Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Consider the difference between upper class British culture and the enclaves of poor Americans on meth and SNAP.
Genetically they'e both white and share ancestors. But those two groups of white people are much farther apart in almost every way than the difference between the average White American and average Black American.
Class differences among the same race are real too, although that is not the subject of this thread.
I have to vote no. Scientists don't recognize race as a definitive category.
Skin color and other features, like kinky hair, exist on a gradient. There's no specific color that makes one "black" or "white". There is a lot of variation within the human gene pool, and these external characteristics that everyone focuses are really minor.
Yes, there are. They have variances in the manner of bone morphology, biological resistances or vulnerabilities to certain diseases (blacks have a greater immunity to tropical diseases like malaria for instance), normalcy of certain height proportions, different levels of tolerance to intense UV radiation, ect.
Race isn't just some 'social construct' or superficial aesthetic trait devoid of any significant scientific merit. There's real differentiations to take into account when it comes to races and things like the environment they live in.
Scientists don't recognize race as a thing. People of African ancestry don't have resistance to malaria because they are black; they have resistance because they (some of them) have a gene for sickle-cell hemoglobin. The juxtaposition of genes for dark skin and genes for malarial resistance are purely coincidental.
"Social construct" and "superficial aesthetic trait" are exactly the correct words to describe race.
I'll never forget that old Star Trek episode where one race was black on the left side of their face and white on the right, and the other race was the opposite, and they were sworn enemies on that basis alone.
But to decide one is "better"? No.Which is better, corn or potatoes? Dachshunds or poodles?
Doing child evaluations, a black baby will have a very strong "startle" reaction, a while child will have a startle reaction but it fades pretty quickly, and an Asian child might not have that response at all. A startle reaction is when you hold the baby up, horizontally, and quickly drop your hands so the baby has a sensation of falling.
A black child who is not walking by 12 months begins to be a little of a concern. For a white child, it's 14 months.
Differences. Neither is better.
Exactly.
And so, if you live in the world, where everything is built to accommodate the dachshunds with their short legs, then obviously dachshunds will be better off in these kind of surroundings, while the poodles will have hard time to fit in, even in the houses that are not built for their height.
Now switch things around, and dachshunds will have hard time to keep up and to fit in.
The ultimate question then becomes I guess, who is building a better world, a better surroundings?
The word "race,", as it is used in the present by those who would profit from it, is a misnomer.
The only actual human like species to ever exist which could be considered a different race would be Neanderthals, Cro-magnon etc. Even Homo Erectus.
I have to vote no. Scientists don't recognize race as a definitive category.
Skin color and other features, like kinky hair, exist on a gradient. There's no specific color that makes one "black" or "white". There is a lot of variation within the human gene pool, and these external characteristics that everyone focuses are really minor.
This. Genetic and cultural differences account for how different people look and behave, not the made-up concept of race. It's all subjective and based on how people look, not anything science-based.
Yeah, I'm not sure of that. I had a hispanic co-worker who told me, at that time, he was considered "white" for census purposes. I put my arm next to his, and he laughed and said "I know". Hispanic is an ethnicity, not a race, but too many people demanding they are special is leading to basic knowledge being twisted into something it is not. People are basically getting dumb, and totally focused on what "feels" good for them.
I took a course in Human Geography in college. It was a fascinating course.
This is a point that I sometimes wonder about. Spanish folks are different from say, Scandinavians. Or Greeks. I always used to think of that as 'Nationality'. But then, what about Mediterranean people? Are they a group which would include Spanish and so on? Arabic? I just find it interesting. Maybe race can be thought of as a step further than nationality.
I am of Germanic origin, but mixed with Danish, Norwegian, German and English. Maybe I have some Mediterranean in me via the English side. I do (or did) have hazel green eyes which is not exactly a northern European trait. I am curious but my curiosity isn't great enough to have a DNA ancestry test.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
