Race

[Thorne]

This is all very nice and politically correct, but face it, people: there are differences between ethnic groups, whether you call them races or not. For lack of a better term, I'll use the term 'race' here.

Biologically speaking, there are fundamental structural differences between the Caucasian, Negroid and Mongoloid races. I'm not certain, but there may also be structural variations between, say, Chinese, Japanese, American Indians, etc. of the Mongoloid races. And I'm not sure if the Middle East groups constitute a structurally different group. But the fact is, such structural differences are there.

There also seem to be differences in brain structure between different races, not necessarily in capability or potential, but in the actual structure and how the brain works. Again, I'm not certain of the extent or effects of such differences, but they are there.

On the other hand, all groups which comprise the human race are capable of interbreeding with all other groups, making for other, more subtle differences between both groups. And, as people travel more and interact more, there will be more and more interbreeding, thus blending all groups into one. Not a bad thing, by any means.

The key thing to remember here is that each of these groups is different, but not necessarily better or worse than any other group. Each evolved to survive in its own particular environment, and are thus better suited in that environment than other groups might be. That doesn't make them fundamentally better, just better in some situations.

This is not a cultural issue, of course. Not one of semantics, or vocabulary. This is a biological truth, whether people like it or not. Contrary to poetic license, we are not all the same under the skin.

[Pearlgem]

This is all very nice and politically correct, but face it, people: there are differences between ethnic groups, whether you call them races or not. For lack of a better term, I'll use the term 'race' here.

I'd use the term 'race' to signify ethnic differences if it didn't already mean something else scientifically which makes a nonsense of trying to describe differences between us this way. Might as well say 'human' and sub-human.'

Biologically speaking, there are fundamental structural differences between the Caucasian, Negroid and Mongoloid races. I'm not certain, but there may also be structural variations between, say, Chinese, Japanese, American Indians, etc. of the Mongoloid races. And I'm not sure if the Middle East groups constitute a structurally different group. But the fact is, such structural differences are there.

Sure, and if we all stuck to our own and only interbred like with like we'd end up with different species. But humans mix, throughout history, all over the world. Differences are fluid, not set! And just because there are variations in ethnic types does not mean we are different races.

This is not a cultural issue, of course. Not one of semantics, or vocabulary. This is a biological truth, whether people like it or not. Contrary to poetic license, we are not all the same under the skin.

I disagree. It's a scientific, semantic, cultural and moral issue. Using the term 'race' to describe ethnic differences encourages those with the advantages to view those different from themselves as lesser, a different category of human almost, and inhumanely castigates the disadvantaged.

[Thorne]

Sure, and if we all stuck to our own and only interbred like with like we'd end up with different species. But humans mix, throughout history, all over the world. Differences are fluid, not set! And just because there are variations in ethnic types does not mean we are different races.

I thought I had made this point, and that this is not necessarily bad.

I disagree. It's a scientific, semantic, cultural and moral issue. Using the term 'race' to describe ethnic differences encourages those with the advantages to view those different from themselves as lesser, a different category of human almost, and inhumanely castigates the disadvantaged.

Yes, I have to agree that 'ethnic group' is a less inflammatory way of describing our differences than 'race'. And please remember, these are simply differences, not necessarily better or worse, just different.

Humans are basicly the same, regardless of that which is traditionally called race. No human is better or worse on this or that, just because of his/her race. Compare this to dog breeds, a dog of a hunting breed is better at hunting than a dog of a herding breed. There are no such differences between the traditionally defined different human races.

I respectfully disagree with this statement. Evolution has allowed different groups to survive in different environments, making them more adapted to those environments. As denuseri points out in her post, these traits are crucial to individuals survival, even in a modern culture. But these are not necessarily bad or good! A native of Saharan Africa would have just as much difficulty surviving in a Himalayan country, as a Sherpa would in the Sahara.

I saw a program today which stated that all of humanity's genes can be traced back about 75,000 years to about 5,000 breeding females on the African continent. Humans are among the least genetically diverse species on the planet, something which came as a surprise to me. According to this program, a person from, say, Scandinavia has fewer genetic differences from a person from Africa, than do two chimpanzees in the same social group!

At the genetic level, we are more alike than I ever realized. And continued interbreeding between ethnic groups narrows those differences even more. The time will come, I have no doubt, when we will all be same, both genetically and politically. It's inevitable.

[rce]

This is all very nice and politically correct, but face it, people: there are differences between ethnic groups, whether you call them races or not. For lack of a better term, I'll use the term 'race' here.

Biologically speaking, there are fundamental structural differences between the Caucasian, Negroid and Mongoloid races. I'm not certain, but there may also be structural variations between, say, Chinese, Japanese, American Indians, etc. of the Mongoloid races. And I'm not sure if the Middle East groups constitute a structurally different group. But the fact is, such structural differences are there.

There also seem to be differences in brain structure between different races, not necessarily in capability or potential, but in the actual structure and how the brain works. Again, I'm not certain of the extent or effects of such differences, but they are there.

On the other hand, all groups which comprise the human race are capable of interbreeding with all other groups, making for other, more subtle differences between both groups. And, as people travel more and interact more, there will be more and more interbreeding, thus blending all groups into one. Not a bad thing, by any means.

The key thing to remember here is that each of these groups is different, but not necessarily better or worse than any other group. Each evolved to survive in its own particular environment, and are thus better suited in that environment than other groups might be. That doesn't make them fundamentally better, just better in some situations.

This is not a cultural issue, of course. Not one of semantics, or vocabulary. This is a biological truth, whether people like it or not. Contrary to poetic license, we are not all the same under the skin.

Modern medicine and genetics have determined that there are more differences between people within one of the traditionally defined human races than between many people of different such races.

Humans are basicly the same, regardless of that which is traditionally called race. No human is better or worse on this or that, just because of his/her race. Compare this to dog breeds, a dog of a hunting breed is better at hunting than a dog of a herding breed. There are no such differences between the traditionally defined different human races.