at.

  • RedTard

    “1. They peoples I named are races;” – Christopher

    Then you agree with me, race exists.

    “the children you speak of would only perceive differences of skin colour. Your point is empty.”

    Children can pick Asians or hispanic out of a group of people with similar skin tones. I’m sorry, I must have missed the ‘Normans’ and ‘Romans’ on the last race questionaire I filled out.

    “I didn’t say genetic tests were meaningless, Ï said they will find whatever you want them to,”

    Only if it is real.

    “One of the many reasons for not studying race is that at a genetic level it means so little as there is no standard against which to measure, just a continuum of evolutionary change.”

    Repeating your hypothesis doesn’t make it any more correct. Also a standard that in studies has been more than 99% effective is pretty good in my book.

    “The other is that it allows idiots and malcontents a paltform to spout their ignorant prejudices.”

    More putdowns for people that disagree with you, the sum total of what passes for logic from our dear editor.

    Even the original poster has as much as admitted that the push to get rid of race is basically out of fear that genetic and medical researchers will be labelled as racists when they do work on different “breeding groups”.

    It’s an attempt to dump all the emotional baggage that is attached to the word. That’s fine with me, just don’t treat everybody like idiots and say that this is some sort of scientific revolution.

  • http://alienboysworld.blogspot.com/ Christopher Rose

    Moebius would be proud of you, RedTard, but I’m afraid I’ve lost interest in this monologue of yours.

  • CC

    Although children can pick out people of different races, this ‘picks’ are extremely subjective. One child will say a person is x race, the next child will say the same person is y race- although it is generally true it does not prove, nor support your belief that race exists. Furthermore, if I am going to take my evidence of whether something exists or not, I’m going to go with science & not mere ‘picks’ or speculation.

    The whole anti-PC bashing thing is obnoxious. I find that when people play that card, they are just trying to justify their rude comments. Doesn’t fly.

  • CC

    #11 Oooh cool- the pinko Commie thing is back! Maybe that means the ‘terrorist’ label is wearing thin.

  • http://beyondbabylon.blogspot.com David Ben-Ariel

    What would truly be revolutionary is for everybody to ditch the pc speak and recognize the biblical fact that
    Race Matters.

  • CC

    Only if you drop the JC speak, but neither is likely to happen. Especially b/c most of us live in the real world, and get our evidence using logic & SCIENTIFIC fact, I think your proposal isn’t likely to be widely adopted. Revolutionary? Actually most revolutions move away from religions telling the world what to think and towards reason & logical conclusions instead. Good luck though.

  • nugget

    Redtard wins.

  • http://www.eicenterprises.org John Conlin

    One more time – we are not little gods whose whims and desires change the very nature of reality. This is not a debate about what I may think or desire, or you. It is simply a challenge. Using arguments about what was believed in the past is irrelevant – the list of past beliefs that were wrong is rather long indeed.

    For just one moment, just an instant of time, place all of your beliefs in a safe little mental corner and start with a clean slate. Since the slate is clean, for just this instant there is no such thing as race. Now perhaps we can “discover” that it does exist by looking at facts, science and theory but that is the process – not starting with the idea and then defending it.

    And if you start with a completely blank slate and re-build your belief system on this one point – you will find that there is no such thing as race – black, white – don’t exist in any scientific sense. It is amazing that so many of you can simply discard what experts in the field state.

    Now do I expect resistance? Of course! It is a freaking paradigm shift I am proposing. By definition there is resistance since it is a PROFOUND change in one’s world view. When Copernicus proved that the earth is not the center of the universe with the sun, etc. orbiting us, it was a CHANGE. And one person at a time had to change their minds to accept the truth. Many chose not to – but that didn’t change the facts. It took a few hundred years for the truth to be widely accepted. This again is not a reflection of the truth but rather a reflection of people.

    My challenge goes unanswered – if the concept of race is factual from a scientific viewpoint, please describe for me the black, white, Asian and Hispanic races – you can add “native Americans”, “pacific islanders”, etc if you choose. Please don’t clutter your response with excess words – just the clinical description please – and the description as used in everyday context. I await your wisdom.

  • RedTard

    “One more time – we are not little gods whose whims and desires change the very nature of reality.”

    Then please stop. Your emotional desire to get rid of racism, your whim, is driving you to ignore the reality that race and ethnicity are real, scientific proven concepts.

    “My challenge goes unanswered”

    Your challenge has been answered by researchers with 99.86% accuracy. The challenge is on you prove your point not the rest of world.

    Your original article is a couple of paragraphs of fluff telling people about scientific revolutions, getting them excited thinking you had some new, useful information. A couple of paragraphs of outright lies about how race is not genetic, when genetic markers are over 99% accurate in identifying different races. And then a couple of paragraphs explaining how anyone that agrees with you is a forward looking thinker
    (don’t we all want to be) and implying that anyone that disagrees with you is a backwards idiot.

    I am impressed that with only a couple paragraphs of emotional manipulation and one ‘fact’ on your side, which is demonstrably false, you got so many people to agree with you.

    Please, if you can dispute the study where genetics predict race 99% of the time then by all means go ahead and do it. If not drop the goofy claim that race cannot be defined. Admit that your ‘challenge’ has already been met and come up with some additional emotional strings to pull. That’s all you got.

  • http://alienboysworld.blogspot.com/ Christopher Rose

    RedTard, these repetitive assertions of poor science are becoming tedious. I think we’ve already established that DNA can establish race, but then it can also establish that we’re all related to fish!

    It really depends what you’re looking for; sure, you can identify a difference between races but it’s a relative difference not an absolute difference and is no more meaningful than any other interpretation.

    You also seem to be confusing race with racism. The former doesn’t technically exist and, as long as you’re stuck in this mental rut of yours, the latter is never going to go away.

    where are you trying to go with this odd little riff of your in any case? You’ve been belabouring your point since comment #17, so let’s move on to the closing arguments shall we?

  • nugget

    Conlin: There is nothing profound or disturbing for me to say that race does not exist. It does not infringe on my understanding of cultural relativity, the ability to identify someone as an individual, or my relationship with someone as it relates to their skin color. Redtard is not offering resistance. He is correctly pointing out that your theory commenced with your refusal to accept the word because the word itself makes you feel uncomfortable. Race does not = racism. Thus, your assertions that race does not exist is negligible.

    Who cares what the lines of demarcation are? And who cares if the races mix as time passes? Humans will then adjust socially, economically, and politically as always, and they will describe their heritage(s) in racial distinctions as always. This is not revolutionary or even exciting to think over. It’s an obvious shift with minimal resistance.

  • nugget

    David Ben-Ariel:

    Interesting article. What you propose would take an act of God. Do you not believe that God works within the confines of his physical creation? If all races attempted to reverse the past diasporas and return to where they “ought” to be according to scripture, wouldn’t such an effort cause unfathomable chaos?

  • http://www.eicenterprises.org John Conlin

    Closing argument – I can’t prove a negative so I ask you to prove a positive – please describe the various races as a physical reality for me. To close off one avenue – just because you can use a multitude of physical features together to make a “group” does in no way make the “group” a physical reality. There many other ways to group things and they would have to be just as valid from their viewpoint. (f***ing of course these physical features have a genetic source – what else could they have?)
    Proceed…

  • nugget

    “… just because you can use a multitude of physical features together to make a “group” does in no way make the “group” a physical reality.”

    I don’t know what reality you are referring to. The one I know to exist needs racial distinction as a means of identity, especially in the case of missing persons, suspect identification, and other types of profiling.

    “please describe the various races as a physical reality for me.”

    Open your eyes and look at people. That’s like saying “Please describe the young earthling to me…you know the one wearing a skirt with curly pig tails. Girl or boy??”

    Well, I’m not positive, but I reckon that’s a girl. See how this distinction is necessary? Perhaps, in the future, you will assume there is no such thing as gender and you will parade your esoteric knowledge to the world and be shunned by the hapless, sentimental masses clinging to familiarity.

  • RedTard

    “these repetitive assertions of poor science are becoming tedious”

    You and JC are welcome to stop posting anytime you like.

    “It really depends what you’re looking for; sure, you can identify a difference between races”

    Only because they exist, I can’t find the gene that makes Santa’s reindeer fly.

    “is no more meaningful than any other interpretation.”

    Except for the fact that everyone can understand and witness it with their own eyes.

    Even if you guys came to power, wiped everybody’s minds of any mention of race or ethnicity and started over, inquisitive people would still notice that certain groups of people shared certain traits. Research would be conducted into the reasons and immediately words and language would be needed to describe those things. They might term it race or ethnicity or breeding groups or marfenflugenhoffen. Who knows?

    You’ve bought into a lie and I find it amusing how far you will go to defend the idea. Please, go back and read the original post. It is a lie wrapped in a couple of platitudes.

    At least throughout this discussion you’ve learned that the ‘race is not genetic’ line of propaganda is a lie. I know you’ve just changed your theory to incorporate that now, perhaps one day your eyes will be opened to the fact that your being fed a line of BS. That will be your revolution.

  • RedTard

    “I can’t prove a negative”

    You did pretty good though, many people agree with you even with no evidence. You don’t need to prove anything, you just have to convince people that anyone that thinks race is real has a prejudice or is an outright racist. Nobody wants to be those things so you’ll get the majority very quickly. That is why you get the statements from the AMA and such.

    If your idea catches hold and race and ethnicity are set in the dustbin what method of classification do you see taking hold?

    I don’t think it is practical that humans will stop studying genetics and ancestries, families, and such. Those things also have some medical and practical implications and there will need to be terminology associated with them.

  • CC

    Redtard- why do you keep asserting that people’s subjective observations of race are the same as proof? You chastize others for defending what is currently the prevailing proof in the scientific world, yet you cling to your bad science as well as unscientific observation & try to claim them as truth- that is amusing. Indeed our eyes are opened to the fact that we are being fed a line of BS and propaganda lies by your faulty logic & assertions.

    Two examples of the subjectivity of race:
    The Pygmy people of Africa- for most of their history they have been isolated geographically from the rest of people in Africa & due to skin color people would subjectively say they are black, but according to their other characteristics they actually have more in common with people of European ancestry.

    People have a difficult time differentiating b/t some American Indians & some people in Asia.
    Due to these and other examples- people’s observations are very subjective- not exactly scientific ‘proof’ of anything.

  • CC

    Redtard- you are looking at natural genetic variations of humans and trying to pass them off as racial, rather than just normal genetic trends human beings have developed due to their locations in the world & isolation from others. These differences developed not due to any inherent BIOLOGICAL differences in the races, but due to geographic isolation & indeed what they inherited from their ancestors. What the true definition of race is supposed to convey is a group of people distinguished by genetically transmitted physical characteristics as well as a group of people united by a common history, nationality, or tradition. The problem arises when people misuse & misunderstand the definition of race & think these genetic differences are due to races being being genetically distinct species of humans & assigning varying thought processes, intelligence levels, morals, etc according to race. The basic difference is confusion b/t genetic inheritance & the word biology. Fixating on our differences according to skin color or what our eyes look like is just as meaningless as hair color.

  • CC

    Redtard- just b/c you choose not to believe the evidence for the non-existence of race as you understand it, does not mean said evidence does not exist & is actually the prevailing belief of most experts in the field. But I guess perception is indeed reality, even if that percept is extremely misguided & even deluded.

  • RedTard

    “you are looking at natural genetic variations of humans and trying to pass them off as racial”

    Yes, that is the very meaning of race. Does race mean something to you other than what you just described?

    The ‘bad science’ I rely on is a study of over 3000 people that asked them to identify their race between black, white, asian, and hispanic. Using previously identified genetic markers a DNA test was done to confirm their ancestry and 99.8% of the time the genetic tests verified their responses. There are certainly areas that are subjective, but that can be said of most things outside of mathematics.

    Race is just as good as any other starting point for classifying individuals. The only reason people are moving away from it is in an attempt to be politically correct. As soon as I started defending the idea that race had meaning I was immediately called a bigot and prejudiced. That is the same method that is used to keep dissenting scientists in check. They are compared to nazis and censored by their peers fearing the same treatment. It’s fear and peer pressure being used to spread the idea, not science. Most of the ‘evidence’ is that, well, somebody else said it didn’t exist.

  • hawaiian_son

    After living in Hawaii for most of my life, I truly had my first “real” experience of life on the big island of USA (Arizona, actually). I don’t know if it’s only in that particular area, but I did get a feeling while living among the natives there, that everyone kept to themselves more or less. But it was amazing that while I was just sitting and observing the populace, I could easily pick out my fellow natives from Hawaii. Just by knowing what features to look for, how we act, and how we speak, it wasn’t too difficult to recognize locals from Hawaii.

    I guess what causes us to stick to our own ‘race’ is fear. Because we don’t know about other cultures, most of us are afraid that the wrong thing might be said, and do things that would probably offend others. Well, the only way to end this fear is by getting to know the other person, their culture and their beliefs. And we also have to acknowledge that there are other living beings out there, that no one race should be known as supreme over the other. As easily as life was given to us, it can be taken away just as fast… by hatred.

  • http://www.eicenterprises.org John Conlin

    RedTard and a few others, come on… after all the effort spent discussing this, all those words typed, all those emotions shouted – why not enlighten a pin-head like me (and the AMA and AAA – drunken bastards all) with the definition.

    The black race is….

    The white race is ….

    The Hispanic race is …

    The Asian race is…

    Please, after this much effort please show me the physical reality of these races. Please don’t leave this effort without the definitions – it shouldn’t be too difficult, you claim even children inherently can define it, please do.

    Please, the color orange (your exampe of long ago can be defined by certain wavelenghts of the EM spectrum – it is a very specific, scientific, reality-based definition) – please do the same here. Please define the races.

    We are waiting for your wisdom…

  • RedTard

    JC,

    “after all the effort spent discussing this, all those words typed, all those emotions shouted”

    And you have still not provided one shred of evidence to support you case. What a shame, you actually have fanatics on your side with no evidence at all calling me prejudiced and a bigot because I don’t take the bullshit hook, line, and sinker.

    Race has been defined in genetic studies to 99.8% accuracy, you have nothing to refute that but simply repeat your hypothesis over and over. Logic minded individuals will take the scientific study, emotional thinking types will bow to the pressure and tow the PC line. It sad there aren’t more logical thinkers out there.

    Whether you realize it or not, you are a tool in a large PC machine which is trying to eliminate race and ethnicity, not because they don’t exist, but out of fear of being called racist and compared to Nazis.

  • http://www.eicenterprises.org John Conlin

    Please define –

    The black race is….

    The white race is ….

    The Hispanic race is …

    The Asian race is …

    If it is sooo defined, then just cut and paste. I don’t claim you are a bigot or racist – you simply believe what has been believed in the past – I challenge your beliefs. if they are real. please define. We need no other comments other than the definitions of the various races – I asked the same of Greasy at another post and he magically disappeared.

    Perhaps I am wrong – enlighten me.

  • RedTard

    And I challenge you to prove yours, with exactly the same result, nothing. You have nothing.

    Scentific studies are over 99% accurate in determining race, your wrong, get over it.

  • RedTard

    Here is the information of the study, you can google it yourself as I’m not sure the process for creating a link here.

    Title:
    Genetic Structure, Self-Identified Race/Ethnicity, and Confounding in Case-Control Association Studies

    Author:
    Hua Tang, et al.

    Selection from abstract:
    Genetic cluster analysis of the microsatellite markers produced four major clusters, which showed near-perfect correspondence with the four self-reported race/ethnicity categories. Of 3,636 subjects of varying race/ethnicity, only 5 (0.14%) showed genetic cluster membership different from their self-identified race/ethnicity. On the other hand, we detected only modest genetic differentiation between different current geographic locales within each race/ethnicity group. Thus, ancient geographic ancestry, which is highly correlated with self-identified race/ethnicityas opposed to current residenceis the major determinant of genetic structure in the U.S. population.

  • CC

    #63 No, that’s not the meaning of race, it the natural genetic variation of humans- you just happen to cling to the notion that this is race. Look to my previous post to see what my def’s of race are. You ascribe certain characteristics to people ‘because’ they are of a certain race that you believe. I ascribe it to people living in a certain region, but once they have an ancestor with other characteristics, their offspring adopt those characteristics. If people had lived in different areas, or lived around different people, they would ‘look’ different (hence you’d be fixated on different types of ‘races’)- so your concept of ‘racial differences’ is at best arbitrary.

    Basing your beliefs on ONE or just a few studies, is indeed bad science.

    Fear & peer pressure to keep science in check? I doubt it- if scientists of the past were able to survive being burned at the stake, they can survive a few criticisms of their bad science. As for the PC comment- the idea that actual races do not exist is not being touted b/c its PC, but because that is the cold hard evidence of not just hearsay like you claim, but actual multiple scientific studies, analysis of DNA evidence, etc.

    Redtard- the burden of proof lies on those making a claim, not on those saying something does not exist. Do you believe in Leprichans- no? Prove to me they don’t exist.

    You are claiming JC is just repeating the same thing over and over, yet you are doing EXACTLY the same thing. (even though I don’t believe JC is doing this)- quite calling people PC & fanatics (which is interestingly EVERYONE ELSE, including most experts in the field, and not you and a few outlying scientists). We are not going to waste our time looking for this false evidence you claim exists- you are making the claim, YOU find the studies. Put up or shut up!

    Hawaiian son- do you think you’d have the same accuracy with only looking at physical characteristics? How much of the Hawaiian characteristics(especially the acting & speaking) you were observing were learned from Hawaiian culture- rather than innate & indicative of the Hawaiian ‘race’? I loved the second part of your post- very compassionate. Aaaah- PC alert!!!

  • CC

    #68 Why am I suddenly reminded of a grade school playground? Oh yeah- “You are wrong!” stamping feet, uh!

  • chantal stone

    Redtard….why does the mere idea of race not existing upset you so much?

  • RedTard

    “As for the PC comment- the idea that actual races do not exist is not being touted b/c its PC, but because that is the cold hard evidence of not just hearsay like you claim”

    Then please provide that evidence, that is all I have asked. I have provided evidence that what we check off in that box as race can be scientifically verified to be an accurate reflection of our ancestry 99.86% of the time in the US.

    If 99.86% accuracy on a large scale study doesn’t convince you then I seriously doubt you are looking at it with an open mind. You have been convinced by hearsay and that’s the end of it.

    And as for the PC thing, read back over the comments and see how many times people outright said or implied that I was a bigot or prejudiced or racist or disgusting because I don’t buy the BS. Be a lemming if you want, I choose to think for myself.

    “We are not going to waste our time looking for this false evidence you claim exists- you are making the claim, YOU find the studies. Put up or shut up!”

    False evidence, I’m sure the twelve medical doctors who co-authored the study would disagree with you. Of course, everyone knows race doesn’t exist because they read it in a newspaper somewhere once.

    Not that scientific evidence will change your mind but the link is here.

  • http://www.codexalimentarious.com/ Richard Brodie

    Saying that race does not exist is equally as absurd as saying that language does not exist. All currently spoken languages have pedigrees tracing back to various protolanguages, just as all currently existing races can be traced back to various common ancestral points.

    Only an idiot, a fool, or somone with an agenda would come out with the following complete nonsense (paraphrasing from this article):

    As a scientific fact Swahili doesn’t exist; neither do English or Chinese …

    researchers unanimously declared that there is only one language — the human language …

    There are only individual speakers and they are not defined by the vocabulary, grammar, and pronunciation they use.

    At first one would think that it could not possibly be the multiculturalist PCers behind this particular nonsensical thrust. After all the epithet of first choice for these folks is “racist.” So if they eliminated the word “race” from the language, along with all its derivatives (races, racial, racially, racists, racism, etc.) they would lose their most valuable tool for avoiding having to discuss issues such as immigration, Shariah enclaves, etc. on the actual merits.

    But while discarding the term “race” it appears as though they still want to retain the word “racist”. Except now they will be able to apply it to a lot more people they disagree with, than merely those previously targetted. Now, a racist will not simply be someone whom they desire to stigmatize as being down on some particular race, but rather anyone who claims that there is such a valid concept as race.

    So maybe it is those folks at it again after all.

  • http://alienboysworld.blogspot.com/ Christopher Rose

    I can’t find it in me to do any more of this back and forth with RedTard and, to a lesser extent, Richard on this topic.

    RedTard has got his one little factoid (all back to front and tousled, of course, but a factoid nontheless) and is going to try and make everybody admire it until at least the end of time. Richard’s point similarly seems rooted in bile rather than brains.

    I’ve decided to take my ball and play with some other kids, ones whose minds weren’t already made up some time back in the 2nd millennium. Enjoy your little rhetorical paddock, boys, cos you aren’t going anywhere.

    Course I am secretly disappointed, but that’s life!

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy in Jerusalem

    Chantal, et al.

    I was a snot when I was a teenager living in America. One day I pestered my poor mother, z”l, with this question.

    “Do you want me to marry a black Jew or a white Christian?”

    Blacks were not her favorite people, but she knew that if I married a Christian (or any non-Jew) her grandchildren would not be Jews. She wanted Jewish grandchildren and considered not having them to be a scandal. My mother did not really want to answer, but I held on to the subject like a dog with a bone. Finally the answer slid out of her – with much hesitation – a white Christian.

    In the end, for my mother, this question was just an academic one. There are very few black Jews in America.

    But there are lots of black Jews living here. So I wasn’t totally surprised when one afternoon I walked into the house, and with my 12 year old son sitting around the kitchen table were two young ladies who went to school with him – they weren’t black, but one of their parents was and the other wasn’t. In the midswestern United States, they would have been referred to as “zebras.”

    I felt my snottiness come back to bite me in the butt. Except for one thing. I didn’t have any trouble with my son being romantically interested in an Ethiopian girl. She was Jewish, and from what I could see, she was a very decent young lady. Those were the two things that mattered. Her skin color and her race didn’t mean anything to me.

    Am I an oy oy oy terribly decent and tolerant individual with all the appropriate views of political correctness? No! Anyone who hustles political correctness to me will be told point blank to shove his BS where the sun don’t shine.

    But the truth is that the reason that race matters in America – and the reason that one might push the idea that race doesn’t exist – is because there is a culture of racial hatred among whites and among blacks there. The actual amounts of melanin in the skin, or the length of legs of East African kids is irrelevant entirely to the issue. What is relevant is the culture of hatred and the violence and death it produces. This hatred is a product of the sick human mind.

    Are there races? Frankly, it doesn’t mean squat if there are, except when dealing with genetics issues. There are races with different genetic traits. But the members of the races can interbreed, and intermarry. And they do.

    The question is “is there racial hatred?” In America, the answer is yes. This is a cross that Americans must carry and resolve on their own. Saying that there are no races is a clever attempt to duck the root problem – and will not work.

  • http://www.eicenterprises.org John Conlin

    All that effort of your last posts and yet you refuse to define something that you have spent thousands of works arguing exists as a scientific reality – one has to ask why. Please a simple defintion – look, I’ll even help start the sentences

    the black race is….

    the white race is….

    the Hispanic race is…

    the Asian race is….

    I can’t prove a negative, WHY won’t you provide a definition?

  • http://alienboysworld.blogspot.com/ Christopher Rose

    Shame there’s all that racism in the Middle East, Ruvy…

  • chantal stone

    Ruvy….when did you live in the midwestern US? i’m “biracial”, and i live in ohio…. and if someone called me a “zebra”, i’d be totally offended.

  • Nancy

    Ruvy’s comment to his mother reminds me of my poor old grandmother when she lived in Miami, who thought Cubans were Arabs. She was always telling me about ‘all those Arabs fellas’ downtown.

    Aside from possible use of “race” to i.d. unknown bodies or possible tendencies towards genetic conditions for the patient’s medical benefit, tho, the salient question is, does race really matter? I have to say the answer would seem to be “no”. Folks is folks is folks.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy in Jerusalem

    Chantal,

    I lived in St. Paul, MN towards the end of the last (Christian) century. That’s what folks called biracial/triracial people – when they thought they weren’t listening. I wanted to illustrate the hatred in the language by using that term in the comment…

    It most assuredly was not aimed at you – and it was not a term I used. Here, the term is meaningless.

  • RedTard

    “I can’t prove a negative, WHY won’t you provide a definition?”

    The same reason you refuse to recognize the fact that scientific studies have shown observed race and genetic ancestry correspond over 99.86% of the time.

    I find it very interesting that the same groups that swear race/ethnicity don’t exist are simultaneously pushing for racial diversity, expanding their ethnic studies departments, and employing affirmative action. Actions speak louder than words, if they don’t believe their own crap why should I?

  • Dan

    I guess if you wanted to take the “race doesn’t exist” guff to a logical extreme, you could say that species doesn’t exist either, since popular evolutionary theory has it that all life evolved from a common ancestor. Precipitated, perhaps, by a lightning strike on the primordial soup.

    You could start your anti-species-izm doctrine by pointing out that humans share 70% of their genes with yeast.

  • nugget

    “What if many of the things you thought were true simply weren’t? Could you let go of your old beliefs? Would you? What if they struck at the core of some of your most basic concepts of self? In earlier times people have confronted this unnerving reality, generally as the scientific revolution rolled over their old ideas. We seem to think we are immune; that everything we know is the truth.”

    thanks. Conlin, you should have said, “What if I was a rabble-rouser? What if I were to appeal to people’s emotions by raising some pointless issue? What if I shrouded this half-assed attempt at profundity with lazy-ass rhetorical questions? What if I was Copernicus and you all were redneck dark age peasants afraid of truth? What if I were condescending? What if no one cares? What if Ruvy’s grandmother was pretty hot for an old jew-lady?”

  • fos

    The black race is……basketball

    The white race is……paying the black race to play basketball.

    The hispanic race is…tacos, burritoes, low-riders and dingle balls.

    The asian race is….chow mein and egg rolls.

  • nugget

    I just got edited for some lame reason. How’d fos squeeze through the net?

    NAZIS.

  • RogerMDillon

    fos, that’s messed up. Why can’t the white race get something to eat?

  • chantal stone

    “It most assuredly was not aimed at you – and it was not a term I used.”

    i took no offense to your comment, Ruvy, i was just surprised to hear that term being used. but i suppose worse is said when the person to whom the comment is directed is not around. racial slurs are very seldom used when face to face these days…at least in my experience. you’re more likely to hear that kind of talk behind ones back.

  • http://www.clatch.blogspot.com A.L. Harper

    What does it really matter? We divide ourselves anyway. Many of us feel so small within ourselves that we must make those around us look small to feel bigger and others need to feel they belong to something bigger than themselves. If there were no race there would be something else to divide us, to separate others and segregate ourselves.

    I think many of the comments here prove that.

  • Dr Seuss

    Sneetch Choir: [singing] Twink twink twinkle twinkle lovely little star…
    Young Sneetch: Twink twink twinkle twinkle stupid little star.
    Sneetch Choir: [singing] If you’ve got one on your tummy, then it’s yummy like a bunny / If you don’t, then you’re a scrawny, funny, crummy, bummy dummy / That’s what you learn from your daddy and your mommy / Twink twink twinkle twinkle lovely little star…

    That’s pretty deep oger.
    Young Sneetch: Twink twink twinkle twinkle stupid little star!

    Narrator: But, because they had stars, all the Star-Belly Sneetches would brag…
    Sneetch: We’re the best kind of Sneetch on the beaches.
    Narrator: With their snoots in the air, they would sniff and they’d snort…
    Sneetch: We’ll have nothing to do with the Plain-Belly sort!

  • http://www.eicenterprises.org John Conlin

    Still looking for that definition.

  • http://www.richardbrodie.com/ Richard Brodie

    The black race is Negroid.

    The white race is Caucasoid.

    The asian race is Mongoloid.

    The Hispanic race is a mixture of all three.

    Still looking for a response to the language/race analogy (post #74).

    So what’s going to be the next lower rung on the anti-intellectual absurdity ladder on which the PC multiculturalist globalists are currently climbing down into a well deserved oblivion? Sexuality denial? Gender denial? This is all such a very amusing entertainment.

  • http://alienboysworld.blogspot.com/ Christopher Rose

    So we’re all Oids, is that what you’re saying? Hey, maybe you’re a Paran? (joke!)

  • chantal stone

    this is how the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines the following:

    NEGROID- negro; a member of the Black race
    CAUCASOID- caucasian; of or relating to the white race…
    MONGOLOID- of or relating to a major racial stock native to Asia…
    HISPANIC- of, relating to, or being a person of Latin American decent living in the US…

    so let me get this straight, Richard Brodie…you define the ‘black race’ as “being a member of the black race”?….the ‘white race’, according to your definition is simply a “member of the white race..”?…and so forth…. absolutely brilliant.

    as far as the Hispanic definition…that only backs what John Conlin wrote about it simply being an American invention during the 70’s era census.

    Richard, try again.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy in Jerusalem

    Richard,

    If I remember right, there are no stupid people, no cripples, no retards, no fat people, no blind people, no deaf people. I forget what the proper PC designation is for all these folks, and Hebrew is a little more blunt. But even here, the PC idiots are all around crippling the language with their bullshit phrases.

    It’s a must be a real challenge to come up with the PC phrases, I tell you.

    And that’s all the news from Lake PC, where all the women are strong, all the men are handsome, and all the children above average…

  • http://www.eicenterprises.org John Conlin

    Still waiting for the definitions that make some type of sense – black this and white that (culture, music, etc) are thrown around all the time – what exactly do they mean?

    From the posts the reader can experience how people fight to preserve their paradigm – right or wrong.

  • http://www.eicenterprises.org John Conlin

    Enjoy – the illusion of race – Syracuse University

    – the Power of Illusion – PBS (I hate sourcing PBS but even a stopped clock is right two times per day)

    Wikipedia – much more complex than the simplistic “black” and “white” races

  • http://www.eicenterprises.org John Conlin

    And more – University of Texas

    “Race, for instance, ceases to be a terribly meaningful concept when DNA is examined closely. Almost all the seemingly distinct categories begin to grow fuzzy. Variations among individuals categorized as part of a single race may be more pronounced than the differences between one race and another.

    “People imagine there is much more difference than there is,” Shriver said. “There is no such thing as black and white. There’s a whole bunch of genetic variation between those extremes. We are all mixed up, part of the same family tree originally, who then evolved, then were together and mixed up again. So the categories don’t explain much.”

    (even worse than PBS – The New York Times!! Follow the truth wherever it leads)

  • http://www.eicenterprises.org John Conlin

    and even more

    – “In the United States both scholars and the general public have been conditioned to viewing human races as natural and separate divisions within the human species based on visible physical differences. With the vast expansion of scientific knowledge in this century, however, it has become clear that human populations are not unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups. Evidence from the analysis of genetics (e.g., DNA) indicates that most physical variation, about 94%, lies within so-called racial groups.

    Conventional geographic “racial” groupings differ from one another only in about 6% of their genes. This means that there is greater variation within “racial” groups than between them. In neighboring populations there is much overlapping of genes and their phenotypic (physical) expressions. Throughout history whenever different groups have come into contact, they have interbred. The continued sharing of genetic materials has maintained all of humankind as a single species.”

    Historical research has shown that the idea of “race” has always carried more meanings than mere physical differences; indeed, physical variations in the human species have no meaning except the social ones that humans put on them. Today scholars in many fields argue that “race” as it is understood in the United States of America was a social mechanism invented during the 18th century to refer to those populations brought together in colonial America: the English and other European settlers, the conquered Indian peoples, and those peoples of Africa brought in to provide slave labor.

    From its inception, this modern concept of “race” was modeled after an ancient theorem of the Great Chain of Being, which posited natural categories on a hierarchy established by God or nature. Thus “race” was a mode of classification linked specifically to peoples in the colonial situation. It subsumed a growing ideology of inequality devised to rationalize European attitudes and treatment of the conquered and enslaved peoples. Proponents of slavery in particular during the 19th century used “race” to justify the retention of slavery.

    The ideology magnified the differences among Europeans, Africans, and Indians, established a rigid hierarchy of socially exclusive categories underscored and bolstered unequal rank and status differences, and provided the rationalization that the inequality was natural or God-given. The different physical traits of African-Americans and Indians became markers or symbols of their status differences.
    As they were constructing US society, leaders among European-Americans fabricated the cultural/behavioral characteristics associated with each “race,” linking superior traits with Europeans and negative and inferior ones to blacks and Indians. Numerous arbitrary and fictitious beliefs about the different peoples were institutionalized and deeply embedded in American thought.

    Early in the 19th century the growing fields of science began to reflect the public consciousness about human differences. Differences among the “racial” categories were projected to their greatest extreme when the argument was posed that Africans, Indians, and Europeans were separate species, with Africans the least human and closer taxonomically to apes.

    Ultimately “race” as an ideology about human differences was subsequently spread to other areas of the world. It became a strategy for dividing, ranking, and controlling colonized people used by colonial powers everywhere. But it was not limited to the colonial situation. In the latter part of the 19th century it was employed by Europeans to rank one another and to justify social, economic, and political inequalities among their peoples. During World War II, the Nazis under Adolf Hitler enjoined the expanded ideology of “race” and “racial” differences and took them to a logical end: the extermination of 11 million people of “inferior races” (e.g., Jews, Gypsies, Africans, homosexuals, and so forth) and other unspeakable brutalities of the Holocaust.

    “Race” thus evolved as a worldview, a body of prejudgments that distorts our ideas about human differences and group behavior. Racial beliefs constitute myths about the diversity in the human species and about the abilities and behavior of people homogenized into “racial” categories. The myths fused behavior and physical features together in the public mind, impeding our comprehension of both biological variations and cultural behavior, implying that both are genetically determined. Racial myths bear no relationship to the reality of human capabilities or behavior. Scientists today find that reliance on such folk beliefs about human differences in research has led to countless errors.”

    – “Race: Racial groups are generally defined in the physical and social sciences as any relatively large division of persons that can be distinguished from others on the basis of inherited physical characteristics. 2-3 Despite the obvious biological aspects of racial definition, there is growing recognition that racial classification schemes are variable and that race is more a social category than a biological one.4-9″

    Ethnicity – Unlike race, ethnicity is universally recognized as being socially defined. While groups can share a range of phenotypic characteristics due to their shared ancestry, typically ethnicity is used to highlight cultural and social rather than biological characteristics.”

  • http://www.richardbrodie.com/ Richard Brodie

    Evolutionary theory supports the reality of human races. Race is biological variation. Biological variation is the driving force behind evolution and the creation of new species. It is caused by the separation of populations by geographic distance or barriers. It would be inconsistent with evolutionary theory if the human species, with its unsurpassed level of geographical population separation, did not display a highly developed degree of biological variation, developing or evolving into different races.

    There is a logical progression to evolution. It is continuous, from phylum to class to order to family to genus to species to race. It does not stop with species. It creates races, which develop in turn into new species. Race is the evolutionary stage of a population before it becomes a different species. To deny it is to claim that evolution has stopped.

    Race is genetically real. The primary reason that race deniers claim that genetics proves that race is not real is the percentage of genetic differences between the races. They claim that the percentages are too small to constitute different races. They do not say what standard is applied to determine what percentage of genetic difference is required to constitute a race, only that the difference between human populations is too small.

    When they make this argument, race deniers do not mention that the genetic difference between humans and chimpanzees is also much smaller than the layman would tend to expect. Most genetic studies show a genetic difference of 1.24% to 1.7% between humans and chimpanzees, with the most commonly cited figure being 1.6%. But this represents far more than the genetic difference between races. It is more than the genetic difference between species, and even more than the genetic difference between genera. It represents the genetic difference between taxonomic Families, because humans and chimpanzees are in different biological Families. Humans are in the Family Hominidae (of which they are the only surviving species) and chimpanzees, our species’ closest living relatives, are in the Family Pongidae.

    What are the percentages of genetic differences between the human races? Perhaps the best study to date on this subject is that of Masatoshi Nei and Arun K. Roychoudhury (1993). The studied the genetic distances between English, Japanese, and Nigerian populations. Here’s a sampling of their results:

    English to Nigerian .133
    English to Japanese .061
    English to Iranian .022
    English to German .002

    Japanese to Nigerian .149
    Japanese to Iranian .050
    Japanese to Chinese .023
    Japanese to Korean .006

    Nigerian to Bantu .027

    The greatest percentage of genetic difference is .149% between Nigerian and Japanese. This nearly 10% of the genetic difference of 1.6% between humans and chimpanzees. Seen in this context, these are very significant genetic differences. It is also worth noting that for both the English and the Japanese, representing Europeans and Northeast Asians, the greatest percentage of genetic difference is with the Nigerians, and that the degree of this difference, .133% for the English and .149% for the Japanese, is very similar.

    A phylogenetic tree can be constructed on the basis of these results, with the major divisions of human populations being Africans, Caucasians, Greater Asians, Amerindians, and Australopapuans, showing that genetic studies group the populations of humanity into superclusters and clusters that are consistent with the traditional racial divisions and subdivisions, providing genetic proof that race is real and that the traditional racial classifications are accurate.

    The political statements made by geneticists to the popular press to the effect that their studies show that “race is not a valid scientific concept,” or that “race has no genetic or scientific basis,” should be seen in this context and perspective. Such politically motivated statements cast doubt on the integrity of the scientific process as practiced by these geneticists, tending to discredit their studies.

  • http://www.richardbrodie.com/ Richard Brodie

    Just came across an excellent site on this whole subject:

    It’s not easy reading, but you will learn a lot, including a word I had never seen before which is a synonym for race:

    clade: A group of organisms, such as a species, whose members share homologous features derived from a common ancestor.

    Q: Which human populations qualify as major races?

    The construction of reliable evolutionary trees involves a number of technical issues, such as sampling design, mutation mechanisms, genetic distance measures and particularly, tree-building algorithms. Nonetheless, the topology of human trees [racial groupings] is remarkably consistent regardless of which class of loci [chormosome areas] are considered, and principal component analysis of genetic data also produces predictable clustering. Either method gives a good visual overview of the general relatedness of the world’s populations.

    By analysis of classical markers, Nei & Roychoudhury (1993) identified five major human clades: sub-Saharan Africans, Caucasians, Greater Asians, Australopapuans and Amerindians. Evolutionary trees constructed with autosomal RFLPs, microsatellites, and Alu insertions show similar topology. Frequently, Amerindians are grouped together with Asians, indicating four major clades, and it has been suggested that this should be a minimum.

    Obviously, additional structure exists within each of these groups, but as we’ve seen, it’s generally weak compared to the differentiation among the ones listed here. For this reason alone, the term ‘race’ applies well to these major groupings.

    In terms of our phylogeographic definition, each of the major human clades has a geographical association (slightly less clear today than 500 years ago, but only slightly); each has a distinguishing set of phenotypic traits; phylogenetic partitioning is apparent and consistent at multiple genetic loci; and substantial intergroup genetic distances indicate unique natural histories on an evolutionary timescale.

    The criticism can be made that the placement of some populations located between the “cores zone” of these major races (e.g., Europe or East Asia) is ambiguous. However, in non-human taxonomy this would not normally invalidate the subspecies status of well-differentiated core populations. In fact, zones of intergradation have traditionally been taken as evidence that core groups are indeed subspecies rather than different species. While some clinal variation in the genetic traits of subspecies is generally the rule, human variation tends to show extensive zones where clinal gradients are relatively flat, separated by short zones of steeper gradient.

    In conclusion…

    Some will find provocative the idea that humans display a subspecies-like population structure, but given that the major human subdivisions revealed by modern genetics had already been recognized as early as 1775, it shouldn’t be as provocative [or as JC would put it “subversive”] as the alternative notion, i.e., that human races don’t exist.

    It’s difficult to see any justification for the common assertion that human races are merely ‘social constructs.’

  • http://www.eicenterprises.org John Conlin

    OK – one more time. If you would actually read and understand my proposition perhaps we could have a more productive discussion. I in no way claim there are not genetic differences between individuals. These genetic differences are based on various breeding groups which have existed over our relatively recent past. OF COURSE every physical trait we have is determined by genetics. Recent estimates are that 50% to 70% of our BEHAVIORIAL traits are determined by genetics. This really isn’t rocket science and on these points there is very little dissension. They need no further discussion.

    A recent estimate was that there are at least 53 different, genetically-identifiable breeding groups. I claim (and many distinguished scientists and scientific organizations agree – which you and many other’s simply wish away with the claim they are all PC) is that these genetic differences do not CREATE OR PROVE the existence of the “black” and “white” races. The reality is much more complicated than that simplistic grouping – a grouping based on a failed scientific theory. The data doesn’t make the “black” and “white’ races, the concept of black and white is simply a cultural overlay which is placed on the raw data. Read about the theory – it is recognized as scientifically invalid by all but the most racist individuals. Please try to fit the “Hispanic” race into your “scientific” classification.

    And of course you and no one else ever really gets to the essence of “black” this and “white” that. It seems your only defense of the concept of the races is fairly detailed genetics – which I think proves just the opposite but…

    So is your point that when people talk about “black” this, and ‘white” that, they are simply discussing the finer points of genetics? Nothing more? Really. This is profoundly disingenuous. You can pick up any newspaper and read about blacks and whites and Hispanics doing this or that – my claim is this is profoundly racist – it is simply acceptable because it has been acceptable in the past. Other than when discussing one’s recent ancestry, it has no meaning (perhaps I’m wrong but I only see individuals as a physical reality, these groups are abstractions which have no real factual basis).

    Is this that difficult of a point? It is a profound paradigm shift, especially for those who have been classified by this illusion since their birth, but it is what it is. I don’t claim this because I like it or desire it. I claim that an open-minded analysis of the facts proves there is no such thing as the black, white… races. And I claim that we will NEVER even begin to address the problem of racism – which is practiced by individuals of every size, shape, and color – by continually focusing on an illusion. Getting rid of the illusion has deep implications for many societal and personal issues – sorry if it bothers you, the facts are the facts. Whether quantum mechanics destroys your ideas of physical reality or discarding the illusion of race causes you and others discomfort – so what? When did our desires and wants start changing physical reality?

    And of course, I’m still waiting for anyone to give me that definition.

  • chantal stone

    John….after all of this discussion, i don’t believe you’re going to get that answer, and from what i’ve read i’m believing a ‘correct’ answer doesn’t exist.

    i think i am a perfect example: to look at me, most people would assume that i am black–albeit a light-skinned person of African decent. most of my life i have been perceived as black and judged that way. ok, fine, not a big deal. but if you were to look at my genetic make-up, i am probably only about 30% from African decent, if even that much. i am over 50% of northern European decent.

    race, as we know it, is all about perception. and people confuse ethnicity with race, which i feel, you, John, have so clearly defined as two separate things.

    you were right when you stated that the idea of race not really existing makes people uncomfortable. for many, if there is no race, then they have nothing tangible to substantiate their narrow-minded and ignorant attitudes.

  • http://www.eicenterprises.org John Conlin

    Thanks Chantal,

    You state it perfectly. You may be the greatest person on the planet, you may be a worthless schmoe (just for discussion sake ;-) but who and what you are has nothing to do with the degree of your skin pigment or recent ancestors. And just because people classify you as “black” does not make it so. And of course what does being “black” mean in the first place?

    It is amazing that so many people find it difficult to accept there are only individuals.

  • http://www.richardbrodie.com/ Richard Brodie

    And of course, I’m still waiting for anyone to give me that definition.

    No you’re not. You’ve already gotten some very good ones. But you belie your motivation when you say:

    I claim that we will NEVER even begin to address the problem of racism – which is practiced by individuals of every size, shape, and color – by continually focusing on an illusion

    So your motivation for ignoring scientific fact is purely a political one.

    Race is just another name for sub-species. It is a central taxonomical consideration of the whole endangered species preservation movement. But what I find particularly ironic is that the same secularist/atheist liberals who do not deny the existence of racial sub-categories among various species of fishes, birds, insects, and even mammals, want to claim that Hominidae is the one and only species which, on priciple, cannot have differentiated in this way. Why is this ironic? Because they simultaneously deride religionists for trying to treat the human species as being fundamentally different from all other animal life (like they do), by virtue of possessing an immortal soul!

    I came across another beautiful irony yesterday while listening to NPC – whoops, I mean NPR. They have a new series entitled “This I believe” where they feature people expressing what’s really iportant to them. The introduction is an audio montage of little two or three second sound-bites, one of which was a woman who simply said “being black”. I thought that was wonderful. Here was a human being unashamedly and joyously exulting in her race. The only problem is, I seriously doubt that they would have even considered foeaturing someone who would have said “being white”. THAT would have brought down a storm of racism charges on them!

    It is natural and healthy for people to love and take pride in their identities – whether family, nationality, or race. Ever so much as the lady on the radio, I love and take pride in being a Brodie, an American, and a Nordic white. The only racism problem that I see in today’s American culture is an extremely lopsided bias against the majority race!

  • chantal stone

    i don’t believe it will be very long, when the “majority” will look a lot like me.

  • CC

    One does not need to look very far to see constant reminders of what ‘Being white’ is- its EVERYWHERE!

    Furthermore, their are festivals all over the place for Celtic peoples, Ocktober Fest, Czech Fest, etc. Nobody freaks out at those.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy in Jerusalem

    “If you would actually read and understand my proposition perhaps we could have a more productive discussion.”

    John, you’ve gotten several answers to your demand to define race. Now, one more time, so that you understand. Race per se is not all that important, except for the genetic differences they entail with respect to dealing with diseases or blood transfer or cell rejection (Purple Tigress wrote about needing Japanese individuals for a medical purpose).

    But what is important is that there is and has been for a long time, racial hatred of blacks by whites, and racial hatred of whites by blacks. There is a culture of violent rejection of certain societal values by some blacks in America as “white” values, and contemptuous dismissal of black values by whites.

    The day that 65% of Americans look something like Chantal will be the day there will be true racial harmony in America…

    But denying that race exists only ducks the problem and does nothing to solve it.