How Many Races Are There?

page: 3
52
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 10:37 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 

You sold me on this


we, no matter what we look like, we can interbreed.

can't argue with facts,bravo!




posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 10:49 PM
link   
Ok if taxonomy or as the OP calls "race" has little to do with quality then explain why any species go extinct at all? Clearly some are just better able to adapt and for some reason can adapt while others fail to do so, or fail to evolve, which may explain european invention and imperialism, not just in terms of intelligence but in terms of survivability to disease or viruses. The native americans pretty much had never seen most of the european diseases that were given to them and they essentially had not evolved immune systems capable of handling the interaction.

When we look at monkeys, there are extinct ones and ones that can still survive and they compete within type and fiercely against outsiders as well, as well as interspecies battles against other animals, I don't don't think lions worry about a gazelles "race" while they rip it from limb to limb, and I don't think humans either care about a cows heritage that much either as they bite into a juicy steak. If you look within even microorganisms you will find microorganism "racism" just because we have developed feelings about it being bad doesn't mean our molecular structure pays any regard to those feelings at all, so in a sensewe are much more complicated than very simple things yet even in simple organisms they still fight over their existence on the basis of social circumstances and environment.

Sociobiology has become taboo in Academia for reasons of fear of what it explains to the average persons thoughts about environment and genes. Some societies simply evolve faster than others, as do individuals within those groups do as well, and so in a sense we are all components in a vast global nervous system in which some humans are put to the task of evolving this planet faster while others disused wither and die away like dying cells in the brain. Destruction happens all the time whenever a bird wakes up they are ready to kill as many insects as they require, they don't worry what species they maybe killing. Nature uses destruction to further evolution, we try not to use violence but recognize that not everyone on this planet maybe ready for non-violent struggle and battles. In a sense we are evolved only in the sense that we might like to not kill one another, but I think we have a very long way to go before we devlop those senses, and we are saddled with ancient brains that still function on a fight and flight response, whether we care to recognize it or not and that also functions on a level of "are you my tribe or competing tribe", thinking devopled in the jungle for survival where timely thought processes were valued. It meant the difference between being for dinner or eating dinner.



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 11:14 PM
link   
reply to post by masqua
 


reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Thank you so much for your answers, you two. It's one of those things I always wanted to ask but never really knew where/who to ask. And absolutely- I don't believe each race is a different species. I do believe there is one human species.


we, no matter what we look like, we can interbreed.


On the same token, we have different breeds of dogs, cats, horses, etc., that can procreate with other breeds of dogs, cats, and horses. Even plants can be divided into 'races'. So I suppose it always made me wonder how we could differentiate animals by breed but classifying humans by race (physically, not on a scale of superiority) is becoming more taboo.


A manx is a hairless cat, but still a cat.

A bull mastiff is still a dog just as much as a chihuahua is.

A human is still a human whether their hair is straight and blond or black and curly or their skin blue/black or pearly white.


Yes, a manx is a cat... but it is also a manx by breed and a cat by species. A chihuahua is a dog but its breed is chihuahua. So basically instead of 'breeds,' we classify humans by 'races.' And instead of 'mutt,' I should refer to myself as a mixed. Or someone may refer to themselves as mixed race. Or 'Caucasian' would be someone's 'breed.' However, to phrase it like that would make most of us cringe when describing a person but we'd have no problem saying a dog is a certain 'breed' based on it's bone structure and fur coloring.

Is it right? Is it wrong? Scientifically I have no problem being classified by race. I do have issues with it when it becomes a matter of being used as a declaration of superiority and sadly, human nature pretty much takes it to that every time.


but, really the defining aspect of our species is that we, no matter what we look like, we can interbreed. This alone defines all Humans as belonging to one 'race'...better word is 'species'.


Agreed. We are all 100% human and there are no 'sub humans,' if you will. But breeds of animals can also procreate within their species. For instance, a doberman can interbreed with a pug. They're both dogs, just different breeds. Likewise, two human races can procreate and they will give birth a human child, although mixed race.

Not trying to argue, here. Just trying to understand. I know this is a touchy issue but it is something that has always bothered me when studying evolution. It's as if we're immune to classifications. To claim a certain race is some evolutionary throwback, like Darwin did, would be extremely racist and I admit to wincing a bit when reading some of his works. But to say 'these attributes, characteristics, and coloring is indicative of this race/classification,' sounds scientific to me. Or is it not? Honest question here.

This definitely helped:


In reponse, I would ask you if you considered an albino human to be a different race?

Obviously not, since it is a characteristic of inherited genetic deviation... a physical difference.


Thanks, Masqua. That clarifies a lot. Basically, hair, skin, and eye color, bone structure, and other various characteristics that determine race are some form of mutation. I really like your use of albinos as an example. So it's not really 'races,' it's a mutation. That still brings me back to animal breeds that are also based on mutations. And according to evolution, we're essentially just another species of animal.


Darwin, remember, came from a place and time that invented racialization (see OP links).


Very true. But does that mean the scientific classifications of race are false because it can bring us to a very harmful philosophy? Or are they simply false of themselves. And did they invent the concept or did they simply discover the concept.

I guess my ultimate question is if according to evolution and biology the human species is just another animal, why are we not broken down into classifications just like other animals, even those of the same species? We have breeds for animals caused by mutations so why is it wrong to classify humans by races while still seeing we are all the same species?

Either way, you two definitely gave me some food for thought.

[edit on 6/6/2009 by AshleyD]



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 11:43 PM
link   
And maybe this will help.

The following photos are both of horses, Equus caballus by species. By breed, the one on the left is a Mustang while the one of the right is an Arab:



Nobody would argue they're not both horses. Likewise, the below is a photo of various humans, homo sapiens, and races as they are classified by the FBI. Nobody would say any one of the below is not human. So why is it we can classify animals by breeds but not humans by races on a scientific level if we're all 'beasts' according to scientific views:



According to science (evolution and biology), both humans and horses (and cats and dogs and plants, etc.) are a result of natural selection. Both humans and horses are products of mutation. Both humans and horses are just another link in the evolutionary chain. Both humans and horses will have different characteristics. Both humans and horses can have their traits change through adaptation or selective breeding.

So why is it acceptable to classify plants and animals by races/breeds but not for humans when, according to science, the reason humans, animals, and plants are different were caused by the same means?

I do lean towards Sky's conclusion in the end. Yes, there are races and we can celebrate in the beauty of the diversity. It's when the ideologies surface that one is better than the other or when some psuedo science is used as evidence of racial superiority that it becomes a problem.

[edit on 6/6/2009 by AshleyD]



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 01:26 AM
link   
AshleyD, I'm just going off of my sociology textbook here, but it says that there is no biological basis for race and that pretty much all scientists agree on that. The only time you would see "races" such as "white," asian, etc used as if they were genuine categories is in older papers or in less respectable journals. It says that race is a social construct that focuses on outward physical appearance. What some people might mean when they say race is ethnicity which means all manner of things from common phenotype to nationality to religion and so on. What makes people "different" is their ethnicity or culture, like Salsa music, sushi, hamburgers, etc, but these things have nothing to do with their phenotype. These things just happen to have originated with people who have certain phenotypes. Race is just a collection of phenotypes. Green eyes, red hair, brown eyes, brown skin, green eyes, wider/narrower nose, etc. If a city of people who have violet eyes, brown skin and of people who have the typical phenotype that is called asian are relatively isolated for 5,000 thousand years and then you walked into that city and saw that everyone had epicanthic folds, golden skin, and violet eyes you might think it was some unknown race but it would just be the concentration of certain phenotypes into a population due to breeding. I think I'm rambling but what I'm trying to say is that referring to people by race is an inaccurate and simplistic view that arises from ignorance of the factors that created the physical differences that are interpreted by people/society as a race apart (because the concept of race was founded on and continues to be based on stressing the difference between people and purposely creating an "other" a "them" as opposed to us, even in it's benign form that stresses the wonderful diversity of different so-called races this basis does not change). The current concept of race just isn't very useful or relevant.

And I think that unlike with a dog breed, a human "race" does not differ so drastically in appearance. Dog breeds are only as different because people have concentrated so much on breeding certain dogs with certain traits (small, friendly, white, floppy ears) until those traits are expressed in the offspring to their satisfaction. I guess you could say there are black breeds of humans and white breeds, but that would not be meaningful, beyond coordinating a wardrobe (biologically, well, there might be even less significance than a wardrobe if you listen to the majority of scientists). Cultural or ethnic differences matter much more, however, such as the fact that Hindus don't eat beef and the menu changes McDonald's had to make when serving a predominately Hindu community.

I think it's so very complicated an issue that gets so tangled up with prejudice that a lot of people just want to drop it entirely...

oregonstate.edu...
www.trinity.edu...

These are some interesting articles on race. I think the only thing you can really do is learn more and more because it's such a complex subject that a forum post or even twenty forum posts won't really tell you anything...especially if I'm the one trying to explain something. I hope this hasn't been too rambly or confusing.

Edit: Just to add...going back to what I said about Hindus and beef, I think it's important to keep in mind that not everyone is as reasonable or interested in learning or relatively unprejudiced as you or I. People try to describe other people's (and seeing someone as an other is key here) character based on their religion, be it Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, or Satanism. People do the same based on what other people eat: vegan versus a meat eater. People do the same based on spiritual development and identification: Indigo versus non-Indigo. There are more bigots who judge people significantly based on their perceived race or skin tone than there are stray cats in California.

[edit on 6-6-2009 by misterglad]



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 05:45 AM
link   


Please elaborate on the different races you have discovered. I don't know of any other races alive today... no Homo erectus or neanderthal. As far as I know, those races died out long ago.


The colloquial use of the word "race" refers to differences in looks, color and physical build. Thats how the word has been used by me and others. To insinuate that seeing those differences or using the label "race" is elitist or makes others inferior is a generalization that does not apply to all.

Me seeing us not as ONE, not as the SAME but rather as many different aspects of the ONE does not make me a racist.


According to forensic anthropologist George W. Gill, "race denial" not only contradicts biological evidence, but may stem from "politically motivated censorship" in the belief that "race promotes racism".[4]

1





Wasn't that stated within the encyclopedia excerp itself? Are you disputing the text of the link?


Im disputing the interpretation of it as "seeing differences = racist".




It isn't a 'race' that is superior to another, but rather a society that has more 'power' than another. You know, the old 'man with gun meets man with spear' thing.


Yes. Not denying that.



with which to educate ourselves, should we decide to investigate rather than castigate those who are 'different'.


Of course. Not denying that. Seeing difference does not automatically lead to castigation.



Superiority, however, is not such a wonderful term.


I really dont mind people who are superior to me. There are some who are better in sports than me. Some who are better in maths than me. Some who are better in mechanics than me. I´d get bored if everyone were the same. Seeing superiority vs. inferiority in various fields of life has nothing to do with racism. Racism would be if I say "He is interior because he is black" or "I am superior because I am Japanese" or any such nonsense.





This process of race categorization is referred to as racialization and is necessary for the emergence of racism as an ideology.


Tricky
. Its correct that categorization is required before racism emerges. It is not correct that categorization is the cause of racism.

Analogy: I categorize Car A as a car for the streets and Car B as a car for the terrain. That does not mean that one is inferior to the other.



Ideology is not a scientific fact of life. It is a bit of mental gymnastics. Once again... there is only one race and to say that there are more is a fabrication.


So you are saying Asians, Africans, Arabs, Europeans, Americans, Native Americans...are all the same?

Wait till Extraterrestrials start coming through...then you might start to see what differences are


___________________________________________

I agree that its important to see the underlying unity within all humanity, to see that we are share similar abilities, hopes, dreams, fears. That its important to see that anyone has the right for food and shelter and that anyone has the abilities and skills that anyone else has, regardless of color/culture.


The term race or racial group usually refers to the classification of humans into populations or groups on the basis of various sets of heritable characteristics.[1] The most widely used human racial categories are based on salient traits (especially skin color, cranial or facial features and hair texture), and self-identification.[1][2] Conceptions of race, as well as specific ways of grouping races, vary by culture and over time, and are often controversial for scientific as well as social and political reasons. The controversy ultimately revolves around whether or not the concept of race is biologically warranted;[3][4] the ways in which political correctness might fuel either the affirmation or the denial of race;[3][4] and the degree to which perceived differences in ability and achievement, categorized on the basis of race, are a product of inherited (i.e., genetic) traits or environmental, social and cultural factors.


I protest the ideological movement that would love to outlaw even using words such as "race", "mexican" or "blacks". There is nothing wrong with using those words and they do not have negative connotations in the eyes of the healthy citizen of the 21st Century.


[edit on 6-6-2009 by Skyfloating]



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 08:23 AM
link   

The colloquial use of the word "race" refers to differences in looks, color and physical build. Thats how the word has been used by me and others. To insinuate that seeing those differences or using the label "race" is elitist or makes others inferior is a generalization that does not apply to all.

Me seeing us not as ONE, not as the SAME but rather as many different aspects of the ONE does not make me a racist.


Quite right. Recognition of different aspects of the 'One' is not racist. No doubt, if we stood together in front of a mirror, we would be able to point to many distinctions... eye colour, body shape, skin colour etc. These variations do not denote two seperate races.

Two words which bother me within your comment; The first, 'colloquial' suggests common everyday speech. After 300 years, the notion of 'race' has established itself into the lexicon. This is what I was talking about in the first sentence of the OP. It's everywhere and everyday and that is the problem. Such ideological notions perpetuate the idea of racial profiling and exactly what must change.

The second word is 'insinuate'. It connotes artful, sly and insiduous deception and I'm not sure who you are accusing of this... myself or the encyclopedia. Hopefully it is the encyclopedia.




According to forensic anthropologist George W. Gill, "race denial" not only contradicts biological evidence, but may stem from "politically motivated censorship" in the belief that "race promotes racism".[4]

1

I never thought we'd be debating a Wikipedia page on such an important and potentially divisive topic.


Well, OK... I read through the links there and found that George W. Gill took part in a debate on the matter and that his statements were contested. I would also disagree with them. In the above, he equates "biolgical evidence" with race. What biological evidence? Skin colour, stature, size of the brain, shape of the skull? In other wordsd, the good Dr. Gill is hanging tenaciously onto the very ideology which began this exercise in division. He goes on to say in his statement that the denial of such distinctions is "politically motivated censorship" and yet, woud you not agree that the very first instance of racialization was politically motivated itself.



Im disputing the interpretation of it as "seeing differences = racist".


Yes, I'd dispiute that too. Everyone is 'different' from another and there is no one template for characteristics in humans. In some cases, those variations are quite dramatic (ie Pygmies). Does that mean they are a seperate race from Caucasians? Of course not. Once again, those differences do not = seperate races and seeing differences does not = racism. We are juggling semantics here.




I really dont mind people who are superior to me. There are some who are better in sports than me. Some who are better in maths than me. Some who are better in mechanics than me. I´d get bored if everyone were the same. Seeing superiority vs. inferiority in various fields of life has nothing to do with racism. Racism would be if I say "He is interior because he is black" or "I am superior because I am Japanese" or any such nonsense.


Agreed.

I'm certain, when we compare our strengths and weaknesses, we'd find that where you would excel, I may be lacking and vice versa. That has nothing to do with race.




Analogy: I categorize Car A as a car for the streets and Car B as a car for the terrain. That does not mean that one is inferior to the other.


Much the same as the difference between a long distance runner and a champion wrestler. Neither one could supplant the other. It has nothing to do with superiority.




So you are saying Asians, Africans, Arabs, Europeans, Americans, Native Americans...are all the same?


No, I'm saying they are not seperate races. Are you saying they are?


Wait till Extraterrestrials start coming through...then you might start to see what differences are


Now we're getting somewhere. In some ways, I see the distinctions represented by the ideology behind 'indigos' or 'star children' as another level of racial profiling, but that is a whole other topic for discussion.


I agree that its important to see the underlying unity within all humanity, to see that we are share similar abilities, hopes, dreams, fears. That its important to see that anyone has the right for food and shelter and that anyone has the abilities and skills that anyone else has, regardless of color/culture.


We're not talking human rights here. The topic is racial distinction, how it began, was promulgated and how it now permeates society.


I protest the ideological movement that would love to outlaw even using words such as "race", "mexican" or "blacks". There is nothing wrong with using those words and they do not have negative connotations in the eyes of the healthy citizen of the 21st Century.


There is no problem distiguishing skin colour.
There is also no problem representing nationality.

I do have a problem with the continued use of the word 'race' as a distinguishing classification for physiological features. Also, I take offence at the idea that to NOT be willing to dispense with racial profiling is (as you state inversely) somehow unhealthy in the 21st century. I believe the exact opposite to be true.



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 08:43 AM
link   
reply to post by misterglad
 



AshleyD, I'm just going off of my sociology textbook here, but it says that there is no biological basis for race and that pretty much all scientists agree on that.


Thank you very much. That is what I was looking for. lol I didn't know if the concept of races was politically incorrect or scientifically incorrect but your comment helped clarify that.

On a side note, this was one of the friendliest and best discussions I've seen on a heated topic. Good thread, Masqua. It got us all thinking.



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 08:59 AM
link   
I my life, I have always thought of humans as breeds rather than races. The artificial distinction between race and breed has never made sense to me.

And I look forward to the day when we are all one color thanks the unstoppable hormones of teenagers and their willingness to mate with anyone...and sometimes anything.



Peace.

[edit on 6-6-2009 by titorite]



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 09:02 AM
link   
Good morning(at least it is where I'm at) I "ll jump right in.I have a question for you Masque what are you looking for here?genetic differences?It got me to thinking maybe race is not the overlying distinction.It seems I was saying race then species but it is species then race,if we were genetically different we would be a different species so we must all be genetically the same.Just like AshleyD wrote there are different breeds of dogs so to are there different breeds(race) of humans resulting from geographic and dietetic conditions.So I think I am back to the conclusion many races.Race is just a word it is all semantics.If the proof you are looking for is some sort of genetic difference look in the skin of a black man and the skin of a white man are they not genetically different?www.nature.com...



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Killah29
Yes, we are all human. If we can get past this whole 'race' thing, and drop all religions (accept Bhuudism), and lower all the borders we will be at peace.


Are you kidding me "except Buddhism"?

Wouldn't that be like imposing your belief on the world?

Sounds eerily like the same topic we are discussing...racism.

*Note* Great example of hypocrisy.



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by DarrylGalasso
 


Well to be fair, and in the killahs defense, Buddhism is not a religion but more truthfully just a way of living.



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 09:44 AM
link   
I hate to burst anyone's bubble, whether you follow religion or you follow science, but there are actually only three races of Man.

Caucasoid, Negroid and Mongoloid, if science is your religion, and the three sons if Noah if you believe in the Old Testament.

All ethnic groups are genetic combinations of these three races.

Come to think of it there are also only three species of apes; chimpanzee, orangutan and gorilla.

....hmmmm???



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 09:49 AM
link   
I was debating with myself if I should post this or not.... then i noticed the las t two posts. Going slightly off track..... I am currently reading The Secret Doctrine (The Synthesis of Science, Religeon and Philosphy) by Helena Petranove Blavatsky.

Now by no means am I saying that everything in the book is fact, and also I am not saying that I have a great grasp of what the book is truly about as at the minute I really have not... but basically....

The book is an 'investigation' into the true origins of the universe, based on ancient Sanskrit, Hindu, Buddhist, Hebrew scriptures as well as Kabalistic numbers etc..

The book says that the human beings of this age (us), we are descendants of four master ROOT races, the last (fourth) consisting of the Aryans.

Sorry to get slightly metaphysical on this so far based-on-science-thread. But I feel that documents written thousands of years ago on the origins of mankind can explain a lot more than some modern science can.

If this is correct, then I guess we are all one RACE, and the different creeds that roam the planet are simple sub-divisions of this ROOT race.



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by titorite
reply to post by DarrylGalasso
 


Well to be fair, and in the killahs defense, Buddhism is not a religion but more truthfully just a way of living.


lol did I say it was a religion? I believe I referred to it as "imposing your beliefs on the world"

You are defending the wrong person; killah is the one who used the word in the contextual form of religion, not I.

But none the less, I will not argue you over it, this is pointless and counter-productive, because, it makes the original statement no less hypocritical, no matter the outcome of our debate.

[edit on 6/6/2009 by DarrylGalasso]



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by masqua
 


Alright, lets cut the semantics. I´ll admit that I think its a good thing to categorize into races and to see them as different, and I will show that this does not mean putting others down or feeling elevated/superior.

From the age 22 to 30 I taught languages. I taught languages to many different cultures/races/backgrounds whatever you want to call them.

Gradually I learned that the system-of-schooling as imposed by a white-society is not appropriate for people of other cultures. Seeing them all as the same and requiring the same was not helping. I noticed that asians, persians, arabs and blacks process information differently than whites. I even noticed differences among whites: Russians process information differently than Germans and Germans process info differently than the British.

The next thing I learned is that if I adapt my teaching skills depending on who I am teaching, any of these people, no matter race/culture are able to learn and progress rapidly.

One example was a group of Africans I taught. I re-arranged the seating order of the classroom to a circle rather than one guy standing in front talking down to them. Then I built the teaching of vocabulary around music/songs rather than dry and lifeless school-texts. Grammar was taught through playful games and colors. The whole group succeeded where formerly an african group would have failed.

Another example was a group from Germany. If I started to focus too much on music and other stuff I had done with the African group, they would have stood up and wanted their money back. Knowing how the German mind works I wrote a "Workplan for the Week", where the activity of every single hour and the reason for that activity was outlined and would be checked off after the activity was done. For me personally that type of rigidness is silly...but its not for me to judge, thats the way Germans like to work. And work it did.

Rather than boring you with further examples: The idea of seeing each race as the same and treating them in the same way and expecting the same things from them does not work.

But since its frowned upon to make these distinctions and even outlawed to study some of the differences between cultures and races, no progress will be made in these areas.

I think if racial differences were accepted without fear and without cause to look down on others, everyone could be treated as the unique and beautiful individual he/she is.

You say that making these distinctions is what causes racism. I think that may be true...for the less educated. But an even more essential cause of racism seems to be emotional insecurity.



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by masqua
reply to post by genius/idoit
 




Try googling 'white race' or any other 'race' and see what comes up. Not too many credible scientific journals (if any at all), but certainly some prominent racist websites I wouldn't be caught dead in as a member.



What are you trying to say?



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 10:00 AM
link   
[edit on 6-6-2009 by Skyfloating]



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 10:02 AM
link   
It's a matter of choice if you want to point up differences or common traits. Race is a point of view.
You can classify humanity into categories and subcategories down to each individual because everyone is different. Anyone can claim is the first of a new bloodline.
In front of extraterrestrial races, reptilians, arachnids or else, we would find no point in dividing us, we would look into our common traits between ourselves and our differences from them. We would have a different point of view.

History shows race is used to organise in a hierarchy and groupings for political purposes and manipulation. For the benefit of the ones who manipulate.

I think humankind is divided into cultural spheres. An individual's culture is shaped by his interference with his environment and his education. Black people born and raised in Western countries with no connection with Africa think and act like Westerners not like Africans. When they do, it is political not nature. I don't mean it is questionable, I am only stating it is not really in relation to "race".

Physical traits in humans are sometimes very difficult to sort.
I can easily sort a doberman from a poodle with 100% accuracy

I have sometimes been mistaken and asked if my origins were from there or there. One of my uncles is a white European and he is regularly talked to in Arab in the streets. Apparenly, he looks like an Arab.
In my family, we have large noses (not pretty). I know it is less obvious than a dark skin but I think it requires more or less the same amount of DNA coding, no ? Are we a race ? The large nose race ?
Crossbreed dogs are not a race. In humankind, I have not witnessed dobermans and poodles, we are all crossbreed I think.

With globalisation, cultures are disappearing or melting because we interfere with a larger environment. Larger groups of people act and live in the same ways. Hopefully, we will learn to know each other and because we share the same cultural grounds, we will understand large noses or color skin make no difference. The difference is always what you think and what you do as an individual.



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 10:09 AM
link   
I think too much is being made of the word race. It is exceptionally difficult to define an emotion with a word. Granted with 3 million + words in the English language it is much easier than other languages, but none the less, difficult to attach the correct emotion 100% of the time.

From a scientific standpoint, there are differences between the races of people that make medical diagnosis and treatment much more successful than if these differences were not known. Some races are much more susceptible to certain medical problems and knowing this information gives doctors and scientists a jump start at helping these people.

Looked at in that perspective the "word" race, is a harmless way to differentiate between peoples and give the greatest chance of success when trying to help an individual.

You could certainly change the word to: breed, ethnicity, heritage, or whatever, you like; however, there will still be people that use "those" words in a racist manner.

I personally think we should examine the emotion as compared to the word. Words do not cause harm; emotions however, are capable of causing genocide, just look to history for any example you like.





top topics
 
52
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join