Re: What are race promoters promoting?
Mon, 18 Nov 96 06:56:09 GMT
On 18/11/96 01:10, in message <email@example.com>, Phil
Nicholls <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> The concept of race has been abandoned by biologists and even the term
> "subspecies" is being used more to identify populations that to
> catagorize biological variation. This has nothing to do with any
> dark political agenda but rather came about as a consequence of a
> refinements in population biology and genetics.
> Race is a throwback to the days when taxonomy relied on typology, an
> idea itself rooted in philosophy ( Plato's vision of the world of
> archtypes or "forms") than biological reality. Population genetics
> provides a more meaningful way to approach biological variation within
> any species, including our own.
> Why, then, do some people insist on keeping racial typology alive?
> Given the fact that race is useless as a biological concept and given
> the fact that race has no value as a scientific concept and given the
> fact that it has been abused and misused throughout history, why do
> some people continue to cling to it?
Finally, after all the toing and froing we have the answer. There is no such
thing as "race"; there are only "sub-species". Gosh, what a wonderful
difference that makes. Although, I do not know that I am all that happy to be a
"sub-specimen". There is something disquietingly Hitlerian about the term.
Nevertheless, if it is politically correct to be a "sub-specimen", then a
"sub-specimen" I shall have to be.
In addition, I love this word "taxonomy". Until I started lurking on this ng I
thought that it was something that our beloved finance minister imposes when he
feels the pinch - like taxonomy salary, taxonomy house, taxonomy car etc..