Race Discussion

[Jaydelart]

I have to admit, although I disagree with you (don't ask me to elaborate), that was a nice, well though-out post, Tenchu.

[Ronin4hire]

Originally Posted by Tenchu

Okay, correction, mixing different breeds of humans to create mongrel breeds will eventually destroy the current breeds we have on this planet. Of course, I believe all species undergo changes everntually. It is natural, death and destruction of all things is the promise of time. So I am not sensitive about producing mongrels, myself. But to see specific breeds of humans gone does seem unfortuante. Just as I love the fluffy blonde hair of golden retrievers, I also appreciate the beauty of blonde haired, blue/green eyed Saxon girls, it will be a shame when their breed dies out, but it is the way of nature.

Actually, there are stories that red eyes once existed in Europe, but were bred out.

Humans don't exist in breeds like dogs do. No group of humans has been isolated long enough for sub-species to develop.

But I get what you're saying. You'll miss blonde hair if it becomes bred out of the human race in your lifetime. I won't care to be honest. We'll still be humans and hopefully we'll all have gotten over sh*t like that.

[Ronin4hire]

Originally Posted by Tenchu

Thinking blonde hair is beautiful is not a mental hick up. It is not racist to think it is a shame to loose all people on this planet with blonde hair.

We are not "sub-species", but have been genetically seperate from each other for tens of thousands more years than dogs have from wolves... you never think your comment through, Ronin.

Umm... no we haven't. Not genetically.

And I never said it was a mental hiccup. I just gave my opinion.

[Nyororin]

Originally Posted by Ronin4hire

Humans don't exist in breeds like dogs do. No group of humans has been isolated long enough for sub-species to develop.

This is correct, but you`re also contradicting yourself with it.
Dogs are ALL the same sub-species - Canis lupus familiaris. They are not genetically separate, really.
A breed is a line existing within the SAME subspecies, that has certain genetic traits either through isolation or deliberate breeding. In other words, you can say the same for humans, as we are all the same sub-species, but groups in different areas have developed specific traits due to isolation. Dogs are all dogs. Humans are all humans. Just as is the different breeds of dog, different traits are dominant - there are different dominant traits in the different races of human.

Making the dog comparison is actually very accurate. Comparing dogs and wolves is like comparing humans and chimpanzees though...

[Ronin4hire]

Originally Posted by Nyororin

Making the dog comparison is actually very accurate.

Perhaps I got the terminology wrong (I thought humans/dogs were the species)

But this I do contend.

My point is that breeds don't exist in humans. They exist in dogs as clear genetic distinctions are present between different breeds.

[Nyororin]

Originally Posted by Ronin4hire

My point is that breeds don't exist in humans. They exist in dogs as clear genetic distinctions are present between different breeds.

I hate to disagree, but there IS a genetic difference between races - and it`s in the same vein as that between dogs - appearance. There is no more a clear genetic distinction between one "breed" of dog and another than there is between one "race" and another. The only significant difference is that races developed naturally over time - but most dog breeds were artificially split, created by short term selective breeding... A method which goes against the natural flow of race/breed development. When left to their own devices, all animals have the tendency to move toward bettering the population - stronger, healthier, more intelligent, etc has the advantage in every group. Because of the artificial creation of animal breeds and the natural development of races - there are superior/inferior breeds of animal, but not superior/inferior races of human.

[Ronin4hire]

Originally Posted by Nyororin

I hate to disagree, but there IS a genetic difference between races - and it`s in the same vein as that between dogs - appearance. There is no more a clear genetic distinction between one "breed" of dog and another than there is between one "race" and another. The only significant difference is that races developed naturally over time - but most dog breeds were artificially split created by short term selective breeding... A method which goes against the natural flow of race/breed development. When left to their own devices, all animals have the tendency to move toward bettering the population - stronger, healthier, more intelligent, etc has the advantage in every group. Because of the artificial creation of animal breeds and the natural development of races - there are superior/inferior breeds of animal, but not superior/inferior races of human.

You're wrong... plain and simple.

You're making the mistake of assuming race exists as anything other than a social construct in the first place. Take away the social concept of race and you have genetic code that cannot be sorted intelligibly into any "breed".

With dogs there STILL are clear distinctions and they run more or less along the lines that we've identified thus far.

[Nyororin]

Originally Posted by Ronin4hire

You're wrong... plain and simple.

You're making the mistake of assuming race exists as anything other than a social construct in the first place. Take away the social concept of race and you have genetic code that cannot be sorted intelligibly into any "breed".

With dogs there STILL are clear distinctions and they run more or less along the lines that we've identified thus far.

You`re seriously misinterpreting me. Nowhere did I say what you are thinking I am...

What I am trying to say is this - Dog breeds are ALSO pretty close to meaningless in anything other than appearance.

Breeds of dog are an artificial concept, created by humans, to refer to specific traits among the sub-species that the dog belongs to. It`s not really a reference to genetic differences. It`s a name to call dogs that look a certain way - end of story. Take away the "names" that different looking populations of dogs are called, and they`re all dogs.

How is race any different? In the end, it`s a way to refer to different looking populations of humans - correct? Even taken out of a social construct, unless there is a mixing of genes these differences in appearance are not going to disappear.

ETA; You have to be the first person I`ve spoken to who referred to race in general as a social construct. That`s usually a term used to refer to the treatment of different groups/races in society - ie. assumption that one is higher/lower than another. Not the traits themselves, which are NOT a construct as they are clearly there and visible even without social context.
It`s sort of like saying that gender is a social construct - the assumption that one gender may be more suited to one thing than another, or more likely to do/think such and such may very well be a social construct... But gender itself, referring to the physical difference between males and females is NOT as it will still be there no matter what sort of society you are in.

[Ronin4hire]

Originally Posted by Nyororin

Dog breeds are ALSO pretty close to meaningless in anything other than appearance.

How is race any different?

Because dog breeds fall in line genetically.

Race is based on nothing but superficial human perception.

[Ronin4hire]

Originally Posted by Nyororin

Not the traits themselves, which are NOT a construct as they are clearly there and visible even without social context.

The traits themselves are simply traits.

The construct of race goes beyond the traits. It is used to establish identity and has political ramifications.