When we find something "negative" out about ethnic minorities, why..

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Space05us

(OR put another way, why not define races based on hair or eye colour)

You can, a good historical example: Hitler said arians were white and had blonde hair and blue eyes, his 'master race'.

That's my point. Race defintions are completely arbitrary.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Kucinich

At any rate, my understanding is that there are more genetic variations within 'races' than between them. That puts a crimp on genes as an explanation for why other 'races' must be different. (OR put another way, why not define races based on hair or eye colour)

Because given that definition, a child of two parents of the same "race" would stand a significant chance of being of a different race from his parents, compared to the virtually impossibility of two black people having a white child

Are you saying that if someone has a black father and white mother they are of neither race? If they're not of either, then why draw such a distinction that hair and eye colour can't define a race but skin colour can? In both cases the offspring can be of a different race.

And if we are going to restrict inter-breeding (for the purpose of the thought experiment only), then if two blonde parents have a child, they'll have in all probability a blonde child, and if two brown haired parents (without recessive genes - after all we are only interested in pure specimens) had a baby it would almost definitely be brown haired.

Simply put, you could construct a race based on other features, until that is, they start interbreeding. The same is patently true for race distinction based on skin colour.

[Japher]

Race defintions are completely arbitrary

but they aren't

Recognizing differences is a scientific importance. If one can't acknowledge these differences and react accordingly than a lot of knowledge will be lost or ungained... Yet, such a thing would be racist, of course, but not in a bad way. I generally use the term racism as meaning a negative reflection of differences due to race.

Hypothesis' are assumptions.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Japher


but they aren't

Recognizing differences is a scientific importance. If one can't acknowledge these differences and react accordingly than a lot of knowledge will be lost or ungained... Yet, such a thing would be racist, of course, but not in a bad way. I generally use the term racism as meaning a negative reflection of differences due to race.

Hypothesis' are assumptions.

You don't need to define races to recognise differences between different groups of people, and changing the definition of a race will not remove that recognition.

[GePap]

For those who are creating race definitions:

What race is Tiger Woods?

[Japher]

You don't need to define races to recognise differences between different groups of people

Works for me, but try and tell the African American society that they will now be refered to as people with black skin... "Black Skinned Pride" just doesn't have the same ring to it.

[Japher]

What race is Tiger Woods?

or Jacko for that matter

[GePap]

Jacko's changes are cosmetic.

But the question still stands- If a child has one "white", "black", "Asia" and "Indian" grandparent each- what race is the child?

[The Mad Viking]

Originally posted by Kucinich

You share a smaller percent of your genome with your mom than you do with a male chimp, say, but you are more phenotypically similar to her than to the male chimp (correct me if I'm wrong ). % correlation of genotype cannot be directly translated to % correlation of phenotype.

Strawman. In the first half of your argument you are saying 50% share with mom; by that logic you share 0% with any given chimp. (I hope )

[Japher]

But the question still stands- If a child has one "white", "black", "Asia" and "Indian" grandparent each- what race is the child?

Sounds American to me...

That kid would have a serious identity complex, but it would be good to know the lineage in order to predict, watch for, and keep mind of any developmental or medical problems.

[The Mad Viking]

Originally posted by Caligastia
I don't think ascribing positivity or negativity is inherently racist. Refusing to describe an attribute as positive or negative is just silly if it's obvious that it's one or the other. For example if one race has a greater resistance to a certain kind of disease than another race, are we supposed to pretend it's not positive because to recognise this would be racist?

OK let me try again.

1. You have certain undeniable physical traits.

Black people are black.

Blond people are blond.

(so what?)

2. Then you have some debatable physical traits.

White men can't jump.

-how reliable is physical data observed in a selection set "elite athletes" that is exclusively three standard deviations from the mean, as a predictor of the NORM?

Generally, not reliable at all.

3. Then you have observations and statistics, dealing with non-physical items (behaviours) which are made by people with biases, and impossibly corrupted by uncountable, undefinable factors.

Linking those observations about behaviours with obvious physical traits is not science. It is racism.
The links only exist because you believe they do.

[Gibsie]

"But the question still stands- If a child has one "white", "black", "Asia" and "Indian" grandparent each- what race is the child?"

I think PA would call such a child "mongrel".

[Japher]

-how reliable is physical data observed in a selection set "elite athletes" that is exclusively three standard deviations from the mean, as a predictor of the NORM?

Why are most 'elite atheletes' for a given event generally of a similar ethnic background? I.e. there aren't a whole lot of good WR or Olympic Sprinters that aren't black.

Linking those observations about behaviours with obvious physical traits is not science. It is racism.
The links only exist because you believe they do.

I am going to forward this statement off to the national board of behavioral sciences and see what they have to say... mmm-kay?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Japher
Why are most 'elite atheletes' for a given event generally of a similar ethnic background? I.e. there aren't a whole lot of good WR or Olympic Sprinters that aren't black.

So black people can run but can't swim? And they can;t throw discuss or lift weights, bu they can box? What about shooting?

[C0ckney]

only when driving