The Biological Case Against Race

American Outlook, publication of the Hudson Institute ^ | Spring 2002 | Joseph L. Graves Jr.

[Prolix]

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

[wardaddy]

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...

[Ohioan]

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

[Clint N. Suhks]

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?

[Condorman]

It has been a rare pleasure conversing with you and your bag of catch-phrases.

Good day.

[Clint N. Suhks]

bag of catch-phrases???

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

[EBUCK]

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

[Sabertooth]

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?

[EBUCK]

. 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

[Condorman]

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.

[Condorman]

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.

[Condorman]

Err.. "commented upon it...

[Sabertooth]

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.

[EBUCK]

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

[wardaddy]

Bump....

[Pharmboy]

So: are Jews smarter because of genes or environment? (And yes--I am baiting you...

[Condorman]

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.

[Condorman]

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.

[wardaddy]

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.