Re: BELL CURVE CRITIC EXPOSED?
Barbara Saunders (email@example.com)
Thu, 9 Feb 1995 20:32:07 GMT
In article <3FEB199509314191@cc.weber.edu> firstname.lastname@example.org (Martin Hutchison) writes:
>In article <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org (S. LaBonne) writes...
> In article <31JAN199514095807@cc.weber.edu>,
> Martin Hutchison <email@example.com> wrote:
> >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
> In addition to Jerrybro's problems, Marty, you have the more serious ones
> of being unable to read or think. Can you even define the concept of
> a gene pool "significantly different" from that of a black man? I
>Yes. Blacks had at least tens of thousands of years of seperate evolution.
>Blacks and whites have significantly different physical features(and social
>customs, matriarch vs patriarch rule).
Human evolution was never that separate. People have traveled back and
forth across the "gene pool" for thousands of years.
> didn't think so. Not to mention that the concept of "the gene pool"
> of an individual is hilariously nonsensical. (I won't even get into
>Did I ever say an individual gene pool? NO.
>The anglo-saxon gene pool that coughed me up is different from the one that
>coughed up blacks.
Not necessarily. It's been posted here and elsewhere, time and time again,
that you are genetically closer to some blacks than to some whites.
> the fact that a lot of "white" people in the US, and South Africa too,
> have more "black" ancestors than they know about or perhaps would
> care to know about.)
>Do you have a point?
> Marty, old boy, the problem- as I said- is that different ways of
> trying to classify "races", _using_ various "characteristics" _as
> one must to construct a classification_, give radically incompatible
> ancestors. That means that race is _not_ a reality in a biological
> sense, period. Obviously it is in a sociolgical sense, but sociological
> concepts of race have always had illegitimate sources of support in
> the popular fallacy that "races" have an objective biological meaning.
>Niggers are black. Honkeys are white. Different genes caused different melanin
>levels. Can't there be more differences?
According to most in the scientific community, the genes that cause these
"melanin differences" are an extremely small portion of the total number