Re: What are race promoters promoting?
Tue, 19 Nov 96 04:29:32 GMT

On 18/11/96 14:49, in message <>, wrote:
> , Phil
> Nicholls <> 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?
> Mark responded:
> .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..
> Clearly you did not understand the post, Mark. His point was that both
> 'race' and subspecies are questionable as discrete entities. Modern
> biologists are still interested in population genetics however (there is
> variation in species, including our own) and so they continue to use
> 'subspecies', even though it is used less and less as a synonym for
> 'race'. Your implication that this is a 'PC' recasting of the race
> concept is incorrect, and you should have been able to understand that
> from the old post.
> .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..
> I'll assume this is a joke. If it isn't, I wonder why someone who never
> heard one of the most coomon and central terms in biological
> classification feels the need to comment on that classification.
> .Regards,
> .Mark
> --Greg Keyes

Gee, thank you Mr Keyes, thank you Mr Keyes, I never would have guessed.

More regards, Mark