CuriousLord -> RE: There isn't such a thing as 'races' in humanity. (8/1/2007 9:32:48 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zensee Actually Curious, we are all one species, since we can all produce viable offspring in any pairing. Is sharing enough genes to accomplish that a problem for you? A problem? If I recall correctly, I'm the one advocating accepting differences and similarities alike. Would you propose that we should dislike others for their differences? Or are you trying to pass this off on me? quote:
ORIGINAL: Zensee What we call race is actually subspecies. Subspecies are populations of the same species which, due to certain barriers, do not NORMALY interbreed. Pretty much. In biological terms? Yes. Though, I assure you, if you check the dictionary, "race" is proper English. (I'd be happy to provide a link if this definition proves itself elusive.) quote:
ORIGINAL: Zensee Geographical, cultural and morphological barriers can cause this, like who we consider attractive and not attractive. Our sense of Them and Us is not enough to make us separate species though. True. quote:
ORIGINAL: Zensee To claim there are only three races is crap. Who said there are only three races? quote:
ORIGINAL: Zensee To claim that we are different creatures because of slight morpholigical variances is crappier. I would like to assure you that most brothers are different creatures. You're taking an overly simplistic view, if you find another conclusion. At what point do these differences merit the description of being another race, common? Pretty obvious, really- we have words for them. You can make another system that is either more receptive or oblivious to such differences, having more or less racial catigories, respectively. If you chose to have a simplier classifaction system, that's great. Still, some of us perfer to be accurate. Is this so wrong?
|
|
|
|