Re: What Are the Race Deniers Denying?

Gerold Firl (
1 Nov 1996 20:53:35 GMT

In article <55b2s9$>, (Philip Deitiker) writes:

|> This issue of the biological significance of 'race' is frankly an
|> issue of separting ignorance from enlightenment. As you mentioned,
|> race can be used as a biological partition system; however, given its
|> acheic invention, and all the implicit social/cultural attachements
|> in its usage is neither adaptable to new structures and is completely
|> obsolete as an old one. Using race to describe genetics is like using
|> Newton's laws of thermodynaimcs to understand particle/wave
|> characteristics at the speed of light or Lamarkian inheritance to
|> describe early embryology, its simply obsolete.

In terms of a tripartate system, you're absolutely right. But keep
in mind that even concepts as basic as "species" have only been
solidified in the last 40 years or so, in the work of mayr and
dobzahnsky. We continue to refine the meanings of these terms, making
them into more useful tools for communication and understanding. When
linneaus spoke of "species", he was groping towards comprehension, but
was pretty far off the mark. When most people speak of "race", they
are also misunderstanding; I prefer to try and educate them, rather
than telling them "race doesn't exist". In the long run, when all the
dross and dreck and fallen away, truth and knowledge will still stand.
The long run has already been going on for some time now.

Disclaimer claims dat de claims claimed in dis are de claims of meself,
me, and me alone, so sue us god. I won't tell Bill & Dave if you won't.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=---- Gerold Firl @ ..hplabs!hp-sdd!geroldf