Skip to comments.The Biological Case Against Race
Posted on 06/04/2002 5:24:31 PM PDT by cornelis
click here to read article
Is that the same as "BFD"?
Heheh... yes, it's approximately the same, but there are certain logistical differences between the two...
Now in light of your refusal to acknowledge any other scientific data other than that which suits you, who's being political here concerning this issue?
I have made no political or social generalizations on this subject other than to attribute them to culture and geography more so than to race.
The Aztecs were conqured by the Spaniards more by the Spaniards freeing slaves than by their firepower. The 500 Spaniards were eventually accompanied by about 500,000 freed slaves when they hit the capital. The armor and firearms made the small-scale battles more dominant, but without the slaves there just weren't enough to do it.
The Roman's largely conquered non-Italian Europe and Africa by the same means as we defeated the Taliban.
Exactly. This is what the article says and what I have been saying the entire time.
Another way of saying it is that there is no biological basis for defining race.
I knew you'd get there eventually
And I paraphrased his exact query which was this:
Then which came first, the chicken (race) or the egg (culture)?
Again my apologies for mistaking you and to Terrell for paraphrasing him....but I think I was close to the gist of his post.
I don't believe that and never said that.
The problem is, you don't really understand much of anything on this topic. You are speaking out of ignorance.
Why is the question?
Wouldn't understand what?
Third is backwards:
Anyone who argues that "race doesn't exist" is making a political, not a scientific, statement.
Race doesn't exist is a scientific statement having to do with objective analysis.
Race exists for sure, politically and socially and in other ways. But not biologically.
I lost you on your last two, as you seem to be quite mixed up with difficulties expressing your thoughts (most likely formulating them).
You're thinking too hard. Remember my comment?
"Hard to escape the fact that homosexuals are absolutely always procreated heterosexually."
Tha means a man boinked a woman, a sperm met the egg. Sperm don't fertilize sperm and ova don't fertilize ova.
Now you claim that humans may be classified by race according to physical characteristics. If so please define that for us since you disregard the notion of biological differences.
Since this article argues against a biological case for race there are no arguments to counter; the veracity of differences classed as race has not been called into question. Sorry to disappoint you.
Same thing. Both are true and equivalent.
Nah, they were just a bigger hit with Hollywood, probably because horses and panoramic vistas are easier for the camera than skirmishes in the woods. Think King Philip, Tecumseh, Little Turtle, the Iroquois and the French and Indian War(s), the Creeks, the Miami, the Seminoles ... or Braddock, Harmer, and St. Clair. Just for starters. The Plains Indians were just a casual mop-up operation, aside from Custer's little mistake.
Excuse the off topic post. I just gotta stick up for my half of the country on some of these minor points ....
Race as we know it is mostly a social construct, but there are still biological racial differences. They should not be an excuse to stereotype or limit anyone, for all should be able to live free and achieve in a society according to their ability.
The most amazing thing about Cortez is that he did all of that while at the same time combating a Spanish force sent from Cuba to arrest him.
The problem is genes regulate body form and not behavior. Theres no such thing as predisposition to behavior, except in the minds of liberal apologists that call alcoholism a disease and homosexuality an orientation. The practice of homosexuality is a paraphilia and should be seen as the pathology that it is. With your logic I guess there are incest genes, bestiality genes and pedophile genes too!
Disclaimer: All of the above is conjecture and hypothesis on my part, but it does seem to fit the anecdotal facts and observations.
Justifying perversion requires a lot of mental aerobics.
Self-obvious. What's your point?
Sez you. Birds build nests. Kangaroos box. Infants suckle. You'll have to do better than that.
This writer clearly flags where he is coming from to all who know the history of the debate. Lamarck is the father of Socialist Biology--the concept refined by the Soviet Lyschenko, and considered a joke in serious scientific circles, for many years.
If you go closely through the article, you will notice that the writer engages in many slights of hand--changes the subject subtly and almost inobtrusively, to mislead the reader. In point of fact the present races have been observed with their present traits both physical and personality since Egyptian times, and have shown little or no deviation with cultural changes. To those not looking to prove human oneness, it should be obvious that men make their culture, not culture men.
To understand the mindset behind this verbose pseudo-science, that is so popular today in American "Higher" Education, see Myths & Myth Makers In American "Higher" Education. It is obvious that this fellow is following in the footsteps of Ashley Montagu, who is one of the "Myth Makers" discussed in the essay.
Interestingly enough, Montagu had a Rutgers position for some time--he was originally a product of the notorious Boas group at Columbia--and may have had a hand in this fellow publishing there. (Montagu was still alive, the last I heard, in his late 90s.)
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
Yep, we eat, reproduce, defend and shelter ourselves, a universal morality called survival. Those who dont follow this little moral system are objectively disordered. The only thing those who pretend an anus is a vagina can reproduce are dirt babies.
So smartguy, what about the incest genes, bestiality genes and pedophile genes, theyre interchangeable in your little perversion justifying scenario?
Only to those who dont have logical answers. Justifying perversion isnt for he meek.
"They dominate because they can run fast."
The truth of the matter is that their being dark skinned and their obvious fleetness of foot is the effect of adaptation to their ancestral environment. Nothing more, nothing less.
If it's self-obvious now, then it always was, making your "high school biology class" comment at #250 kinda pointless.
You are aware that you were making a counterargument to what was just an ironic observation on my part?
Translation = The author understands the race issues better than the Socialist Populatory Mechanics in Gubment and is willing to help in exchange for a fat gubment grant.
If you want to defend your statement, "The problem is genes regulate body form and not behavior" by reconciling it with the existence of instinctive behavior, we can have a discussion.
What exactly does that mean? I took it to mean that it is somehow astonishing that homosexuals originate from a male-female union. I don't recall anyone ever claiming otherwise. Regardless, it seems to be a rather unusual statement, so I commented upon. If I am in error, perhaps you could clarify.
Not astonishing, self-obvious.
What's astonishing is that some of the consequent conclusions from that fact are missed by so many who've pinned their hopes on the Golden Fleece of the so-called "gay gene."
Evolution would have dispensed with gay genes eons before the first lemurs, much less men.
This actually does happen quite often. There was a basketball player (can't remember his name now) but he was blotchy because of his lineage.
Your statement is factually inaccurate.
Evolution would have dispensed with cystic fibrosis as well, if your hypothesis were correct.
Unless you want to engage in some kind of pogrom, recessive alleles, even those that prevent reproduction, are permanent in the genetic population. Any claim that a gay gene would have been eliminated from the population by reproduction among heterosexual cannot be substantiated.
I don't know what you mean by "pinned their hopes on" etc...
I did not claim that there is a genetic on/off toggle. To suggest otherwise is a strawman argument. I have simply pointed out that the possibility of a genetic influence for homosexuality cannot be eliminated.
Really??, then why don't we see Amazon Stone Age Indians winning sprints or Aborigines or Highland Asian Stone Agers from Mindanao doing the same? I am not trying to make a political point here but I am interested in exploring the flaws in the "Culture, Environment, Geography Explains Everything" argument. Are you saying that once upon a time Caucazoid or Mongoloid race folks could have competed just as well but we became too civilized and less physically adept? If so did our environmental factors civilize us or vice versa. Nothing about this argument dovetails nicely from either side of the perspective in my view. Good or bad intentions simply do not hold up to facts or flaws.