Re: Homo Sapiens needs to be classified in sub species.
H. M. Hubey (firstname.lastname@example.org)
3 Sep 1995 10:57:46 -0400
email@example.com (Allan Dunn) writes:
>Why? This sounds like turn of the century ethnology. Caucasian,
>Mongoloid, Australoid, Negroid. It seems to me though, that human groups
>differ far more in behavior due to cultural differences than in actual
Since behavior of humans is culturally determined it's not
much to know that the differences are due to cultural differences.
It seems like saying the same thing twice. [I exaggarated it
obviously. It depends on what one means by "behavior". Walking
on two legs is also behavior and is not cultural but genetic; humans
walk and two legs. Talking is also behavior and is genetic.]
For example, it is far more revealing in what a
>person is wearing and what language they are speaking than the color of
>their skin, their stature, or their facial features.
It depends on what you want to find to be "revealing". If another
race (of green men) were suddenly discovered, I'd find that
The line between
>different racial groups can get quite blurry- skin color differentiation,
>blood chemistry, morphology, are all relatively independent of one another
>except in very isolated peoples.
Are you sure? Blood type distributions are different for different
groups of people.
> I wonder why it would be useful at all? If anyone has insight on
>this I would like to know.
It's useful for the same reason that the person's religious,
cultural, and ethnic background [which you propose is important]
is important. We know something about the individual as a result
of the usage of this word. Nothing more, nothing less.