John Wilkins (
31 Jan 1995 22:43:47 GMT (S. LaBonne) wrote:

> Suppose the incidence is very high in Bavarians and Chinese, and very
> low in Prussians. Shall we then classify Bavarians and Chinese as
> belonging to one "race", and Prussians as belonging to another?

No. Let us drop the term "race", and keep the data on Bavarians
and Chinese. The data are valid, and possibly useful. If it makes
you happy, drop the term "race" from African Americans, and keep
the data.

> You see, Jerrybro, your problem is that you just don't know anything
> about physical anthropology.

Your problem is that you have no idea what I'm getting at. Physical
anthropology has nothing to do with citizenship; by invoking
citizenship as an example of a classification which can be used
in discovering possibly helpful data (helpful for what purpose
you ask--well, say, helpful in deciding what country to give
what sort of aid, i.e., foreign policy), I say by invoking this
as an example, I have cleared the way to an interpretation of
TBC as using categories, which, whatever their status vis-a-vis
anthropology, are relevant to social policy today, and will be
for the forseeable future.

I don't expect you to get this either. Why do I bother...