Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Biological Case Against Race
American Outlook, publication of the Hudson Institute ^ | Spring 2002 | Joseph L. Graves Jr.

Posted on 06/04/2002 5:24:31 PM PDT by cornelis

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 151-200201-250251-300301-331 next last
To: ThePythonicCow

Heheh... yes, it's approximately the same, but there are certain logistical differences between the two...

251 posted on 06/05/2002 11:22:27 AM PDT by Condorman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy
You wouldn't understand. Good day.
252 posted on 06/05/2002 11:22:34 AM PDT by ThePythonicCow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]

To: ConsistentLibertarian
It's easier to keep slaves if they don't look like any of the free peoples around. That's why Indians were preferred in some areas...why the Leho try to take ALL Pygmies as slaves...numerous other examples.
253 posted on 06/05/2002 11:24:13 AM PDT by lepton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy
OK....you may choose to believe that there is no such thing as race as a classification of humans based on physical characteristics. Hence, you may also naturally believe that there are no biological differnces (testosterone and estrogen levels and tolerance to heat or cold being the most obvious) and that any diseases that one commonly attributes as race-based are all bullsh!te.

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.

254 posted on 06/05/2002 11:24:59 AM PDT by wardaddy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy
And least we forget, all the vaunted American Indian cultures of note were subdued handily by a few mean as hell Spainards on horseback with primitive firearms. Ironically, the less advanced but hardier and simply tougher Plains Indians put up a much better fight proportionately.

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.

255 posted on 06/05/2002 11:29:00 AM PDT by lepton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

Comment #256 Removed by Moderator

Comment #257 Removed by Moderator

To: ThePythonicCow
Human races are not distinct separately defined groups.

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

258 posted on 06/05/2002 11:32:01 AM PDT by tallhappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 249 | View Replies]

To: William Tell
My apologies ...it was William Terrell. Whoops.

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.

Regards

259 posted on 06/05/2002 11:32:06 AM PDT by wardaddy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 244 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy
OK....you may choose to believe that there is no such thing as race as a classification of humans based on physical characteristics.

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?

260 posted on 06/05/2002 11:33:23 AM PDT by tallhappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 254 | View Replies]

To: ThePythonicCow
You wouldn't understand. Good day.

Wouldn't understand what?

261 posted on 06/05/2002 11:34:11 AM PDT by tallhappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 252 | View Replies]

To: Pinlighter
Your first two points in 256 are right on.

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).

262 posted on 06/05/2002 11:38:31 AM PDT by tallhappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 256 | View Replies]

To: Condorman
Not really; it's basic genetics. Remember high school biology class? There are two allels for every gene. If there is a gay gene, and if it is recessive (a reasonable assumption), you will never be able to "breed it out of existence" because a person with the Gay/Straight combination will be indistinguishable from a Straight/Straight individual, but will be a "carrier" for homosexual tendencies.

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.




263 posted on 06/05/2002 11:44:49 AM PDT by Sabertooth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 250 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy
Once again you simply resort to insult rather than evidence and I notice your argument is shall we say fluid. It suits you to change it as the thread evolves. You claim there are no biological differences between races and then later you claim that there is no biological basis for defining races. I like the way you subtly refined your premise since you refuse to offer any counter evidence and instead resort to hurling insults and simply restating that you are right "by God".

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.

264 posted on 06/05/2002 11:51:22 AM PDT by wardaddy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 260 | View Replies]

To: Pinlighter; all
Hello pinlighter,

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.

265 posted on 06/05/2002 11:54:16 AM PDT by cornelis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 256 | View Replies]

Comment #266 Removed by Moderator

To: wardaddy
You claim there are no biological differences between races and then later you claim that there is no biological basis for defining races.

Same thing. Both are true and equivalent.

267 posted on 06/05/2002 12:11:23 PM PDT by tallhappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 264 | View Replies]

To: Pinlighter
You are quite mad.
268 posted on 06/05/2002 12:12:20 PM PDT by tallhappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy
Ironically, the less advanced but hardier and simply tougher Plains Indians put up a much better fight proportionately.

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 ....

269 posted on 06/05/2002 12:14:19 PM PDT by sphinx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

Comment #270 Removed by Moderator

To: mhking
Thanks for the ping.

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.

271 posted on 06/05/2002 12:19:17 PM PDT by mafree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: lepton
Slaves?.....say it ain't so. Don't forget smallpox as well...another bow in Cortez's quiver.

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.

272 posted on 06/05/2002 12:25:39 PM PDT by wardaddy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies]

To: Pinlighter
Well done.
273 posted on 06/05/2002 12:27:58 PM PDT by wardaddy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 256 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy
Neither true nor equivalent, but we've been here before. I will ask you again what defines race to you?
274 posted on 06/05/2002 12:38:07 PM PDT by wardaddy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies]

To: Condorman;Sabertooth;Kevin Curry
A combination of one or two "gay genes" could very easily define a predisposition towards homosexuality.

The problem is genes regulate body form and not behavior. There’s 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.

275 posted on 06/05/2002 1:00:44 PM PDT by Clint N. Suhks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 250 | View Replies]

To: ThePythonicCow
Great thread so far. And after tallhappy's meltdown in post 210 you are declared the winner of this ridiculous debate (who ya gonna belive, me (Graves) or your lying eyes?) Excellent posts.
276 posted on 06/05/2002 1:04:02 PM PDT by AshleyMontagu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

To: AshleyMontagu
Well, you, obviously, given your astute observations as to the proper winner of this indeed ridiculous debate <grin>.
277 posted on 06/05/2002 1:24:43 PM PDT by ThePythonicCow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 276 | View Replies]

To: Pinlighter
Guess hopes of assimilation are pretty much gone now.
278 posted on 06/05/2002 1:31:37 PM PDT by LarryLied
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
That means a man boinked a woman, a sperm met the egg. Sperm don't fertilize sperm and ova don't fertilize ova.

Self-obvious. What's your point?

279 posted on 06/05/2002 1:39:49 PM PDT by Condorman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks
The problem is genes regulate body form and not behavior.

Sez you. Birds build nests. Kangaroos box. Infants suckle. You'll have to do better than that.

280 posted on 06/05/2002 1:51:39 PM PDT by Condorman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 275 | View Replies]

To: cornelis
If we can't use the term "race" to describe groups of humans, perhaps we can use the term "breed" in reference to human groups as it is used to refer to groups of dogs.

Anyone willing to bet on how long, from the onset of use of this term to describe humans, until the first "scientific" treatise denying the existence of breeds is published?

Prolix
281 posted on 06/05/2002 2:00:37 PM PDT by Prolix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sphinx
That's why i said proportionately. Geronimo was no mop-up. The large tribes in the East did in fact in some cases fight like all Hell but they were much larger in number. I will cede that the Eastern Indians also had to deal with basically a human wave enveloping them whereas the nomadic hunter tribes in the West fought more against government forces. Additionally, I will cede that they likewise were the last to submit because they were the last to be in the way. But, I do stick by my premise that for their numbers, some of them fought exceptionally better than most of their peers...
282 posted on 06/05/2002 2:07:03 PM PDT by wardaddy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 269 | View Replies]

To: cornelis
In reality, the differences between groups we have been describing as resulting form biological race are really the result of cultural evolution. The rules that govern cultural evolution are dictated by the views of the eighteenth-century biologist Jean Baptist Lamarck, not those of Darwin.

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

283 posted on 06/05/2002 2:32:25 PM PDT by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Condorman
Sez you. Birds build nests. Kangaroos box. Infants suckle. You'll have to do better than that.

Yep, we eat, reproduce, defend and shelter ourselves, a universal morality called survival. Those who don’t 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,” they’re interchangeable in your little perversion justifying scenario?

284 posted on 06/05/2002 2:34:57 PM PDT by Clint N. Suhks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 280 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks
It has been a rare pleasure conversing with you and your bag of catch-phrases.

Good day.

285 posted on 06/05/2002 2:48:13 PM PDT by Condorman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 284 | View Replies]

To: Condorman
bag of catch-phrases???

Only to those who don’t have logical answers. Justifying perversion isn’t for he meek.

286 posted on 06/05/2002 3:06:40 PM PDT by Clint N. Suhks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 285 | View Replies]

To: ConsistentLibertarian
Yes. And many people are tempted to make the inviting inference, and say "they dominate because they are black".

"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.

EBUCK

287 posted on 06/05/2002 3:13:14 PM PDT by EBUCK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Condorman
Self-obvious. What's your point?

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?




288 posted on 06/05/2002 3:18:37 PM PDT by Sabertooth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 279 | View Replies]

To: cornelis
. The tragedy of this is that virtually none of the people directly involved in addressing our political and social disparities fully comprehend how our racial confusion influences how we deal with the consequences of injustice.

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.

EBUCK

289 posted on 06/05/2002 3:19:07 PM PDT by EBUCK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks
If you want to roll around in the mud, you can play by yourself. Lack of interest on my part doesn't constitute a victory on yours.

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.

290 posted on 06/05/2002 3:24:54 PM PDT by Condorman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 286 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
Hard to escape the fact that homosexuals are absolutely always procreated heterosexually

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.

291 posted on 06/05/2002 3:30:37 PM PDT by Condorman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 288 | View Replies]

To: Condorman
Err.. "commented upon it...
292 posted on 06/05/2002 3:31:32 PM PDT by Condorman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 291 | View Replies]

To: Condorman
I took it to mean that it is somehow astonishing that homosexuals originate from a male-female union.

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.




293 posted on 06/05/2002 3:38:26 PM PDT by Sabertooth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 291 | View Replies]

To: Mortin Sult
People think nothing of breeding dogs of different color. The odd thing is, when you breed them, sometimes the come out pie-bald, that is, with big blotches of the two colors. This never happens in humans.

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.

EBUCK

294 posted on 06/05/2002 3:52:11 PM PDT by EBUCK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan
Bump....
295 posted on 06/05/2002 5:41:53 PM PDT by wardaddy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 283 | View Replies]

To: AshleyMontagu
So: are Jews smarter because of genes or environment? (And yes--I am baiting you...
296 posted on 06/05/2002 5:44:32 PM PDT by Pharmboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 276 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
Evolution would have dispensed with gay genes eons before the first lemurs, much less men.

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.

297 posted on 06/05/2002 5:44:34 PM PDT by Condorman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 293 | View Replies]

Comment #298 Removed by Moderator

To: Sabertooth
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."

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.

299 posted on 06/05/2002 5:49:25 PM PDT by Condorman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 293 | View Replies]

To: EBUCK
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.

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.

300 posted on 06/05/2002 5:49:30 PM PDT by wardaddy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 287 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 151-200201-250251-300301-331 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson