I can't believe I'm starting a race thread...

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The old example of the pile of pebbles applies here again: We "know" when we have a pile but we are unable to define exactly when it begins and when it ends, i.e. when precisely we have a pile instead of lotsa pebbles, or when precisely we have a hill instead of a pile.

Attempting to precisely define human races is like trying to define precisely those piles of pebbles.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yet for some reason, people don't quarrel too much about whether something is a pile or a hill or a mound. If people disagree, they might cover the subject for one or two sentences, reach a compromise for sake of argument and move on.

With race there's this underlying paranoia that by delineating it, we'll have slavery, genocide and a bunch of other nasty stuff. Sure it did indeed happen in the past, but why can't the fault be laid on the actual actions themselves rather than something only tangentially related?

Other peoples' paranoia shouldn't be my problem IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

They don't quibble in the UNIMPORTANT cases, no. When it doesn't matter in the least, most people can agree that something is a mound. Put something at stake and you might be surprised. And of course, you are talking about things on the obvious, large end of the spectrum. Its inbetween, where the pile becomes a mound, that the disagreements occur.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]

I still have some objections as to *all* speciation lines being purely scientific but that's merely nit picking and academic BS.

[/ QUOTE ]

They all aren't -there certainly are transitionals and exceptions.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But if thats the case, why call it race?

[/ QUOTE ]

Tradition.

[/ QUOTE ]

And that is very nearly the sole reason. Almost no other usefulness.

[/ QUOTE ]

I promise you damn near every American knows exactly what 'race' means. It's on every government form.

Obfuscate if you must but clarity and universal understanding has value.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then define it for me. It should be amazingly simple. Give me a definition that doesn't include as many exceptions and complications as it does clear definitions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bring me a boatload of people and I'll sort them for you. A five year old is almost equally skilled. An Ivy League academic, not so much.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was just reminded of something that would be really appropriate in this thread. It was sort of an ORLY? moment.

The vast majority of Americans, heck, golf fans in general, think Tiger Woods is the greatest black golfer of all time.







He is significantly more Asian than he is black.






Are you sure you could pick out all the black people? No one else seems to be able to.

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]


If we killed everyone that ever used the term "social construct" as a way of making a point, the world would be a better place.

[/ QUOTE ]No, we would actually become so dumb that we would probably not even get the chance to start all over again with Man's scientific and philosophical quests. We would kill each other pretty quickly.

Very briefly : Social constructs are the strongest factor hlding together and defining human societies. It's not even close to anything else.

There is extensive bibliography on the matter. One would start with Plato, of course, but why not cut to the chase ?

Mickey Brausch