Haven't seen that. Anyway, I can't see why variation among humans is not sufficient to differentiate races while less variation among other species is.
bossel said:
Again although you say thaqt you have give examples, I clicked on the here, here, and here and there is nothing there. Perhaps it is just a peculiarity in English, but the human species is the only to be divided into anything "called race."
Oh man! Examples from the linked posts:
"Taxonomic Mayr (1969) : "An aggregate of phenotypically similar populations of a species, inhabiting a geographic subdivision of the range of a species, and differing taxonomically from other populations of the species."
"members of a subspecies [IE race] would share a unique, geographic locale, a set of phylogenetically concordant phenotypic characters, and a unique natural history relative to other subdivisions of the species. Although subspecies are not reproductively isolated, they will normally be allopatric and exhibit recognizable phylogenetic partitioning
[...]
I already told you that this is not the case, race is used as a subdivision in other species, only the terminology might differ a bit (eg. variety for plants, breed for domesticated animals, subspecies). It seems a distinct phenomenon of English that the term race is more or less limited to humans.
Chimpanzees are subdivided into at least 4 subspecies, Eastern Gorillas into 2-3, the Long-tailed Macaque into at least 10, you can go on..."
I took the quote from an article that is subject to peer review.
Probably the same peer reviewed magazines that refuse to publish articles that don't follow the PC line.
I didn't say it. But if you have problem with the statement contact the publishers of the article for the appropriate method of responding.
How condescending & arrogant, eh.
Or does that actually mean that you contacted the publishers of those articles I linked earlier in this thread. Or, wait, did you perhaps simply discuss further with me, although "I didn't say it."?
Actually, I don't think they mentioned eugenics at all in that context
Since I quoted from the very same article, they probably did.
I don't think it would be used that way simply because if it is not usually used in that way it won't be understood.
From M-W:
1 : a breeding stock of animals
2 a : a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock b : a class or kind of people unified by community of interests, habits, or characteristics <the English race>
3 a : an actually or potentially interbreeding group within a species; also : a taxonomic category (as a subspecies) representing such a group b : BREED c : a division of mankind possessing traits that are transmissible by descent and sufficient to characterize it as a distinct human type
Many scientists, some of whom are quite well known and are at the top of their field disagree with you.
Top of which field? Sociology, anthropology or biology.
What do they disagree with? Concept of race or what I described as what leads to racism.
I don't feel confused at all.
But you show confusion.
I originally expressed an opinion that race is not a scientific concept. I did quite a bit of research and found that most sources I could find seem to agree with this point of view.
Nope, as I said earlier those people working in the field (as C-S) simply changed their terminology (from race to population/cline/etc), but the concept essentially stayed the same. If you look at the cover of C-S' "The History and Geography of Human Genes" you will find the very same distribution of populations as in the "old" race concept. Surprise!
I don't think I confused the concepts- I only said that one is discredited and antiquated.
Nope, you repeatedly criticised the scientific concept with references to folk-taxonomy. Looked a lot like you're confused.
Check some of your sources, two of them that you reference are 30 years old.
Which ones exactly?
That Sailer guy might be a white supremacist.
Perfect example of PC propaganda.
BTW, you still haven't told me what Persians consider themselves to be, if not caucasoid.
Tsuyoiko said:
To say that the two meanings should not be confused is naive.
Nope, to think that everybody could be able to differentiate would be naive.
To say they
should not be confused is not.
I think, at this point of the discussion it is pretty obvious that not everybody is able or willing to differentiate. That doesn't mean, though, that the terminology has to be changed. If we would always go for the lowest common denominator in communication (IE what really everybody would be able to understand/differentiate), there wouldn't be much left of our language.
edit:
BTW, they just recognised a fifth Chimp-race (subspecies if you want).