|
Post by DeeperThought on Aug 17, 2004 10:14:53 GMT -5
Hi,
There are no biological-races in nature, none. Such races are arbitrarily constructed by "scientists" through the imaginative privileging of some inherited characteristics above others and the sheer invention of discontinuities in clinal variation.
In reality any number of "races" could be constructed, it's simply a matter of choosing which aspsects of human variation are to be privileged as "important" in determining race-identity and then choosing where, imaginatively, along any given cline, one "race" ends and another begins. This activity isn't discovery, it's invention.
Biological-race was a product of an 18th and 19th century obsession with categorisation and has actually been abandoned by mainstream science and scholarly endeavour from the early 20th century onwards.
Human variation is real of course, it exists among a huge myriad of non-codependent clines. There is no profound discontinuity among human populations which justify the notion that humanity is divided into a small number of idealised types called "races".
People still cling to the notion of biological-races because it appeals to their primitive desire for identity and cultural values as "belonging" to a group in some profound sense, but it's not science.
Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Cerdic on Aug 17, 2004 11:14:39 GMT -5
I would agree wholeheartedly. I especially despise the proliferation of the idea of "Sub-races" they were invented by classification (butterfly collecting) mad Victorians with an unhealthy reliance on a few classical texts. The concept of pure and mixed races should be anathema for anyone with a reasonable scientific education.
|
|
|
Post by Melnorme on Aug 17, 2004 11:34:11 GMT -5
There is no profound discontinuity among human populations which justify the notion that humanity is divided into a small number of idealised types called "races". The Sahara and the Himalayas?
|
|
|
Post by GreatLor on Aug 17, 2004 11:48:21 GMT -5
Hi, There are no biological-races in nature, none. Such races are arbitrarily constructed by "scientists" through the imaginative privileging of some inherited characteristics above others and the sheer invention of discontinuities in clinal variation. In reality any number of "races" could be constructed, it's simply a matter of choosing which aspsects of human variation are to be privileged as "important" in determining race-identity and then choosing where, imaginatively, along any given cline, one "race" ends and another begins. This activity isn't discovery, it's invention. Biological-race was a product of an 18th and 19th century obsession with categorisation and has actually been abandoned by mainstream science and scholarly endeavour from the early 20th century onwards. Human variation is real of course, it exists among a huge myriad of non-codependent clines. There is no profound discontinuity among human populations which justify the notion that humanity is divided into a small number of idealised types called "races". People still cling to the notion of biological-races because it appeals to their primitive desire for identity and cultural values as "belonging" to a group in some profound sense, but it's not science. Thanks. I have to ask what is your and what is the official definition of the term "race" inorder for me to evaluate if what you just said is true or false !
|
|
|
Post by Vitor on Aug 17, 2004 14:40:20 GMT -5
DeeperThought ... The same idea might be applied to..species! There are a notion that only animals from the same species can make viable descendents. The problems is that sometimes, viability is only prevented by a single GENE! and even being viables, biologist usually make distintions between those who never mate in the wild... and puting them in diferent species ! Btw I have RH-negative blood, a women with that kind of blood with a male RH-positive would made allmoust impossible to produce more than 1 descendent with that male before the age of medicine... with today species definition RH negatives would fit nicely in a new human species status...(of course that would not be political correct) So we could start talking about different species not races... This is something very subjective...
|
|
|
Post by Vitor on Aug 17, 2004 15:07:48 GMT -5
this might be fiction... There is some theories that says that the neanderthal man is alive within most europeans... www.research-projects.unizh.ch/math/unit70200/area144/p3650.htmThe RH-negative blood region fits nicely in the neanderthal dominion...very nicely! (the link between neanderthal and RH-negative blood is my invention) I could call it Vitor's theory...why not. were neandertal remains were found (the more remains the more neanderthals lived there): Rh negative blood: Yes you can call me neanderthal...
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Guard on Aug 17, 2004 17:49:38 GMT -5
Actually that theory is bogus! Scientist have found no link between Human DNA and Neandertals.
That means no intermixing and seperate speacies.
|
|
|
Post by Vitor on Aug 17, 2004 18:09:31 GMT -5
That is the correct political view...
Why?
That would establish a certain division between europeans (40% have that recessive RH negative blood gene ) and the others.
DNA is something that degrades fast, studying ancient DNA is most of the time guess work... and obviously it's easier to say there aren't any connections at all!
|
|
|
Post by Igu on Aug 17, 2004 18:22:03 GMT -5
That is the correct political view... Why? That would establish a certain division between europeans (40% have that recessive RH negative blood gene ) and the others. DNA is something that degrades fast, studying ancient DNA is most of the time guess work... and obviously it's easier to say there aren't any connections at all! They found that there was a too big DNA difference to permit inter-mixing with neanderthal.
|
|
|
Post by Melnorme on Aug 17, 2004 18:32:53 GMT -5
They found that there was a too big DNA difference to permit inter-mixing with neanderthal. Yes, they used mtDNA. Google it.
|
|
|
Post by BallisticaNervosa on Aug 17, 2004 18:46:32 GMT -5
Species are divided in races; there is no way around it. Dog breeders like to mix certain races of dogs to obtain breeds with desired qualities, for example.
Race exists, no matter what PC media says.
EDIT: Even if "race doesn't exist" you cannot just throw the concept through the window. As humans we have the need to classify things to live in an orderly place; that is plain human nature.
|
|
|
Post by Vitor on Aug 17, 2004 18:49:08 GMT -5
Regartheless of neanderthal gene or not.. the fact is, that womens with that blood type have problems with male mates with RH+. If the male is 100% positive that is without the RH negative gene, then all the babies (after the first one) would die...(before modern medicine) If we follow the modern biological definition of species, then RH negative persons are from a different species (with or without neanderthal genes). What I am trying to say here? Race exist...
|
|
|
Post by Igu on Aug 17, 2004 18:51:36 GMT -5
Hi, There are no biological-races in nature, none. Such races are arbitrarily constructed by "scientists" through the imaginative privileging of some inherited characteristics above others and the sheer invention of discontinuities in clinal variation. In reality any number of "races" could be constructed, it's simply a matter of choosing which aspsects of human variation are to be privileged as "important" in determining race-identity and then choosing where, imaginatively, along any given cline, one "race" ends and another begins. This activity isn't discovery, it's invention. Biological-race was a product of an 18th and 19th century obsession with categorisation and has actually been abandoned by mainstream science and scholarly endeavour from the early 20th century onwards. Human variation is real of course, it exists among a huge myriad of non-codependent clines. There is no profound discontinuity among human populations which justify the notion that humanity is divided into a small number of idealised types called "races". People still cling to the notion of biological-races because it appeals to their primitive desire for identity and cultural values as "belonging" to a group in some profound sense, but it's not science. Thanks. Yes, genitically you can't categorize people into groups... there are too much variations... a DNA of a european can be closer to that of an aborigene than to that of another european, but there are many facts that are omitted by "race-denial": -a separation occured between humans long time ago, -this separation has lead to an isolation and evolution of each group, it affected only the "necessary genes", necessary to adapt. When some scientists try to define a race, they define it by these necessary phenotypes. and I find this approach very convincive and correct. you can directly guess the origin of a skull [europe, asia...], but you if you choose a type of classification that comes from your "any number of races" you will never guess, because your type of classification is randomly chosen... useless! so these races are not arbitrarily constructed! you can't argue with it, unless you have another definition of "race" as you do..., for you race=species, and those scientists who argue the racial classification are arguing a false meaning of race... this false meaning -of race- was shared by the Nazis. don't care about both visions. I'm not obsessed by race, I just don't care ... but it's irritating to see this kind of manipulation.
|
|
|
Post by Igu on Aug 17, 2004 19:00:27 GMT -5
Yes, they used mtDNA. Google it. Yes, I saw a report about neanderthal..long time ago, They used the mithocondrial DNA.. forgot why... easy to take from skeletons? or because it acts like the Y-dna but for both sex?
|
|
|
Post by Vitor on Aug 17, 2004 19:28:38 GMT -5
After that the remains of the lapedo child were discovered in portugal... this discovery conflicted with that previous theory!
|
|