<p>
</p>
<p>This doesn’t make sense to me. Please clarify.</p>
<p>Black women are ugly? Have you seen the “Love Sex Magic” video with Ciara and JT? If you’re a guy and aren’t turned on by that, I’d have to seriously consider that you have homosexual tendencies.</p>
<p>
I’ll use the word “homogeneous” instead of “pure”. No, I don’t think we need a homogeneous population. In fact, I’m a proponent of high skill immigration (and that, traditionally, has not come from the dominant groups within the country).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Thanks for the clarification. So what exactly are we arguing about anyway? When I argue against the idea of race, what I’m really arguing against is the notion of rigid and incompatible subgroups within the human race. If all race amounts to is a series of rather insignificant superficial differences as well as some genetic similarities due to geography (which cuts across traditional racial lines, like the ubiquitous Tay-Sachs example), then yeah, of course race exists.</p>
<p>I don’t think race is superficial. That’s where we differ. I don’t think we need a homogeneous population, but to say race is superficial is totally oblivious to the obvious differences between groups that evolved separated (and I’m not talking just about humans).</p>
<p>Bred dogs are not sterile to each other. Are those differences superficial?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think race is superficial either. I do think that our popular notions of race are arbitrarily conceived though, based on superficial markers that, for unscientific reasons, people decided were demarcations of distinct human groups. For example, it’s perplexing when people accuse anti-Muslim sentiments as being racist, when many Muslims are Caucasian. It bizarrely pits a unified white race against a Muslim race, when in fact, the two are grouped in the same bracket. There is an example of the creation of the fictitious Muslim race out of political circumstances. A guy like Zinedine Zidane looks, by most standards, like a white man but he is racialized by the context of his upbringing as an Algerian or a Berber. Ironically, he infamously reacted to a “racist” barb from Marco Materazzi, who as an Italian probably shared more genetic similarity to the Zidane than to the Anglo-Saxon ethnicity we commonly refer to as the “white race”.</p>
<p>All you are saying is that people are idiots. I hardly disagree.</p>
<p>The concepts behind evolution and genetic variation is too far out of the realm for most people to grasp. They go to visual cues (which isn’t that incorrect).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They exaggerate cues when it suits their agenda, and ignore them when they contradict it.</p>
<p>Whatever. There is virtually no disagreement between us. Racial differences are caused by evolution of geographically separate populations and they have led to significant physical differences. Cool.</p>
<p>“…and they have led to significant physical differences. Cool.”</p>
<p>…but no mental (as in intellect) differences?</p>
<p>
Incorrect.</p>
<p>The data is shaky right now, but once we have better understanding of the genome it’ll be tough to not mention the elephant in the room.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The elephant being that the intelligence would be different by “races” (ugh, I hate that word) because it will be based on the white European notion of “intelligence”?</p>
<p>
What are you talking about? Intelligence is a field of major academic study in Europe and Asia (pretty much the only places with major academic research occurring).</p>
<p>I think a good definition of intelligence is merely the ability to think and reason. I believe the human race is the best at doing this activity. Certainly better than a fruit fly or a domesticated cat. I also don’t think it’s a struggle to assume that gene mutation and subsequent gene flow throughout the species caused this anomaly to be.</p>