Martin Hutchison (
31 Jan 1995 14:09 MST

In article <3glllp$>, (S. LaBonne) writes...
In article <3gk4ce$>,
<> wrote:
>> I haven't read every single one of the posts in this thread, but
>> I have seen enough postings along the lines of "It is easy to
>> classify people by race" to make me wonder how many people have
>> really looked into this question from the scientific side.
>No, that isn't what I've heard being said. Suppose, for example,
>that breast cancer is in part due to a "breast cancer gene" which
>puts women at risk for cancer. Suppose, furthermore, that this
>gene is found to be much less common among Chinese than Germans.

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?

You see, Jerrybro, your problem is that you just don't know anything
about physical anthropology. (I only know a very little bit, so
I earnestly suggest that you go talk to some real anthropologists).
Many people have tried strenuously to come up with stable "racial"
classifications; the trouble is, they've gotten wildly different
answers depending on which traits they used and exactly how they
used them. Why is this simple point apparently beyond your ability
to grasp?
I'm afraid you don't know much yourself. In the example above, you show your
ignorance. Try this, I have blue eyes. Is that a race? no, it is a
characteristic. Do I have a tendancy towards certain types of cancer? Maybe,
and that is not race-definitive. Do i come from a gene pool significantly
different from a black man? Yes. This is the basis of how we catigorize race.
Live with it or not, but if you cannot, then your denial prevents you from
really thinking about race related problems. Which is probably your purpose