consider the presence of Neanderthal DNA in modern humans. every group of modern humans with the exception of sub-saharan Africans has anywhere from 2-4% neanderthal DNA in their genetic make-up. Stuides have shown that this neanderthal DNA contributes to a wide variety of characteristics ranging from hair and skin color to resistance to certain diseases.
question: is that 2-4% difference in DNA enough to consider those who have it and those who do not to be separate "races"?
Race biologically (for humans) is a fiction. It means something different when we apply the term to humans as opposed to when applied to every other species. For humans it relies largely on "perceived differences" alone.
but if DNA tests were done, they'd show neanderthal DNA whereas a sub-saharan african's would not...
that was my question. is the presence or absence of neanderthal DNA enough of a difference to consider those with it a separate "race" than those without?
I'm not, in any way, suggesting that one is superior to the other. merely that they are different. are they different enough to be considered distinct races?
Race and gender only matter to Leftists.
So races are real but that doesn't make people less human. We're all human -> homo sapiens. But ignoring racial differences is not the key to "ending racism", it's the key to ignorance... you need to understand and accept racial differences as being there. For crying out loud, doctors accept them, that's why you have race related medications for certain diseases... so yeah.
Race
'2. A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the German race.'
Race - definition of Race by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
Race is a term...not a fact.
And doctors that use these terms are just as ignorant/lazy as anyone else that does.
Race - medically - refers to a group of people with certain historical/geographic similarities. It has NOTHING to do with 'race'...the word is just a lazy convenience.
If the doctors were being truly accurate; instead of saying 'common to blacks', they would say 'common to individuals whose ancestors originated from such-and-such part of the African continent'.
The term 'race' is usually just a made up term for lazy and/or ignorant and/or bigoted people to lump groups together on the basis of superficial, physical characteristics.
This is #1. This means exactly what we know as race. African, middle eastern, east asian, SE asian (hindu) and European as major racial groups. But you also have a lot others and you can also classify them in other ways. You can say: caucasian, negroid and mongoloid if you want... though I wouldn't.1. A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics.
We're all the same species, but there are different races.
You get species-> subspecies (races) -> ethnicities.
Homo Sapiens -> european / african / east asian / etc -> briton, norman, basque / kenyan, ethiopian / han chinesse, cantonesse /etc.
The genetic differences between each racial group is anywhere between 1-> 1.5% according to whatever studies you follow.
This is also valid in pre-sapien ancestry. For instance, it is just people whose ancestors were in Europe, the mediterraanian basin and west and central middle east that have homo neanderthalis genes... africans and east asians don't have them, they have other ancestry... because neanderthals didn't live elsewhere. So neanderthals aren't the ancestor of homo sapiens, just one of the ancestors of europeans and semitic people.
So races are real but that doesn't make people less human. We're all human -> homo sapiens. But ignoring racial differences is not the key to "ending racism", it's the key to ignorance... you need to understand and accept racial differences as being there. For crying out loud, doctors accept them, that's why you have race related medications for certain diseases... so yeah.
Really, i wouldn't worry to much about it. Race is not a determining factor in the personality or characteristic of someone unless he makes it so and those people are racists.
So if being of a particular race is something that defines you in say, your top 5... then you are a very sad person because you don't have a lot of things going for you and you should pick up a hobby or two or get out more.
This is about RACE, not ethnicity. There is a difference between saying "I am black" and "I am a Kenyan", for instance. I do not believe that race exists. It is a made up social construct that has been historically used to divide people into groups based on what their ethnic origins appear to be. We are all the same species; there are just tendencies in appearance based on the area where one's ancestors lived (which is obviously due to adaptations to the environment).
I am not asking if the social phenomena of "race" exists, rather I am asking if this social phenomena has any basis in reality.
If you're gonna comment, comment on all of it or explain why you only chose to comment a part of it.
I will comment on ANY part of a post I feel like - you don't like that...too bad.
Your first part was irrelevant to me...so I disregarded it.
Same with most of your above post.
As for the first definition of race:
'1. A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics.'
That is what the word means to many...that does not make it accurate. There is a definition for Martians...that does not make it accurate or mean that there are actually Martians.
Let me make this clear to you...I don't much care what you think about this. I commented about your post for others to see.
Race is as I said...a lazy, ignorant way of lumping people together into arbitrary groups - usually by physical characteristics.
To call 'blacks' a 'race' is pathetically simplistic. Same with 'whites'. Same with 'east Asians' (btw - calling 'orientals', Asians is moronic as it gets. Russians, Iraqi's, Indians, and Syrians are all from Asia...but nobody calls them 'Asian'.)
Just like simplistic pigs call escorts, whores. Simplistic people look at a person with substantial melanin and call them 'blacks'.
Technically, the are both right (though most 'blacks' are usually brown in color...not black).
They are both also ignorant/lazy on the subject...reducing human beings to the most basic, crude denominators.
And if I actually have to explain to you about the negative repercussions from people being lumped into 'races'...then you truly are ignorant on this subject.
So continue the stereotype and refer to people by their most common and simplistic denominator...but leave me out of it....I have more respect for humans then that.
You disagree...I don't much care.
I am done on this subject with you for now...good day.
This is about RACE, not ethnicity. There is a difference between saying "I am black" and "I am a Kenyan", for instance. I do not believe that race exists. It is a made up social construct that has been historically used to divide people into groups based on what their ethnic origins appear to be. We are all the same species; there are just tendencies in appearance based on the area where one's ancestors lived (which is obviously due to adaptations to the environment).
I am not asking if the social phenomena of "race" exists, rather I am asking if this social phenomena has any basis in reality.
You also didn't include me in your comment in the reply, so I got no notification. Fortunately it's a slow day so I log in here every hour to see what's up. That's like... dirty. Whenever I chop down someones' comment I give an explanation as to why I did it. Usually something like "I agree with everything else but this" or "I chopped your wall of text because it was too big". But that's just me trying to be civil.
You can say that human beings are a race but we're a species. Like canines... canines come in different breeds (subspecies or races).
Race is not a lazy way to do anything. It's just a way to group people because grouping people is what people do.
We group people by profession, by age, by gender, by sex, by whatever. We assign these things because it's easy to quantify them and use them in our day to day lives. There is nothing wrong with grouping people by race. There's nothing dirty in it.
One of the things I work with is databases. I put information into databases and in order for someone to find them easier, I assign useful "tags" to them as it were. It's like when you try and file a group of pictures.
Let me make it simpler for you and everyone to understand.
Say you have pictures on your computer. All the pictures are pictures (all humans are humans) but some pictures are pictures of cats... others are pictures of dogs, some are pictures of wildlife and some are pictures of nature like mountains and rivers... some are pictures of events you've been to and some are pictures of your family and friends at birthdays or weddings.
What is the truly lazy way to deal with all these pictures? The lazy way is to put them all in a single folder named "pictures". That way when you want to find a picture that you're looking for, you'll have a hard time doing it.
No.
What you do is you make a folder for cat pictures, a folder for dog pictures, a folder for all different kinds of pictures and you meticulously organize them. This is the correct way to do it. This is the smart way to do it. The lazy way is to just say they are all pictures and disconsider what kind of pictures they are.
You can choose what kinds of pictures you want in what folder. You can say you want to put dogs and cats together as a "pet folder" and you can group friends and family with event photos. It's your decision on how you group them. But the more meticulous and correct you group them, the easier it is to have access to them. And this is the smart way to do it.
Yours is the lazy and ignorant way.
I could branch out that example in multiple ways but I think you got the point.
EDIT: I'm also not talking about stereotypes, at all... you seem to go full automaton with the replies. Read this and my prev comment carefully. You're the only one who is attacking X set of stereotypes to a race. I'm not even going there.
It is amusing that you like to categorize photos. I shoot down your entire simplistic hypothesis with one simple word;
Lineage.
Photos are simple to categorize. Each is from a different source.I categorize everything on my computer. Makes for a tidy workplace. You know that saying? Cleanliness is next to Godliness? Well Computer Cleanliness IS godliness
Anyway, back to the topic at hand.
Also, what about lineage? Can you like... user your words?
Photos are simple to categorize. Each is from a different source.
People come from other people. It is neither a simple nor clean study.
Really, i wouldn't worry to much about it. Race is not a determining factor in the personality or characteristic of someone unless he makes it so and those people are racists.
So if being of a particular race is something that defines you in say, your top 5... then you are a very sad person because you don't have a lot of things going for you and you should pick up a hobby or two or get out more.
Only the reality of politics.This is about RACE, not ethnicity. There is a difference between saying "I am black" and "I am a Kenyan", for instance. I do not believe that race exists. It is a made up social construct that has been historically used to divide people into groups based on what their ethnic origins appear to be. We are all the same species; there are just tendencies in appearance based on the area where one's ancestors lived (which is obviously due to adaptations to the environment).
I am not asking if the social phenomena of "race" exists, rather I am asking if this social phenomena has any basis in reality.
If there is no such thing as "race", then there is no such thing as "racism"........