PC's - enough is enough

[gozzer]

If you accept that there is only one species of human (I can see by your posts that this is your position) then how can you support the notion that this species is uniquely divided into races? I am no more a diffent 'race' to a kalahari bushman than a German Shepherd is a different 'race' to a Dalmatian. Both are Canis domesticus. Like humans, the size and the colour of the skin are arbitrary.

 

 

A race by definition is a group of people with a common ancestry. Which is different to a species, which is a group that are genetically related close enough to inter breed naturally.

 

Dog are not usually referred to as different races, but different breeds, as you know. This indicates that they have bred (naturally or artificially) to create a mixed ancestry.

 

I am of mixed race, my paternal ancesters were scots, in fact there wont be many people on this forum that are pure one race or another.

[corydoras]

A race by definition is a group of people with a common ancestry. Which is different to a species, which is a group that are genetically related close enough to inter breed naturally.

 

Dog are not usually referred to as different races, but different breeds, as you know. This indicates that they have bred (naturally or artificially) to create a mixed ancestry.

 

I am of mixed race, my paternal ancesters were scots, in fact there wont be many people on this forum that are pure one race or another.

We all share a common ancestry. You may be genetically closer to an Innuit or a Kalihari bushman than you are to your next door neighbour.

 

The concept of races in humans is arbitrary. Since you like your dictionary arbitrary means:

 

Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle.

[medwaygreen]

Half of them are too lazy or to selfish to breed, and the ones who do have a family are clueless about bringing up a family.

 

Your statement old boy.

 

Are you to lazy or selfish to breed or are you clueless about bringing up a family.

[UK-Fishing-Tackle.co.uk]

Cory - I see your point, but to quote the human race as being 'homosapien' and therefore all the same is wrong. In fact, one of the true reasons we have never (ever) bothered classifying ourselves into different 'races' with names (like we do with dogs/cats), is because of political correctness AND the typical assumption that man is at the top of the food chain. Man (us) do not consider ourselves to be animals, and we never have - scientifically we are, but the mentality of people throughout the last millenium has been that we are a superior species (still I wouldn't take my chances with a great white shark!). If there was a race itellectually above us we probably would be sub-classified (even if only in terms of breed like dogs).

 

If you buy into evolutionary theory (which I sincerely hope most on this forum do), then it stands to reason that some races have developed different traits based on their environment. This might explain why Aboriginies (a race long left on their own), have very different characteristics to say a 20th generation Scotsman. Like with dogs, certain mutations in the genetic code have also been bred within races to form specific traits for the race. This is what makes us distinctive from the Scots, the UK distinctive from France, and say Europe distinctive from Africa or the far East.

 

Yes, we are all humans (fair point), but simply saying races don't exist is absolutely bizarre. Being blinkered about the fact we are different is almost as bad as pointing out the differences. As I've said, we need to accept there are differences in the way we live our lives - I will truly never understand or comprehend some minorities in this country, but I accept they might not understand ours either. I have no problem with any race in particular, but I am against positive discrimination - we should all be judged for all things (job applications, criminal offences etc) as people.

 

Cory - I don't suspect any country has less trouble than us with bringing up kids. The PC brigade has knackered it up though a bit. When I was a kid (I am only 26 remember) if I had stolen from a shop, gone smashing up cars etc I'd of got a good hiding - and the possibility of that happening meant I never really went off the rails. These days even grounding can be considered EXCESSIVE punishment, which frankly is absolute sh1te. We do have a problem in this country with bringing up kids, and that is that a kid is above the law - if you break a window as a minor (under 12) you cannot be prosecuted, your parents aren't liable (years ago someone would have to pay, but not anymore), and you cannot be punished in relation to the act (since you cannot even lightly smack a child). Most of us were probably bought up with a reasonable and healthy amount of respect for our parents - installed by the appropriate use of punishment when necessary.

 

The ridiculous thing about these PC laws is the guy that beats up his kid beyond an appropriate level will still do it. All laws do is make parenting more difficult for those that are responsibile, and punish everyone for the sake of a few nutters.

[chesters1]

i'm not so sure we are all evolved from one group and all the human offshoots have died out (after all we just base this "evidence" on theory which changes everu decade or so)

were told that the "african" (there wasent an africa ofcourse way back then but a "place" roughly where africa is) these ancient humans were supposed to have tavelled to all parts of the then "world" and either killed or moved on the "human" offshoots that lived there and thus now are the only species that inhabit the earth.

suppose we have the neanderthal moving south as the ice ages push southward did they all die? (they were very well adapted for life) or was there a line in the sand where they stopped and the "africans" never got too ,the ice receeded and along with the displaced fauna and flora they again went north.the "africans" content with their way of life (after all to make a mistake was death) stayed where they were suited ,branch this out against a few other human offshoots and we could be "human" but not the same branch of the tree.

theres distinct differences in humans that are not visible to the casual gaze ,you can quickly tell the difference to an african and a european in xrays (its more than skin deep) take a few thousand years of groups encountering each other and interbreeding and you get the mix we have nowadays all human but not the same human.

you see it everywhere (the next bit is a opinion not an excuse for racism or colour predudice) you see large guys with very prominent brow ridges (hints of the nanderthal link) black guys that look like gorillas facially , black guys that look like dark europeans and tribes of asians that are very eskimo like, some that look european and some mongloid.

i dont believe only group "A" survived but many small groups of humanoids and the mixing of them a natural thing but theres still today many of these groups that i believe unchanged throughout prehistory and are as "pure" now as they were then ,if we were just one species formed from one small group of people why would there be so many "different" races in appearence (skeletory) and settled in distinct areas on the planet ?

so humans exist but not all homo sapiens,i have no proof its just a theory but its just as valid as all the other theories drempt up on inconclusive eveidence ,the "africa" theory is based mostly on leaky ? (sp?) and his bones they maybe the oldest "human?????????????????????" remains at the moment but that may just be luck and far older ones maybe just down your road or waiting to be found along side fossils in your local cliff.

the "missing link" is still missing maybe rather than humans evolving from apes maybe some humans evolved into them !!just as its difficult to believe that dolphins went from the land to the sea it could be just as unlikely that apes are just humans that stopped evolving as they didnt need to evolve further as like the crocodile they were perfectly suited to exist as they were.

some say the human brain is the most highly developed but a shrimp has been on earth for 100's of millions of years longer and us and seems to do ok ,whales brains are larger but they also have lived far longer than humans ,bigger or greater has no relevance in evolution ,speech? do we need it? animals get by with the odd gesture and have done for allways humans are just a speck in the timeline maybe 3 or 4 million years our predecessors the dinosaurs were about for 160 odd million years and they did ok.

so what is the human race ? a speck of dust existing the hard way doing and acting just like animals etc have done for ever but making a hard time for themselves ,i expect insects will be laughing as they chew our bones when we all disapear having bred ourselves out of existance in a few thousand years

to a alien paleantologist humans and their time on earth would be a thin little bit of dirt amoungst hundreds in a cliff .

a bit un pc in my post i know but pc is designed to control the many to favour the few ,it wont work! to be pc is to be un pc yourself! a complete reversal of logic

Edited March 13, 2006 by chesters1

[Jim Roper]

I haven't read all this thread.

Anybody mentioned queers?

[Newt]

Queerly enough, I don't think so.

 

We seem to have a pretty low homophobe count on the forum.

[Blue Marlin]

scanned this... front cover of national geographic mag

 

a feature about our origins and how dna has mutated to create many different races.. a 15 page special completely based on the above mentioned issues...an excellent read folk (if u can get your hand on it - issue: March 2006). reading the recent posts looks like there's plenty of people here would love to read it... might set a few things straight.

 

i know it's probably just another opinion based on scientific research but national geographic imo are probably one of THE most credible sources.

 

 

Edited March 14, 2006 by Blue Marlin

[Blue Marlin]

two more random scans from the mag.

 

it's a large article so i wont bother scanning anymore. a 'must read'

 

 

very interesting.

[chesters1]

unfortunatly all the theory (and mentioned in the very first line of the sub saharan africa paragraph) is still lodged in the idea all life came from "Africa" and thats because the oldest pre human bones have been found there to date ,find any older in another country and the whole thing will come tumbling down